Hi, "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." wrote:
> (And I see so many ways to interpret it that don't involve > subservience. Most seem to involve some aspect of honoring > or respect, though. And a "taking care of" feeling comes > through easily as one of many possible emotional components.) But all of those involve subservience. Of the free volition kind, that you do to help others by subjugating your own wishes. > > A well-executed exercise in enigmatics. > > Oooh, well put. Yes, that's what it is. Mmmmm. But is it intentional or is it an unexpected outcome of of other intentions? How enigmatic would you like to be? <too much information snipped 8-)> > The only part that looked contrived > to me was the curious grain/streakiness, which I thought added a > powerful _je_ne_sais_quoi_ (can't say what, but whatever it is, > it's powerful) to an already touching composition. That sort of > contrivance I can live with. Photographic enigmatism. It is obviously not a "first generation" photograph, it is a copy of a poster/billboard. Isn't it? Or are you meant to think that? Educated guesses are possible but surety is not. So even the production technique is a puzzle. > Oh, at face value it's okay -- _sweet_, as I said earlier > today. But a lot of what I like about it is how much more > _can_be_ read into it because so many sometimes complementary > and sometimes contradictory but always vague and uncertain > clues to possible mindsets are present. And excellently exploited in such a simple image. > I wasn't even going to try to _guess_ at your _intent_; I > figured some of what I was seeing might have been there > intentionally but most of what I was seeing probably > wasn't, and I didn't think I could guess which was which. I think it is deliberately enigmatic and multilayered. _Maybe_ that is its whole point. I _am_ sure there is no point asking. mike
