Looking and Seeing: Section Seven: Assignment: More Space

I've been focusing on space this week.  Besides setting my intention while out in the neighborhood, I've also taken to forums to seek feedback.  So far the response has been sparse:  one respondent noted a similar confusion.

I've also looked for additional text treatments on the subject (besides Karr and McQuade), but haven't yet found anything.  If anyone reading this knows of any, I would be grateful to hear from you.

I've gone back to review Karr's chapter and note these salient points:

To perceive space "become untethered so that vision can float and drift."  McQuade and Hall make a similar point about the mind and eye finding no singe spot to rest.  

"We are so used to looking at things that to see the absence of things can throw us off balance."  Is then space simply the absence of things?  Is there any space truly absent of any thing?  At best I think we can say it is the relative absence of things.  Complete absence is theoretically impossible.  That is afterwards implied: 

"When you manage to see objects as merely frames and anchors, space becomes the dominant visual element."  In other words, there are no images of space as space, but space in relation to objects.  

Any thoughts?

#

20 June

Feedback from the single respondent in the Flickr group was that none of the above could be considered Space as they contain strong elements that engage the eye, which should be left suspended.  One image that was suggested as embodying the concept of Space was this shot of beads of water on a car hood.  I'm not sure why the streak is not considered a strong line, like the black and white line above.  Both seem to engage the eye and pull it out of the frame. 

#