Jim Davis wrote: > It's sad really when a photograph of a person does not show eyes or > face. I mean it's just a lump of flesh. This photo would work if the > guy was looking right into the camera. Not so. Anybody can stare into a camera and give a little smile. Does the eyes always tell the truth? Can you always trust a person that looks you straight in the eyes? Are we not dealing here with some romantic, but hopelessly wrong, conceptions? The eyes does not tell it all. What you don't see in the eyes, you have to decode from the body; the pose, the gesture, the movements. That's how dancers express their art, and that is also an important part of ordinary person to person communication. I don't know where this assumption comes from, that to express some human condition you must see the eyes. Just as much, and often even much more, can be said with the body. In addition to this, I find the looking-away interesting: what happens when we (or the model with whom we may identify) looks away? what do we not see? And the gesture of the body suddenly becomes important as the spell the eyes had on our seeing is lifted. As someone said about the thriller/horror movies: It's when you look away that the horror grabs you! (Hitchcock or von Trier or both...) Just my thoughts... Thomas
