Re: Readings of Photographs

stacey a ayeh (stacey@ANTIQUARIAN.COM)
Fri, 5 Jan 1996 19:54:46 +0000

Martin Cohen wrote:

>So, just as the "meaning" of a photograph, and the way it is interpreted
>may be complicated, so may the "meaning" of food - what it is, when it is
>eaten, how, with whom, etc. BUT - universally, and with no training
>required - a photograph is an image, and food is food. And recognizing
>food is always more important than understanding it, or, I may not know
>much about food, but I know what I like.
>Martin Cohen
>"A rose is a rose is a a rose"

I'm not quite sure whether we can afford to equate the business of trying
to figure out if humans learn to read images and learning to recognise
diferent kinds of food.

In my limited experience of life, the mode in which food is presented is
more or less the same the world over. It is presented by whoever on some
sort of a plate/container...

I think the real crust of the debate here is not whether one can recognise
different kinds of food as food although s/he may not know what it taste
like, but whether s/he can recognise food if it was presented in a
different mode. What's that is I don't know, your guess is as good as mine
but we sure can't use the food analogy.

Seeing a portion of chips for the first time whether it is served up on a
sliver plate or on a bunch of dried leaves is not the same as seeing a
photograph for the first time, surely?

Stacey A. Ayeh

There are those who dream of success......
There are those who stay awake to make it happen