(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
A FEW THOUGHTS PICKING UPON A COUPLE recent entries, re: the vision thing and the rather insipid look-at-a-picture-for-2-minutes "experiment"....
I have never actually timed-I do not carry an egg timer around with me-how long a viewer might look at my pictures. However, I am aware of the fact that most viewers-at an exhibition or viewing one of my photo books-do tend to stop and stare when confronted with one of my pictures. I attribute this tendency to several reasons...
I am working on putting together a new photo book titled, Irritants. The tentative artist statement reads (in part):
BY VIRTUE OF BEING in the right place at the right time, my eye and sensibilities are pricked by a seemingly intuitive awareness of in suti form-an alignment of line, shape, space, color and value. And, as dictated by my eye and sensibilities, the more complex the relationships amongst those visual elements, the better.....Inasmuch as my pictures are the result of a prick-a type of an irritant-it is my intent in the making of those pictures to create as much visual energy as possible across / within the 2D field of my prints. The purpose of which is to “irritate” and keep engaged a viewer’s eye and sensibilities, dancing and caroming across the surface and confines of the image field.
Key phrases: 1)...create as much visual energy as possible across / within the 2D field of my prints., 2) The purpose of which is to “irritate” and keep engaged a viewer’s eye and sensibilities and 3) quotidian surroundings.
I am convinced that the visual energy that I try to pack into the frame of my pictures, taken together with the quotidian referents, is why viewers stare at my pictures. The visual energy tends to keep a viewer engaged if for no other reason than his/her eye is looking for a place to land. To get off the dance floor, so to write. And, chances are good that he/she is also trying to figure out why he/she spenting time viewing a picture-one that does not resemble what they have been told is a good picture-with such a mundane, aka: quotidian referent. Again, if for no other reason that to fathom why I would make a picture of such a referent.
Lest you think that I am employing a consciously derived strategy to gain and hold a viewer's attention, that is most definitely not the case. My pictures' visual characteristics are the result of simply following the inexplicable and intrinsic dictates of my vision. That is to write that I simply picture what I see, aka: what intuitively and naturally pricks my eye and sensibilities (regardless of whether I like it or not).
FYI, I used the phrase confronted with one of my pictures cuz, at first glace, my pictures do tend to challenge many viewer's preceived ideas (prejudices) about what constitutes a good picture. That written, I do not harbor the conceit that my pictures cause every viewer to jettison their "conventional" ideas, re: what makes a good picture, but I am trying to do my part to open a few minds on the idea of what makes a good picture.