Sunday, 10 February 2013

Whose Orientation?

On Friday you told me that you had been arranging the pieces in the show primarily to photograph them, so while the photos look really good, the objects as arranged in the room look arbitrary and poorly placed. You said that it was something like the way you used to work with film, hand drawn, manipulated specifically for the camera. 

I find this quite an interesting idea, that composition for one point of view, one orientation in relation to the objects and the space, this orientation may not be conducive to a 'successful' experience in the space, that the intended view might be this one here. This is quite at odds with the conventions of installation as sculptural object in space, which is to take account of how the object occupies the space and the visitors' relationship to it. It is instead to suggest that the ideal viewer, is not a visitor to the space. Indeed is the ideal viewer even the one looking at the photograph, or even the photographer? Perhaps the ideal viewer is the camera itself, this is the way the camera sees the show. (SB)


  1. Questions Questions! All you do is ask questions! its my day off! Im sleeping! zzzz

  2. the domain has been taken

  3. My work is concerned with the situation of seeing, the ways we negotiate optical, physical and psychological space and the disorientating experience of moving between different viewing systems and cultural frameworks.

    As I work in the space my interests change. My ideas develop and my understanding of what it is that I am doing changes. My orientation to the image and creative impulses are governed by temporal shifts in perception and materials and processes I use to see.

    The image is not fixed. Nor is it bound to any specific medium or space time location.

  4. I understand what you're saying except for a few aspects of it, in particular what you call 'spaces', and specifically psychological and optical, and the question is how are these 'spaces'? You also mention that 'we' negotiate them. Who is this 'we'?

    Taking these questions together, I can understand how a collective 'we' can negotiate physical space, because space is a phenomenon of the physical world, but I find it difficult to understand what a shared psychological or optical space might be, particularly as you describe your orientation to what you are doing be governed by processes you use to see. So they are subjective decisions, which is fine as a means of producing the work, but the visitor may have a quite different relationship to the show, which is also fine and perfectly normal!

    What is the 'image' that is not fixed? I don't fully understand what 'the' image is, it would seem to be the concept of an image rather than specific images, perhaps, but the images in and of the show would be something that you're producing, usually captured with a camera or other image capturing device. It can become a different image due to manipulation or other reconfiguration or contextualisation, but I would say that an image is of necessity bound to a medium and location, otherwise it wouldn't be appreciable as an image, and it would have specific location and temporality, even if these are multiple and simultaneous...

  5. nice. i should wear something special..

    clean socks

  6. i havent washed my hair for over 20 years!

  7. Yes. I agree with you that "the image is of necessity bound to a medium and location" . I think lack of sleep got the better of me there. The medium and location are not fixed, but changing constantly. My interests are with the instability of the image and how it is shaped and transformed by different media and processes, to put it simply

    Saying that, I'm still suffering from exhaustion and sleep deprivation. Tomorrow I might use it as an excuse to revise that statement again.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.