15/3 Mid point review 2016 – a really interesting and inspiring presentation and talk
Apart from getting to know more about the work of my fellow students, I am really glad that I had the chance to hear comments on my work so far, which were quite intriguing and helpful. I think it helped me to see things more clearly and to think more about the questions raised by my work.
First of all, I am happy to see that they found the idea of using philosophy as a theoretical background to the work interesting. There was a comment as to the danger of making a visual illustration of theories and as to how much you “follow” them. This is also a concern of mine, but in the process of producing the work, philosophy has a different meaning for me. These theories offer some “food for thought” to me and give me ideas for my work, they are not just a “script behind the image”. My point is to raise questions about existence and perception, and it was really interesting to see what people had to say about it. It also helped me form some questions and ask myself again about what my work (and worries) is about, like for example:
what is the relation between mind/body/world? why is it interesting for me? how do I perceive reality? how can I perceive what others perceive? is experience and memory connected to our bodies? what about collective/public memory?
Another topic discussed was the use of different means to produce the imagery (stills, video, 3D). I really liked the fact that they seem to have many different opinions as to which way they consider to be better. Some of them preferred the photoshop sketches, other liked the video more. In the photoshop sketches, they found the image depicted to be really strong and powerful, whereas in the video they talked about the loss of human characteristics and the almost inhuman nature of some of the images. They also mentioned the idea of abstraction and ambiguity, and some of them seemed to be in favor of that. Lot of different points of view and ideas, but I am really glad that my work raised so many questions!
The relation between the different means and techniques was also mentioned. I’ve been asking myself the same thing, as to which one is better. Apart from wanting to experiment with different means and see the outcome of that, I think that each one of them has its own sensitivity and result. After a tutorial session with Jonathan, I realized that I shouldn’t expect the same result from all these different techniques, but I should try and understand them. This is what I try to do, and although on the one part the stills and videos have similar aesthetics, on the other part I think they are different. Concerning the techniques used, for example in the videos, some people found them to be too familiar, but relative to my ideas. It is another thing I also had in mind, but again I consider this to be a work in progress, so nothing is fixed.
They also seemed to be interested in the connection between the artwork and the public space. They talked about the question raised by placing this in a public site, and the form of the artwork exhibited (still, video or what?). All these questions are also in my mind, and I hope this will give me interesting feedback for later. They mentioned a “missing layer”, which I think represents exactly my concerns and questions behind this.
However, the parallel between corporeal and collective/public memory was not really discussed.
To sum up, I am quite satisfied to see that my ideas and concerns got communicated in a large amount. The questions raised in the talk helped me ask myself again some questions, and is a very helpful feedback for my work in progress.