The Diptych

[Ray]

What I find lacking in many photos I see on this site and others, is a sense of narrative. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I once attended an art lecture on an exhibition of American impressionism, in Brisbane. The charming Australian lecturer demonstrated quite clearly that an American impressionist painting was worth far more than a thousand words. She talked non-stop.

I reckon the following diptych is also worth more than a thousand words. It's got a great narrative, but maybe it's a bit controversial. I hesitate in posting it and hope I don't get into trouble. One always has to be careful about offending religious sensibilities, so if any Buddhists viewing this are offended, I apologise in advance.

The guy on the left is a mummified Buddhist monk who is portrayed in the exact meditative position he was in when he died. His name, Loung Pordaeng of Koh Samui, Thailand.

The guy on the right is a transvestite, or perhaps more accurately a transgender.

Loung Pordaeng died about 30 years ago. The transgender was born about 30 years ago.

Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Your spirit always goes somewhere when you die; into a pig, or a frog, or a worm, or a prince, or a king, or a multinational executive officer.

My diptych has the narrative that the soul of the monk, when he died, was reborn into the person depicted on the right of my diptych. The soul was female. It caused Loung Pordaeng to become a monk and the male on the right to become a transgender.

Comments are welcome, but please don't asassinate me.

[attachment=15884:Monk___K...6_5_copy.jpg]

[byork]

Well Ray, I,ve seen you post this before in another thread, but thought at the time you were having a go at everybody....so it seems maybe not. Anyway, I know of 1 or 2 anglo saxon aussies who have converted to Buddhism that would relate to exactly what you are suggesting here with the reincarnation thing. Nevertheless, I come from the Charles Darwin theory of evolution school that requires a more reasoned argument. I must confess to being somewhat homophobic in the past, but have had that battered out of me by the misses, whose sister had twins. One boy is an absolute sportsman who will represent his country in some sort of sport in the future that has loved digging holes and building things since the day he was born. The other has been labeled a shirt lifter from about 3, and as they are now around 10 years old has done nothing to suggest otherwise.

The theory being that one twin will suck the hormones out of the other, resulting in one being overly butch leaving the other effeminate. Anyway, I'm going with that theory!!

Cheers
Brian

[David Sutton]

Hello Ray. While I don't find images apparently without narrative lacking, when there is a juxtaposition, a narrative, a story, I do linger over the image and contemplate the meaning it holds. It can be a much more interesting experience. With a photo that has controversial subject matter the question I ask is whether it shows disrespect, and I don't think your image does at all.
On the other hand I feel uneasy when a narrative is imposed on photos of real people by an artist or curator. But that's just me. I can see several narratives that would work with your diptych. Just not yours   I would leave it a bit more open and just state the facts and let the viewer find their own story. Something like: "The man on the left is a mummified Buddhist monk who is portrayed in the exact meditative position he was in when he died about 30 years ago. His name, Loung Pordaeng of Koh Samui, Thailand. The man on the right is a trangender, born about 30 years ago".
Cheers, David

[Ray]

Hello Ray. While I don't find images apparently without narrative lacking, when there is a juxtaposition, a narrative, a story, I do linger over the image and contemplate the meaning it holds. It can be a much more interesting experience. With a photo that has controversial subject matter the question I ask is whether it shows disrespect, and I don't think your image does at all.
On the other hand I feel uneasy when a narrative is imposed on photos of real people by an artist or curator. But that's just me. I can see several narratives that would work with your diptych. Just not yours   I would leave it a bit more open and just state the facts and let the viewer find their own story. Something like: "The man on the left is a mummified Buddhist monk who is portrayed in the exact meditative position he was in when he died about 30 years ago. His name, Loung Pordaeng of Koh Samui, Thailand. The man on the right is a trangender, born about 30 years ago".
Cheers, David

You have a point. But I recall many occasions when artsists have been questioned about the deep meaning of their works by interviewers, and the artistis have been flummoxed. Sometimes the interviewers have suggested certain meanings and the artists have responded, 'maybe you're right. I never thought of that'.

I just wanted to make plain from the start that reincarnation is a theme in this diptych.

[Jeremy Payne]

Seems a bit forced to me ... the narrative seems imposed upon rather than flowing from the images.

[EdRosch]

While there's nothing in this  Diptych that I find offensive,  it visually reads as a non sequitur.  That is, without the extensive narrative, the underlying premise is not apparent and the two images to not seem related in the least.  There needs to be some sort of visual linkage between the two images that tie them together such that an observant viewer would have an interpretive hook by which to derive the meaning intended.

As it stands, it reads more as a (somewhat banal) statement of asceticism contrasted with hedonism than the meditation on reincarnation that seem to have been intended.

I would also comment that the transgendered individual is not obviously, or even subtly (to my eye), transgendered, so that needs to be made more visually apparent for this to work.

[JeffKohn]

I would never have gotten your narrative without it being explained, so to me that says it doesn't really work. The narrative that came to mind when I first saw this was quite different, given that the monk appears to be doing something other than meditating due to the placement of his hands and direction of his gaze relative to the other picture...

[cmi]

Watching with astonishment...