those of us who hold onto and move around spaces with cameras survey the environment, and these subjects of investigation have as much to do with what is external to the final captured moment as they do with the intentions represented within. so is that an acknowledgment of what was scripted first, then consciously edited outside the device on the second instance? or is this the periscopic focus from some other middle depth?
to ask esoteric questions like this is to openly acknowledge a territory both within and outside, as possessed and dispossessed of a subject. yet these choreographies are traces too, devised in creative partnership, and captured in a time-frame that has by its own nature come out of something that is expanding. this is more a filmic enterprise. film is most often the result of a series of editorial interventions. if the figure were actually present in these constructed photographs how would they be cut into time so that their place is indisputable? there is that pose again, language projects outside itself taking up all prior configured senses, so that for the first time, it announces itself outside the presence of a language-history. so in this visual language where all that is past again is present, and the apparatus programmed in its future tense,must state a presence. this is a collusive eye between grounds. this is the gaseous space of movement etched into and outside the frame. taken from the night skies the photographer is like a diarist walking through that matter, and awakened he founders this need to inscribe those things he can return to later. in this later record, printed and projected or viewed in the other formats he reintroduces the stylus as a metaphor of the figure. those other markings are shapes of thought-lines captured by the night sky writer. that point again returns us to where the vertical stylus merges in from and after the authorial form has managed so ably without himself - and in that return process of layered-like threads it merges with everything in its way.