notes:

– cut sections:

– subvert interior reality of image//shift back towards external reality of photograph as object

– enhances abstract qualities of image? shifts more towards play of shape & colour because distanced from pure representation?

– first two stay within one kind of “surface”/element – sky or face of building

– final image questions solidity/differentiation of elements – cuts through different surfaces without awareness of difference.

– BUT also echo internal elements of image – shapes of architecture, & in the last image trees framing empty sky

– subversion plays against subtler reaffirmation

– could put another image behind to replace the cut-away shape, but this would provide too much resolution? with a blank hole the photographs are haunted by a void, something missing. to replace it with a different picture would resolve too easily – still haunted/disrupted but by something recognisable//that can be categorised. this way it’s just a kind of nagging gap. no closure. can’t come to any kind of settlement with what’s interrupted the image.

– architecture (park hill flats, sheffield)

– inherently sad//haunted: failed utopian project//part of a future that didn’t materialise. the buildings themselves stand as a kind of monument mourning the failure of this planned future?

Advertisements