Hmmm

Indeed, Annemarie.

I love the warm colours of this beautiful abstract photo, John. All the best, Joe

Thanks, Joe. I waited to see if anyone else considered this an abstract, so thanks for the confirmation. It's going in some abstract groups now.

Looks delicious !!

I no longer remember if it was, Jaap, or even if I had any of it. It does look good, though.

Outstanding culinary shot!

Admired in: www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance

Thank you very much, William.

Your close up composition has made an unusual abstract of this food John. I like the detail and colours.

Thanks, Keith. As I mentioned to Joe, I was waiting to see if anyone else thought it was an abstract, and now you and he have confirmed it. It's going in some abstract groups.

Looks delicious, John !

I can't remember any more, Ulrich, if I had any of this, so I can't tell you whether it was or not. It sure looks delicious, though

I like this essay about how we may sometimes look at and experience a thing.
tinyurl.com/53hpjek9

The essay, quoting Sartre, looks at the way Roquetin, the main character of Nausea, looks at a tree: “This root, with all its colour, shape, its congealed movement, was . . . below all explanation. Each of its qualities escaped it a little, flowed out of it, half solidified, almost became a thing; each one was In the way in the root and the whole stump now gave me the impression of unwinding itself a little, denying its existence to lose itself in a frenzied excess.”
It made me think of this…er…breakfast photograph.

I have some very definite thoughts about the essay, Steve, but want to sleep on them and re-read the essay before commenting. Thanks for the link.

It seems to me that Hochschild's article is based on a misapprehension or a misrepresentation. Attention is not the process of giving meaning to what you see, it is concentration on one particular thing among other things. His and Roquentin's ruminations seem to be flights from attention to what they're looking at. Hochschild quickly moves his attention to cannonballs, while Roquentin is soon talking about not the tree but its "qualities", which somehow "flow" from the tree.

just look at the tree. that's what I say. Or the meatballs.

I may well have misinterpreted Hochschild. Please let me know what you think.

“Just look” is fair enough. I’ll have a look.

I trimmed down my first reply a lot, Steve, so important points got omitted. I'm not against finding meaning in photos, for example, and Hochschild is good about the obstacles to the discovery of meaning. What I don't like are the ideas that every photo must have a meaning and that you can only understand a photo by converting it into text. In "Understanding a Photo" (the essay), for example, John Berger never mentions visual characteristics as important in evaluating a photo. Instead you're supposed to apply his souped-up version of Hemingway's iceberg theory. So photos are no different from literature. Hemingway. of course, never said iceberg theory was an evaluative citerion, or the only criterion, but for Berger it is.

I think I've wandered off the track here.

Well, I could be wrong. I have yet to win the Nobel Prize for Photography. If you get the time please let me know your opinion of Hochschild, here or in a message. Thanks.

with a smile > greeat discussion

I think some of the bees in my bonnet were feeling testy, Anna.

Looking very tasty indeed, John.

I can't remember whether I had any of it, George, but I agree it looks tasty.

Very appetizing. Must be tasty.