Yesterday I shared this post on a further development of my Body of Work project with my peer group hangout colleagues at our fortnightly session. I was delighted that the response was largely positive, although, as was to be expected there was a lively discussion over what worked and what didn't. For convenience at the moment I had divided the images into three related groupings and labelling for identification. The groupings were: impenetrable woodland that one might find at the end of a path, thick growths of trees with no discernible path and abstract images. I enjoy abstract images and have posted them in my blogs from time to time, but up until now I have have not had a reason to use them; one group member referring to them as 'tricksy camera club shots'. I know that tutor, Clive White, probably feels the same. To a large extent so do I, but I feel that no technique, whatever it is, should be used for the sake of it; it should be for a reason and should fit the concept. In this case I have chosen to use these images - ICM multiple exposures - because I feel they do portray the concept of bewilderment or bewilder: perplex, confuse; to lose in pathless places, to confound for want of a plain road (Samuel Johnson); from the word "wilder", meaning "to lose one's way, as in a wild or unknown place. (First usage, 1613). For more on this see this blog post.
I was, therefore delighted when one of the group commented that the abstract images were his preferred ones. He enjoyed the sensation, emotion and ambiguity of these pictures. He felt that set 1 and 2 followed on naturally from the BOW project.
Another colleague didn't like the third set describing them as 'tricksy' as mentioned. He did, however, like the idea of the word 'wild' - he was not sure whether to use it as a noun or verb; he enjoyed the ambiguity. He felt that set 1 worked the best (minus 1a). He felt that these images had the most narrative potential. He liked the fact that the viewer was being held back from something or indeed had been given something to consider. They were coherent in their incoherency. Again he felt that the square format worked as it did not naturally fit into the landscape genre; it doesn't conform. He felt that set 1 was not offering a journey, but a discourse into the viewer's subconscious. He enjoyed the fact that the viewer had to 'work' at them and they fitted the concept of bewilderment the best. He felt, as did others that it was 'beautiful imagery' but he thought Section 2 didn't work as well as set 1, they were too signified, especially 2b.
Another member of the group commented that the images were high quality and beautifully crafted as the group had come to expect of my work - very flattering!! He thought that perhaps they were representative of how I was feeling as I approached the end of the degree course (which applies to all of us) in that we were at a crossroads and had to decide what to do next - bewildered, in fact. He felt that the second set didn't work so well for him as they were too obvious. He thought that the abstract images were interesting but to be wary of using them as they could be seen to be like images to be found in hotel bedrooms or dentist waiting rooms. Praise indeed!!! Point taken.
Yet another member enjoyed the abstract imagery, but agreed with someone else that my original project Shul stood by itself and I shouldn't feel pressured into adding to it or including another body of work in the exhibition.
A fifth member of the group suggested that set 2 were pleasing images but didn't fit the concept and he was not a lover of the abstract style. He felt that the first set suggested someone lost at the end of a path in the same way that someone with dementia may be lost and confused. I hadn't thought of that aspect.
All felt that this was an excellent starting point for a new phase of my work and it is ripe for exploration.
Again lots to think about here, but a very pleasing hangout.
No comments:
Post a Comment