Pebbled texture moves
the air like heavy syrup
lifts its bulk aloft
zap! biff! whap! and smack!
locks out sound fx
You’re reaching Eyeclops Master status!
One great thing about the Eyeclops is that it really forces your attention to developing photography skills. Lighting is paramount, as is composition, depth of field, image processing and perhaps most important of all, stillness and patience. I’ve learned a new trick for keeping the camera steady while I take pictures: I rest the lens casing (in this case, the big plastic eye-shape that has to practically engulf the subject [and there are a lot of Balthasarian metaphors packed into that bit of imagery!]) on a chunk of kneaded eraser – firm enough to be still, but pliable enough that I can easily shift around. Plus, it doesn’t have a pesky pulse, which I can’t arrest by just holding my breath. In fact, I think the eraser is my new favorite photographic tool, as it is also an excellent medium for holding delicate subjects in place.
What is this eyeclops thing? I think I need one.
You can find it here.
“…a lot of Balthasarian metaphors packed into that bit of imagery!”
So … will there be a post from you tomorrow, explaining this??
Nope, this is the best you’ll get:
The section I’ve been reading and rereading today has to do with the senses, particularly vision, and ties in with many of Bob’s recent posts on subject-object relations. But in a (pithy, warped and cracked) nutshell, seeing is a way of taking images into oneself to “concentrate one’s vision on the depth of Being manifesting itself in the image.” The Eyeclops, as a representation of the eye, almost literally engulfs and illuminates the subject in order to concentrate one’s vision on a particular aspect of being.
I won’t bore you with de-tails, but just say that the whole subject of “the use of the eyes” has been of special interest to me for many years — in part, because it’s nigh impossible to find anything substantial written about it. Plenty written about “how we see,” but little about “how we should/could see.”
For instance, how one uses one’s vision is critical in martial arts, but it is not an aspect that is written about; you learn it by “doing.” Or, say, in Alexander Technique, they teach that where you put your eyes indicates where you are within yourself — and that certain things can only be done from the neo-cortex, when the eyes are “forward and up,” basically looking “beyond the horizon.” These are just examples.
Sounds like Balthasar moved it to the next level (at least)!
I think the section I’ve been reading also ties in with UF’s description of the senses as wounds, i.e. as means for things outside of ourselves to come into ourselves and be known. Or again, with the idea Bob talked of the other day using >.<, where the dot is the image, one side the object and the other the knowing subject.
This is a good subject. I’ve noticed many times that I know something is present in my field of vision before I “see” it. I don’t actually see it until I begin to look for it. Normally we think that the seeing is what causes us to know something is present — and maybe it does work that way for most people — and I’m just a freak or delusional, which doesn’t mean I’m not still correct.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.