where does the truth of an image or an object lie, in the details of the image or in the context of the environment in which the image originated from? the ‘poa’ (pornography of the abstract) project deals with the problem of how to represent reality, and what insights can be gained from abstracting to an extreme degree a given psychological/sociological issue. one conclusion is that it is possible to turn images of human suffering or manipulation into something aesthetically ‘beautiful’. Is that not horror? perhaps more horrific is that it is so easy to do, and that abstract art can twist what is real into something where pixels do actually represent some kind of objective truth.
these images are all derived from photographs, in some cases small sections from which have been (almost) arbitrarily cut out and resized to particle-like dimensions. it’s not always possible to determine whether the particle surfaces are natural materials, man-made or even flesh, and size or perspective have both been distorted by the re-sampling of each image. they are meaningful in the sense that the images show real objects, they form a potentially infinite series with infinite diversity, and yet are based on very simple methods of creation. (they are pointless in the same way all abstract art is, being impassive, conceptual and often unintelligible.) a line of thought or the urge to create and communicate that urge is the product, the image is a residue. contrasted with the point of most art, to instill a sense of comfort or feeling in the viewer, or the point of pornography, to manufacture desire. these images are snapshots that are so removed from context or purpose that it is difficult to ascribe meaning to them individually. collectively they represent a way of looking at the world, in particular the way in which we use photography to (mis)represent it.