Tuesday, May 02, 2006


the crying wall

the  division of reason
Not too long after getting my first digital camera (an apple quicktake 150 with a whopping 8 photos of 640x480 before filling up), i starting loving the image for the image's sake. The play of pattern, color, shape, of light without regard to subject. To me it's no more or less art because its undefined, it's just more varied, more visual to me.

The first shot on the right is a shot of a solarium panel where the protective coating has been baked by the sun and started to peel. It looks interesting enough to me that even i - knowing what it is - don't try too hard to process its 'thingness.' I enjoy the moments within it.

I think that was the beginning of moving away from taking photos of people. Too object-ive. We as viewers and me as photographer are too anxious to process the face as object, to see the person or the personality of faceness. I may get back to that one day, but for now my vision is filled with lack of objects.

I still take photos of things, flowers especially. And it's odd in that i really like, or perhaps need to know what it is i'm photographing. Name it. Objectify it.

And i tend to define abstract rather loosely. It's not so important that the subject matter not be known; it's more important that the viewer is faced with the pattern more predominantly than the subject.

With all that i fully admit i don't know what i'm doing other than practicing my types of 'seeing.' Seeing hopefully in a way of knowledge as Carlos Casteneda frames it.


Anonymous said...

I read something by Tom Wolfe a while back that explained abstracts to me better than anyone else had ever done. He said that the TITLE is being explained and not the work of art. He had looked for years the opposite way and the truth hit him like a lighting bolt. Hope this helps you too Zen.
Michael (wahoo Yahoo)

zen said...

oh, i like that. Perhaps the work of art is explaining the title? hm.