Tag Archives: mentor meeting

Last-ish Mentor Meeting

1

Still from Rental (Requesting Backup), 2015.

 

Oliver and I had a meeting this week. Highlights included: a bee attack and a tuxedo cat.

I refer to it as our ‘last-ish’ meeting because we’re keeping communication flexible for the remainder of the semester. If we decide to have a formal meeting before the final report is due, we’ll do it, otherwise we’ll just have ongoing Q&A. Oliver feels I’m in a good place, with a solid body of work (he has no outstanding concerns or worries). Now it’s just a matter of getting there and finalizing the installation on site.

Things we discussed:

  • Oliver felt the Margaret Atwood poem I posted to the blog is relevant and intriguing–the tone even references the layering of the voiceovers in the newest edit of Rental (Requesting Backup). He also found it interesting that the poem was written around the same time as the beginning of the end of the Hollywood western, and at the height of pre-cable TV culture. Atwood’s characterization of the landscape is coexistent with the works I’ve sampled…
  • In fact, Adam 12 itself is a ‘western.’ Most of the programs I’m using are conceptually and territorially ‘western.’ The wild west is Hollywood.
  • The new edit of Rental (Requesting Backup) maintains the same sense of panic, incoherence and anxiety, but flows much better and the voiceovers are more consistent now.
  • It might be interesting to consider presenting the paintings with a glass or plexi surface, using L-clips. The slicker ‘screen’ could perform well in the installation.
  • He said I should anticipate a few questions about nostalgia, during the defense or the talk. Consider what I like about the works I’ve appropriated, what 70s nostalgia means, why is it so easy and seductive in the 21st century. What are the personal memories and is nostalgia intended?
  • We discussed Sigmar Polke, David Salle and James Rosenquist, all artists I’ve looked at, but which did not get covered in my thesis or talk. I lamented our inability to address all of our major influences with the respect and coverage they deserve.
  • He suggested I can finish the newest painting(s) and video(s) or not. If they happen, they happen. If not, I have enough material already.
  • The thing that keeps returning to Oliver as the most interesting aspect of the work is the different ways this TV landscape is viewed and received. He said he’d especially like to see me hone in on the way TV landscape was foreign to viewers like him (or Matthew Meyer and others I’ve talked to), but that it was a real place to me. This is ripe for more exploration, maybe even with more autobiographical meat. Since our program downplays the biographical, I am more free to dig deeply into this in future iterations of the project. He also sees the project as ongoing, taking new forms over time. Where the personal or biographical intersects with landscape is interesting. There is a distance between the way viewers like Oliver saw this landscape and the way I saw it… He has said several times that I need to return to these places myself, in the future, and do more work with images and landscapes born from these encounters. Specifically autobiographical could be okay.
Still from Rental, Requesting Backup, 2015.

Still from Rental, Requesting Backup, 2015.

The most current Google Street View of the fire station. From 2014. The one I cited in my thesis has now been displaced to our cultural archive...

The most current Google Street View of the fire station. From 2014. The one I cited in my thesis has now been displaced to our cultural archive…

 

 

Second Mentor Meeting, More Mock-ups

2015-03-20 19.01.52EDIT 2015-03-26 19.16.12EDIT

 

Above: two shots of the third painting, in progress. The lower image is the most current state.

I had my second mentor meeting on Thursday. We focused on the installation mock-ups and discussed the nature (and viewer reception) of different arrangements.

Oliver suggested that since each medium intentionally behaves differently, it might have greater conceptual impact to group like media together, rather than dispersing them through a symmetrical arrangement (see my previous mock-ups). Progressing through the space, one speeds up or slows down in response to the unique nature of a given work. If the media are interspersed, it has a different (though not necessarily undesirable) effect on viewer reception.

Oliver articulated this well by saying, in essence, the different distances involved in the experience of space is what makes the installation work–space becomes compounded with memory. The way media are installed, therefore, can contribute to, or disrupt this connectivity. Symmetry might disrupt the flow too much. In response to this, I produced a few more install variations (below).

Other highlights:

  • Make sure they don’t give me a freestanding wall. It won’t work well for this installation.
  • A corner set-up, on the other hand, might be advantageous. Paintings on one wall, video on the other, View-Masters in between or flanking outside the shape. This would encourage bouncing, without dispersing the like media too much. It would need to be a fairly open corner.
  • Two paintings are absolutely necessary (I agree). They speak to each other as part of my process of making this stuff my own. They slow down the overall speed. The single painting mock-ups miss out on a certain amount of dialogue.
  • One video screen is fine (I agree). Given the limitations of the space, only one video screen would have audio anyway, which means the others would be silent and would therefore take on different, possibly unintended, roles.
  • A slightly larger video screen might be good.
  • Differences are what make this piece work. It’s okay to separate the installation  by medium. The different works relate.
  • The time-based work is sensorial and benefits from focused intensity (like a single screen or a corner).
  • 1 or 2 View-Masters are fine.
  • Be ready to adapt the final mock-ups to the space.
  • The street views and screen caps might actually belong to a different, or future, version of the project after all.

Flat wall arrangements:

2and1_variation1 2and1_variation1_1 2and1_variation2 2and1_variation5

Corner arrangements:

 

cornergrouping2_1 cornergrouping2_1_2 cornergrouping2_1_22

 

First Mentor Meeting

soledadcanyonroad

capture_284_22092014_015534

Above: two views of Soledad Canyon. Though they do not share precise coordinates, they do suggest the almost interchangeable nature of both canyon and project topography; one mediated through a contemporary site-logging image practice, the other recorded as an (inadvertent) site-log via television. Together they facet two points of access into an elastic-space.

I had my first mentor meeting with Oliver Wasow last week.

Oliver has been pivotal to my developing thesis since the first residency (The Cascade grew out of a curatorial exercise from his Digital Visual Culture in the Age of Social Media seminar, combined with a daily media exercise suggested by John Kramer) and we wasted no time jumping into discussion of the installation. He had viewed the recent installation in person and had seen all previous versions, he just needed to catch up on the videos. We discussed the installation as it was presented in Cambridge and we analyzed various optimal, or variable setups.

In a larger space, I would ideally display all of the paintings, each video on its own monitor, View-Masters on pedestals or tables and (possibly) additional digital images in a room-like formation. The condensed installation he viewed in Cambridge was worked via discussion with my advisor, and it suggested a living room space. Oliver said the installation, even abbreviated, does not necessarily need to stay in that form. In fact, the domestic space won’t really work and is not particularly necessary. He is easily able to relate all of the parts, without the physical superimposition and felt the average viewer would not sit and engage a ‘living room’ with any guarantee.

We also discussed the ongoing nature of the project and its output. All this time, I had been expecting The Cascade to reach a finite, finalized, ‘evolved’  form (how Hegellian of me!). In writing my zero draft, I also came to realize The Cascade is a fluid, ongoing archive–capable of developing new ‘databases’ and being expressed in a number of ways. Ultimately, I will adjust it, and its components, to suit the space at hand, knowing I can always present it in other ways in the future (and I can discuss optimal or alternate installations in my thesis).

Oliver suggested I can work with this variability over the semester  (and the future), and it can be adapted to communicate with the final exhibition space, to suit the project’s deployment at each location and in each localized moment.

capture_050_29072014_190845

labrea ave

Street Views

One angle Oliver felt could be addressed more directly is the original site-as-platform, landscape-as-cornerstone found more readily in earlier versions of the project. He felt this was still very important, and might possibly have become subordinate to some of the newer developments (like the hunt, the semi-narrative, televisual space, etc.). Since the landscape itself is still vital, it can be pulled back into the project with a stronger presence that can, in turn, strengthen the other elements.

He asked me to revisit landscape as landscape itself by including additional media–digital or photographic street view images. These unmediated, unlayered images provide a different kind of time engagement, perhaps even functioning as ‘breathing room’ within the tension of the painting-video-reel dynamic. He asked me to consider the Google Street Views and in-program, still landscape screen captures I had dealt with last semester, with my mentor Kevin McCoy. Kevin found the street view/TV cap pairings compelling in much the same way as Oliver, so it’s worth revisiting if it contributes to the whole.

Since the painting provides important physical and temporal layers, suggesting initial jumping, and the video works offer a complementary fragmentation of the suggestion of the ‘real,’ including single-layer landscapes might offer the critical distance of comparison Peter Rostovsky suggested was left out of the installation. Of course, without the safety of critical distance, the viewer is thrown into the action–my intention all along–and a point which Oliver and Peter suggested is fine. However, including a moment of pause may be beneficial.  The straight landscape images may provide the critical distance that is denied in the panicked, fragmented videos, reels and paintings.

Oliver likes the idea that the landscape itself, as a physical site, and as a media backdrop, is really interchangeable with itself, in its own sphere. I’m fascinated by this as well; the original impetus behind the curatorial project. The sunny, arid locations are almost modular (like the two shots at the top of this post). In fact, rather like the entire thesis project itself. When I compound forms in my thesis, they behave like jump-cuts, creating a density of space, place and nostalgia itself that can obliterate this quiet, weird, modular simplicity. Allowing the land back in reinforces the importance of site and gives the density a place to happen.

Though other aspects of the project grew in weight (the re-cast characters, the pervading tension between fiction and reality, the dissection of story), the original anchor was this landscape, or site, itself. All of it remains important. And, there’s no reason I must stop at only three media. It’s interdisciplinary. I can use as many as I like.

Other notes on this:

  • Memory is similar to old TV shows.
  • We reconnect with a filter, passing through, experiencing things in different ways.
  • The street view, as in the TV  show, is an experience.
  • The street views, if used in the installation, should always be visible as a reference point–not stuck as oscillating slide shows between videos. Try them printed out and framed, or if they are digital, they need their own permanent monitor.
  • Some concern that the videos may dominate the installation. Will they? If they do, is that okay?
  • Do not stick the street views on View-master reels.
Johnny, Roy and the blank canvas--just waiting for me to begin.

Johnny, Roy and the blank canvas–just waiting for me to begin.

The Relevance of the Painting

The paintings are important and necessary to the project. They provide another model of representation, interaction and consumption.

Key points:

  • The paintings become a slower, meditative (subjective meditation) on the immediacy of the video
  • They are warm vs. the cool of television and the View-Masters (which fits into my three-screen and cool vs. warm research/theory). The painting warms the installation up, invites a different form of reflection.
  • Time unfolds differently in the paintings than in the other media, which is important
  • The paintings, for Oliver, are actually the most effective at making use of layers. Layers behave differently in the video, but offer a counterpoint.

Interdisciplinary Installation

Oliver’s thoughts:

  • The project is concerned with different forms of representation and consumption, different modes of mediation and memory.
  • It is also not specifically tied to that time period, even as large parts root it in the 1970s
  • There’s no need to be limited to three media
  • The paintings are important. It’s okay to combine new and old media.

Warnings:

  • An overly theoretical approach can kill the subjectivity of personal memory; be careful to preserve it
  • The digital manipulated/layered stills should not be included on paper in this version of the install, because they become redundant with the painting and video present. In the View-masters they play a different role, so it’s okay. But no photo print outs. The digital layered stills suggest time-based temporality that the videos handle better.

Sound

The sound is incredibly important. Oliver and I agreed that it should be openly audible. It is designed to be heard both while intently watching the videos, and while observing the painting and View-masters in an indirect manner, rather like overhearing a television set they may suck you into the drama if you hear something compelling. Forcing viewers to don headphones limits the concept of the work (and most people won’t do that, anyway).

If the final setup prevents full, audible sound, he suggested I at least go with an ambient volume that can still be heard, without disturbing other installations. Worst case would be headphones.

Oliver identified the importance of the multi-layered sound as another function of time.

Polish

At this point in the program, my studio practice is focused on resolving the installation, completing the third painting and doing some output work with the street views and single-layer stills.

I have plans for additional videos, paintings and digital reels, but these will be reserved until the thesis is complete. If there is time to do more, I will. If not, I have enough digital material to work with already. I am focusing on arrangement and painting.

I am aware that the integrated whole and its modular parts do not have to settle into a single, final form,  but can exist in a remix-heavy system of permutations, which gives the project the possibility to be worked an re-worked as part of its very nature.

With that said, I still need to resolve the final installation for June. I will meet with Oliver again in about 2 weeks and we’ll experiment with installation formats.

capture_052_29072014_190848

 

luckar plaza

 

 

 

Final Mentor Meeting

Foothill Incident

Foothill Incident

I had my final mentor meeting with Kevin on 12/17 and we wrapped up the semester nicely. Since we were pretty much on the same page for the course of the semester, we had already covered lots of theoretical and formal territory.

View-Master

Technical:

  • The final presentation: table (less formal) vs. pedestal (precious, untouchable).
    • How natural is the interaction? How natural does it need to be, and does it matter if it is interacted with at all? How to set up an environment?
  • Complications of informing the museum-goer of a piece’s interactivity; how to inform, interface design. We discussed Layar and an installation I had seen earlier in the semester where some viewers took the time to download the app and view the work, others saw the work as it was, without the interactive component.
  • Ways of testing the 3D imaging using 2-slide stereoscopy, creative home rigs and glasses, making my own VR screen
  • Use tracking shots, or pseudo-tracking shots, consider old school animation problems
  • Consider the background vs. foreground as suggestion of movement
  • Consider the offset, pixel-based offset
  • What about Google Street View as a tracking system?

Concept:

  • The idea of adding elements after the fact and re-dimensionalizing the “program” is compelling and relevant. Should be exciting.
  • Seems a solid addition to the installation group.

capture_071_26122014_123059

Rental (Requesting Backup)

Kevin viewed the current version (potentially final) of Rental… and felt it was nicely resolved, in line with the other video works. He appreciates the collage-to-the-point-of-abstraction approach and felt it handled issues that arose in the rough cut well. it’s now ready for peer review.

Theory and Writing

We talked at length about the nature of research, theory and writing, and how these considerations impact our artistic production. It seems natural for our attitude toward writing and research to evolve over time–at times occupying a space of great hybrid practice, at other times existing as paradoxes of work-research, research-work (which comes first? Do they co-exist (at times each half becoming dominant)?).

Kevin suggested I always consider writing a formal practice, making it useful for myself, including whatever way(s) it manifests in and through the work. A process of formal discovery, of zeroing in on things, can be similar in both the way artistic works are built and in the way writing is composed. Writing should remain flexible and helpful, as we are first and foremost studio artists. At some point we can give ourselves permission to be experts, even as we are curious, evolving, learning experts.

We also talked about the artist statement as a philosophical challenge–and how it forces us to confront our ideas about the work, and what the work is really doing. We got breached the nature of tweeting–and how boiling our body of work down to 140 characters is both mind-numbingly difficult and brilliantly revealing. With this in mind, I will try to create a micro artist statement. If I can lay out my work in a tweet-length instant, it would be beneficial to my understanding of the project and to my ability to communicate it to others.

In short, Kevin has been tremendously helpful this semester and I’ll keep him apprised of the project as it flows toward completion.

capture_111_26122014_123226

 

Third Mentor Meeting

4

Kevin and I had our third meeting on 11/10. We discussed several specific pieces, as well as logical directions for the View-Master reels and exhibition display.

We discussed the completed Encounter video in depth, covering everything from formal considerations to broader intellectual angles, including:

  • Consideration of TV vs. cinema and their underlying paradigms.
  • Kevin was interested in the evolution of Encounter and its narrative flow. The process of events and interactions are enjoyably difficult to entangle, even ambiguous. This is compelling.
  • Encounter has the most narrative of the bunch, though it’s still operating on a semi-narrative level.
  • The repetition, overlap provide a dreamscape feel.
  • The addition of landscape-specific information and desert physicality successfully anchors it in the same ‘scape’ as the rest of the installation; an improvement over the rough cut.
  • The darkness addresses a psychological, mythological space.
  • I made many positive improvements between the rough cut and the final version,

We also discussed the interactive / digital image component, the View-Master.

I explained my reasons for choosing it:

  • The View-Master format provides a relevant, interactive method of negotiating the digital stills. Using an app, website, Processing/Arduino or specifically electronic angle may have pushed the content and concept too far away from televisual language (though they are options for future work).
  • View-Masters have been a popular way of dimensionalizing television, media and even landscape/vacation photography (site as participatory culture) for a number of years, especially during the 60s, 70s and 80s (the related period of TV I’m working with). They may also suggest nostalgia, which is fine, but they are not completely rooted in it.
  • It provides a method of interaction that speaks to the original, semi-narrative forms of the reels themselves (and to my video works).
  • It breaks the digital stills away from a simple life on paper

I also explained that I was a little worried about it being too kitschy or gimmicky. Kevin pointed out the View-Master itself has always been gimmicky, so there’s no reason to shy away from it. It fits well with the project, the language of commodified television, and the moving-stills aspect of the digital work.

He suggested that I make the reels stereoscopic-proper; fully 3D, like most of the originals reels. Kevin felt considering the three-dimensionality of the digital stills in a stereoscopic, or anaglyph manner carries contemporary importance, especially with increasing interest in 3D viewing, and in light of other artists investigating structure (like Godard’s Goodbye to Language, which intentionally breaks 3D, preventing typical resolution).

To do this, I can turn the original stills I made into 3D versions, or I can use tracking shots found in TV footage. Composites can develop spatial distance.

Kevin also encouraged me to consider ways of grouping images from the Cascade archive. I can approach the reels as entries in a system of typologies (gunfights, car chases, joshua trees, freeway shots…). He encouraged me logically group stills, so that there is some categorical relationship to the other stills in the same reel, and then to the project at large.

Videos

We discussed several of my original format and exhibition ideas for displaying video works in the installation. Kevin and I were on the same page with my final decision to present television ON television and we went over (agreed upon and expanded) my reasoning for leaving other formats behind, like:

  • Larger scale video projection references cinema, not television, and leads way from the televisual core
  • Projecting images into a self-contained space, to suggest “walking into” television, could be interesting for a future project, but my thesis makes more sense when presented on a contemporary television screen, especially in context with the paintings and View-Masters.
  • Setting up a TV / DVD player with remote and allowing the viewer to choose which video they want to watch directly references television, and could be interesting in another context, but it would shift too much emphasis on the nature of interactivity itself. Kevin pointed out that once the viewer is given creative control of video choice, the flip-through takes center stage, undermining the power of the videos as self-contained works of art. Viewers would inevitably flip around and spend more time engaged with the act of action, than with the works.
  • As with above, any kind of choose-your-own or Jukebox setting would detract from the weight of the autonomous pieces.
  • Presenting the works on a computer screen or as an app does not specifically suggest the language of television and again could be part of another project in the future.

Kevin also suggested that each video feels self-contained, though related through the larger body of work. They are individual works that should be considered as complete thoughts in themselves.

Since each video has that sense of individual impact, he felt they would be best be served with discrete screens set for each of the video. So, if I selected 7 videos, there would be 7 different television monitors cycling through the videos individually.

My idea had been to offer a single television, or a set of three televisions, each cycling through the videos on a playlist. Kevin’s suggestion makes more sense and in an optimal installation, each of the final videos would have a single TV presenting (and looping) them as discrete units. Knowing that my Cambridge installation will *not* be optimal (as in, I will likely be physically limited in the number of television sets that can be displayed), I will limit the video display to 1-3 TVs as originally planned, but I may adjust the videos shown, or the cycle of rotation, to more adequately address Kevin’s observation.

We will meet again in December, at which time we can discuss the newer version of Elevator, Rental (Requesting Backup) and any other final thoughts.

1

Final Mentor Meeting

IMG_2856

Leslie and I had our final in-person mentor meeting on Friday, May 23–and we really wrapped up a productive semester. Leslie’s help was pivotal. She asked incredibly important, relevant, often philosophical questions, allowing me to arrive naturally at fruitful answers, without ever feeling disarmed or pressured.  I was able to be myself, with expert guidance, and I’m hugely appreciative of her incredible wisdom and open-minded approach.

Since we had spent so many hours analyzing the digital stills this semester, we talked less about them as individual units this time and more as an overall, blended language.

We referred back to the set of stills as we talked about other developments, however.
Especially this one:

IMG_2857

 

The big painting is about 3/4 of the way complete and Leslie was excited about it.  My primary question was whether this was an avenue worth investigating, to which Leslie answered a resounding YES!

The painting started as a mutation of a side exercise Leslie had suggested during our very first meeting. Like the digital Cascade, it took on a life of its own and rapidly moved from exercise to breakthrough.

We talked about ways in which the painting spoke to digitality, without simply performing as a static copy of a digital printout. We also discussed line, color palette, the ambiguous, elastic-space environment and other formal and conceptual considerations. Leslie did an intense micro/macro reading of the painting surface, analyzing everything from moment-to-moment passages and color shifts to the language of mark-making and individual transitions–then we dug into its method of communicating the ambiguity of physical and social space so important to both the transitional television stills and my bigger body of work.

Overall, she was intrigued by its ability to stand up to reading both near and far, and by its fresh interpretation of the digital as counterpoint.

We could see a series of these shown in relation to video projection and digital stills–various expressions of the Cascade with different dialects, thus offering different avenues of analysis without being repetitious.

We also dug deeply into what seems the most important aspect of the painting: how it radically changed the way I work in paint.

I’m normally a fast painter, owing to my quick, responsive engagement with the content. I strategize the whole and attack. I know what needs to be done and I work to complete it as a continuous drive.

For example, we spoke about this older still life I had in the studio:

martin

 

For rendering the study above, I conceptualized the whole and dug in. It was a matter of fleshing out a complete idea where most of the planning and discovery takes place off-canvas.

What’s different with this new painting is my approach to resolving the image. Of course the style and purpose of these two works are different, but that’s not the point I’m making. In fact, Leslie pointed out that my treatment of the seemingly flat areas in the fruit study (especially the lower right, just beneath the right pomegranate) resemble the moment-to-moment shifts in the large painting (and the digital work). So, *I* am still very much doing what I have always done–just cracking it open and freshening it up.

For this new painting, I am combining three different Cascade stills, themselves already multi-layer combinations of other stills, drawings and prints.

Rather than combine them in Photoshop, print it out and copy in paint–I am mixing them in real time on paper. Deejaying, in a way. Sampling bits from each and whirling them together. I have an overall intention, but as I work into the painting surface, I am responding to each individual moment, to each brush stroke, to each passage in a new way.

I am no longer diving in to simply fulfill an expressive objective.

Instead, this painting is a process. It’s a process of reactive discovery–an archaeological dig of moments that reveal themselves, shift, change, and reveal new encounters. It is behaving like a digital or printmaking process, allowing me to adapt and respond, analyze and uncover. 

It’s taking me much longer than painted works in the past, because it’s telling its own story as the story unravels.

IMG_2845

 

Leslie was thrilled. I seem to have made an important breakthrough which allowed me to apply my digital and printmaking way of thinking to the immediacy of paint.

It takes me out of my plan-ahead strategist brain and puts me in a new, adapt-as-you-go-within-a-bigger-plan method, a la The Art of War. So I paradoxically have a plan blueprint, but my movements change from hour to hour.

Taking away the rigidity of the finite plan in execution allowed the painting to open up, to speak to digitality, to speak to the concept–and Leslie and I both felt it’s an important avenue of investigation.

IMG_2858

We also talked about some of the first output Horizons (above). They came out way too dark, but Leslie encouraged me to let go of my dissatisfaction with the printing process and to look at them for what they are, for their scale, their internal nature and their “happy accident” color palette.

We analyzed them for a while, with Leslie suggesting what might happen if they were selectively excavated. Would a smaller snippet still speak to the whole? This is kind of like the micro zooms idea.

The long, desert-evoking horizontality is important in these and I’ll be printing a couple more to take with me to gauge interest. Leslie also suggested she liked multiple horizons stacked, just as Conor had mentioned last week.

IMG_2859

We covered a lot of ground, went back over many of our earlier discussion points from other meetings and Leslie rounded it all out by taking a personal interest in my preparation level for the residency. We tackled any concerns had for the upcoming trip and we discussed the nuts and bolts of getting the most out of even the most problematic critiques.

She genuinely cares about how confident I feel and how capable, equipped and ready I feel for the Fall semester and offered to meet again if I need it during the final week of May. I will be sending her updates on the videos I’m reworking, as well as the painting, but I think she prepared me well. Thanks, Leslie!

 

Digital Outputs, Third Mentor Critique

IMG_2768

I had my third in-person mentor critique on April 25, which went very well.

Les is excited about my progress, my range of experimentation–and the work I’ve done sorting through the massive Cascade archive , to narrow down specific branches of visual language. There are several distinct image constellations emerging, which form a larger whole. We went over these constellations in detail, viewing them in their original, digital format. Leslie noticed that some of the pieces resonate better when they’re viewed in their native digital environment–with a backlit LCD or LED computer screen, which is interesting. Others take on new life on paper.

The last leg of the semester is all about outward production–getting some of the works down on paper, some worked into final videos ready to project and coalescing forms of digital representation (digital-virtual output), which don’t require works to be printed on paper.

IMG_2768_edit

I also showed Les several of the on-paper outputs I did (center), comparing them to the earlier laser documents. She was especially pleased with the output third from the left (blue station wagon). With some of my matte paper experiments with surface manipulation, the digitality got lost, submitting to the mark of the hand almost too completely. For these two, I did very light manipulation, so that the digital aesthetic remained. This approach was well received.

The one Leslie felt was a good blend of the hand and digital was this:

experiment30

One of the things Leslie talked about in depth this time was how the work invites a combination fast/slow read. You can scan it quickly and get a sense of it, then you get drawn in to wander through a slower read, noticing individual moments and transitions.

Leslie feels I’m on the right track–and that I naturally unravel troubling situations as I work my way through them. The sheer volume of work I produce allows me to explore most side-tracks, then return to the center with a resolution. It combines spontaneity with rigid calculation.

My budget is really tight this semester and I’ve been unable to afford most of the physical output I originally intended. Leslie and I talked about this as a positive curatorial situation. If I had a huge budget (or any budget!) I’d probably print most everything, then weed through it. She suggested that I look at my financial restrictions as a point of refinement. With a tiny budget to print, I’ll have to use an extra-sharp curatorial eye to choose exactly which stills are allowed to “live” in the physical world.

My selection process would include whether or not the stills work better as digital images, projections, or works on paper. This makes perfect sense, and in a way, helps me focus. It also makes me think of several articles I read this semester, including works by Annette Weintraub, where the breakdown between traditional art forms, new media and the white-box museum space presents a challenge to artists whose work can’t easily be pegged, hung, or pedestal-ed. Is it even necessary at all to output most of this on paper, or is that me, tied to more conventional training?

IMG_2769_edit

 

Above – one of the mylar transparencies I’m working with. People at the last residency suggested i try printing some complete, or incomplete stills on mylar, then layer them, manipulate them, hang them, etc. I’ve done a couple now and I’m not sure what to think. Leslie really liked the way the pieces hung as individuals (not layered with other mylars)–casting both light and shadow through their ephemerality onto the wall. The piece above is too purple for my liking, but I agreed that there’s something worth pushing here–at least as far as single sheets floating off the wall are concerned.

When I layered only two mylars with complete images, the images turned to mud. I would probably have to print out the individual Photoshop layers, then re-create the digital layering with hanging mylar–but I’m not sure there’s a point to that. The digital images already do this. There would have to be a conceptual reason for separating the digital layers and hanging them as single, transparent sheet layers–something beyond just a group suggestion to make it physical for the sake of old museum models.

IMG_2789

 

Comparing a few Phase II drawings with surface-manipulated stills.