In happy recognition of 1000+ followers, let there be some words :)
I like clichés as much as the next guy. In fact, I’m attracted to them like a moth to a Death Star, err I mean flame, or fire, or indeed that nicely rotund Pokémon that sleeps a lot …
Evidently, typing permanently non-evolving words onto a static white webpage has taken its toll and not even five “I”s into the post, boredom has already set in. I suppose such is living the slow life in the fast line, frantically adapting to rapid change in a dignified nonchalant crawl. But, moving away from words which purports to induce vigorous and vacuous head-nods in a modern art museum (of which I remain hilariously guilty), why do we point at abstract things and say things like “Ah, the artist here tries to combine the fragility of life and the miracle of modern conservation by making a house of cards with various poses of a panda each equipped with a different coloured bowtie.”
Personally, I’d go nuts at such an artwork, not because I “get” the message (although I feel like I ought to, given that I’ve just spent the last 30 seconds awkwardly constructing it) but a Panda seems to trigger something for me..
Hence, this gave birth to an idea I had of looking for interesting things in ordinary pictures I took, the post-photograph if you will (not in the post-man sense, where post is getting delivered, or in the post-man sense, where post denotes a departure from the man form, or indeed in the post-man sense where robots take over). No, I meant a photograph which is fully realised after you’ve taken it, sometimes years after the fact.
For example, here’s a perfectly average picture I took last year of a staircase in the Tate Britain museum in London:
Not the most offensively composed staircase but it’s a bit boring, stereotypical perhaps or even the dreaded cliché with the moth to Death Star thing..
Here’s the after picture, titled the
Panda with the noodle bowl.
You may need to stare at it a bit, or as my maths lecturer used to say “whenever something is trying to be a triangle, it really is a triangle”, or my favourite, “The equations are perfectly interpretable in a non-ambiguous way, it’s only when you try to put them in words it can get a bit misleading.”
I’ll leave it here for now, need to go away to think about a Flüssigkeitsoberflächen.