which he calls, Paul P at home.
I do not know if this is a refer-
ence to a portrait of Paul P, in
his house or not; or to a portion
of the house of Paul P, which we
are to infer to satisfy him.
I do feel that the photograph is
a comment on style, or an evoca-
tion of style, or both. In either
case it is provocative, in a prom-
inence it gives to the hanging of
a picture, an accumulation as much
as an acquisition, as Alan Bennett
would say, because we don't know
if its punctuation of the space
is antecedent, contemporaneous, or
subsequent to its creation by Paul.
We have no sense of its contribu-
tion except as ornament in place.
For a couple of decades I've been
living without the hanging of an-
tecedents or of new accumulations
in the space where I live. In fash-
ioning a new environment, I have
therefore been giving thought to
laying receptive preparations for
certain pictorial elements. Yet I
do congenially resist, slightly,
the inevitable burden of a past
which some impart, or of recent
but expired acquisitive choice,
in others.
I do not know, what confers
such tenacious immunity from or-
lamentation upon my space as I
have come to see it. I truly do
like pictures, even some of mine.
I do think a picture has a right,
so to speak, to be seen, alone.
I think no picture has a right
to be seen every day, without
extracting distinct concessions
from the space, and its tenant.
I do not agree that images rep-
resent the baggage of stored
pleasure, because they do have
an autonomy, against how I see
them. I do know, I do not care
to regard a picture as a debt I
must pay, by exhibiting it. This
means, it must compete with its
absence, in improving my opinion
of my space. This is why I like
Jon Gasca's photograph. I sense,
Paul P has preserved the values
to him, of space and ornament,
exploiting a recessive image
with almost objective success.
No comments:
Post a Comment