I'm not afraid to say it, I'm stupid. If I was too stupid to understand:

H

Hjortsberg

Well-known
Local time
5:47 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
256
Stephen Shore's "The Nature of Photographs" and John Szarkowki's "The Photographer's Eye" do you think I would be too stupid to understand "Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography?"
 
If you are saying that you can't understand 'The Photographer's Eye', as in cannot see that it is a marvellous book, cleverly laid out and with deftly chosen examples and beautifully written informative text, then I would not be choosing any other photography book for you for Christmas. So I suspect the answer is yes.
 
How about these expressions like "more fun than a barrel of monkeys"? Would a barrel of monkeys really be fun?

First, you'd have to force the monkeys into the barrel. They would resist. They would howl, fight, bite, desperately try to get out of the barrel.

After you filled the barrel with the monkeys, you would have to crack some of them on the head to keep them in there. The ones on the bottom would be crushed first. The barrel would fill with urine, vomit, fecal matter.

The tormented monkeys would struggle, rasping for air. Finally, as you nailed the barrel shut, the pitiful sounds of the impacted, suffocating, dying and monstrously contorted monkeys would slowly cease.

A few last gasps as the two or three monkeys still alive futilely sought oxygen, a few final death rattles, then ghastly silence.....to be followed by the reek of decomposition.

Is a "barrel of monkeys" really fun? Who could even imagine this would be so?
 
I believe the phrase originally meant releasing a barrel full of monkeys and watching their antics would be fun.
 
It is not a literal barrel. The barrel denotes a random quantity as in a barrel of laughs.
 
kxl said:
Is that the same barrel with bullet-ridden fish?
Click to expand...
It's the very same barrel. For the sake of the monkeys, one would obviously want the few air holes that would be created by the errant bullets that were being fired at the not-so-fortunate fish.
 
Small caliber would be best, then, especially if using small monkeys. Big holes might bring more laughs, but at unplanned intervals.
 
Was I Love Film's second post really intended for this thread, or should it have been in a neighbouring thread.....? I agree that the monkeys are out of the barrel, or are indeed merely a quantity of monkeys. I do feel for the fish in a barrel which definitely are in a literal barrel within the metaphor. I also feel for the OP whose enquiry about Camera Lucida has become verba obscura.
 
Richard G said:
If you are saying that you can't understand 'The Photographer's Eye', as in cannot see that it is a marvellous book, cleverly laid out and with deftly chosen examples and beautifully written informative text, then I would not be choosing any other photography book for you for Christmas. So I suspect the answer is yes.
Click to expand...


no I'm not saying it's not those things. i'm sure it is. important people say it it and it was written by an important dude. i just read it and didn't understand it is all.
 
It depends.

Do you believe the signifier floats free of the signified and what we are left with is a two dimensional flat surface upon which we inscribe our own peculiar meaning?

If so, you'll love it and end up buying copies for all your relatives for Christmas.
 
Teuthida said:
Then run right out and get a copy now. You'll laugh, you'll cry. You will start taking Really really literate pictures of your cat.
Click to expand...

it looks wordy and complicated from the copy i saw in the bookstore. why not just skip it and use the $ to take pictures of my cat?

plus, isn't it translated from some smarty, intellectual language like French or something? Man that might sink the whole deal...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom