In both directions, from the lens... (and a discussion of eyesight and nakedness)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a5717/a5717e929ed5d1c2306e6b4d018f11656729e6c5" alt="Subject-Object Proof no. 2"
Subject-Object Proof no.2 (2008)
2-channel video projection, photograph (24x30), xerox on paper. dimensions variable.
It was a sort of documentation of process, elucidating and emphasizing the the space between the camera and the subject, particularly because that became the space occupied by the spectator. Paul mentioned before I entered the room that he had expected a table in the center of the room to hold to the projectors, but I think the placement (seen in the photo) is much more appropriate.
The other mind-tangent the piece sparked was related to the act of declothing, and specifically the eyeglasses worn by the subject. For those without perfect vision, are we more naked with or without glasses? Of course, the obvious answer is off, in a more 'natural' state, but it's as always a matter of perspective. Without glasses, the subject is behind her/his own blanket of blurred perception. Is nakedness more a state beheld or held? The salience of nakedness is so often greater for the naked than the for the (clothed) viewer/voyeur. A kind of paradox then arises, because without glasses the subject cannot fully perceive her/his own nakedness, but with glasses she/he is no longer naked. Are contacts the solution?
The notion of a 'natural' state isn't a simple one either. Glasses might not be the best example, but consider someone with a prosthetic limb. I'd imagine they'd consider themselves naked with the limb still attached, but I don't know.
This doesn't seem nearly as interesting now that I've typed it.
But anyway...
Paul's work is superb, and it's great to see him getting so much attention!
Comments