 |
The Sasse: Where love stories develop between art and viewer |
||||
|
|||||
How I Never Learned to Read |
|||||
I have a confession to make about how I read. I don't read the way I was taught. I move through the page the way I move through a room, taking in the whole before the parts. And somewhere in that movement something stops me. I go back. I look again. It's a quote, usually. A single sentence lifted out of the sea of words. I don't experience it as reading. I experience it as seeing. It took me a long time to understand why. Now I do. A quote and a photograph are the same act. Both are frames. Both say here, look at this, this is the thing that matters. Both require someone to move through the world in a particular state of attention, alert to the moment when something stops being ordinary and starts being true. And both demand the same discipline: knowing what to leave out. The photographer and the reader who stops at a quote are doing the same work. I don't mean that as a metaphor. I mean it literally. The frame is the idea. Everything inside it either earns its place or it doesn't. What gets excluded is as important as what stays. And when it works, when the composition is right, nothing inside the frame is competing with anything else. The elements are in the correct relationship to each other. The whole thing holds. That's what I'm recognizing when I stop at a sentence. Not that it glows. That it's composed. That someone found the edges, made the choices, got the weight distributed correctly. The sentence is balanced on its own center of gravity, and I can feel it. I'm dyslexic. The linear, sequential experience of language, word by word, left to right, is where it's hard. The automatic code most readers follow without thinking was never available to me. But what that built in me, in its place, is something I didn't have a name for until much later: the ability to see relationships. To read the structure of a thing before I read its content. To take in the whole frame before I take in the parts inside it. The camera made complete sense for a mind like mine. A 4x5 camera especially, slow, deliberate, compositional from the first moment. You don't hunt with a 4x5. You build. You consider how everything in the frame relates to everything else simultaneously. You wait not for something to happen but for everything to resolve. That's not a photographic technique I learned. It's how my brain works. And when I stand in front of a page and something stops me, when a sentence earns the attention my eye gives it, I'm doing the same thing. Reading the composition. Feeling the resolution. Recognizing that someone got the relationships right. The dyslexia didn't subtract and then reimburse. It built a particular kind of mind. One that sees composition the way other people hear rhythm, before thinking about it, before naming it, in the body before the brain. I spent fifty years looking through a lens. Then I started arranging other people's work on walls. Now, some mornings, I work in language. The tools changed completely. But here is what I keep finding true, and I offer it not as advice but as something that surprises me every time: The seeing doesn't change. And this took longer to understand than anything the camera taught me: The frame is never the finish line. A photograph with no one to stop in front of it is just a boundary. A quote with no reader is just words in the correct relationship. A painting hung on a wall in an empty room is waiting, not complete. What the frame actually does, what all that discipline of exclusion and composition and resolved relationships is finally for, is to create the conditions for an encounter. The encounter is the thing. When someone stops in front of a work that has gotten the composition right, something happens that neither the work nor the viewer could generate alone. It doesn't live in the painting. It doesn't live in the person standing before it. It develops in the space between them, in the moment of recognition, the yes, that, and it belongs entirely to that meeting. That's the love story. Not the artist's intention. Not the viewer's history. What emerges when the two enter the right relationship with each other, something neither carried in alone, something both of them made without planning to. The whole becomes greater than the parts because the whole includes that third thing. The encounter. The completion that happens on the viewer's side of the frame. This is why we frame at all. Not to display our seeing. But to give someone else a place to stand where their own seeing can find what was always waiting. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
