On 9/21/05, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gee, I suppose I misunderstood the photo somewhat then, didn't I, Frank?
Well, no, that's kind of the point of me not wanting to tell everyone what a photo means to me. I prefer not to influence the viewer and his/her interpretation. I'd prefer to let the photo speak for itself. Every person will have a different interpretation, so there's no right or wrong; there's nothing to "misunderstand". > > I think the two paragraphs above are perfectly normal/proper/good thing > to say. You come across just like Frank I met on the list and befriended. You're too kind. <g> > > I'd rather you and others talked like that more, given of course they > would be brutal and honest as I usually require ;-). I'm happy to talk "like that more", but for the reasons above, I'd prefer to do that for the photos of others. That being said, there are some photos that don't lend themselves to such interpretation(s). I mean, beautiful as one might be, a flower is just a flower, and there's not much for me to say about that - which is likely more a comment on my (lack of) being articulate as much as anything else. > Great stuff, Frank. I mean that! Thank you! <g> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
