What do you mean by "freeform"? Is that lack of rhyme, rhythm, meter or even controlling ideas? Do you have a poem of his as an example of this kind of free form you are using?I would spend some quiet time, open myself, comtemplate a photo for a while, and then write about it. I'm usually a controlled writer, but this was a very free-form process--whatever struck me about the picture would become the seed of the poem, which unfolded from there. It's a technique I got from American poet William Stafford, although he used it on his surroundings and not on photographs. Most of the poems emerged with religious/spiritual themes.
[I myself admit to enjoying when a picture moves beyond that location and specifics to apply in some higher way to human values we can all relate to. That transcendence is indeed a valuable quality of some pictures. But,] why should the photograph need to transcend their subjects. It would seem rather a narrow view of things. Can't what we see things as valuable in their own right, just as we see them through the camera? Why the need to transcend at all?The project grew out of my ongoing frustration with the challenge photographs face in transcending their subject matter.
John,Judging from the lack of response to the post this presentation does not resonate much with others.
It was one of the deepest creative experience I've ever had.
By "freeform" I'm not referring to the poem's form, but the creative process. To me it means with little internal editing, letting the mind roam through the photo and concepts, and writing without evaluation. I'm usually more analytical, but wanted to be more open with this project. It occured to me that this so-called "freeform" approach is what I use to take pictures, so I should try it for writing as well.What do you mean by "freeform"? Is that lack of rhyme, rhythm, meter or even controlling ideas? Do you have a poem of his as an example of this kind of free form you are using?
I'm also a fan of "the thing itself" genre of photography. It's not either/or for me. But sometimes we want to go beyond sense objects and explore broader truths.But, why should the photograph need to transcend their subjects. It would seem rather a narrow view of things. Can't what we see things as valuable in their own right, just as we see them through the camera? Why the need to transcend at all?
Any suggestions? I tried white, and the type is very clear, but the whole thing seems too stark. I like the warmth of the gray. Part of the issue is the jpeg compression. It looks fine in Illustrator and in print. Really not sure what to do about this and would welcome you thoughts on an alternative presentation. I know that on a blog or web site it works well if I use html type rather than type embedded in a jpeg.I, myself was taken back by the white text on gray, as it's a little hard to read.
Certainly nothing against Islam. A wonderful faith, in my view. Especially Sufism.Also, not understanding completely your reference to the Islamic call for prayers, I didn't know whether it had a meaning I liked or would despise as bigoted. So "freeform" has costs.
Thanks for that reminder. I know you're right.Let me assure you that lack of interest is only one possible reason for lack of response.
Care to share any examples?I have an immediate interest in the pairing of photography with poetry.