Following our Tutor-led session on Critiques (https://photo515050level3.wordpress.com/2023/02/15/critiques/), I set up an online version for Level 3.1 students via zoom, kindly assisted by the Tech Team who have provided me with updated zoom access.
We had 6 students on the meeting – I suspect there will be more at the next session which is being moderated by Ariadne. Nevertheless this was enough for the purpose of useful feedback.
For my part I showed my recently-completed Project 5 video, since this was designed to review and explain work-to-date. I have found it important to take participants through the work at the beginning, even if the images have been previously distributed. It means the ideas are fresh in people’s minds and everyone starts on the same page.
I got some very useful feedback:
- The Sussex County Council “stamp” on the beach could be made more convincing by skewing it in to the shoreline (Caroline – who kindly offered to help, but I have had an initial attempt myself as a learning exercise- above- and will see what others think). As part of the re-processing I also changed the embossing slightly, making it slightly darker with less highlight edge and slightly shallower while keeping the width – this, in my opinion, made it look more like it had been drawn in the sand. I also tidied up the darker disturbances in the sand that happened to be in the same place as the embossing, as they looked like they were on top of it and spoiled the effect, and then reduced the opaqueness slightly of the embossed layer to blend it into the sand. Finally I inpainted in the sharper areas very slightly for the same effect at a localised level.
- I might be confusing nature with reality (Barry)
- This is a good point which draws out something that has been at the back of my mind for a while. Perhaps this confusion is actually the main point. How real is nature? Is that my “research question”. Nature as cultural concept, etc…
- The virtual Red Hut could become the place for a virtual exhibition of the black and white (or other) images – “I wondered about this digital hut and whether the inside could be an invented space which could be used as a gallery to display the finished project. Kind of a Russian doll, a space of any size and shape which is inside an element of the project but can also contain the project … I found myself thinking of fractals”(Richard Dalgleish, email 19th Feb 2023). This is a good idea for three reasons:
- It plays into the need for non-physical presentation at OCA
- It allows me to explore the real/constructed concept as an opening into a more traditionally (but virtually) hung exhibition of black and white images
- I believe it goes beyond Baudrillard’s third order simulations (hyperreality) to the difficult concept of fourth order simulations – only encountered “as an avatar in the postmodern world’s second life”. It strikes me that in entering the digital red hut the viewer becomes that avatar, which is rather neat.
- Show the Red Hut in Black and White (maybe Richard again, apologies to whoever it was as my notes fail me at this point).
- I’m not sure about this as a simple conversion, but it strikes me that it could be seen as an extension of the reality question and also my work on colour for the previous module. Red is not “real”, although it works well as a signal colour particularly for this project since it occurs rarely in nature and hence triggers an alert response. Previously I have used “dog vision” to explore this – we cannot say the world as the dog experiences it is not real (for the dog). Using different “ways of seeing” (iphone digital scans, 3D printed view cameras,
- As an extension of this, I have previously mentioned the idea of scanning and 3D printing some pebbles from the area – I found a strange collection of white stones that I photographed previously, I could repeat this with 3D printed red stones, in black and white, as a contrast.
- The presentation was generally favourably received, and the vocals thought to be ok despite my concerns. There were a few places for improvement:
- Too many cross-dissolves particularly for the earlier images
- Attenborough could be clearer
- The project concepts, and the idea of the 3D printed camera, seem to get a strong response – “By figuring out how to 3D-print, assemble and ultimately use the resulting camera, the theory underpinning the exploration of the location now crosses from a theoretical framework into the methodology. This is a brilliant stroke of genius and very unique.”(Caroline Black, blog post @ https://spaces.oca.ac.uk/caroline516671ph3one/category/coursework/project-6/student-crit-session-feb-2023/) Going forward issues to address:
- The black and white work has a very documentary feel to it (Mirjam) – which perhaps clashes with the more conceptual stuff. This is certainly a key issue – I need to decide whether the embossing then morphs the work from the apparently documentary to something more conceptual or whether I need a different approach.
- I have the 3D printed camera but need to make some images with it (Mirjam). In fact photography-wise things have not moved on much. Another fair criticism, making more images to explore or extend my ideas must be the focus for the second half, once Project 6 (which concentrates on the literature review) is complete. But I also need to understand what exactly I need to hand in at the end since this is not the end of the Rye Harbour project, but simply concludes the preliminary research with a proposal for the body of work.
Level 3.1 Learning Log 