Mylayne has two definitions of time: chronos and kairos. While the former refers to a linear, uninterrupted stream where the present seamlessly transitions into the past and the future into the present, the latter defines time as a singular instant without predecessor or successor.
Do you think Mylayne's photography successfully embodies both of these elements? Can you really see these two concepts of time at work in the exhibition, and, if so, do they enhance the images? Beyond that, is this a concept our audiences will understand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, Katy, here's what I think (I think):
Mylayne is on a quest to both make and find that magical convergence of chronos and kairos. He sifts through all that time without beginning or end, all the while defining what he is waiting for until Lady Luck intervenes and then snap, it's there.
Now, how does the viewer fit in? As we look for the birds, and see them as part of the landscape, do we (in fast forward) simulate or echo the artist's generative search?
Indeed, it is no wonder he chooses to use the humble bird to illustrate the existential.
Anyone else think of a theory?
Looking forward to the Salon, where perhaps All Will Be Revealed. It's next Wed. at 6.
Post a Comment