Summer, that flighty temptress was here last week. As a tease! Now the weather is back to the balmy 40s and some are still kidding themselves trying to wear shorts, hoping for the 70s and 80s. Not gonna happen this week, unfortunately. But last week was great. I got to take some really impressive (for an iPhone camera anyways) pictures of the new spring (flowers and such) as well as myself chilling by the pond in the afternoon. It was heavenly.
This brings me back to thinking though, some definitions define (redundant much?) a self portrait as any shot that captures the essence of the photographer. This is usually accomplished by photographing some aspect of the photographer, and sometimes not. That's where it gets fuzzy. I feel like when it comes to art you can sometimes BS it because there aren't really any written rules. You can claim profundity even when you don't understand. And when you don't understand, it can be profound (for that reason?? Hmmm...). Bogus.
My point? That this picture of my feet in the pond could count as a self portrait. Do I feel like this truly captures the essence of myself? I'm not sure. It certainly captures parts of my personality. Free-feeling, spring, playful, clear, but also mysterious and solemn. See what I mean? You can get really into figurative stuff about art. But it's just a part of my attributes. And just a part of my body. The feet could belong to anyone, right? Any girl, perhaps even a boy. Also it's reminiscent of dismemberment, as it features only one part of my body.
Does that make it a less beautiful picture? Even if it's not beautiful in your opinion? Hmmm...
And interesting quandary, I do profess.
No comments:
Post a Comment