Dedicated to the traditions and techniques of photography the subject is rendered in a non-realistic way and so the question remains: what is the subject? It concerns a coded construction where the manipulation of the medium, the camera and the resulted print, is done not as an indicative imprint of reality but as an impression of it. The final result does not correspond to the original material. The object that appears is clearly imprinted, but little recognizable, it presents similarities with other existing objects, but it’s also directly understandable that we ‘re dealing with a constructed environment that is aiming at an imaginary representation of a locus (of fragmentation and reflection of similar that are drawn to each other) that can be resulted in a picture but that cannot be described in terms of real equivalents.
I ‘m trying to exploit the light ambiguity of the photographic signifier in order to explore the way the photographic and the human eye can see. The object of reference lies suspended amidst an almost identified object and at the same time almost incomprehensible. “Almost” is the ridicule of our visual perception since we invest on our own projected connotations and fleeting reference of what we see. That “almost” of the resulted images reminds us how needless it is to even start making references to reality and it would be wiser to focus from the start on the abstraction of our cognizance. Taking into account this absence of a hierarchy of reality and of reconstruction there lies a slight undermining of the spectator because the domination of the subject is partly subtracted and so the statement is lost and what remains is a construction. It is, so, intended a self-sarcasm of the references of those images, of the subject and of its intentional deconstruction, of that same gesture of abstraction itself.