reflective evaluation

Reflective Evaluation

Working towards a physical exhibition and assessment:

From the beginning of MA3, my work moved away from developing video work for a monitor towards developing video work for projectors. Working with projectors has allowed me to develop my work in a more physical way that seems to resonate with what I have been exploring in terms of landscape as bodily experience, its translation into landscape image and the possibilities for the disruption of landscape’s gendered framing. Setting up multi-projectors in my studio, I developed a series of video installations intended as a physical experience for the audience in a physical gallery setting. The physicality of these installations involved the layering of soundscapes and the layering of visual ‘frames’ through moving images, still images and print. 

 

Readjustment: working towards a digital exhibition and assessment:

With the change from a physical exhibition to a digital exhibition I had to rethink my work on many levels. Questions included – should I continue my projector work or return to work for a monitor which would be more suitable for a digital exhibition, would this compromise the work, could I find a way to continue my installation work and ‘re-exhibit’ it for the monitor? 

Returning to my intention for the work in relation to landscape, I felt it was important to continue to develop the work for video installation, as this was the impetus for the work and the natural direction it seemed to be going in. So, over the past few months I have continued to explore the landscape using multi-channel projectors and layered soundscapes.  

 

Translating installation work for monitor

No monitor can compare to the physical experience of walking into a video installation – hearing the projectors hum, catching the glimpse of your shadow on the images, letting the colours of the projected images reflect on your body, experiencing the concentration of dark and light, silence and sound. So, for the digital exhibition, I wanted to try and capture these experiences. Therefore, setting up each of the installations in the series, I recorded them at different spectator positions (left, right, centre, close-up, distanced), with the sound of the projector motors and with spectator shadows moving across the images. I also recorded the installations with props such as a chair to give a sense of scale but rejected these in favour of creating contrasting dark and light spaces for the installation. 

In setting up my installations, I felt it was important to keep it physically achievable and I positioned the projectors so that they could be reinstalled in a gallery space at some future time.

As a digital exhibition, there were also new possibilities for developing and exhibiting my work. First, I had infinite digital space. Rather than a single installation, I could now choose to exhibit a series of 4 installations which inform each other. I was also able to develop my soundscapes without having to compromise with other artists’ work in a group show.

 

Setting up the digital exhibition

Aware that the audience for the digital exhibition would be predominantly using mobile phones and view the work for less than 30 seconds, I created GIFs for each of my installations so that the audience would see the work as moving installations and could then use these as links to view the longer videos. As sound is very important to my installations, I also added an audio track to the GIF page. Like a physical gallery, I created a main bright space (gif page) from which you enter into the darkened (black) ‘installation rooms’.

I first attempted to set up my own webpage for the exhibition on my personal website to figure out what would be possible. While its form and function worked, it had some limitations. The OCA were helpful in setting up another ‘spaces’ webpage for me and, while some issues were resolved, others were compromised. For my final website, I tried to achieve the best of both these websites.

 

Selection of posts:

For my selection of posts for assessment, I decided to trace the journey of the development of some of my key works – from initial ideas, experimentation, development, refinement, exhibition. Practice led, these posts are threaded with contextual theory throughout. 

 

Selection of developmental work:

For my selection of developmental work, I included some of the work I did for a monitor and some variations on the installation work that I explored – work that may provide a starting point for future work. 

 

My learning:

I cannot begin to describe my learning throughout this year and over the three years with OCA. In terms of preparing for the digital exhibition and submission, without doubt, I have learned so much. Technically, I have learned to make GIFs, find new ways to record my work and re-exhibit it for an online audience and have become undaunted by the setting up multi-channel installations. This gives me courage going forward in seeking opportunities to exhibit my work physically and digitally. 

On a more profound level, I realise that so many of the questions about the change from physical exhibition to digital exhibition echo the many questions I explore in my landscape work – namely, my relationship with the physical world and the world of constructs.

As with all my learning – I am left with more questions than answers which will continue to drive my practice.