How would you describe this image to a blind person?
This image is an abstract portrait of someone, that only uses objects found around the room. Starting off, we have a drawing on the back wall of a face, this face is extremely scribbled, as if a small child drew it. It’s a pale white “face” with brown hair. The only visible facial feature is the nose, which looks extremely realistic, almost printed onto the wall. The body is someone’s jacket, laid on the back of a chair. It looks like the hood of the jacket is pinned onto the wall behind it, as if it were a person's neck. The arms are just simply a printed picture of someone's hands crossed. It’s stuck to the front of the jacket. The legs of this artificial person are simply the legs of a chair.
What kind of picture is it?
I think this image belongs to a very abstract category of portraiture. The fact that this image is half drawn, half objects, but still manages to create a visible portrait is rather impressive. Usually, in portraits, you usually get a photo of someone’s face, and shoulders. You can also have full body portraits, there’s plenty of ways to create various portraits. I think this one is extremely unique however, as it pushes the boundaries of what a portrait can be. It pushed the unwritten rule of “portraits can only be of people” and made a new category of abstract portraiture. There’s no simple way to tell what kind of picture this is, simply because it’s its own kind of picture.
How does this picture make you feel?
I think many people would agree when I say that this image really contradicts our vision of portraits, and for that, I think I feel unsettled. Not by the image, but by how many other ways there could possibly be to make portraits as abstract as this. You could also say that this photo makes me feel rather satisfied, it’s pleasing to look at and I enjoyed describing it.
If you could talk to the artist, what three questions would you ask him?
I would ask something along the lines of:
“Why did you keep the objects in the back of the frame in the picture, and not move them out?”
“What was your thought process when creating this image?”
“Why did you use the specific objects that you did when creating this image?”
How does some basic research help you understand the picture and the artist’s practice? How does your understanding of the picture change/improve?
Lucas Blalock is known for his artwork through the theme “Intentional Photoshop Fails”. This theme of work helps us realise that the image above, while photoshopped, is still either unnoticeable or subtle. I think my understanding of the image has improved, mainly because I now understand that this image is fake. Although my perception of the image and the artists other images has also changed. All of his images could have an aspect of unreality, although this doesn’t change the fact that it is a very nicely formed and pleasing image to look at.
How does this picture relate to the theme of Disguise?
I think this relates to the theme of disguise because it’s sort of improvised anonymity. There’s no person or thing that is trying to be disguised, but at first, you get the feeling that there is. I think that because the face is so abstract, you get the feeling of secrecy. The face seems like a paper mask that a young child would draw for himself, and that could link back to the theme. The fact that the artist used photoshop to create this image could also suggest that he used his photoshop as a sort of disguise against himself.