Response to Jennifer's blog about Fish [Lusk]

I would like to look at the image that Jennifer brought forth under the lens of Bernstein because I think it'll be interested to analyze the image and the thing (object?) that is being held by the actor in her picture.

So, it seems the first thing that Bernstein would point out is turning our why questions into how questions. I'm not sure if that works, though, with theatrical images. I mean... we have a man standing in the rain with a fish in his hands. The why, I believe, is a completely valid question. But if we push it more into the How, then I suppose we would eventually come to Gabriel's three page long monologue about the fish... and it turns out that it is just a miracle. So, I'm not sure if Bernstein's method of investigating photographs works for theatrical images. Because there is a thing line between looking at something real and not real. The photograph above with the fish. It's not real. But we could make it real. We could get Joe and go out when it's raining and hand him a fish and produce the same image, but if it's real... how much would it change? 

I'm also reminded of the iconic picture from Angels in America with Prior sitting in his bed in awe of an Angel who has just destroyed his bedroom ceiling to herald her entrance. 

And I get confused when discussing images because, that is a great picture. And it looks pretty real to me. Almost more real than the one of Gabriel holding the fish (which... you can't really tell is a fish). So I'm wondering why didn't Bernstein touch on this? Or maybe she did and I didn't catch it. But I'm wondering how does she go about looking at images of 'play'. Images that aren't real. Such as the two top ones. But come off as real? Does the 'realness' of the image change the way we look at it? The image of the Angel in Priors room. We can easily write that off as fake. Does that, then, discredit any further investigation of the image? 

Okay. Back to the fish in the picture of Gabriel. I wanted to use Bernstein specifically for this reason because I'm still wrestling with how she handles this whole 'thing v. object.'

So we have a man holding a fish. If she were to look at the image, would she believe the script of the fish has already been fulfilled? The script being, to be caught? Or has it yet to be filled if the script was to cook it? And what would she call it? A thing or an object? Surely a fish isn't something that invites interaction to fulfill its purpose like a chair invites you to sit, or a knife invites you to cut, etc. But, in knowing the play, does the script change in the context that... fish are known to be extinct? I believe so. Maybe the first impulse wouldn't be to cook it. But I imagine that if a fish appeared in front of you, something that is known to be extinct, there would be a script attached. What? I don't know. 

So I'm curious as to how Bernstein would handle these images. I didn't do a good job in answering that question but I came up with a lot of questions for her. So, if we ever get coffee I'll be sure to ask her these things and I'll let you guys know.