I entered a random title of someone’s post from my Reader feed as a search enquiry into the WordPress ‘Pexels Free Photos’ option. And I pasted the first picture that comes up into my page and then start… well, the following post.


Photo by DA on Pexels.com

So, from the search, Robert Greig’s post ‘poetry aside: snap‘ (that is a link, go and read that post, it’s better than this bollocks) we have this result.

A woman pretending to take a picture. I say ‘a woman’ because it looks to be, from the general shape and slenderness of the fingers and maybe the painted nails, although you can’t just go by that these days. He/she/they could be any of he/she/they, especially after me trying to make a serious and accurate analytical post, based on thinking about what I can see.

It’s obviously initially a more intuitive thing, and based on how you are conditioned to think by your age and all sorts of historic upbringing at first, rather than just properly looking at the facts. Especially once you start writing the facts you can actually see down, and think about what they do tell you for certain. Because then you realise you have assumed some things instead of it actually being as cut and dried as your early 1970’s formed intuitive reaction is telling you.

But, aside from being there and poking him/her/them with a stick and seeing if I
a/ get decked
b/ get screamed at
or c/ both,
and finding out from them directly, we should go with ‘person’.

But I can see one thing for sure. This person is not really a photographer, based on the way they are holding the camera. Or, if they are, they’re a novice, because experienced photographers would hold their left hand cradling the lens from underneath–instead of looking like they have no further use for it and delicately holding the camera uselessly with it–giving access to the aperture and focus rings on the lens with thumb and index finger–which also gives extra stability to your stance and helps to keep the camera still, by naturally squeezing your elbows in toward your body…

Sorry, betraying my history in the photo trade for a number of years there… I can also tell you that the camera is probably around 1964 – 1970, it being an earlier FL lens mount system Canon camera rather than the FD mount (which itself was succeeded by the EF lens mount when Canon launched their autofocus EOS cameras in 1987)…

Sorry, that was super, super nerdy. Can’t remember what my wife told me to do today as she was nipping out the door for work this morning, can remember the Canon FL models of camera that were mainly sold just around the time I was born.

But it looks like it’s a prop, and despite first impressions of the photo depicting a spontaneous moment, it is styled to look like this is a super-trendy, retro, classic film camera-using moment.

That’s probably ‘cool’ on one of them InstaTok or TikGram things at the moment. I wouldn’t know.

But anyway… aside from that, absolutely the first thing that jumped out at me about this photo is that this person does not appear to have a face.

I did wonder if it was simply obscured by the camera, so I ran the picture through my highly sophisticated CSI Photo Magic on Telly Aha Gotcha (not available in real life) app, and came up with what is behind the camera for you.

The left hand is invisible because the person is scratching their chin. If they have a chin.

So, it looks like I was right, this person has no face.

I would imagine that would make it pretty difficult to make a living as a model. But perhaps there’s a lucrative living to be earned in making yourself available to this niche market, to photographers who only want to hire you specifically for their ‘person pretending to take a picture’ stock photographs. I mean, you could 100% guarantee to them that you won’t spoil their picture by accidentally getting your face into it, from whatever angle they want to take the picture at.

”I can absolutely promise my nose won’t stick out from behind the camera. I haven’t got a nose

I wonder what other gigs you could get? Perhaps you could do babysitting? You could keep a baby entertained–but admittedly perhaps mildly perplexed or disconcerted–for ages, by holding your hands up in front of your not-a-face going ‘Where am I?’ removing your hands and saying ‘No, not here either…’

Bank robber would be good to.

‘Can you describe the thief?’

‘Slim, dressed in white, about 5′ 6″, straw hat with a teddy bear badge on it..’

‘Great, you’re obviously very observant.

‘Thanks’

‘Now, eyes, maybe the colour, big or small nose?’

‘No idea, they didn’t have a face.’

‘Ah, ummm.. no face? At all?’

‘No face. It was all hair. With just hair underneath that hair. If you can get the CSI app, they’ll look at the video…’

‘OK… well, male, female?’

Ah. Well… once you start really thinking about it….’

I can also deduce, because using that word makes me feel very Sherlock Holmes–I could also ‘suspect’, ‘hypothesise’ or (and it was a close run thing because it’s an epic word) ‘extrapolate’–that this person is childless. Or at least, has not entertained children, theirs or not, in the previous, say, five seconds. How can we tell this?

White clothing.

That is still white.

No finger prints. Of chocolate. Or anything else that looks like it might be chocolate but you’d rather not try it out to see if it is chocolate or something else brown and sticky. No smears of ice cream, tears, vomit or indeed any stinging or otherwise possibly highly toxic vegetation hanging off it anywhere.

Anyway, kids are probably afraid of this person, being as they have no face.

‘Hey kids, keep the screaming down. And what are you running away from?’

“WE DON’T KNOW, BUT IT HAIRED AT US!”

Tricky just living in the modern world without a face though I expect. Driving Licence and Passports must be a nightmare to get. Hard to make friends too.

“Hey, you’re cool, give me your number, maybe we could do a Facetime”

“Ummmm…”

Wasn’t there briefly some pop act, whose trademark ‘look’ was having a fringe so long it obscured their face? Hang on…

Googles… ‘pop act with long fringe’….

Hmm… need to work on my google-fu.

Ah, memory triggered, she was ironically called ‘Sia’. Although she obviously had a face. Well, a mouth at least, that’s how she sang. No eyes and no nose though.

‘How did she smell?’

No, not falling for that one.

See ya. Or, and I would understand completely, perhaps not.

8 thoughts on “analysis and robust theories = art; snap

  1. You’re waiting on something profound from me aren’t you?

    I believe Sia does a bit of moonlighting as a standard lamp. Glowlite in the mouth. Soft diffuse light they say.

    Us Aussies come up with some bright ideas we do……

    Like

  2. This was hilarious — the first thing I thought was it looked like Diane Keaton and then after the terrifying revelation I thought of an alternate universe of Diane Keatons with no faces, and that’s the most disturbed I’ve been in a long time so thanks!!

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s