I found this article to be rather confusing, but what I did understand I found interesting. The last sentence of the article says, ""Photographs are never 'evidence' of history; they are themselves the historical." I found this quote to be quite interesting. And it got me thinking that I have never thought about photographs in that sense. But, it is so true. Photographs are artifacts and they document something that make history, just by the presence of them. Photographs are not just something that documents and proves history, rather, they are in fact something that makes history. Without photographs we wouldn't know as much as we do about the past, and also they then give us artifacts from that time.
As much as I found this article relatively confusing, at the same time, even from just several points that John Tagg brings up, I was able to get the general idea's he was trying to convey. And I really thought that they were interesting, and they really got me thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment