_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Image has its symbols, some of which belong more to photography and others to painting; writing has its own, as does music, dance or exhibitionism. What happens when an image is deconstructed and its symbols are at the same time interpreted as an input to create a completely different message, a message presented in written language, a language expressed with its own concepts, rules and symbols, different to those of photography? Would the reader recognize the underlying link between a photographic work and a literary work inspired on the former? Up to what point? This issue can also be considered the other way around: constructing a photographical message from the deconstruction of a written work, a short story, news or poem that is completed with an inspired photographical work. What happens if we merge both works into one? That is also what we want 1:1 to signify. As was said once, the work of art “constitutes a meeting point of different intents” and in 1:1 we believe in the artistic virtues of the love triangle photographer-writer-reader.

different ways the importance of the story itself, or perhaps of the historical moment, of the author, the reader, the icons and symbols used in artistic creation as basis for its appropriate revision, reading, enjoyment and learning. Historicists, formalists, deconstructionists, hermeneutics, semiotics… strive to understand and help to understand the value, the real mystery of the contribution of a creative work.

Perhaps, the approximation to a work is in some sense simpler for the artist than for its reader, as he doesn’t need to decode it - interpreting the historical context in which it takes place - nor necessarily understand the complex (or not) mental processes that operate while he conceives and develops to express, represent, show, teach or moralize with his work.

However, even for an artist time goes on, currents succeed each other and from them he learns and with them he evolves, and now, when all of art has turned many times around itself like a sock, almost no one, not artist, critic nor reader, dares look down on the value of symbols nor the symbolism of a creation, nor the languages structured by those symbols.