Looking and Seeing: Section Seven: Space and Dot in Space

Dragon Mart:  Space?

Miksang, speaks of space and dot in space. The art equivalents are negative and positive space.   This assignment begins with Space (negative space).

Space
Space is everywhere and nowhere.  The authors suggest that photographers work with visual space - not physical space.  This is an exercise in foregrounding the background.  It helps, they say, to try and put away common conceptions of space, namely: 1) space as what is between things, and 2) space as what surrounds things.  Both start with things and try to identify that which is not the thing.  Space is treated as something in relationship with things, or something that is not a thing.

However, despite their entreaties, it seems impossible to escape these conceptions.  Here’s how the author define the approach:

So here’s the key: in shooting space, invert the relationship between the figure and the ground. Now the figure―the dot―serves as support for dynamic space. In effect, the dot becomes a supporting element. It recedes to the visual background, and the space element assumes the function of foreground. 

In the exploration of making an equivalent image of space, there is always an aspect of the dot. In a dot-in-space image, the dot is the main focus. In a space image, the dot aspect becomes “a minor player compared with space. 

In terms of a pure space image, the dot usually, though not always, occupies an edge or corner of the image. It serves as an anchor or a diving board for the space. Sometimes the dot is more diffuse within the space. For example, in a water image, the trace of cloud formations or ripples or even tonal values can serve as a diffuse dot, subtly anchoring the space.

As I read them, a space image cannot exist without some sort of discernible feature, some dot, some bit of positive space that accentuates the centrality of the negative. Basically, it seems like we are seeking to produce are images where there is a little bit of something in a corner of the image, most of which is made up of a single color, texture, and or pattern. If the background were made up of lots of things, then we'd be noticing the things rather than the space.  Like this image from Dragon Mart:

We come back to the need for contrast, something I have been arguing since the first color exercise.  Solid, uninterrupted color is completely unremarkable. In order for the eye and mind to take any notice, there needs to be a bit of tension, some notable difference.  What seems to be happening with space is minimizing, but not completely, eradicating the contrast.

In terms of being able to recognize space perceptions, the authors suggest paying attention to the reaction of eye and mind. If they don’t land on one spot, but are held in a kind of suspension, this is space.

The authors preview Level 2 practice by noting space has color - so what kind of perception have you experienced?  Color, they say, is more powerful, more direct.  Space is subtle, with the mind relaxed “into the overall-ness.”

Question:  Is the photo at the top of this blog post representative of space as conceived in Miksang?  The angle of the image highlights the ceiling and the "space" between the walls and ground.  This is quite obviously a kind of physical space, a physical emptiness.  This is antithetical to Miksang.  If we consider how the mind reads the image, then it looks like an image of space, with nothing for the mind or eye to hold on to.  You're left floating in the image with nothing to lock onto. This is made more evident by cropping out the bit of signage at bottom.

#