Setting Up

This week's about setting up. A lot of time's been spent filling, sanding and painting (and repainting) walls to try and get the room looking as perfect as is possible for us to achieve. Now that background work's well on the way, it's been time to start installing my work.

Time and effort has been taken to ensure the boxes are exactly the same distance apart (1 foot) and they are all exactly the same height (70 inches). There was some debate after the first two boxes were half installed as to whether 70 inches was quite tall enough, but the centre of the image does fall at the average eye line and taking them much higher would begin to alienate shorter viewers. My work is also on a wall clearly visible upon entering our exhibition space, so it was important to take a distanced view into consideration and any higher than this I feel the work would feel too high at a distance glance.

There are currently a few gaps between the boxes and the wall. This is mainly due to the nature of the walls; they are not 100% straight and although I've filled, sanded and painted them to the best of my ability, the wall has slightly different levels where the different parts of chip board join. This has resulted in notable gaps in certain places so I am going to fill the boxes all the wall around to make them as much of a part of the wall as possible and eliminate these gaps.

Above is also an example of how the boxes have been slightly marked since all my paint work. This isn't an issue as I will simply repaint, as I will have to once filling the gaps anyway.

A Return to Uta Barth

Although my work has now shifted quite greatly in style, I still find Uta Barth's work incredibly relevant. The feeling her work of has of a fleeting glimpse of something on the periphery can be related to my work now through the way the photographs are presented - they are not completely focused photographs of a scene - they present a glimpse of this place. We can take time to explore the images, to look around them, interpret and decode them, but there is not necessarily enough visual information included to provide a complete answer to the question of the photograph. When viewing my work, a number of people have questioned me as to the location of this place - I find that a good sign as the images must be captivating enough to raise this question and demonstrates that people want to know more. However, I also find myself reluctant to tell them. This points to my work not being about this place but more about a nonplace. However, Uta Barth's work is obviously very different in its approach to this. As she writes of her work; "A certain kind of confusion or questioning is the starting place of confronting much of the work. Certain expectations are unfulfilled: expectations of what a photograph normally depicts, of how we are supposed to read the space in the image, of how a picture normally presents itself on the wall..."
My work does present itself in a borderline conventional way, especially if I do decide to use a frame, however my frame is not to separate the image in order to provide it with an elevated sense of status, and to provide it with the status of a 'proper' photography 'properly' displayed on the wall, but to separate it in the context of providing it with it's own little world. It's separated because it does not belong in the same space as the room, it has an otherness. Also, aspects of my images remain unfulfilled - we do not know where, what, even why it is. 

Framing

I like the way the image is framed by the lack of light around the edge of the box. This also went down relatively well at the exhibition. However, because I've always liked it, until now I've overlooked the possibility of actually using a frame, so I thought it was worth at least a quick look.

This is just a rough frame made from some mount board I had sitting around.

I like it a surprising amount. After the Unit 5 exhibition I've decided that the boxes should not become so much a part of the work, but revert back to being a method of display. This is achieved through painting them white, and ensuring the screws are no longer visible, opting for probably using photo mount to mount the images, as this is (if done well,) invisible and will not detract from the images. The frame then further separates the image from the box. Using the natural frame of no light again draws attention to features of the box.

So I'm trying to work out possible logistics of creating a proper frame for the images. At this point I'm thinking it should be wood, as mount board &c. will be too flimsy and not provide the weight the images require.

There is also the possibility that by having a frame over the images, this may provide a way of securing the images to the box in itself, which would be much simpler and less permanent than photo mount, which has the potential to make life quite difficult.
There are, however, a number of connotations with framing work, and these will have to be considered.

On the Flip Side

When reconsidering the sequencing of my images, I am thinking of horizontally flipping the final image. Although earlier I mentioned not wanting to alter the structural qualities of the images as I want this to remain a real place, I think mirroring the image is on a different level to actually removing parts of the structure.

It's a tough call, but I think the image creates more of a narrative sequence when horizontally flipped. The original version (left) jars the end of the sequence - it functions as a crescendo to the end point of the sequence which then functions to leave the viewer 'hanging', as they are left with a cut-off part of the building. Although I would normally adopt this approach, as experimented with in my FMP1 work, I do not feel it's appropriate in this context. I think the work as a whole is intended as an insight and exploration into place, and stepping off the sequence lightly allows the work to stand freely in its own right, raise the questions it needs to raise, and then leaves the viewer with them. In contrast to this, the more jarring approach demands more of the viewer and is somewhat confrontational - this piece is not supposed to be confrontational, but more of a small provocation.

WATER SCISSOR STEPPING STONE

The Water Scissor Stepping Stone exhibition has been a lot harder to put together than I think any of us realised. As our first public exhibition, there are a number of conventions and ways of doing things that although may be obviously in the art world, were not necessarily obvious to us. Overall, we worked as a team to decide who had which space, based on considerations and technical requirements of the work, and we were relatively successful in this, apart from a slight unbalance of the weighting of work - the back of the room felt more crowded than the front.

Getting my boxes on the wall was less problematic than I had worried it could be. I drilled holes directly through the back of the boxes, and then fixed raw plugs into the walls and simply screwed the boxes on. There were initially a few issues with drilling into the walls as they were brick, so it turned slightly into a case of moving a couple of the holes in the boxes to fit with a suitable area of wall. I decided to go straight through the back so the boxes could be as tight to the walls as possible, where other options such as mirror plates would have left a slight gap. Screwing straight through worked well and the boxes were completely secured.

Overall I am pleased with the way the work looked. It was good to see it in a completely different context, especially an exhibition space. I am starting to struggle with the effects of constantly living with the work. Generally speaking, when you see something everyday, you lose the ability to see it clearly - it becomes something that just is. That feeling is starting to concern me as I'm worried I can no longer tell the difference between a good decision and a bad one. So dealing with the work in more technical, critical environment was valuable, and also gauging reactions and listening to feedback about the work has helped me realise what's working and what's not, and allowed me to see what needs doing.

I had initially planned to screw the image straight to the Perspex as attempted previously as I felt this effect was working well and I also wanted to gauge reaction to it. There was a discussion about using Photo Mount to attach the images, but when it came down to it I felt this method too risky for the Unit 5 exhibition. Although it would have been good practice for me, if anything went wrong with it (if it left an unexpected amount of residue &c.) then I could run the risk of permanently damaging my Perspex - something which could be disasterous when it comes to the degree show.

An interesting point that occurred was the appearance of the boxes before the have the images, or even the Perspex attached. When seeing them presented like this, they almost look like a work of art in their own right. This has become a Plan B option to consider; displaying light. However, this isn’t really my style of work and I would feel like a cheat just by displaying some boxes with lights in. However beautiful they look (especially in this context where they then begin to interact with the strip light above them. Perhaps a future project…)

FEEDBACK

A number of issues were raised from this exhibition.

As previously mentioned, I decided not to paint or do anything to alter the appearance of the boxes for this exhibition, mainly because this was a test run to trial ideas, and as I like the wood effect – the boxes have a natural effect and I wanted to see if this would enhance the experience of the images. However, as with a number of issues surrounding my work, the reaction to this was mixed. A number of people liked the wood effect – they like the boxes. There were also a number of people who found it hard to believe I had just left them wood – a ‘they are a method of display, they should be white’ attitude. This is the main question with my use of the light boxes – are they simply a method of display? Or is the nature of each box part of the work – a statement, a way to enhance the meaning? This was a tough decision to make, but I have decided to use the boxes as the method of displaying my work. I cannot provide a strong enough rationale to leave the boxes as wood, other than they look pretty (which obviously is no justification,) and there are vague ideas about how the nature of the work is these organic buildings that have been left to nature and faced a natural process of dereliction, therefore displaying them on natural materials that reference their own making interacts with this. I think there could be room to further this idea, but I think to make it stronger perhaps the wood itself would have to appear more aged and derelict in itself, and I think going down that road would be a very difficult and risky one and I’m just not sure enough of my own convictions to follow that through. SO. White boxes to blend into a white space. This should then make the images stand out more in their own right.

Another similar issue is the use of the screws to secure the images. Again, this was something I wanted to test – using Photo Mount to secure the images would not raise any questions, so I wanted to gauge reactions to using the screws. And again, many people liked it. However, as with the wood, the screws then become a part of the work and it is the same justification as before, but this still isn’t strong enough. Also, a technical issue with this is that however perfectly the holes are lined up, there was a slight distortion across the face of the image that although wasn’t noticeable when looking straight at the work, it was very noticeable from a side angle as other sources of light fell on the work. The images did appear to settle and become flat after awhile, probably as the lights give out a slight amount of heat this then settled the image. This is far too risky a manouver and I can’t put my hopes in the images settling – they might not. So another method of attaching the images will have to be used, probably reverting back to the Photo Mount idea. I find the thought of this risky, and will have to gauge whether the screws on the lighter parts of the images will still show through. If they do, they may not have to be used – the other screws should theoretically be enough to secure the Perspex, but this will have to be tested. Also I am still worried about the permanence of this method. Permanence is not necessarily an issue – the boxes were initially built for this sole purpose. However, it will mean ripping the image from the Perspex after the show to take the boxes down, and the risk of the Perspex being permanently marked.

Having the images framed by the lack of light around the edge didn’t appear to raise any issues.

There were a number of technical problems though. My trimming skills leave something to be desired, and this is something I will have to be incredibly careful about for the final presentation. I found backlit film very difficult to cut through because of the thickness and nature of the material. It’s very easy for the knife to simply cut through the surface layer but not through the whole material. I will have to practice this and get it perfect next time.

Also, there were a number of marks on the images, mainly from hands. There is no excuse for this. I have now been told about using special gloves when working with images. It’s such a simple thing and I am not sure why I didn’t know about this before. So next time, I, and whoever helps me, will be wearing gloves whenever we are working with the actual images.

The distance between the images (1 foot) was spot on and I will carry this through. However, the images were hung too low. The top of the boxes were around 64 inches from the floor, which meant you didn’t have to be especially tall the see the top of the box. Next time I will hang the boxes so the average persons eye line will fall in the middle of the images. This should be at around 70 inches.

The wiring will also have to be tidied up for the degree show. I was advised when installing the work at Unit 5 to turn the boxes so the wires came from the top rather than the bottom as the plug sockets were near the ceiling rather than the floor. Feedback from this was that the wires need to come out the bottom. It should be possible in our space for the degree show for me to take the wires out the bottom of the boxes straight through the wall and have the wiring hidden that way. This was never an option at Unit 5, but should give the work a much smoother appearance, with the constituent parts being hidden from view as far as possible.

The turning of the boxes and the mistakes in trimming also altered the order which I displayed the images. Initially, I had planned the have the two end images the other way round, but the images were trimmed specifically for each box so when the boxes switched order to wire out the top, the end images had to switch too, otherwise the trimming was even more off than it already was. Next time the images will be switched back. The red spot on the (in this example,) right side image (as viewed) is a very strong feature. As we read naturally read a set of images left to right, a strong feature such as this is better beginning a sequence rather than ending it. Also, where this image, and the first image fade into black would be much more effective the other way around (to allow for an almost fade in/fade out effect to occur.)

Another technical point is that there are some slight gaps in the boxes, and between the box and the Perspex. These will have to be filled and sanded down to create as smooth, seamless effect as is realistic to achieve.

Another consideration that was raised was the titling of the work. For the exhibition I left the work as Untitled as I didn't want to hastily pick a title that could risk undermining the integrity of the work. The question then became as to whether this is about this place, as in, this particular abandoned part of an airfield in Cattfield, or whether it is about places or perhaps even nonplaces. My instinctive answer to this question is that the work is about places, not specifically this one but more an overall abstraction and suggestion, using this particular place to point to a larger whole. This is something I will need to continue to think about and I do think a title, whatever it maybe, may well enhance the reading of the piece. However, titling it Cattfield Airfield is going to elicit a very different reading to calling it something like Forgotten (obviously that's quite lame, but off the top of my head...) There is also the potential to attempt to subvert the reading by titling the work something unrelated, such as (again, top of the head,) The Toy Industry. At this point though, I think deliberately attempting to subvert the reading would be counterproductive as the piece in its essence raises enough questions about its nature without further attempting to evoke a reaction.
So overall, it was an invaluable experience and has no doubt greatly improved the potentiality of my work. I am now more aware of the standards we are working towards as well as what's not working. The vast majority of constructive criticism was based around the presentation and finishing of the work, while feedback on the work as a whole and the actual images was positive.

New Prints

Over the last few weeks we have been arranging an exhibition at Unit 5 Studios. As this is now fast approaching, I need to print out more images.

I feel these are the strongest 4 so far, and although I will obviously only be displaying three, I think it's worth printing them all because it's hard to know with complete accuracy how the image will transfer from screen to print, especially on backlit film and on a light box.

The next thing to seriously consider is sequencing. A sequence of images is not necessarily about simply what I decide are the three 'strongest' images when viewed individually, but about how the images hang together and feed off each other. The viewer will begin to create narratives between the image, and each image within a sequence can be used to inform or even disrupt the readings of the other images.

As I was advised to print (version one) of the top left image first, I had in mind it may be the strongest. However, when looking at the images together, it doesn't work within the sequence. In a group crit it was mentioned by some people that they felt the image was flat - it's a very square, straight-on representation of the building and works on a more structural level than some of the others. I previously disagreed with this view, but viewing the images in sequence I have realised this point. The image does have far less depth to it than the others and, as someone suggested, the other three images pose as questions to the viewer, whereas this image functions more as an answer. It is questioning and intrigue I want to raise with my work, so I feel this image should be the one to be left out.

It is then a question of how to order the other images. Because two of them are using a cut-off view, I think the image that shows more of the whole building (top right) should be the centre image. Although I decided early to avoid pairing, as mentioned, by using three, the centre image can acquire a heightened sense of importance. This image has always been my favourite. I try not to make a decision based on personal bias, but in trying to work out why I am most drawn to this image I think it is because it's the 'easiest' image to view. It borders more on the 'answers' side of things, but the distance it's shot from and the dramatically reduced proportions of the structure within itself still hold back enough information that the image is still engaging with the viewer. But this easily digestible quality makes it a suitable centre image.

At this point I am thinking the bottom left image should be on the left. It is more aggressive in its tone and with its stronger horizontal/vertical lines and so as the viewer looks across the images from left to right, it is a strong point to lead from, then the right bottom hand image, much softer in tone and composition leads the viewer out of the work. Advice I have been given about poetry seems incredibly relevant here - have a strong start to a poem, and always step off lightly.

Print on the Box

Here's seeing how the print's actually working in detail with my box.

One slight issue with this is the dimensions of my image weren’t exactly A2 – somehow I managed to end with the image being out of proportion, it’s A2 width but not height. This wasn’t really a consideration when I printed it, I was excited to see what it looked like, but now I’ve got A2 light boxes, so this image isn’t going to cut it.

But that’s not much of an issue at the moment because I’m still working out what I’m doing and am completely prepared to reprint anyway.

I am pleased with the way the light (or lack of) border is working. It’s not actually so noticeable around the darker areas of the image, but overall gives the image the feeling of age, as if it’s been light damaged or something.

The tone of my lights is quite warm and I think this works well in this context – it’s allowing the images to appear more as they appear on screen and the warmer tone provides an almost sepia feeling around the image which again fits in with the feeling of aging.

I found trimming the image quite difficult, it turns out backlit film isn’t the easiest thing to cut through – it’s very easy to take off the top layer without actually cutting through the whole thing. This could be a problem and I will have to get someone to help me trim further images by holding the ruler so I can focus completely on cutting.

I’ve tested out my initial idea of attaching the image by screwing straight through the image to the Perspex to the wood. I am liking the effect of this. It’s a hard call, but the appearance becomes quite base, and the method of construction then becomes part of the work.

                     

I am pleased with the outcome of the test. I think the boxes are working well.