Short Paper #2: A Closer Look

“For truth, properly considered, is about the relationship between language and the world, not about photographs and the world.” (Errol Morris)

For your second short paper, I want you to choose a photograph, painting, or significant work of art that has no words. It should be an image that is complex enough to be read or interpreted in a number of ways, and might even be confusing on first glance. In your paper, I want you to describe the image as if the reader has never seen it. This means you have to describe the image in as much detail as possible, and make sure we can see all the important aspects of the work as if it was sitting right before us. Be descriptive, and help us see what you see when you look at it. Again, don’t assume we can see it, so if you find yourself saying “the guy here looks weird,” tell us why he looks weird.

However, here’s the trick: as you describe the photograph, painting, etc., I want you to analyze and explain it. For example, if you were describing the photograph “Sharbat Gula,” try to make us see the girl you see—either a refugee, or a victim, or an assassin. Use details in the painting to illustrate why you see her this way and make us see it, too. Imagine that you’re a tour guide taking us on a tour of this work, and say “if you look here, you can see why she’s full of despair and turmoil,” etc. Use your descriptions to interpret her character, background, or personality for the reader. Help us see the “inside” of the photograph/painting, that isn’t actually observable—but that you see based on the clues and inferences of the work.

EXAMPLE: Remember how Armstrong and Miller help us see Marie through their descriptions: “To Marie, it seemed the questioning had lasted for hours. She did what she always did when under stress. She flipped the switch, as she called it, suppressing all the feelings she didn’t know what to do with. Before she confessed to making up the story, she couldn’t look the two detectives, the two men, in the eye. Afterward, she could. Afterward, she smiled” (226).  If we were looking at Marie as a photograph, we would only see her smiling and looking calm, and would think, “gee, she doesn’t seem too upset by all of this.” But the writers show us why she doesn’t, and how she copes so that changes the way we see her, too. So help us see who she is on the inside, even though we can’t prove this—it’s just a gut feeling based on how you read and interpret the work.

REQUIREMENTS

• 2-3 pages, double spaced
• Description and attention to detail: help us see the work without having to see it
• Analysis: make sure you help us see the ‘inside’ of the work, which isn’t based on observable fact (we can’t prove it), but is based on how you interpret the clues and inferences in the painting
• DUE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5^th by 5pm