Thoughts on Ryan Trecartin's A Lossless Fall

I am interested in the text that has been created in this document - specifically the instructions that create the images. These instructions are a hybrid of verbal and visual cues. The visual cues are instantly familiar symbols of popular culture but their verbal counterparts often less so (understandably, as they are visual symbols first) - for example "a 'step and repeat' wall of event sponsors" which Trecartin adapts to "a kind of 'step and move-on'". An "Ed Hardy hat" doesn't really read unless you know that's what it is  - and yet its image is ready and known - easier to categorise.

Where the verbal content really connects is in its humour - all based on extravagant appropriation of (conventionally) disparate codes, at once naive and cynically knowing, e.g:

I want to Pin Ashland with 3 credit Card substitutions: Based visually on BRIC which is an acronym used for Brazil, Russia, India, and China: when talking about them as countries in a similar stage of newly advanced economic developments. I want to parallel this with my feelings about New Jersey, Florida, and California NFC: Which I think are states at a similar stage of self-reflective premature learned tween angst self marketing and club humor.

The instructions are intended as a conduit from the dispersed contemporary world of images that form our cultural context to Trecartin's improbably unified photo collages that appear in W magazine. Although these images are great, the instructions suggest even more (even though in the images they are more or less dutifully carried out) - and they are a fantastic performance of the author's collage-like imagination, while remaining entirely functional, purposeful, directive.

It is interesting to read these words in the context of this project, as not only do they reveal Trecartin's process but also clarify the sources of the images used.  Because of the supremely focused image-forming activity at work, the language play almost happens spontaneously, as a by-product. The ground for meaning is the form: 'fashion shoot photo' and the verbal/visual work is part of a drawn out communication mechanism  like a slow motion thought process between impetus and speech.

Does this suggest a parallel model where the verbal language is doing this work on its own terms, poetically? Or does our intensely imagistic context-culture prohibit a form made of words alone?