Thanks right back at each of you for your comments on my own.Thanks for commenting, both of you.
I don't have a definitive response to Irenaeus' interpretations of the scene ... to say what I know the scene portrays is a little too literal for my thinking. I'm very happy to see it spark so much figurative story telling although it's a little disturbing that all the scenarios you chose to ponder seemed sad to you.
I write about this series in my journal almost daily, but what I've written is not yet ready to publish. Just like the series itself is still a work in progress.
"I don't have a definitive response to Irenaeus' interpretations of the scene...."
1. W. B. Yeats once refused to comment on what a poem of his meant because he didn't want to restrict its meaning. And, of course, "what it really means" has to do with the poem as poem, not as some prose semi-equivalent of it, or there'd have been no point in making the poem at all.
Similarly, what Godfrey's photo "means" can't be fully put into prose, either, or there'd be no point in making the picture.
So I know it's a visual offering, but it also has a title, it's part of a series about communicating. I was thinking aloud about how those two might fit together is all, and not to be taken too seriously, perhaps.
"although it's a little disturbing that all the scenarios you chose to ponder seemed sad to you."
2. The first ones did seem sad to me, because I see them as tragic, but the last scenario (though a little tongue in cheek) is a sheer delight!
Cheers,
Irenaeus
