Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

I know you like the Art, Johnny boy, and them Photojoiners

Well, since you like the art, I'll link this Photo-joiner that Cold Mountain Review just published. I'm looking at it now and thinking that perhaps it's not as indicative of an experience as I would like to think. Perhaps it's the need to "join" them all together (making it a little more aesthetically pleasing than other forms of multi-perspective—like cubism) that makes it less than an experience? [1]

I don't know, tell you the truth.

I know trying to turn photos of a singular object is not easy. The last piece of art that I did, my mug, it was something like multi-perspectives for one face. Does that alone speak to this experience? Maybe, IMO, better than a normal selfie, but not so much. [2] In the above image you can see that I added text about me, about my life. Would images work better? Would there be a better way of having a representative visual of me in a single frame?

I don't know, tell you the truth. 

I do know it's going to be hard finding out.

You see, I'm also thinking about narrative (non-linear) ways to present aspects of that memory/experience in a single frame (unmoving, allowing the viewer to come up with a narrative). Below is a work in progress of something like that. It's a Photojoiner of a library I visited. Then some other thoughts and going-ons that led me to the library. Does that matter? Does it make more sense to you? [3]

 You see, the thing is that perhaps I'm a little too married to the photo joiner. Perhaps it's able to expand on the eye (paralyzed cyclops as Hockney said) of the camera, but it's little more than bedridden. So, perhaps I have to take a photo of more things that are there in the moment.

That they're joined should not matter.


Because during the eye movements (saccades) that help us take in more of a given place, we're not really seeing. Yeah, it's an illusion.

So, for visual things the below is a little more accurate (see the above). And indeed it can be aesthetic, but what's being perfectly seen is not my point. I mean would the above be better with a whole bunch of ideas (going through my head at the time and now)?

You tell me. Me, I'm on this train until it runs out of track. So go check out CMR and show them some love.

[1] btw my IG is back up. You can get prints through it and see some of my other work. 

[2] Yeah, I think I have a whole new level of respect for the likes of Picasso who were able to make themselves see in this manner.

[3] Another issue with photo joiners is the globe to 2-D issue that means there's either some optical (think 360 lens or wide lens) issues with that transmission of a globe to a flat film/frame.

Enjoyed it? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there & help cover the costs of running this thing. You can use paypal or a credit card.

This post first appeared on Nelson Lowhim; Writer's Muse, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

I know you like the Art, Johnny boy, and them Photojoiners


Subscribe to Nelson Lowhim; Writer's Muse

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription