I get lots of photos of me as a child, most of which I recall being taken. I in general wonder, though, whether I’d consider them had been it not for the truth that I saw the prints not lengthy after they’d been developed. Can get to you check a record within a pair of weeks or so after it used to be snapped, it’s indubitably no unprecedented feat of memory to consider the occasion it used to be captured on digital camera as the print is a reminder of the event. Nonetheless, if I had been to stare a photograph for the first time 20 or 30 years after it used to be taken, I’m perilous as as to whether I’d consider my presence or participation when it came about. What I’m suggesting is that memories of some issues in general need reminding of at an early stage, in every other case they ‘shrivel and die’ on the vine with out ever ‘flowering’, by no plot having been ‘watered’. (Figuratively speaking, that is.)
Which will suggest, unnecessary to claim, that each and every subsequent time after the first that we stare at a photograph and consider it being taken, we’re not the truth is recalling the event itself, but quite the memory of having been reminded of it the first time we saw the photo, then the second, then the third, and loads others. In a form of words, the fiftieth time you stare at a record and consider, you are remembering the forty ninth recollection of the event (which used to be a memory of the forty eighth), not the particular event itself. A fiftieth-skills memory, to be succesful of keep up a correspondence. Has the memory deteriorated within the identical manner that a fiftieth-skills copy of a video would, or am I pushing the analogy too a long way?
Any thought, Crivvies, or am I talking my authentic load of worn pants?
Dangle on, I’ve precise remembered an exception. In my post Field Of Dreams, I showcase a pair of photos which I consider being taken though I did not check the prints till at the very least 40 years later. Why those two and not others? Haven’t a clue.