American girl in Italy, 60 years later

@hingehead,

Sorry. The next time I will ponder the metaphysical implications of your every word. Smile

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

"Scared shitless" either is an exagerration or it is not an exagerration.

Absolutely untrue.

Scared shitless is an subjective as any other description.

Hingehead, your comment about scared shitless meaning (to you) hiding/cowering is not true for everyone. I can honestly say I've never discussed feeling terror with a man, but I can tell you that the way women I've talked to respond to fear varies.
It's not uncommon, when someone is afraid "scared shitless" for them to freeze, look blank, etc.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Weird indeed. I misinterpreted "I think."

It wouldn't be the first thing you misinterpreted, because you also misinterpreted the phrase "I see" when Chai said in her initial post: "I see a woman who's scared shitless". When people look at a work of art and say "I see X", they are making a subjective statement of how that piece of art comes across to them. They aren't saying "I see that X is objectively the case".

Along similar lines, suppose a psychoanalyst administers a Rohrschach test to a client and the client says, "I see two bodies embracing each other". It would be completely inappropriate for the analyst to say "I think that's an exaggeration". Again, the point isn't what the Rohrschach inkblot objectively represents. It's an inkblot; objectively it doesn't represent anything. The point, rather, is the subjective impression that the inkblot makes on the patient. You have consistently been missing this point throughout this thread.

3 Replies

@chai2,

Yes, absolutely Chai, all is subjective. Even what scared shitless means varies from one to another. It's can even be a good thing if you like horror movies.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thanks Thomas - I think you said that much better than me with a lot fewer goes.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

It wouldn't be the first thing you misinterpreted, because you also misinterpreted the phrase "I see" when Chai said in her initial post: "I see a woman who's scared shitless". When people look at a work of art and says "I see X", they are making a subjective statement of how that piece of art appears to them". They aren't saying "I see that X is actually the case"

That is rich given Chai's open hostility to views other than her's being spoken here...

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Weird indeed. I misinterpreted "I think."

It wouldn't be the first thing you misinterpreted, because you also misinterpreted the phrase "I see" when Chai said in her initial post: "I see a woman who's scared shitless". When people look at a work of art and say "I see X", they are making a subjective statement of how that piece of art comes across to them. They aren't saying "I see that X is objectively the case".

Along similar lines, suppose a psychoanalyst administers a Rohrschach test to a client and the client says, "I see two bodies embracing each other". It would be completely inappropriate for the analyst to say "I think that's an exaggeration". Again, the point isn't what the Rohrschach inkblot objectively represents. It's an inkblot; objectively it doesn't represent anything. The point, rather, is the subjective impression that the inkblot makes on the patient. You have consistently been missing this point throughout this thread.

Rohrschach inkblots are abstract and therefore open to a greater variety of interpretations. Because they are abstract images, no interpretation has more value than any other.

The photograph we are discussing is not abstract. To me, this makes a difference. The details of the photograph are clearly definable. It is possible to say that an interpretation is exaggerated when it is not consistent with photographic detail.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

But interpreting facial expressions and body language are clearly subjective judgements.

And you seem to be conflating "abstract" and "subjective."

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

And differences in those judgments are differences on an abstract level rather than a concrete one.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

The photograph we are discussing is not abstract. To me, this makes a difference. The details of the photograph are clearly definable. It is possible to say that an interpretation is exaggerated when it is not consistent with photographic detail.

There are details that we can agree upon. There is one female in the photograph. There are multiple men in the photograph. It is a black and white photograph, etc.

An interpretation, however, is not something that one can point to in the photograph.

Keep digging this hole for yourself, though. It's kind of amusing to watch. (You might disagree about the amusing part....)

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

And "Scared Shitless" is clearly a figure of speech. So what?

1 Reply

I can not get myself to say all interpretations are equally valid. (Rohrschach tests are an obvious exception because of their design and how they are used.)

The hole that I dug for myself, is that I believe some opinions on art are better supported than others. Support can come from elements within the piece of art and information about the artist's intent.

This is only A2K. I don't mind falling into any holes here.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I can not get myself to say all interpretations are equally valid.

a) Nobody said that all interpretations are equally valid.
b) What makes you think that your interpretation is more valid than anyone else's?

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

And "Scared Shitless" is clearly a figure of speech. So what?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
I can not get myself to say all interpretations are equally valid.

a) Nobody said that all interpretations are equally valid.
b) What makes you think that your interpretation is more valid than anyone else's?

I would say that my interpretation is less valid than that of a knowledgeable art critic, less valid than that of a knowledgeable photojournalism critic and less valid than the intent of the photographer.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

But more valid than Chai's?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

You be the judge. My interpretation, stated earlier, is a rather simple-minded one. The photo is merely a slice of life of 1950's Italy.

1 Reply

Quote:

I keep reading on this thread that 'most women' would feel this, do think this, and so on. I don't know the numbers of women who think about this photo as creepy and those who don't. I'd be interested, but it would be a hard survey to do, as those surveyed might represent cultural clusters.

I don't think your average cultural ogling is a delight, but I am not also creeped out by it. It is what it is - I'd say ******* dumb, but, that's not my culture. Matters going past cultural ogling are different and rightfully scary

When I look at this picture - which I've never seen before right here and now on this thread and had no preconceived notions about- I see a strikingly beautiful girl who sees to be in a hurry. I like her sandals - alot- I wouldn't mind having a pair like that.
She looks proud and powerful in relation to the men who all seem a little shorter than you'd usually think of men being in comparison to women - but maybe that's my own cultural bias speaking.
Maybe that's just because I'm an average-sized American woman and hence I'm used to being somewhat shorter than most American men who, on average, (5'10 or so) are at least six inches taller than me whereas these men seem to be about the same height as or shorter than this woman. Interesting.

It could also because the men two of the men look rather silly, the others fairly non-descript and she seems above it all.

I don't get why it's important to the picture that she's stated to be American in the title.
She doesn't look particularly American to me.

It doesn't creep me out at all. It does look staged and almost like a set piece.

I think she's reacting as most women who are not interested in the men who are ogling them do - by avoiding eye contact.

It certainly doesn't make me feel violated or ashamed for her or for me.
On a creepitoid meter of 1-10- I'd give it a one. 'Creepy' wouldn't have entered my mind as a descriptive for this.
And she looks like someone who can handle herself.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

You be the judge. My interpretation, stated earlier, is a rather simple-minded one. The photo is merely a slice of life of 1950's Italy.

If you have any personal experience with Italy in the 1950s, then maybe you have a point.

If you don't have any personal experience with Italy in the 1950s, then I'd say you sound pretty foolish.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

You be the judge. My interpretation, stated earlier, is a rather simple-minded one. The photo is merely a slice of life of 1950's Italy.

If you have any personal experience with Italy in the 1950s, then maybe you have a point.

If you don't have any personal experience with Italy in the 1950s, then I'd say you sound pretty foolish.

Why would it sound foolish? And how would it compare to Chai's? (since that was the context of your question)

1 Reply

American girl in Italy, 60 years later

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know