Image card three

the photographic view made carefully by paint, well into the history of photography. more real than photograph, the sharp light on mud ground the blue of the sky, the light on the wall and the wooden slats at the edge of the verandah. light, fat light, a little closer and the image begins to disintergrate, into painted strokes and not the photographic grain.

some quality of memory likes thicker in this realism than it might in a photograph of the same..each part has been worked in, perhaps that is why.. nothing has an absence of the paintbrush, which is light in the case of photography- how much does the paintbrush of light touch and stroke, where does it pass by. here each corner is worked into and memory cannot escape, all is rendered, darkness and light in heavy textures which will not let anything waft away. this painting might have been just labour of a stern mind, but it lets go, it seims too, in its netwoks of paint, it lets the brush stroke and eave the suggestion of wild leaves in the sun, up front in the painted surface. S tells me of an essay about Mane-et by Foucault, which talke os how before Manet the painters were not letting on that there was a light on the canvas too, by which they were painting and that somehow that was part of the painting was it not? hmm, conceit or thought?

i am wrong in what i write (!) it is true if you look perhaps at just a wall of the painting, that strict care of representing light, or if you suddenly see the whole, but on a second viewing itself, a little later, of the same image- you can see that the image or its corner, neither are really seeking the full focus of a camera lens. There is an impression of focus given by the light, ut is a road that leads back into panting, not towards film.. the image resolves into an almost sharpness of form and tells its painterly process

some eastman colour films have the tones of these paintings. the hills of eastern india as made for the films of presburger