water and it's overly zealous form

it is that thing that happens... you make a work in a certain way, using a certain set of thoughts, and it works. hurrah! You then, spurred on by this successful application of your dense and usually opaque thoughts, try to extend that process into a multi-pronged tool which can be weilded at will apon whatever material you choose. Cause the result implied what you wanted it to the first time. But the second time, and the third and the fourth, it doesn't. Or is it just a mutated version of that same result, and I can't see it? aarg.


I have been working with the Bow falls, just below my studio. I have been thinking alot about timelapse as a document, a document of compressed time - how we accept timelapse as 'true' if it is clearly continuous, but its truth is in the subject's smoothness of motion - jerky timelapse is not as believable. Ive also been thinking about the narratives implicit in long exposure photography, as opposed to a photo shot in a moment, an instant. Was looking at Bill Henson's stuff again, following a conversation with Kristine about night photography... the conditions of long exposure imbuing or imposing the role of movement into the frame... also thinking of Barry's work, discussing it with him over dinner - light and movement, or not. Foreground and rear ground.. hmm..


At any rate, I have been experimenting with applying the same thinking that got such a good result in Litter to the Bow Falls, with rather strange results - the motion of the water yeilds up a strange and slightly drunken succession of randomised stills - which remind me a bit of japanese paintings but look a bit treated and mistaken... but the movement and the essence is there - so I am stumped.