Box No. 2 and No. 3

Finished installing lights so now have 3 functioning light boxes.

I like the appearance of the box and the light quality but I thought it worth have a little play anyway, just to see. I roughly lined the box with tin foil to see what the effect would be but it didn't seem to make a blind bit of difference.

Box No. 1

A quick update; I have boxes. Unfortunately, I've been far too preoccupied with getting things done that I have neglected to photograph the process, so I'll make sure I do when installing the other lights. So far only one is complete with light, so here's a sneak peak;

New Images

I complained earlier that my work didn't feel enough like my work. However, working in this layered style feels much more 'real' to me, and much more natural, and, on reflection, it's a similar style of work to things I've done before whether it be this type of layering technique or the use of double exposures when working with analogue photography.

It's working in this style that gets me excited about the work I'm producing.

So I've gone back over the Cattfield images and had another play with some of the images.

Criticism of the print I already had included a 'flatness' to the image, and also that the structure on the right side of the image appears far too grounded and concrete for the style of the work. I attempted to negotiate this by digitally removing this structure (this isn't done as thoroughly as it will be if I decide to take it forward);

Although this result showed potential, I feel what I am really trying to do with the work is represent a place, and although this is being achieved through a technique that does not provide a concrete true-to-life representation, it is still not being clearly manipulated; you can visit the location and see the building as it represented in the work. To me, this means manipulating the structure for aesthetic value undermines the work.

So from this I tried, more simply, just realigning the layers to make the side structure appear more ephemeral;

I feel this is much more successful than removing the structure and it does appear far more natural than in the first version that was printed. However, I am slightly concerned that it has less of a quirky kind of depth than the original image did.

These are the new images I came up with;

It's interesting to note how the top image is working much more on a representational level - it is providing a brief glance - whereas the bottom image is working on a more formal, structural level. This is due to the composition, and although I've previously preferred to work on a structural, compositional level, I feel in this context is proving more effective to work on a more representational level in order to provide glimpses into the place and what it points to - in saying this I suppose I am saying that the key to the work is not it's formal qualities, but more the meaning (and feeling) behind it.

Plans

After seeing the effectiveness of the print on a light box, I am making the bold decision that this is what I want to do.

When I look at the image on the light box, I am captivated. I am going to trust this instinct.
And to make life more difficult for myself, at this point I am working out whether it is going to be achievable to create three light boxes.

I feel the nature of the work as a representation and abstraction of this place through the use of suggestion and I feel seeing a number of abstractions of different parts of the place has a far greater effect on the viewer than a stand alone image. So then the question is how many images to choose. I do not want to only display two images as two images becomes a pair, and will be read by the viewer as a pair of images. I do not want to create a pair, but more of a series so the minimum number I believe I can have to achieve this effect is three. If a fourth image is included, the individual images then become less important as there starts to be a lot of visual information and stimulation so the viewer cannot hold of this at once and begins to create an overall impression of the series, while with three images, the viewer can still appreciate each one individually, as well as creating an overarching representation. With three, however, I will have to be careful with aspects such as symmetry and care will have to be taken in selecting the order of the images, especially the middle one, as well as ensuring the images all hold enough parallels between each other to hang together successfully as a set.

So... I need a(/three) light box(es). I would rather build one than buy one and work to a predetermined scale/budget &c.
I don't know anything about building light boxes so this requires a lot of planning, learning and questioning of various people far more capable at DIY than I currently am. I have the enthusiasm, the will and the attention span, just not necessarily the skills.

I am thinking of building the box so the perspex covers the whole top. Obviously this will mean a lack of light where the wood sits underneath, but this is not necessarily an issue; it could provide a nice frame - the image framing itself through light, or the image could be printed the exact size of the lit space, or a 'proper' frame could be added later.

The First Print

Printed out one of the pictures on backlit film and borrowed a light box.
The print works really well on the light box. It affords a depth to the image which doesn't come across on screen/unlit. It also gains a sense of otherness - it appears more majestic in tone and quality, and the layering technique becomes more pronounced. I think this is definitely the way forward with these images. It really brings the image alive.

Unlit:

Reasearch

Catherine Yass's work is interesting to me on a number of levels. I am never wholly convinced I am a huge fan of the technique she uses to produce the colours and appearance, yet I still find myself drawn to the images. I think it must be her compositional approach, as well as their unusual quality. Not only does she often display her work on light boxes, but also her work often explores 'the psychology of spaces', as well as her more architectural based work. These ideas are both relevant to my previous and current thinking. What I have been doing all along in essence is exploring places, whether this has been through reconstructing a place, or abstracting it.

I have also been looking at Jeff Wall, mainly for his use of light boxes to exhibit his work. I love his use of differing sizes of light box within the same exhibition. His work is frequently cinematic in its approach, but I am more taken by some of the architectural qualities in his images and the light-industrial and urban scenes.

I have also been looking at Clint Baclawksi's use of light boxes. I like that they appear free standing, which allows the photographic image to appear as a whole world within the box. I also like his structural approach, and the very clean, crisp feeling of the work.

I really like some of Brian Ulrich's work, but generally more the darker, empty, industrial sites. There's something about this work that holds a real prominence for me - I think I generally like industrial sites with a sense of decay, and deep foreboding images. They feel ominous and suggest a presence through absence. There is also a sadness to them.

I like Jason Oddy's structural approach to his subject, especially ones with even a slight hint of asymmetry. He manages to explore mans relationship with the made environment with a complete absence of man.

ReConstrustions

When having a play around with some of the new images, I came up with these. They’re created by layering two (or more) images and changing the opacity to create a similar effect as a double exposure.

As I was both documenting the site with as well as bearing in mind my recent work with defocused images, I created these by combining both a focused image and a defocused one. 

 In this case, the only images from the angle were very different scales, but this effect is actually quite successful. The building almost appears to be either expanding, or imploding.

My work so far has been about creating constructions, representations and abstractions of places. This began in a more literal sense – by building images from constituent parts. Then, by defocusing the images, this became more about abstraction without my reconstruction – the image was left for the viewer to reconstruct in their own mind. With this new layering technique, the boundaries between these two approaches become somewhat breached. The image contains both a ‘true’ photograph of the place, as well a defocused, representational image, and then also shifts of perspective and a reconstruction – a representation of the place which is neither strictly ‘real’ nor wholly abstracted.

The image also begins to take on the language of memory. We don’t necessarily remember a place as it would be recognised in a straight photograph, we remember an impression of a place. These images are also an impression – they explore more than simply the literal scene.

There is also a ghostlike presence to the images, as is the case with double exposures. This presence works well with the nature of the images themselves. These are images of an abandoned building in the middle of the countryside that has been left to become derelict. There is then naturally an eerie sense of presence through absence within the images. When we see a building of this kind, we know that there used to be people there. It used to be a fully functioning building, (I believe this is part of an old airfield,) and we then attempt to provide it with a purpose – what was it? What did it used to look like? Who used to work there? What was it like?

By presenting the images in this way, it also takes on some of the qualities of a long exposure, almost like an hour-long exposure. This passing of time within the image reflects the passing of time of the building and again points to its history, the ghost image almost appearing like the building in a past time.

I’m feeling very enthusiastic about this work, so the way forward is to print one of the images and see how that is working. This then raises the question of scale. I have tried projecting the images and they’re working well at a fairly large scale. It provides them an importance which is part of the point of documenting such buildings.

They also have potential to work at a smaller scale, more snapshot size, which could then afford them a certain defiance, and also become a throw back to older, film based photography. Also these buildings require time, patience and attention to discover so perhaps the scale of the images should reflect this. However, the detail between the overlapping layers and the overall impact of the images could be easily lost at a small scale.

I think the way forward from here is to print out one of the images. As previously mentioned, I have been considering working with light boxes, and I have a feeling that the nature of these images will work well presented on a light box. For this reason, I am going to print on backlit film and use a light box I have access to. I am going to print at A2 size, as I think the argument for going larger is stronger than the argument for going small, and I think it would give a better guide as to how the images are working in this format. I am not going any larger at this stage partly due to monetary constraints, and I think I need to get more of an idea of the physicality of the work than necessarily feeling the urge to make everything massive.

I also had a look at what would happen using the same technique on some of the stronger seaside images, but these aren't working so well. I think they still have a certain amount of appeal, but this is solely on an aesthetic level. This highlights the idea that the above images are working not only aesthetically, but also through their reading and their subject matter.