Thanks a lot for the reply and the thoughts, Visar. I start understanding more and more your method through your elaborations and the more I understand, the more fascinating I find it.
The adjectiv "rough" applies in a double sense to your photography. It apllies in the sense of "without artificially raised beautifications" but also in the sense of "simple" - and with the latter I mean the art of being able to draw just a few lines (be them thick or thin) in order to make the photographic statement crystal clear. That is much like those gifted people that just have the eye to perceive first *what* are the important elements and then draw them just like that. Of course this perception doesn't need to be "completely separated" from the transformation of it into the sketch - it just happens simultaneously in mind.
But still a great amount of practice is needed in looking, observing closely and not just scratching the surface. In other words I guess you must have done a big amount of carefully looking in order to be able to transform that into such images. (Even if you wouldn't name it this way - many times we do things very "naturally" when these things are connected to our own beings and we might overlook them as distinct things just because we really live in those things.)
On the top of that... how can I put it in words? Even your "graphy" seems to consist of pure "photo", light itself. Many times I have the impression that your objects are not material but rather photonic.
And BTW, this *has* to be interesting to me, ey? A world of... structured photos! No baryonic matter, only photons! Well, a nice idea to play with in physics. ;-)
thank you for your ever thorough examination of "photo" and "graphy"~ what an interesting question you have posed here! in fact, now that you raised it, and that i am thinking about it, there is a major difference i take note of.
I guess in "photo" i need a long way, still, until i get to know most about it, in technical sense. but, just like many dilettante, i have learned to press the button when i recognize the content i want to squeeze inside the frame- and "graphy", is where i find myself by drawing thicker lines when those are pale... that is to say, that i enjoy the freedom that i consciously seize in building up that what matches the vision i have. in a work, in graphy, i do it most, so that the content does not become alien to us in recognition of form contours, but not just leave it as readymade as it was served/ as was shot~ rather, modify! and i do that, wishing to get inside the character, closer than the shirt of a subject; i wish i could, really, see my fingers tickling the heart of it- (like Caravaggio did), straight, rough, harsh, and merciless and as meek as a lamb of those sensations that grow my brain soft~
here, there is no compromise, here in graphy, i enjoy most of what i do. the rest is as good as it gets.
The sealed mouth of the oppressed underdog is the potential for the outbreak of wrath - this is what came into my mind by looking at it, Visar. The pressure rises from the low altitudes...
I find the complete definition of a face from that angle and under such an omission of anything unnecessary really amazing. The face is not flat but completely 3D and still there is not a single detail more than what was absolutely needed. Spartan in means and royal in content!
The extraordinary subtle gradients, almost at the boundary of the non perceivable, paint a face in front of me, and hand a just about to be invisible. Still the details are somehow definite and as real as on any "classically sharp" image. And they evolve out of a magnificent mixture of diffuse patterns in light, all around the main subject.
As the time passe by I wonder what could be your next steps in photography that takes the "photo" more seriously than the "graphy", Visar.
0 
{K:69009} 12/30/2009
