civilized ku # 2502 ~ moving pictures
Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 08:25AM ;)
Stewart's delivery ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenIn my last entry I paired 1 (or both) of my pictures with words. Words which I thought worked very well with my picture(s).
As a clue to what my intentions were, re: putting those words with my picture(s), I titled the entry associative disassociation, which on hindsight should have read (or maybe not) as disassociated association. In either case, what I was driving at was the idea that the words and picture(s) were simultaneously connected yet seemingly not - while the words were literally disassociated (to separate) from the picture(s), in fact (to my eye and sensibilities), figuratively speaking they are associated (the connection or relation of ideas, feelings, sensations, etc.).
In any event, the audience reaction to the idea/concept was a resounding and/or collective shrug, or so the absence of comments would seem to indicate. Nevertheless, the last entry and this explanatory followup entry are an indication of what is to come, both on this blog and as the focus of a joint project involving me and the writer of those words.
That project is based on the words of James Agee taken from his preface in his and Walker Evans' collaborative book, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men ...
The photographs are not illustrative. They, and the text, are co-equal, mutually independent, and fully collaborative. By their fewness, and by the impotence of the viewer's eye, this will be misunderstood by most of that minority which does not wholly ignore it. In the interests, however, of the history and future of photography, that risk seems irrelevant, and this flat statement necessary.
Reader Comments (2)
"the audience reaction to the idea/concept was a resounding and/or collective shrug, or so the absence of comments would seem to indicate."
Have you considered that they might not have understood any of it, as I didn't? I read those words that you put together with your pictures and coldn't for the life of me see any association OR dissociation. And I have to say that I find your second paragraph above to be opaque:
"As a clue to what my intentions were, re: putting those words with my picture(s), I titled the entry associative disassociation, which on hindsight should have read (or maybe not) as disassociated association. In either case, what I was driving at was the idea that the words and picture(s) were simultaneously connected yet seemingly not - while the words were literally disassociated (to separate) from the picture(s), in fact (to my eye and sensibilities), figuratively speaking they are associated (the connection or relation of ideas, feelings, sensations, etc.)."
I don't mean to judge too harshly, but when you write a paragraph like that, I don't think you can expect to be understood too widely. Particularly as the paragraph has the words 'or maybe not' right in the middle of all those collections of brackets…
Still, you didn't write 'That written'...
Ditto Paul