Every now and then, thank god, there's someone who will not be not satisfied with the same view out of the same old window. This alone is a premise not shared by the many. To see someone, actually, 'do' something about it by actively extracting completely different reality from the familiar is a rare thing indeed.
Would this not be something akin to a miracle or, at least, serendipity? But why, for the life of me, is the wonderful craziness of idea and the blessed impulse to shoot like this restricted to the conceptual whole and not infecting its parts? Yes, the humour is preserved, but the 'seriousness' of this pure act of photography and art is, IMHO, perfectly squandered.
Why are the legs of the chair, itself a secondary subject, cut off? Could the illusion of the forward tilt into the viewer's face not have been achieved by positioning the camera a few inches higher without sacrificing any other attributes? Why is the only given baseline left add odds with the margins of the image?
The shadows (hat and back of chair) are bare of tones, but not bare enough to perceive a 'deliberate' contrast. One could, without having to strain, attribute intent to the general softness of the photo, which, combined with the depth of field chosen here, would evoke another era without digital technology, L lenses and USM. This, I think, would not be far fetched, considering the hat, the chair and the surrealism made here (the films of Fritz Lang come to mind).
Without the edge contrast (sharpness), unfortunately, the shoulders and arms, nearly fade into the wall, which displays the same colour and tones. Rendering the image pure black and white, also may have added some degree of contrast here, where it's needed.
I find myself frustrated by the, apparently, 'sloppy' treatment of this astounding photo, which is, otherwise, so bold and innovative, in a nostalgic sort of way, while inspiring a restlessness and pure energy which can neither be missed nor ignored. |