Jim Davis wrote: > > Thomas Dall <tdall@eso.org> wrote/replied to: > > > > >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. > > Well, I finished with "And that's the way I see it." Jim, I should also have finished "That's my wiew of it."... Reading our arguments again it seems to me that we are both right, from our own points of view, standing on different sides of the fence. > I just get the feeling when they're hiding their face or turned away, > that honesty is missing and they don't really want their picture > taken. And of course lacking eyes dehumanizes and it's just a body > then. I still disagree with you: A person is not less human just because you can't see their eyes - people wearing sunglasses are "just bodies" or "lumps of flesh" then? And for honesty: We have much less control over our body language than over our facial expressions, including the eyes... And the eyes don't tell _anything_ if you don't see them with the rest of the face. Even a straight face can lie, while the body language reveals the truth. But I'm just repeating what I already said, and you might just do the same ;-) > I enjoy looking at eyes, the expression of the soul. I get a closer > feeling to this person, I get a mood projected from the photo. Well, I don't share your view, but I can't argue with how you feel about it. It just puzzles me... Maybe I should get into nude photography and explore both 'looking' and 'looking-away' images. From our discussion it might prove interesting... ;-) Take care, Thomas
