What would you say are the cities that have been the most/least photographed? I'm using 'photograph' in a broad sense to include the imprinting upon moving images as well (in other words, not just photographed in pictures, but on film as well).
I would say:
1. NYC
2. Paris (so there's this pointy little thing made of metal that everyone has seen and that church on some island...)
3. Los Angeles (think of all the Hollywood stuff *shudders*)
4. London (maybe more than LA? Perhaps I'm giving LA more credit than it deserves)
5. Rome/Vatican (just think of Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, of the coverage of JP2's funeral, etc.)
6. Tokyo (its sheer size makes me wonder whether it isn't secrectly the most photographed. But I don't really know)
I don't think it necessarily depends on the size of the city; I have a feeling that Rome has been more photographed than Sao Paulo, while it has only a fraction of the population.
How about the least in relation to size? I think the large cities in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Africa would be prime candidates. I mean, what are the chances of Lagos or Karachi being as often photographed as, say, Venice?
Factors influencing how photographed a city is:
a) national/global influence
b) number of tourists/residents, since more of them results in, probably, more cameras clicking more frequently.
c) importance of events that occur there: How many of you have seen images of the WTC since 9/11, or of New Orleans since August? 'Nuff said!
What do you think? As well, do you think that there is a real danger in depending too much on photography, since the real image can be so easily distorted?>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment