While I agree with Lynn Hershman's assertion that "[t]he very act of viewing a captured image creates a distance from the original event", I don't particularly agree that "the captured image becomes a relic of the past", or that any "isolated" object becomes "history." My reason for not agreeing with this point is simple: while a capture image will certainly remain the same over time, it will be experienced differently overtime, and so in this way, the image's significance as an art piece will continue to change and reassert itself because it will reveal something about life and the passage of time. And if it reveals something about the passage of time all the way into the present, how can it be considered merely history?
No comments:
Post a Comment