thrillingly excellent photographs here and I admire the unforced common palette and structure.
possibly the increasingly identifiable silhouette would not ordinarily be chosen to carry the contemplation of the 2nd composition; but of course, a document of the photographer's perception is unarguable - especially given such elimination of accident in everything else.
I now visit this extremely estimable site with something like unease, sensing that a decision has to be made, either to ignore continuity in the model's presence, or to regard each appearance as a characterising gesture. the viewer's problem with that is that the picture becomes too many inscrutable things, unstated but without photographic reticence; and I think reticence is needed for that 2nd composition.
possibly I betray my own irrelevant resistances in this observation, however, because I keep coming back to how excellent the photographs are. maybe I'm wrong, also and alternatively, to look at them as photographs. they do have the quality of optical writing. but you must understand the dullard's dilemma, if I can help to embody it: is one going to assimilate this picture as an unfathomable experience of the known boy, or is he an expedient stand-in for an articulate expression by the photographer, i.e., a manifestly different person, relying on (a) anyone of this convenient height and build or (b) her attachment to this boy.
I know, you know who is asking this question, so I see no need to sign. I'm quite serious about admiring this page, and that's enough.
thrillingly excellent photographs here and I admire the unforced common palette and structure.
ReplyDeletepossibly the increasingly identifiable silhouette would not ordinarily be chosen to carry the contemplation of the 2nd composition; but of course, a document of the photographer's perception is unarguable - especially given such elimination of accident in everything else.
I now visit this extremely estimable site with something like unease, sensing that a decision has to be made, either to ignore continuity in the model's presence, or to regard each appearance as a characterising gesture. the viewer's problem with that is that the picture becomes too many inscrutable things, unstated but without photographic reticence; and I think reticence is needed for that 2nd composition.
possibly I betray my own irrelevant resistances in this observation, however, because I keep coming back to how excellent the photographs are. maybe I'm wrong, also and alternatively, to look at them as photographs. they do have the quality of optical writing. but you must understand the dullard's dilemma, if I can help to embody it: is one going to assimilate this picture as an unfathomable experience of the known boy, or is he an expedient stand-in for an articulate expression by the photographer, i.e., a manifestly different person, relying on (a) anyone of this convenient height and build or (b) her attachment to this boy.
I know, you know who is asking this question, so I see no need to sign. I'm quite serious about admiring this page, and that's enough.