I have often had doubts about serendipitous marriages of odd concepts and objects. While I understand the rationale and know that it can have interesting results.... I feel that one has to be more involved in making connections and possibly improving the odds. I like the idea you are using...the collaborative effort is wonderful... but it seems too random and disconnected right now. The images are more of an intellectual game than anything that has any visual weight. A little vague and bland right now... but certainly has potential. Apologies for the gush of cold water from me....
I wouldn't agree on all of the images, but this one leaves me a bit flat for sure. Not the image itself, but I think the conflict between the two bits of text.
I would think the central idea here is how meaning can change with new relationships, and if the relationships were intentional, the experiment wouldn't really work as such. Certainly, intentionality will get you a stronger combination most of the time, but it will also rule out the happy accident, which is what I'm excited to see here every so often.
Perhaps a guideline for our submissions should be that they be devoid of prominent text?
intentionality wasn't the driving force for this experiment. i was, and still am, interested in how a random photograph and a random text could combine to make meaning, and how that random combination would shift interpretations and responses if that text was repeated across a random collection of images.
naturally, some combinations will be more effective or meaningful or resonant (or whatever) than others, and some images will be in and of themselves more aesthetically pleasing.
perhaps, at the end of the month, people would be interested in sharing their thoughts about their favourite combinations, and what worked in those images.
i would submit that it is also an exercise in patience -- i anticipate that, despite the randomness or provisional quality of these pieces, some sort of narrative will have emerged by the end of the project. it is, after all, intended to extend over the while year.
I find the original text in this image intriguing enough and am just looking around and through the overlying text with impatience to see the fascinating image beneath.. . .
I have often had doubts about serendipitous marriages of odd concepts and objects. While I understand the rationale and know that it can have interesting results.... I feel that one has to be more involved in making connections and possibly improving the odds.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea you are using...the collaborative effort is wonderful... but it seems too random and disconnected right now. The images are more of an intellectual game than anything that has any visual weight.
A little vague and bland right now... but certainly has potential.
Apologies for the gush of cold water from me....
I wouldn't agree on all of the images, but this one leaves me a bit flat for sure. Not the image itself, but I think the conflict between the two bits of text.
ReplyDeleteI would think the central idea here is how meaning can change with new relationships, and if the relationships were intentional, the experiment wouldn't really work as such. Certainly, intentionality will get you a stronger combination most of the time, but it will also rule out the happy accident, which is what I'm excited to see here every so often.
Perhaps a guideline for our submissions should be that they be devoid of prominent text?
intentionality wasn't the driving force for this experiment. i was, and still am, interested in how a random photograph and a random text could combine to make meaning, and how that random combination would shift interpretations and responses if that text was repeated across a random collection of images.
ReplyDeletenaturally, some combinations will be more effective or meaningful or resonant (or whatever) than others, and some images will be in and of themselves more aesthetically pleasing.
perhaps, at the end of the month, people would be interested in sharing their thoughts about their favourite combinations, and what worked in those images.
I wondered what would happen...
ReplyDeleteIt really looks awful.
Oh well!
i wouldn't say it looks awful -- just not very . . . . .
ReplyDeleteclean
i would submit that it is also an exercise in patience -- i anticipate that, despite the randomness or provisional quality of these pieces, some sort of narrative will have emerged by the end of the project. it is, after all, intended to extend over the while year.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what they'll look like next month, how seeing the images will change what type of photographs people submit...
ReplyDeleteme too!
ReplyDeleteI find the original text in this image intriguing enough and am just looking around and through the overlying text with impatience to see the fascinating image beneath.. . .
ReplyDelete: )
ReplyDeletei know - it's an interesting visual experience, and conceptual dissonance.