Yes, I was asking out of curiosity on why you think it matters what she says. It was blunty phrased, and tone was of course lost in translation. She was a writer and a critic. But those aren’t distinctions that I find compelling. Anyone can criticise and stir up contrary opinions. Being a writer just makes it easier to put it in a way that others will see or read.
So yes, I did want to know, and in short I am gathering that you just find her words self evident? The writing makes a fair point, but I think it was more relevant during the time of writing, and she says as much in the passage you pasted here that it may change with time. At the very least I don’t find it to be disparaging the patients afflicted with cancer in the way she suggests. I partially agree that it is used as an extremist comparison. But with so much being compared to cancer, I feel that it has lost its edgey bite and is now just a comparative. But maybe that’s more that I am personally numb to it as a comparison.
At the very least, I personally don’t see her to be some irrefutable authority on the matter. And because of that I’m not sure why she is being posited that way. Hence my question. If your answer is that it’s self evidentiary, that’s fine. Just wanted to hear your reasoning on why I should take her seriously or care what she has to say on the matter.
she of course isn’t a “refutable authority”. No thinker, critic or philosopher can be. (nor is it the intention)
I went back to read her “On photography” last month and felt what you wrote ☞ “The writing makes a fair point, but I think it was more relevant during the time of writing.”
The last time I’ve read that book, smartphones wasn’t out yet and the book was still very much relevant after 30 years. After the smartphones our relation to photography has completely changed.
But this book, Illness as metaphor, is still relevant as the metaphor is still very popular in politics. We’re still speaking like it’s 1925
It is amazing how much the relationship to photography (or truly anything preexisting the digital era) has changed over the last 40 years. It’s so disposable now. I keep meaning to print off a bunch of photos to make a photo album for the kids.
Yes, I was asking out of curiosity on why you think it matters what she says. It was blunty phrased, and tone was of course lost in translation. She was a writer and a critic. But those aren’t distinctions that I find compelling. Anyone can criticise and stir up contrary opinions. Being a writer just makes it easier to put it in a way that others will see or read.
So yes, I did want to know, and in short I am gathering that you just find her words self evident? The writing makes a fair point, but I think it was more relevant during the time of writing, and she says as much in the passage you pasted here that it may change with time. At the very least I don’t find it to be disparaging the patients afflicted with cancer in the way she suggests. I partially agree that it is used as an extremist comparison. But with so much being compared to cancer, I feel that it has lost its edgey bite and is now just a comparative. But maybe that’s more that I am personally numb to it as a comparison.
At the very least, I personally don’t see her to be some irrefutable authority on the matter. And because of that I’m not sure why she is being posited that way. Hence my question. If your answer is that it’s self evidentiary, that’s fine. Just wanted to hear your reasoning on why I should take her seriously or care what she has to say on the matter.
she of course isn’t a “refutable authority”. No thinker, critic or philosopher can be. (nor is it the intention)
I went back to read her “On photography” last month and felt what you wrote ☞ “The writing makes a fair point, but I think it was more relevant during the time of writing.”
The last time I’ve read that book, smartphones wasn’t out yet and the book was still very much relevant after 30 years. After the smartphones our relation to photography has completely changed.
But this book, Illness as metaphor, is still relevant as the metaphor is still very popular in politics. We’re still speaking like it’s 1925
It is amazing how much the relationship to photography (or truly anything preexisting the digital era) has changed over the last 40 years. It’s so disposable now. I keep meaning to print off a bunch of photos to make a photo album for the kids.