After reading Foucault's article, I realized that pictures and words are no where near synonymous. No matter how many words you use, there is no way that an image can be captured by those words. Every detail of a painting or image cannot be described in a set amount of words. You can always describe more. There will always be something missing, or something scene by someone else that you missed.When I read the text in Foucault's article, I pictured the painting completely differently than the actually painting at the end of the article. I have scene that painting before (especial since it was in the last article we read) but for some reason the way it was described by this author did not paint the same picture in my mind as what the actual painting looks like. The visual images and words compute with tow separate parts of our minds and for some people those parts can be easily connected, but for others like myself connecting words and images is not quite as easy.
I agree with you that a picture is worth a thousand words, and even those one thousand words may still be inadequate when trying to describe a piece of artwork.
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned that you felt that the words used by the author did not paint the same picture in your mind as it is displayed on paper. I am also familiar with this painting, but I never placed so much attention on all of the intricacies of the painting. Therefore, I too allowed myself to think of the painting in terms of the author's description. Sometimes I felt that what he said was in line with what I imagined, but on other occasions, I envisioned something much different from what the true artwork appears to be.