Answer two of the following as usual for Monday's class:
Q1: The article starts with newspaper articles that accuse a photograph of being "fake" and "staged." Later, the photos are proven to be "true," that is, to reflect the reality of their times (a major drought, a capitol that has cattle nearby); and yet, people continue to insist that the pictures are "fake." How can the pictures be "false" if they've been proven to be "true" (not staged or manipulated)?
Q2: Why do so many people, especially historians and photographers, get angry when Curtis suggests that famous FSA photographers often staged photographs and made things up? Why do they want to believe that the photos are the absolute truth? Would they be less important if they were?
Q3: In the middle of his discussion about the clock on the Gudgers' mantel, Morris writes, "The reader might ask, "Who cares? Does the addition or subtraction of a lock on a mantel really change our view of the Gudgers?" (144). This is called introducing a naysayer into your argument, and tries to acknowledge what your readers are probably thinking. How does Morris answer his own question? Why does this matter, in a small way and a big way?
Q4: Morris writes that "Our lives are partially defined by ephemera--address books, bus tickets, campaign buttons. A trail of detritus" (146). Look at your desk, or your nightstand, or a kitchen table. Would people see the "truth" about you based on the objects they found there? What idea of who you are would they glean from the scattered objects they found? Would you be tempted to add or subtract some objects so they could see the 'real' you?
No comments:
Post a Comment