A reply to Ronnette
I messed with Ronnette (not her real name) a bit for the (as I see it) unpardonable sin of a page with no "About me."  She followed up with a few questions that I thought you might enjoy my responses to.

It helps to know that this is what my photo page looks like on my profile, a fractured image that is reconstructed via thumbnails.  This is what she's referring to in her message.


>So are your photos your version of minimalist expressionism? What were you trying to say....
No.  For one thing, they lack the forced (as I see it) emotional component that would characterize them as expressionism.  Had I applied either more extreme approaches in-camera (e.g., varied exposures w/ or w/o filters, etc.) or via digital after-effects to stylize the original images and force them into a surreal realm in terms of texture (though not necessarily content or composition), then the expressionism tag might be more valid.  However, I am *not* distorting reality to overlay an emotion-laden perspective; the image is what it is.  Also, the majority of expressionists I'm familiar with tend to gravitate to human forms, and I don't do that very often, largely because figures don't lend themselves to the fragmenting technique I'm using here, at least without either going into abstraction or at least making the viewer work harder than I want them to in order to see the subject.

The minimalist label might be more valid, but it depends on the piece.  A lot of the ones I have posted previously (and most that I plan to in the near future) have an architectural basis, so they are often aesthetically minimalistic even though their subject may not be.  I don't work in that realm exclusively, but that's admittedly something I revisit more than any other source.

In general, this work is collectively more a statement against the idea of thumbnails or perhaps, paradoxically in support of them for much the same reason.  The idea of a thumbnail is to collapse a whole image into a smaller representation that is light-weight in all the right ways: It demands less storage space, consumes less bandwidth to transmit, (by extension) requires less time to transfer to the viewer, and, once there, less time to absorb since the average thumbnail is about the dimensions of the field of view of a human fovea, so no scanning is required on the part of the recipient.  There is naturally a loss of information via this reduction, so the thumbnail only conveys the most superficial of impressions, the things one would only see "at a glance" because that is roughly the level the original image is reduced to (and is not an accident that these consequences are paired).

My fracturing of the larger image into "thumbnails" plays with the concept by saying, "This is not a picture of a hand reduced to the size of a nail.  It is a hand, and the thumbnail that represents the thumbnail on that hand is actual size."  Thus the white field on which the array of thumbnails rests is actually inverted.  We now perceive the images as lying behind the gallery, and the grid that once framed them now assumes the (perhaps valid) appearance of the trim around panes in a window.  We are looking out, not merely "at."  And if we are looking out, then it is important to recognize the constraints of what we are inside.

The flip side of this same issue of this reduction of images and other media for rapid consumption is that, while thumbnailing has similar pitfalls as stereotyping or other rapid-assessment devices, I agree with the rationale behind it on more than its utilitarian basis.  When viewed collectively, viewers with an innate ability to intuit patterns of meaning (not merely representational patterns; I'm not talking about simple geometry) can interpolate details that fill in the gaps.  In the case of MySpace or other personality-centered sites, a collage of sorts sums up the overall impression of the character its creator wishes to convey (though, as always, the actual interpretation is up to the viewer, so snarky observers often see through the pretense and have a field day parodying the most transparent of these displays).

Naturally, if a viewer is so inclined, (s)he can pursue a closer examination of the images than the default layer of thumbnails.  Most casual passers-by don't bother though, hence the reason why my images aren't very much larger than the thumbnails that anchor them.  I'm merely making the point that there's a bigger picture constructed from small impressions and sadly in so many cases there's rarely any need to look more closely to expand upon what people have to say about themselves.

Indeed I assume you were getting at the same by foregoing the trouble of composing/posting an "About me" that the superficial types you anticipate would peruse your profile would simply gloss over and instead go straight to your photos where you (most importantly) posted close-ups of your ass and stomach.  Since those are my favorite parts of the female anatomy, I hear what you were trying to say (to me?) loud and clear.

>What have you done in life that gives you the right to you HUGELY inflated ego?
Other than getting you to change your "Who I'd like to meet" [to "Alex, of course."],  I'm at a loss.  Give me a checklist of what would be valid justification, and I'll get back to you.  Or did you want to cut through the lie that you're actually interested in my feelings or my mind, and just go ahead and send you photos of my HUGELY inflated cock?


Copyright 2007 personAle[x].
Back to the index