Why two pictures? One is not enough to stand alone? Mind you, this is not a diptych, these 2 pictures are not here to provide support one to another.
They're two, simply because I want to double your pleasure and attention for this photographic expression residing at the very profound of Stela Patrulescu.
Why do I get so absolute and intimate (some would think) about this? Because otherwise I cannot explain the continuous, almost nightmarish, envy I feel in front of the clear and direct photographic compositions (or decompositions) of Stela's reality … which is also ours, mine, but I am too blind to see
And if I wanted to turn around the issue back to my overfed ego, I would have asked: why am I so blind? But, for just this time, I will stop talking about me, and return to Stela's work.
If narration is one of the important ingredients of meaningful photography, then the short stories created instantly by Stela are photography's response to the neorealist cinema of nowadays, as well as to the socialist realism of the seventies, which both needed very long scenes to convey a message of doubtful impact. Aesthetic overdose leading to anaesthesia. Two or even three hours of mute film rolling to arrive from the gun to the rose, from the subhuman chaos to the ruler's order. Movie directors are very close to dictating (reading on our behalf) after all.
Just switch on the antonyms, the opposite notions, of the above and you will have the honest, unforced and poetic revelation of the eternal moments created by Stela. Her version of a surrounding world which evolves too fast to be understood and to create empathy. Her still images do exactly that: they dilate time for us to be able to overcome our handicap of visual anaesthesia (even blindness in my case) and to empathise with an action depleted, a low-adrenaline universe which will not make it to the news but it will make your days.
More on Stela Patrulescu