Patients

“Patients” began from looking into photographic history and in particular post-mortem photographs. It’s a journey through the modern art timeline and an analysis of the portraiture canon.

The portrait is traditionally an interaction between the viewer and the eyes of the actor. The direction of the actor’s gaze allows the actor to determine where the viewer is to look.

The post-mortem photograph seems to defy portraiture in that the actor is not alive to interact with the viewer. Of course this is a contradiction in itself as the life imaged in the photograph is lost at the moment of capture. It would seem, however, that we generally place some importance on whether the actor was alive or dead at the prior moment.

Therefore, what if the actor is alive but their eyes are closed? Does one assume rest or death? Does one attempt to interact with the shut eyes or does one become the voyeur and take advantage of viewing without being matched with a gaze.

What if the viewer does not know if the subject is alive? Does the viewer have the evidence to conclude they are alive? What separates such a photograph from a post mortem photograph captured in the 19th century?

As the author of the series at its conclusion, I rarely look upon the images and see the people without life. I think about death when I see them, but I think about death anyway and this could simply be my mindset. Would I react differently to the images if I had not created the works and didn’t know the people?

I think about the portrait as a genre, as an artform, as a memory. I think about who and I think about why. If I can make others think, then I have achieved what I strive for.