#lo21

July 5th 2018

I spent some time yesterday making some improvements to the presentation I gave last week at the Inter-institutional Symposium. I felt the overall content was good but I needed to give more context my practice, so I inserted another slide citing Dean, Barth and Irigaray (slide 5).

Outcome: 

The Presentation went well despite the incompatibility of playing a video within Powerpoint on the computer at NUA. I had already tested the presentation at home when it ran smoothly, so I played the video separately from the slide show and then returned to it again afterwards. 

I received verbal feedback from RH that I gave a ‘terrific presentation, that was articulate and gave a good overview’. He noted that there was a small typographic error in a slide, so I will look closer at that. 

JC also gave positive feedback and suggested the book entitled ‘Photocinema’ in NUA library which I will follow up.

SH will collate all the tutors comments and provide a feedback sheet in the near future.

I felt very positive again after this presentation, it was great to have the opportunity to refine and present again so near to my first last week in Cambridge. I remember now, how stressful I found the short Pecha Kucha presentation in a previous unit on the course and realised that I have become much more confident and clearer about my practice in the intervening time.

This MA Presentation for NUA audience is available to view at the link below: 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jVdPg-wB9MzuyBWdNhaTeMhqzw1OvQaj

The accompanying notes to the slideshow can be viewed at the link below:

June 27th 2018

I gave my 10min presentation (followed by 5min Q and A) in the first group under the heading Performative technologies/Digital tensions. I felt the presentation went well, I ran to time and I had positive feedback. A conversation followed in the break with a ARU tutor who spoke of how he enjoyed that my work was orientated around the local and everyday and how he felt this was a positive contrast to much current research.  

Outcomes:

The experience felt significant since I have never given a presentation like this before. I was aware that the majority of the audience knew nothing of my practice so it was a challenge to give the context and development of my practice in 10mins. However I enjoyed that process and I felt that as a result I now have a clearer and more concise picture of my MA Project. I will be able to modify this piece of work for my NUA presentation next week. 

I felt confident when talking about my work and enjoyed the opportunity to do so. I will definitely take up any further opportunities to talk more publicly about my practice and will use the technique of using significant images of my work alongside points that the image represents as way to order my thoughts about my practice in the future.

My presentation can be viewed at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RBHhx6QiUUi3SQe5Wwa10Iym3xiYxXHA/view?usp=sharing

My accompanying notes can be viewed at:

with MW

June 21st  

Animation:

I showed my Green Sway animation to the group and received the following outcomes:

KB thought for him it suggested the passage of time but he didn’t like the ‘stuttering’ effect as he watched.

Several people suggested that I show multiple animations alongside each other to give more of a complete picture of my perception of the barn and time.

KB suggested that I might show the work at a bigger scale than the a laptop or ipad screen.

Book:

I compared my printed images on rice paper and those on the German etching paper and shared the pro’s and con’s of a conventional book against a concertina book format.

The group generally agreed with me about using rice paper for its fragile and weightless qualities which were a good fit with the images I am printing. MW also suggested that using such paper would help to demand respect for the book as an art object.

The group had a preference for a concertina style book because it didn’t make any visual reference to a flick book, which a series of sequential images in a conventional book layout may.

My concern that the printed image could be seen partially through the paper wasn’t seen as an issue by the group since the images were always seen from the front.

The pro’s and Con’s of a concertina book made of Rice paper and a book comprising individual pages made from German Etching paper:

Concertina book using rice paper:

Successfully picks up the detail of each image and holds an even matt blackness,

The paper echoes the fragile and weightless nature of the images

While the paper is more easily damaged the concertina style makes it possible to have a double thickness of paper to each page which will help improve it’s strength

A printing shadow of each image showed through the paper from reverse side

The cost of approx £27 for 36 images plus £28 for a hard cover. 

Bound book in German Etching paper:

Picks up the detail and holds the even blackness of each image

The comparatively heavy weight of the paper feels to be a contradiction to the fragile images, though this could act as a material anchor to them

No shadow of the image was seen on the back of each page.

It could easily suggest a flick book which is in opposition of the slow-turn-the-page act of looking, but could also be an analogue version of my animation

June 12th 2018

I took the opportunity while invigilating at the show today, to reflect on my work and to talk with visitors to gain feedback. 

Outcomes.

With regard to the display of my work:

The surface of the front face of the display box was marked with oils from skin contact/make-up deposited around the viewing hole. In the future if I had to encase the screen again because of extreme reflection, I would consider painting the surface with black paint so that the marks were not visible. As an interim measure I have painted the area with a fresh coat of paint every few days.

The display outlined difficulties in power and instruction on how to switch on and off my piece. An email was circulated without my instruction to turn power on and off from the powerpoint, however this meant that the ipad battery was drained and the looping software stopped working. The work needs to be controlled from the ipad, I left instructions at the  desk for the inviliators.

For those who wore glasses the viewing hole cut into the wood proved problematic as the hard surface sometimes made it uncomfortable to look through. On reflection I would consider fronting the box with either a softer flexible material or incorporate a flexible eye piece as used with eg camcorders. 

I became very aware that this piece was not accessible to wheelchair users as the plinth was too high, this could be easily solved by lowering the height.

One person looked around the display box as if that were the work, I needed to point out the viewing hole or they would not have seen the work.

Some people looked through the viewing hole but didn’t stay long enough to see the work. This may have been because they looked just as the screen was at the black transition point and assumed there was nothing to see but obviously not each member of an audience, for what ever reason, engages with a piece of work. However in the future I would include on my label how long the animation lasts and the fact that it is a looped piece of moving image. 

Feedback through conversation:

I feel increasingly that I find the most useful way to get feedback is talking directly with people in an open and relaxed way. In this way those who are happy to engage can give useful insights as to their experience of the work. People are often more interested when they can ask questions directly with the maker. 

I spoke at length with two people today of which both reflected back to me that they found watching my work a ‘relaxing’ and ‘calming’ experience. They were fascinated that the images were recorded at full moon. As a result of the work they talked about making a point of taking time to look more closely at things.  

With regard to the show:

I feel it would be useful if the invigilation desk had a clear notice stating that the invigilators were connected to the exhibition so that people didn’t confuse us with the cathedral stewards who stood a few feet away from us. A lot of the people who passed through the space were on cathedral business and were not looking at the exhibition.

June 7th 2018

I brought my prints from the Nunnsyard exhibition as a way to give some visual context to my work and discussed with MW my inhale/exhale video which still feels the main concern to my current practice. We discussed that I don’t need to make more new work but to focus on how the work is presented. 

I will consider the pro’s and con’s of screen size, back/front projection, the requirements of a space which best suits my research concerns and the impact each may have on the viewers experience. While I have touched on this many times when I make work, I will collate my results so far and consider possible developments.

We discussed having a book as a physical object. I have thought about this for a while as a way to give balance to the virtual nature of moving image. I spoke about how the turning of a page to reveal a single image at a time, embeds the unfolding of time in the act of looking.

May 4th 2018

A useful group tutorial which included considering Learning Outcomes and gave me an opportunity to have 15mins to informally present my current work to those not familiar with it and receive feedback. I chose to show my WIP inhale-exhale looped video piece. 

Outcomes

MW spoke in connection with Learning Outcome 21, which relates to specialist and non specialist audiences. He suggested producing several variations of an artist statement, each aimed at specialist and non specialist audiences, in order to communicate the intention behind the work in a way that enables it to be best received. 

MW also suggested collecting audience feedback when exhibiting work, as a way to gain qualitative data. When we research we must be clear on why an audience would be considered specialist or non-specialist.

It was the first time I had seen the piece playing on a large screen, it somehow felt more substantial and demanding. I was reminded of my research about displaying my video work, where I viewed the moving image through a series of screens each with a rectangular hole in. I was drawn into the work, because the image was smaller and my relationship with it felt, consequently more intimate.  

SH suggested I made more explicit connections with, and for me to reflect on the camera obscura work I was involved in before the MA course.

March 22nd 2018

Met with GB and RB to discuss having an exhibition together at Nunns Yard Gallery. From our conversation we identified strong visual overlaps in our work. We chose our ideal times and dates for a show and will contact the owner to book a slot if it’s available. We proposed a title for the show ‘Carving out a space’ which resonated for us all, not only in our practice but also in positioning our practice in our lives.