Revision to my previous post, in which I wrote, “I do want to tell graduate schools what they’re looking at, even if I’m more interested in suggesting different ways of looking at the pieces.”

What justification is there for making conventional images of objects, when my interest in the object is not best portrayed by conventional images?

As I wondered, I realized that I was imagining that grad schools expect to be given images that take the conventional object-documentation approach, so I was looking for something that would suit these (imagined, though maybe accurate) expectations.

But: images can, and arguably should, bring a juror into my thought process in a compelling way. My approach should showcase the priorities in my work well. I’m interested in the qualities of object, space, and experience.

So: an approach that is most descriptive of object and fails to describe space and experience – which will be mentioned in my writing – wouldn’t be appropriate.

Cool.