“Im noman, my name is noman”
but Wanjina is, shall we say, Ouan Jin
or the man with an education
and whose mouth was removed by his father
because he made too many things
whereby cluttered the bushman’s baggage
vide the expedition of Frobenius pupils about 1938
Ouan Jin spoke and thereby created the named
thereby making clutter
the bane of men moving
and so his mouth was removed
as you will find it removed in his pictures
— Ezra Pound, Pisan Cantos
j j j
Nothing ever gets solved. We just get frustrated, or bored and tired, and eventually we just move on, leaving things without answers behind until the whole concept of answers becomes dubious. What to answer? What to question? Move on from what exactlly?
j j j
But what is “the problem of photography”? Copy? Pointing? Truth? Reality? Intensity? Discovery? Fake? Connection? Revelation? Rapture? Document? Bearing Witness? To what exactly?
or to be more precise: What is it about photography that makes all these things come out, as all of these seem to pose the more obvious questions of: What is it, that you see? (so it really is a question of ontology? So either the question of “what is” is more interesting as it seems, or photography does not care about “what is” and cares more about “what appears” and that is the more meaningful question… (but we do not photograph what we see: The Single-lens-Reflex, that closes the mirror and you do not actually see/are not present the moment when the pictures is taken….) – so photography fills the gaps of our seeing?
j j j
Nothing ever gets solved. We just grow tired or bored or forget the question and move on.
j j j
Are the problems of photography solved? You do not write any more about the how ad why of photography: Does this mean you are done with trying to rationalize what you are doing? Does this also mean you are done with photography?
There is this tendency – best embodied in the construction of pornography – in western societies to expose everything. Nothing can be hidden, everything shown is never enough: What appears is good, what is good, appears.
(the drive to see more deeply linked to the drive to earn more, have more, buy more, own more, that also is bottomless and can never be exhausted: The strategy to overcome the disappointment of everything that is shown is to point to something that is ommitted, replace what is show with the promise of something that is not (yet) shown.) An overwhelming more, that is oblivious to any content: More sunset, more flower, more pain, more torn apart limbs, more explosions, more sex, more everything more everything more everything (and repeat and try to get even higher: Seeing is as much as an addiction with hangovers, disgust of sight, contempt for seeing, renouncing seeing, blame etc., only to enter the circle again.)
j j j
I started watching movies twice. And not good movies, just movies. I have no idea when this started. It just felt more comfortable to watch the movies where you already know how they end. It wasn’t about the how-it-ends. It was just about the already-knowing.
j j j