Above is Maynard Dixons "Forgotten Man": on below I have "detuned" it.
Here are some bullets;
- The idea is to subordinate the smaller variations or details to the larger shape on which they ride. The passage above says DARK JACKET with shadows, rather than, dark jacket WITH SHADOWS. My bowdlerized version below says "DARK JACKET with SHADOWS". I have placed as much emphasis on the folds of the jacket as the larger shape of the jacket (the larger form) itself. I also revved up the shirt so it is overstated. It is no longer a variation on the value structure of the larger form. Now the shirt is over assertive and leaves its place in the structure. The shirt now calls too hard for our attention for it to stay on the surface and be part of the form of the "forgotten Man".
- You can look at any scene in two ways, piecemeal, that is as an inventory of its parts, or you can see it broadly. Seeing broadly, detail is minimized and the whole scene is apprehended in its entirety. In my version on I have installed a "piecemeal" sort of vision. I have cluttered the scene up with lots of inessential details, that distract from the design. The surface of my version bristles with nasty curlicues and and insistent annoying doo-dads.
- Vision is busier than the Maynard Dixon. His picture draws power from its spare and elemental presentation. This formalizing and distancing makes the image read as something special, an altered, more acute, and discreet vision. My version over on the right looks like head comix from the 60's. All of that visual "noise" reads as vulgar, dirty, and cluttered. How the image is presented........ is the picture, not the verbal description idea of image itself.