Before reaading it I assumed Georgina Kleege had made a liter, traditional portrait of her father. Which with the reading we've done on her I had already imagined hyperfocused on color and slightly distorted or puzzle-like due to her blindness. As I was reading I still thought by the end a portrait would bve mentioned, and I noticed how detailed she was speaking about her father. I didn't realize until the end that her writing was her portrait. Which is interesting since she mentions in her portrait, "The words are inadequate. I know why my father mistrusted them. Words are only the restless prowl around and around the thing I want to name". Yet her father was very close to imagining the colors she's referring to with her words. And I think that even art, visual art I mean is the same way as words. From what we've read vision is very subjective and not only that but it is constantly tricking us and we are constantly ignoring all kinds of things we're seeing. So even as we try to nail some sort of reality with our eyes we will always be a bit off, and much like how she feels words are, our ability to capture what we see with visual art is just as inaccurate. Capturely truly and completely accurately what our eyes see seems just as impossible through words and visuals. Yet the best in either art are the closest. That's what I got from this paper at least.
Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!