Resonation

Current proposal is splitting into two distinct areas (that’s not including the possible discipline change) but in this week’s readings, a sentence (well part of) really struck hard, it’s:

“I want to make a different argument, neither to rehabilitate nor denigrate Stieglitz’s role in the history of art photography, but to consider why one particular photography is such a fulcrum point and focus in the history of photography.”

David Bate Photography after Postmodernism. Routledge 2022

That first part of the sentence resonated:

“I want to make a different argument, neither to rehabilitate nor denigrate….”

I believe I can open that thought out to my main task of clarification of the research proposal. It touches upon the tone of what I’m trying to research. I’m currently seeking neither myself, but is that the problem? Instead of taking stock on ordinary banal photography should I be challenging it more so? Should I be looking for the drama or seeking to stir the pot? Would that be more acceptable than my slightly passive approach to the subject matter? Should this be like a television script needing added drama? Feel that my research is actively shying away from this confrontation possibly because of subject or possibly because of my method of study.

Shattered glass in a door, held together by a sheet of clear plastic to prevent further damage.