What they capture in their photos is a perversely distorted world...

i did some quick reading on/of bernhard (well beyond, wiki, by the way) and found something hilarious:
True Love

'An Italian who owns a villa in Riva on Lake Garda and can live very comfortably on the interest from the estate his father left him has, according to a report in La Stampa, been living for the last twelve years with a mannequin. The inhabitants of Riva report that on mild evenings they have observed the Italian, who is said to have studied art history, boarding a glass-domed deluxe boat, which is moored not far from his home, with the mannequin to take a ride on the lake. Described years ago as incestuous in a reader's letter addressed to the newspaper published in Desencano, he had applied to the appropriate civil authorities for permission to marry his mannequin but was refused. The church too had denied him the right to marry his mannequin. In winter he regularly leaves Lake Garda in mid-December and goes with his beloved, whom he met in a Paris shop-window, to Sicily, where he regularly rents a room in the famous Hotel Timeo in Taormina to escape from the cold, which, all assertions to the contrary, gets unbearable on Lake Garda every year after mid-December.'
from The Voice Imitator
 
Thanks to the OP for posting: only those who do not belong to the mainstream contribute to it. Cheers, Peter W.

This is an interesting comment. It's quite simple, but it creates an image of a vast flowing stream, "the main stream,"... and those who do not belong are the basis of reality, the defining perimeter of stones and mud, of matter... that are pulled into the main stream from the banks edge.

The main stream, with that irresistible and incessant flow, eats at reality and conforms it to it's own nature, a muddied uniformity
and dilution of the fundamental solidity of reality.

To swim in the main stream, one can no longer see the landscape of reality, but can only be swept along in a cacophony of lapping individuals amid the roar of uniformity.

Of course, the stream itself alters the fundamental nature of reality in the persistence of its flow.
Thus, a photo taken from within the main stream is by it's nature, a blurred and inconclusive image of the jostling to describe what is remembered of reality. :p
 
I read this book in 2009. 600 pages divided in two chapter, each one made of an unique paragraph... Bernhard's needs an effort to enter the first pages, but as soon you let him grasp you, you cannot stop any more.
 
first of all thanks for all the interesting and thoughtfully comments and different views, even though without mentioning the context and especially bernhards black humor, the first post may have sound a bit offensive.
and as im new to this forum, i want to thank the owner, organisators, moderators for this interesting place.



strangely enough, after cycling home and inhaling some fresh air, im not sure now if he even spoke about photography anyway... ;)
i think prejudices, ignorance and the construction of a, for oneself comfortable, worldview was a issue for bernhard.

so maybe it was just a metapher...
 
This is an interesting comment. It's quite simple, but it creates an image of a vast flowing stream, "the main stream,"... and those who do not belong are the basis of reality, the defining perimeter of stones and mud, of matter... that are pulled into the main stream from the banks edge.

The main stream, with that irresistible and incessant flow, eats at reality and conforms it to it's own nature, a muddied uniformity
and dilution of the fundamental solidity of reality.

To swim in the main stream, one can no longer see the landscape of reality, but can only be swept along in a cacophony of lapping individuals amid the roar of uniformity.

Of course, the stream itself alters the fundamental nature of reality in the persistence of its flow.
Thus, a photo taken from within the main stream is by it's nature, a blurred and inconclusive image of the jostling to describe what is remembered of reality. :p

wow

.
 
... sounds like pretentious twaddle to me, perhaps he read some of Gore Vidal's stuff and took it seriously ...
 
Isn't photography a distortion of reality created by the photographer? What a viewer see's is only the moment and not the true total of what has transpired,the aftermath so to speak.
 
this is from a fiction, novel. so he used another kind of expression, as he may used in an essay or scientific paper.

in "the dictator" charlie chaplin ignored political theory too.

absolutely.

all I'm saying is that this is probably a valid statement (from fiction or not), but there are very valid ways to counter it, too.
 
i really would like to hear more on your approach to this quotation...

it seems to me, that u read and thought a lot in this direction...
 
i think one of the reasons, why i like this quotation, is not so much that i agree theoretically with it.

but it describes my emotions so well, when i take a photo by myself. often, or even most of the time, when i take a photo i exactly feel like this way: that i perversley distort the world.
and i dont mean only the finished photo,- even while looking through the viewfinder this affect appears to me.
all my true feelings and the mood i had, when i looked at a scene, seems to disappear, and this distortet world appears filled with this "pathetic dolls, disfigured beyond recognition, staring in alarm into the pitiless lens, brainless and repellent."
its like in some stories of philip k. dick. it looks like the real world, but u feel that there is something going wrong. everything looks normal, but something scary has changed.


of course, this is just a personal problem of mine. i have seen so many great pictures, that im well aware that people with a better constitution can do it better.
 
Back
Top Bottom