all seeing eye 2

all seeing eye 2

a follow up


  1. Sam Buk

  2. Nappy Head

    hehe. really stealing moments here :)

  3. Uno

    @Nappy Head: Why steal? We have this tendency to look at human subjects as the main protagonist in a photo, as if we're trying to capture their soul. For me they are just elements in the composition, they can be the main protagonists or they can just be completing the frame, and I don't make photos trying to capture anything, I like to think that I add more to any moment, my own vision, interpretations, questions, in resume... me. I avoid using terms like "taking a photo" , I make photos, they are fabrications of my own, subjected to my choices and moods, with conscious or unconscious references to other works.
    @Sam Buk: Did you leave the photo slightly tilted on purpose? It looks like it needs a little rotation left?

  4. Nappy Head

    Human beings often seek private moments in public spaces such as this one. At this point, the subject could be deeply engrossed in their own processes. They do not expect that they are being monitored or examined, just like in the first "all seeing eye". Buk has a way of capturing these moments while the subject is still seemingly unaware. For me, in that sense, it becomes more than just framing a moment or applying a different perspective. The subject probably wouldn't have the same 'language' or portray the same 'feeling' that they do in these photos. In that sense, these moments are stolen. They are portraits of the city. There are no negative connotations attached to "stealing". It is merely a description.

    I would say that the tilt is complimentary to the unadulterated moment. It is real. Buk is a purist. He would probably disagree with the notion to 'correct' the tilt as much as he would admit it a fault.


  5. Sam Buk

    @ UP. i didn't notice the tilt until now. the thick bar to the right stands at an angle which gives it this impression. i wouldn't change it anyway because in this case i'm not too concerned about how it looks rather than the story i'm trying to build, hence the sequence of pics. however this is not to say i'm a purist at all...

    @nappy head. i wouldn't call myself a purist (in relation to photography) as this would imply that my photos are devoid of alteration or modification. this is not true. in fact, this very photo was cropped slightly. i'm not only talking about post production. even with the settings one chooses (shutter speed, f stop, black and white film) one is already in the process of altering.

    i can agree with your reference to stealing because i've taken from her moment and turned it into my own. this is not a glorious achievement that deserves an award. i am nothing to her as she is nothing to me besides a reference to my thoughts. so in a way, after Nappy explained his reference to stealing, i believe you're both alluding to the same thing.

  6. Uno

    I wrote such a huge reply but got sidetracked and timed out, lost it... here's some resumed comments:

    The tilt is a question of personal choice and maybe I'm being anal. When there's an horizon line I usually respect its horizontality unless it's tilted on purpose with a more dramatic angle. In this case a rotation left would make the thick bar become vertical as it seems perpendicular to the horizon.

    As for "subject could be deeply engrossed in their own processes", it doesn't mean that by observing them we're stealing anything, I think that the real problem here is the click, the registering of the moment, that's what makes people unconfortable or guilty, depending on which side of the lens we are. If I described this moment on a poem, song or painting this conversation wouldn't even exist, would it? The term stealing is normally only used for photography, because we still have a (false) perception that we're "capturing" reality. We're observing the moment, apllying our own sensibility, emotions, state of mind and thoughts and creating a new reality. Photography is sureal per se and we should abandon this limited way of looking at the medium, as we might be limiting our own artistic freedom.

    One last aspect: I don't think that in order to photograph someone "deeply engrossed in their own processes" we need to "monitor" or "examine" those processes or the individual. We can feel drawn to a certain body or facial expression, posture, outline, texture or simply position in space for only formal reasons. They can be part of another composition as figurines of our own narrative. They can be just another element on the composition, such as a cloud, a scratch, a flare, a speck of dust, a rock or a steel beam...

Hello, Moeti.

You have to be logged in or registered to leave your mark.

hello (at)