||[Sep. 20th, 2015|10:03 am]
"Stunned" is what you feel when someone just hit you on the back of the head with a frying pan- and you're halfway to unconsciousness, mouth agape, eyes glazed, unable to speak or move. How often has any work of art- or set of celebrity pix- actually affected you that way? Ever? Once or twice in your life? |
But the people who write the headlines over at the Mail would be bereft if you took "stunning" away from them. And here's the Guardian at it too- trying to engage our interest in "Lee Miller's "stunning photographs of women at war." Stunning? Really? Actually, no, not at all. They're interesting pictures- if that's the sort of thing you find interesting- quite nice- but they don't stop you in your tracks. You register them, then flick on past. If it weren't that that's a woman's face framed in the flying helmet you wouldn't give the image a second's thought.
It's all about superlatives nowadays, which is kind of blunting them as well. Words like "awesome", "amazing", "stunning". Nothing ever seems to be just "interesting" or "nice" anymore.
These are words that should be used very, very sparingly..
They always need terms to talk you into something.
Unfortunately, even though one would guess this obvious hammer on your head shouldn't affect anyone, it really does...
Yeah, it's salesmanship- or boosterism- as the Americans used to say.
I have to disagree, here: Lee Miller's photos have genuinely stunned me. Though perhaps seeing them in the atmospheric setting of Leipzig town hall, where some were taken, helped.
I think Lee Miller was an amazing person, but I'm not convinced her photos are anything special- by which I mean any more remarkable than the work of other war photographers.
Stunning post, as always!
I see what you did there.....
I find her photos are interesting, as addition to her extraordinary destiny.
Interesting, yes, but not stunning.
The overuse of certain words just bores me to tears. \it deflates the whole meaning of the word.