Durynek's landscape photography retains its unity amidst the chaotic flow and endlessness of the world that is immediately given, grasping and forming while also distinctly framing separate objects in nature, producing a tension between unity and composition in each landscape.
Durynek's landscape photography retains its unity amidst the chaotic flow and endlessness of the world that is immediately given, grasping and forming while also distinctly framing separate objects in nature, producing a tension between unity and composition in each landscape. The work also reveals the distance between the photographer's body and the ground, the passage of time between the camera's capture of a moment in time, and the photographer's awareness of the photographic process. The photographs demonstrate Durynes ongoing inquiry into the possibilities of the photographic process, the possibilities of documenting an ideal, and the desire to place the subject in the landscape.The most striking aspect of the work is the space between the photograph and the landscape. It is a space that is in a sense at the same time artificial and natural. The photographs are made of photographic paper, which is the same material as the landscape. The photographs are printed on aluminum, a medium that Durynek uses to print the images and that he uses to work with the metal film that he uses as a kind of overlay. This process is quite different from the traditional photographic process, in which the photographer's hand is emphasized as the means by which the photographic process is achieved. In this case, the photographer's hand is made visible in order to create a layer of textural effects, a kind of shadowing of the image. In this way, Durynek's photographs follow the line of the horizon line, the line that separates the horizon from the horizon. This line is not only an optical illusion, but also a physical one: The line is the line of the camera, the line of the horizon. Durynek's photographs follow this line because of the way they are printed, but the line is also a line of reality.In this way, Durynek's photographs follow the line of the horizon line. They also follow the line of the horizon because of their representation, which is based on the photographic process. In this way, they are not simply photographs. They are also landscape photographs.
Durynek's landscape photography retains its unity amidst the chaotic flow and endlessness of the world that is immediately given, grasping and forming while also distinctly framing separate objects in nature, producing a tension between unity and composition in each landscape. The effect is of a world that is simultaneously unknowable and incomprehensible.The effect of the exhibition was that of a portrait of a collective unconscious, a vision of a society in which the mystery of individual existence is understood and felt as a collective feeling of presence. The atmosphere of this world was a mixture of awareness and awareness, as well as a sense of apprehension and recognition. The most striking images were those that seemed to portray the most fundamental aspects of nature, such as the structure of the earth, the forms of animals, and the behavior of people, as well as the human body. The most distinctive image in the show was a sequence of two photographs, one of the entrance to the museum and one of the roof of the exhibition hall. The image is a close-up of a lighted doorway, in which the light is visible only through a gap in the glass, the only part of the photograph visible. In this way, the photograph reveals the empty interior of the museum, the empty space that is the museum. The image is a fragment of a real space, a real space that is totally closed off and is thus a metaphor for the silence of the world.The photographs of the entrance to the museum, on the other hand, reveal a space that is open and inviting, a space that is not closed off, but opened up. The image is a close-up of a mirror, but also a close-up of the spectator, who sees himself reflected in the mirror, as if in a glass. The spectator is the one who takes part in the exhibition, and in this respect, the exhibition is a reflection on the individual viewer. This is what Durynek's landscape photographs do. They give an individual self a more or less permanent place in the world. They remind us that there is a difference between the individual who sees himself reflected in the mirror, and the individual who sees himself reflected in the mirror.
For example, in the series Dour (Eros), 1994–95, Durynek photographed the ruins of a Roman villa in the midst of the eruption of Vesuvius, the eruption that precipitated the eruption of Vesuvius, which was the subject of a work that he called Dour (the round). This work, which he exhibited in 1993 at the Guggenheims Artists Space in New York, is an homage to the artists own work, which has always been rooted in the idea of the round as a symbol of the whole, a symbol of a self-contained universe, and an expression of the desire to inhabit all that is round. The piece has the same power as the original, but one that is different, a way of seeing in which we become aware of our own visual identity, of our bodies as we become aware of our surroundings. In this sense, Duryneks landscape photographs are also a reflection on the mortality of the world and its desire to be immortalized, but one that is far from nostalgic. The individual images are fragmented and fragmented, each revealing something that has been lost—a sense of lost memory, of lost connection with the past, of lost selfhood.Durynek's photography can be seen as a means of confronting the discontinuity of the past and the fragmentation of the present. In this way, it can be seen as a reflection on the impossibility of an absolute present, of a moment when everything that is known can be seen and felt. The future of this world is uncertain: As we become aware of the fragment of our past, of the fact that we are not living in the final, perfect moment, our future is uncertain, too. In this sense, Duryneks photography is a reflection on the uncertain future of humanity, of the uncertainty of all that is human.
In the end, it's the fine balance between order and chaos that makes Duryneks photographs so compelling, and their ambiguity makes them so compelling.
Durynek's landscape photography retains its unity amidst the chaotic flow and endlessness of the world that is immediately given, grasping and forming while also distinctly framing separate objects in nature, producing a tension between unity and composition in each landscape.The exhibition included a variety of work in the traditional sense, but this exhibition was divided into three parts, each of which was presented as a single photograph. In the first section, the three photographs were arranged in a grid, forming a field of the same size on the wall. They were arranged in sequence: one on top of the other, in front of it, and so on. The grids were broken up by vertical stripes and diagonal ones, which created a wide-open landscape. The first photograph had a horizontal strip running from the bottom of the grid to the edge, but the second one was slightly wider. The third was a little wider, and so the grid was broken up again, and so on, until the final photograph had the same width as the first. The idea was that the images were each framed by a different grid, and the same was true of the other three photographs. The fact that the grid was broken up here, that the grid was broken up, was also an element in the idea, which was also the theory of the grid, and the theory of landscape. The three photographs, in fact, all had the same grid, and the idea of the grid was the theory of landscape.The second section of the show consisted of photographs taken in a different place, as if they were taking place in another place. This was not a completely new idea. But in this case it was a new idea that was at once simple and complex, and yet could be understood in a simple way. The grid was broken up in the first photograph, and the grid was broken up again in the second and third photographs. The grid was broken up in the first photograph, and the grid was broken up in the second and third photographs. The third photograph was the same as the last, and the grid was broken up again. The idea was that the grid was broken up in the first photograph, and that the grid was broken up in the second and third photographs.
©2024 Lucidbeaming