Greetings Comrades.
I need your help. Do not mistake this for pitiful begging like a cowardly dog, for that is NOT my way. I would like your opinion, despite the potential hit to my fragile pride, on this new artist statement. I revised this one for the older set of work because I wanted something much shorter. The question is whether it makes sense (in the most minimal way.)? Some of the spots I want my work really only publish short statements not as explanations, but introductions, so keep this in mind.
Enjoy.
Wandering about one morning in the low country, the young man finds a strange structure in the middle of nowhere. At once, as he has always done with encountered oddities, he theorizes its purpose. Using photography, storytelling and concepts of modern physics, the dilapidated and half-sunken building is given new reality. Similar to a physicist, who must recontextualize scenarios in order to describe the distant abstractions that cannot be probed with human senses, Jay Gould applies ideas of science to the curiosities encountered in his observations. His large scale photographs question limits, boundaries, and received assumptions in order to present the viewer with a unique view of reality that, like modern physics, uses aesthetic judgment and contemplation as its prime yardstick and blurs the line between science and art.
|
Jay, it sounds pretty good... I think that starting out with "the young man" and referring to him in the beginning and then switching to jay gould in such a short passage is a little awkward, I would stay in the third person... also referring to your work as large scale photographs is kind of unnecessary, I get that you want to illustrate to the reader an idea of presentation and physicality but some how that doesn't fit... I don't know, maybe I'm just being stupid... hope this helps!