A couple of friends posted this link on Facebook today. It's rather interesting.
15 famous landmarks, zoomed out. Some were more effective than others - largely because I've visited an unexpectedly large number of these places, and thus their surroundings aren't a surprise to me.
(
Decidedly uninteresting rambling about those photos and my experiences at the si(gh)t(e)s )
Comments 4
The problem with the context for Mount Rushmore is that it's exactly what you'd expect it to be. What might help more is some sense of scale, because my overriding memory of them is "wow, they're smaller than I expected".
Really? Having grown up practically in its shadow, Mount Rushmore is a fact of life to me. I mean, you see it everywhere here: logos, postcards, T-shirts, license plates, etc. And yet, every time I visit, it's like I'm seeing it for the first time, and that first sight of it never fails to take my breath away.
Finally, the image of Central Park is just fabulous. It's such an incongruous oasis in a sea of skyscrapers. I'd like to see it myself one dayI rode through it on a speeding bus once. I'd like to be able to go back someday and see it on foot. Also, I personally think the zoomed-out photo of Niagara Falls is much prettier ( ... )
Reply
I just don't get what they're getting at with that one, I really don't. Same with the Niagara Falls. Both of those are exactly what I would expect the surroundings to be.
As for my reaction to Mount Rushmore, I have a history of inappropriate reactions to spectacular sights. I'm probably the only person who's ever been underwhelmed by the Grand Canyon.
Reply
The Arc de Triomphe on the other hand made me think, "Now that is how you make a sight stand out from its surroundings at all distances!" Heh.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment