A juxtaposition picture shows two similar objects that are contrasting. I took a picture of a church behind an empty lot. What makes these two objects similar? On one lot now stands a church, while the empty lot used to have a church standing on it. The church that used to stand on the empty lot was significantly damaged in a fire and eventually had to be completely torn down. What makes these objects contrasting? Both lots supported churches, but only one of them is still erect. Diving deeper into the story of the picture, the turrets of the standing church appear to be resting on the empty lot. Furthermore, the standing church does not appear to be in the best condition. The structure looks old, dilapidated, lack luster, and overall rundown. Moreover, the towers of the church were not structurally sound and needed to be fixed. However, the funds were not available to fix the towers and they had to be deconstructed with a crane. What can be interpreted or taken from this picture? The picture is mostly depressing. It shows that everything must come to an end. Whether it is by accident, natural disaster, or simply the wear and tear of old age weakness takes hold and change occurs. This picture is also telling of politics. The burnt church could have been fixed or at least reconstructed, but the costs proved to be too much for some decision maker to justify it. The same thing applies to the now standing church. The building’s exterior including its towers could be restored, but the apparent costs are too high. Isn’t that how all decisions are made? The costs of a certain decision are weighed against its benefits to determine if the act is worth completing. One could also look at this picture with some optimism. The individual could choose to look at the standing church as a rebirth from the completely torn down one. It could offer hope that even those things tend to deteriorate over time, positive things can come from it. Would the standing church be around if the other one hadn’t burnt down? Change can be look as a good thing. Instead of investing all of available time and resources to maintaining those things which already exist, the wealth can be spread to other areas. Other ideas and projects can be given a chance to make positive impacts in the world.
Thanks Kaley for posting our pictures.
ReplyDeleteA juxtaposition picture shows two similar objects that are contrasting. I took a picture of a church behind an empty lot. What makes these two objects similar? On one lot now stands a church, while the empty lot used to have a church standing on it. The church that used to stand on the empty lot was significantly damaged in a fire and eventually had to be completely torn down. What makes these objects contrasting? Both lots supported churches, but only one of them is still erect. Diving deeper into the story of the picture, the turrets of the standing church appear to be resting on the empty lot. Furthermore, the standing church does not appear to be in the best condition. The structure looks old, dilapidated, lack luster, and overall rundown. Moreover, the towers of the church were not structurally sound and needed to be fixed. However, the funds were not available to fix the towers and they had to be deconstructed with a crane.
ReplyDeleteWhat can be interpreted or taken from this picture? The picture is mostly depressing. It shows that everything must come to an end. Whether it is by accident, natural disaster, or simply the wear and tear of old age weakness takes hold and change occurs. This picture is also telling of politics. The burnt church could have been fixed or at least reconstructed, but the costs proved to be too much for some decision maker to justify it. The same thing applies to the now standing church. The building’s exterior including its towers could be restored, but the apparent costs are too high. Isn’t that how all decisions are made? The costs of a certain decision are weighed against its benefits to determine if the act is worth completing.
One could also look at this picture with some optimism. The individual could choose to look at the standing church as a rebirth from the completely torn down one. It could offer hope that even those things tend to deteriorate over time, positive things can come from it. Would the standing church be around if the other one hadn’t burnt down? Change can be look as a good thing. Instead of investing all of available time and resources to maintaining those things which already exist, the wealth can be spread to other areas. Other ideas and projects can be given a chance to make positive impacts in the world.