„The British philologistRobert Nares (1753–1829) says that the word hoax was coined in the late 18th century as a contraction of the verbhocus, which means “to cheat”, “to impose upon” or “to befuddle often with drugged liquor”.Hocus is a shortening of the magicincantationhocus pocus, which in turn is a contraction of the phrase Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter jubeo, mentioned inThomas Ady‘s 1656 book A candle in the dark, or a treatise on the nature of witches and witchcraft. “
„A hoax differs from a magic trick or from fiction (books, movies, theatre, radio, television, etc.) in that the audience is unaware of being deceived, whereas in watching a magician perform an illusion the audience expects to be tricked.“
Let’s celebrate the truth, and nothing but the truth.
This photograph is a “product” of my second decision. It’s a result of a polemics with a photography fellow. (Otherwise he really takes breathtaking landscape photos which I am invidious for.) Subject? Emotion? Truth? It does not transimt any of them. Maybe in traces you’ll find some kind of subject, but this is really nothing special. No documentary value. No war brutailites. No sorrow. No maltrated kids, no drugjunkies, no social inequality. Not even a person in the frame. And no beautiful landscape either. It does not fit with any up-do-date and popular or mainstream photography trends. It’s not even underground, grunge, minimal, abstract and so on. Not even rural. It’s a kind of nothing. A boring walnut-tree with a pole in front of some plain hills.
My photography fellow is a perfectionist: the smallest divagation from the rules spoils the entire experience of an excellent photography. Yes, indeed: if you search for perfection in photography, if you try to measure it with objective and unquestionable, almost axiomatical rules of photography, a small inaccuracy could be fatal. But what if we don’t take those rules as the Holy Bible. Maybe those rules were created by people who are not perfect. Or whom can make mistakes and erroneus statements. Or, it’ OK with you, that this pole and this bole of a walnut tree could be everything for me, the most valuable thing in the world? Does the photograph really needs a caption, or a short essay like this, to understand, to feel or to be part of an artistic experience?
Finally let’s admit: this photographs is nothing indeed. If you tend to make a 2 seconds decision. Among the myriad of ilusive, eye-candy photographs and visual trash that we face day by day, it’s another dozenframe of a self-proclaimed artist.
But what if you would have more than 2 seconds to immerse yourself in an unfamiliar artistic experience?
When the land is someone. It has no color, or if it has, there is no importance what colour it wears.
When the land becomes a person. And you get caught in a relationshipt with it.
When the land is not a pasture anymore, nor mud, nor woods or anything else that you used to see before.
When the land makes you to close your eyes, and only with your eyes shut you can see its breathing.
When the land is your sleepingpartner, to know its rest, or your chest confines while it is embraced by the morning fog.
When the land needs no colour, shapes, and it transforms in a spirit.
When you find this spirit deep in your inner self.
When the land is you.
Two years ago, around march, I took this strange picture. Everyday single day I passed by this hillside, and that day I knew that it have to be captured. I composed a while, but there was something with its descendent lines. Top left down to bottom right. And I took a decision. A decision that changed my photography vision.
I don’t know if this is a good pic, or not. Maybe it’s a pathetic one. But I consider it a milestone in work.
It does not have a properly defined subject. But I did choose to have not a properly defined subject. The subject is the decision itself.
To avoid descending lines I did rotate the camera. I rarely rotate the camera. Almost never. But I took this decision, too…
And the most important part is of this process: I decided to share it.