[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I've always thought Blow Up was about the limitations inherent in artistic media themselves. In other words, did his photography actually document a homicide or did it merely create an artifact due to the limitations inherent in representing three-dimentional reality in two dimensions? (Actually, adding time, which still photography omits entirely, he's really squeezing four dimensions into two.) Is he really seeing a murder in his photos or is he merely looking too hard at his own creation? That he was active in London-in-the-Sixties is not necessarily relevant, except to reduce the artistic frame of reference to a passing pop-cultural phenomenon (which is meant to be ephemeral, anyways) rather than attempting the same with "Great Art", say, Alfred Stieglitz, which might have seemed a bit Dadaist at the time.

right, that's there too, and that is (maybe?) in the original cortázar story, which happens in paris to an amateur photographer-- not to a "cool" guy or in any kind of "scene".

but antonioni was famous for his portrayals of emptiness, which he definitely adds here. one theme, multiple variations.