"The audience will never see the fields or fields against reassembling eliminated." +

* * *

I've begun (slowly) reading Gilles Deleuze's first book on Cinema -- The Movement-Image.
Thus far, the out-of-field [hors-champ] has set off the most fireworks ideas about my own work.

* * *

Fireworks instead of ideas -- see that?

Here is me implicating myself:

Recently I became aware of describing subjects that excite me with romantic/flirtatious language,
of doing it without awareness and of doing it carelessly, without direct intent.

Saying Deleuze set off fireworks when I really meant
it immediately made me want to pick up a camera and have a conversation with his proposition.

Largely, I believe what I do isn't nearly as important as awareness of what I do.

Combined with trying to be more cautious, leading me to hopefully being more exact, I want to:

a) find a new way to use language, new words to describe passion and a forward-leaning ear

b) be more accurate and goal-oriented particularly in the small places that provoke me to make things and

c) use my love-desire-lust words only where I feel love-lust-desire; distinguish excitement from incitement.

* * *

Deleuze writes,

Sometimes the frame works like a mobile mask according to which every set is extended into a larger homogenous set with which it communicates, and sometimes it works as a pictorial frame which isolates a system and neutralizes its environment.

[...] In one case, the out-of-field designates that which exists elsewhere, to one side or around; in the other case, the out-of-field testifies to a more disturbing presence, one which cannot even be said to exist, but rather to 'insist' or 'subsist,' a more radical Elsewhere, outside homogenous space & time.

* * *

I hoard a good portion of what are probably my best photos. So what I'm left to share -- photographs that continue to maintain my interest even though they are failures in the easy sense -- are the photographs that attempted something greater than what I'm currently capable.

If photographs are good but not great, they implicitly show how they don't work, they stop asking questions.
You don't have to ask why they don't work, you know -- you try again or you move on, that's what they require.

But total failures -- I look at these and wonder what I was thinking! And how exciting inciting is that?

I do prefer the out-of-field to suggest an Elsewhere, not just an elsewhere.

I think this is more challenging than just removing the narrative (as Marilyn Minter referenced in her own work last week).
(Though just removing the narrative or abstracting the referential is an overused tool in my bad, admittedly.)

I'm stopping here (late for work!), but on my desktop right now are these three photographs that failed what I was undertaking,
an implied extension of the frame into a non-homogenous space:

+ An amazing(ly bad) translation of a sentence from the French wikipedia page on the term hors-champ.