After some delay, here are my reflections on the Mid-point review presentations.
- Get the Voice over sound level and the video clip sound level right or no-one will pick up on the point of the pieces..
- Put even less into the presentation in therms of images/clips but talk a bit more about context.
- I didn’t reference any artists or any ‘affect’ quotes….I noticed that….
- Maybe the emphasis seen IS the emphasis I really want to demonstrate.
- Echoing Dave Charlesworth…use better kit to make the work so it is clearer….AND decide what it is I want to make clearer….!
- Good link between wider work and practice is visible and this is good… just got to clarify to myself what I really want to say about it..
- I can use the re-projection idea successfully for future work but must make it clearer.
- Think about how to incorporate the muslin body projection overlay? Is this something I can use or was it just part of a process to fins out What it is I am doing?? Has it served its purpose?
- Cheer up! my voice is dreary and negative… I need to sound more confident…
- The two audiences focussed on different things….. Why might this be?
Generally, I found it incredibly useful looking at everyone’s work and hearing their critique, especially following on from some of the conversations we had during the Low Residency.
It was good to be with everyone again and I look forwards to next time. From the point of view of On-line learning it was also an intriguing and exciting exercise…. using Live Youtube Video feed, Google handouts and Skype all at the same time.
We were able to watch the presentations in the studio ( and so see our own work on the screen being viewed by the other students!), listen to the conversation, critique and background noise from the studio and feed our comments to Jonathan, via Skype text chat. He then relayed them to the rest of the group verbally and if if the comments werefeom on-line students we could read them too.
The timing meant that we were given the link just before those in the studio. This worked wellI could watch the presentation and then listen fully to the comments made by from the studio as well as comment and read the comments of others.
Of course, for my own presentation it was hard to do both at the same time but the beauty of the system is that their is a record of both conversations to use in this reflection! amazing really. All those BA crits. when I went home on the train and focussed o the one or two comments I remembered and had managed to write down.
We had a system where someone else use to ‘scribe’ for us but the chances were that , even the most dedicated used to actively engage in the discussion and not necessarily record the comments that we felt we most important. I find this interesting in itself from the point of view of :
- the process of archiving and live ‘record’.
- the ‘evidence’ of the process of the presentation
- the perspective of ‘witnessing’ the same event form these different points of view and mediated/ remediated through different methods, software and media
It reminds me of a conversation I had with Charles from the course, in the pub after the Low Res. Week. He was describing the Charlie Hebdo incident and how he had seen the live-feed of the gunmen in the street after the attack in the office. He was painting , I think, in his studio at the time….
His point was… ‘Was he a witness?” He had seen the event unfold, live and seen it on the screen….
I remember my father talking, similarly, about his experience of watching the SAS storming the Irainian Embassy siege in 1980 live on BBC when he had turned on to watch the snooker… Anyway, I digress, it really did feel as if I was there.
I actually had some quite difficult issues to resolve at home at the time, whilst I was involved in the presentations. They were unfolding as I watched and contributed to the presentations. My experience of the studio and the Skype group was ‘ as real’ as the events unfolding at home. I have left it some time to write this post for several reasons.
- I had to take a day out the day following to allow some ‘head space from all the intensity of the previous week and day, prior to the next few days. So I did some gardening.
- I have been busier with ‘other work’ as several small projects seem to be coming together and, as they are part of the context of my MA work, I need to allow space as well as association, to keep things moving in the right direction.
I have just wanted to do loads of work following from the impetus generated by this Review but have had a lot of other ‘domestic’ and work stuff going on.
I can’t wait to find some space to ‘do stuff’! So, enough of the general, contextual reflection and on to the my thoughts about ‘my bit’!
I have some thoughts about the fact that there were no comments from anyone Studio and on-line on the earlier video-clips.
- I think that the poor audio ‘relationship’ between the voiceover and the audio soundtrack in the video means that it was not possible to read these and so there were no comments on them….
- Jonathan did say that it was not a review or assessment of our video making skills but actually if the video was poor, then the practice was unintelligible.
- I had difficulties showing enough of my work so that it was understood… but had to heavily edit the various video clips and so something is lost from a. having too many clips and images ( I think I did fall into this category…should have done much less to do more..) and b clips that were too short and so not readable either…
- If I made a presentation again I would be more aware that when it was uploaded on to Vimeo that the sound level would default to that of the loudest ( obvious really!) and so if the voiceover is much louder than the soundtrack the soundtrack will be lost… even if it is not overlaid……I had realised this may be the case after uploading for the second time ( first time had glitch and some info lost) but it was late…I was tired…. etc etc… I really should have re- recorder the voiceover so that didn’t happen…
First up I though it interesting that the audio group focussed almost all on the Re-projection footage. No comments about any other bits of the work.
Trystan liked the convolution of the process of re-projection I like that terminology and will use it.
There was discussion about the ambiguity of the image and its lack of clarity.. nothing recognisable…and whether that mattered…it was more concept than anything visible.
Donald thought that using a better brighter projector and camera to pick the image up may work better…
I am unsure about this… I had wanted some ‘mystery’ and lack of clarity but possibly it was too much… see later..
Jack thought the idea of the degradation of the image through mediation to the point of distortion was good and that if that could be captured effectively in a final piece it would work well. He mentioned a piece where someone had re- Instagrammed an image 1000 times
I’m glad he focused on the degradation and distortion as I think this is what I was getting at… In fact I had no direct objective in my methodology but to simply find out what questions I really wanted to ask… I still need to re assess AGAIN for my Proposal
Ed Kelly mentioned the sound piece… see below in the Skype chat….where an artist recorded and re recorded their voice until all that were left were the acoustics of the room but not the original signal which was swamped.
I think he said that it could be done in the audio because of the reverb… but it maybe that he was talking about the ‘hangout audio’ not sure.
This sounds really interesting and useful and to find out the motives behind what he was doing… will give it a listen.
Someone mentioned a bizarre nostalgia ( Trystan ?)… Which I really like!!!!!
Charles liked the idea of body as interface….
and Jack commented that it was like a slider with a direct correlation between n’ then and now’ but I wasn’t sure what was… the video I think!.. Interesting.
Donald was confused as to whether the re-projected video was specific to the location as well as being filmed in the location...An interesting and justifiable discrepancy.
I should have made clearer the Salt Way piece and maybe shown the original first to show its relevance and how that extends to the very ground that the projection is on.
I should have used the site specific terminology as I feel this is very very relevant to the work but didn’t as I think it is a sort of ‘corny’ term! I needed too though.
Jonathan asked the questions to whether the work did show links with my work with people with dementia and Jack said he thought it did. and Trystan? George…
They saw a definite reasoning behind the process of making work somewhere and the the memory of location and action and the remembering of one but not the other.
This is brilliant and really key, as it means the work is readable even if the images are ambiguous and lacking in clarity!!!!
I’ve copied and pasted the comments form the Skype chat with my comments/ reflections in red if I need to take action I’ve put ************* [
17/03/2015 13:29:06] Sarah Robinson: Rhiannon… I LOVE popping of fireworks against this image. It’s so strong and I find it really inspiring 🙂
[17/03/2015 13:29:37] Sarah Robinson: (black and white image with man on bike) I’m glad someone liked this. IT was actually an accident , sort of, but I feel it works well and is humorous and disturbing at the same time…but no-one else saw/ commented on that. that.. On 17/03/2015, at 13:29, Jason Murray wrote: > Fantastic visuals at 00:53 This is the the video of performance action with cassette tape and sound of Sibelius, ‘Finlandia’ Interesting that Jason noticed this. I should talk to him some more about what it was he saw.**************
On 17/03/2015, at 13:29, Sarah Robinson wrote: > Such a clever idea? combination On 17/03/2015, at 13:29,Jason Murray wrote: > Is it Christmas tinsel? No it’s not but it is a Christmas tree so that was OK but the audio, which is important, wasn’t loud enough on the presentation to show what the piece was about!******* see post on the Blair Witch and Christmas..
On 17/03/2015, at 13:30, Sarah Robinson wrote: > ‘/‘ not ? On 17/03/2015, at 13:30, Jonathan Kearney wrote: > (Just to remind you all that during the discussion about your work you CANNOT type! You can only listen)
On 17/03/2015, at 13:31, Peter Mansell wrote: > the use of the body as the screen is interesting as is reprojection over the same areas at different times = offeres a real transformation I like Pete’s comment on TRANFORMATION! a useful term Thanks Pete!
On 17/03/2015, at 13:31, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > the muslin as a surface of projection is briliiant
On 17/03/2015, at 13:31, Yvonne Opalinski wrote: > The projection on muslin is haunting. The work really does evoke a sense of the transitory and extends to that notion of time and moment and how it is all fleeting Again, I like some of the descriptions people are using, they are helpful and do reflect what I was aiming for, so that’s good.
On 17/03/2015, at 13:32, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > 4:20 is my favourite part! Ha ! an image of Pascal and the telephone box library! Relevant to my future work I hope
On 17/03/2015, at 13:32, Sarah Robinson wrote: > Light/ projections on muslin gives a dream like appearance, it portrays fragility and magic. Really beautiful
On 17/03/2015, at 13:32, Jonathan Kearney wrote: > Pascale 🙂
On 17/03/2015, at 13:33, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > Instead od videos, maybe a reel of photographs with sounds could be interesting too? This was a very useful comment I will keep as an idea to work on!************ Thanks , Pascale
On 17/03/2015, at 13:33, Sarah Robinson wrote: > Who is that at 4.20… Ah! of course….Sarah didn’t meet Pascale in the flesh! Interesting… still only an on-line presence to Sarah!
On 17/03/2015, at 13:34, Yvonne Opalinski wrote: > Rhiannon has a lot of ideas to follow too On 17/03/2015, at 13:34, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > The message behind the whole idea of the video work is subtle but once you know it it’s get right through My concern is… how explicit do I make it…or not…? One to ponder and discuss with others…**************
On 17/03/2015, at 13:35, Yvonne Opalinski wrote: > Seems she is experimenting in a very positive way to find her focus This is encouraging
On 17/03/2015, at 13:36, Jason Murray wrote: > I like the idea of playing with the monoprint residue rather than the archival print Jason always likes the things I enjoy doing most! I will have to meet him and have a chat about his rotoscoping and how some of our techniques are sort of similar but not….*************
On 17/03/2015, at 13:37, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > did charles mention an artist?
On 17/03/2015, at 13:37, Cecilie Waagner Falkenstrøm wrote: > I find the idea of filming something on location and then projecting it back on the location – but the interesting question would be how to “grasp” the influence the projection has on the location. I find this a very useful question I must think about more. ***********
On 17/03/2015, at 13:38, Jonathan Kearney wrote: > it was a sound piece called ‘sitting in a room’ – Ed knows the name… On 17/03/2015, at 13:38, Edward Kelly wrote: > “I am sitting in a Room” by Alvin Lucier***** I will listen to this but have not been able to give it full attention yet *********
On 17/03/2015, at 13:38, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > Thank you On 17/03/2015, at 13:38, Jason Murray wrote: > 1969
On 17/03/2015, at 13:39, Edward Kelly wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jU9mJbJsQ8
On 17/03/2015, at 13:40, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > a bit like a font i discovered today by nellie brody which was basically helvetica ran through photoshop many times and altered and became a completely different font. it could be done with rhino’s work I will check this out too Thanks again Pascale!********
On 17/03/2015, at 13:41, Pascale Lemelin wrote: > SORRY : *Rhiannon On 17/03/2015, at 13:41, Rhiannon Evans wrote: > Rhino! I like it! Never been called that before, I’ll keep it! 🙂
So, most of my thoughts are actually reviewed at the top of this blog. I’ll post some more comments of other peoples when I’ve had a break and possibly post some more reflections before I start on the NEXT PHASE and update my PROPOSAL!