Tag: yung cheng lin

7906https://embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js

Yung Cheng Lin – 7906 (2017)

At first glance, it’s stunningly obvious that the composition here was guided by the rule of thirds.

Here are super-imposed rule of thirds guidelines for reference:

I was expecting to discover when the lines on whatever sort of court this is are askew.

Interestingly, it turns out that it’s a bit different than I thought. The rule of thirds lines relate to the positioning of the subject. (Also, the angle of the demarcation between light and shadow is very nearly at the same angle to which the painted lines on the court are wawkerjawed.

What I didn’t expect was that the models knickers are so well matched to the white paint on the court. Subtle and at very nearly dead center in the frame, it’s easy to miss.

It’s also a brilliant move to position the model so that her body is ever so slightly positioned toward the bottom of the lower left to upper right diagonal to balance out the paint (positive space) vs the unpainted area (negative space).

Yung Cheng Lin (aka 3cm) – [↑] 4.420 (2013); [←] 2401 (2013); [→] 9197 (2014); [↓] 6381 (2013).

When people distinguish between porn and not-porn, the difference is usually framed in terms of what is shown and what remains unseen.

A better question might: what does the manner of presentation tell us about how we are supposed to see what we are being shown?

There’s honestly too many things I could go on and on about with 3cm: his mindfuck mastery of color; precocious Photoshop manipulations, clever visual puns, recurrent images/themes, my guess that his process is highly improvisational and a repudiation of all the lazy ass characterizations of his work as ‘surreal’.

That’s all lagniappe.

Positioned as it is in the no man’s land between capital-A art and small-a art, I think there’s an instinct to round up. I’m not opposed to that. Not all of 3cm’s work is good, but almost none of it is crap outright.

What I think people have talked themselves out of is the implication of the sexual subtext in the work. The sexual subtext is not only the raison d’etre it’s much, much more than a subtext, it’s shockingly pornographic.

There aren’t even three nipples in roughly a thousand images. But that doesn’t matter, read the space between what you see explicitly in the images with the huggable elephant in the room of what the image is ultimately fixated upon. It’s a little like reading Shakespeare: read the first scene and then start over again and this time you’ll pretty much have it.

But here you aren’t searching for the rhythm as much as the correct tone. The space between what is explicit and what is implicit has a confessions of depravity feel to it. If you can stay in that space long enough, you’re initial response will probably be to blush. If you are like me though, you’ll be extremely turned on.