This seems like the logical conclusion of one direction of working – the mandala pattern. I enjoy the unusual sensation of looking at your symmetrical images – the tension between abstract patterns and recognisable images (the photographic fragment). It’s a beautiful image, although at this scale it’s hard to tell that it’s made using fragments of photographic image(s). In this particular image the abstract pattern has taken over completely; the lines are so tightly crossed that it’s hard to make out anything recognisable in the space between. But perhaps this is not important. It may not matter whether the viewer is aware that the image has a photographic origin, as this is secondary to the end result (which is a unique image in itself, and no longer a photograph). The photographic image is just the raw material for your process. Would you agree with this statement? Perhaps at a larger scale I could still recognise the photographic nature of the image, no matter how abstract the pattern…?
Do you pre-visualize the end result of this process, after selecting an image(s) to work with? Or do you discover the final image through experimentation?
palla
|
Thank you for your excellent critique, Stu.
I could not image those end results in the making. But I could be sure to make the success of those conversional images in a way, for which are made by accumulated methods in my site.
In fact I wondered whether I should post that image or not, because I thought that any real objects were hardly recognized in that image. But I could not ignore that. Because that got the complete world view.
The complete image may criticize about this incomplete real world….
2 Responses
Stu
This seems like the logical conclusion of one direction of working – the mandala pattern. I enjoy the unusual sensation of looking at your symmetrical images – the tension between abstract patterns and recognisable images (the photographic fragment). It’s a beautiful image, although at this scale it’s hard to tell that it’s made using fragments of photographic image(s). In this particular image the abstract pattern has taken over completely; the lines are so tightly crossed that it’s hard to make out anything recognisable in the space between. But perhaps this is not important. It may not matter whether the viewer is aware that the image has a photographic origin, as this is secondary to the end result (which is a unique image in itself, and no longer a photograph). The photographic image is just the raw material for your process. Would you agree with this statement? Perhaps at a larger scale I could still recognise the photographic nature of the image, no matter how abstract the pattern…?
Do you pre-visualize the end result of this process, after selecting an image(s) to work with? Or do you discover the final image through experimentation?
palla
Thank you for your excellent critique, Stu.
I could not image those end results in the making. But I could be sure to make the success of those conversional images in a way, for which are made by accumulated methods in my site.
In fact I wondered whether I should post that image or not, because I thought that any real objects were hardly recognized in that image. But I could not ignore that. Because that got the complete world view.
The complete image may criticize about this incomplete real world….