not a pretty picture. not a good. not a bad. picture. but an argument.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

investigation of self, xi: rudimentary

how few particulars are required to suggest any one person, either in description or in photograph?  what might this mean?

tell me.

(in this i mean to break through the body and beyond the body.  is this body not a veil?)


  1. Effectively show us one person, in reality a part of a person merges into the rest black. Everything is important but this means portrait remains in darkness denotes an interest in remaining hidden, and not easy to get into the dark without a light to guide us.

  2. the image is so reduced, and yet unmistakable ...

    i wonder what we truly see when we look at a person, especially a known person (to the extent that a person can be known, that is :-) ... do we see the physical body, or do we look past that into the spinning place where the self connects to the rest of being, like a plant swaying on the stem that ties it to the earth? ... perhaps this is getting to know someone, acquiring the vision to see into that depth, rather than noticing only our own reflection on the surface ...

    coming at the question from a different, technical, angle -- facial recognition is one of the most impressive cognitive feats that human minds are capable of ... we instantly differentiate between thousands of faces that often present very little physical variation, a matter of a millimeter here and there, and yet we perceive them at an instant as absolutely and obviously distinct ... a legacy of our primate heritage, those social creatures obsessed with gossip and status :-)



"Words at the limit of hearing, attributable to no one, received in the conch of the ear like dew by a leaf." (philippe jaccottet) or even a quiet presence is appreciated))