Here is the document I showed in class for this project!
Write Up/Intention:
My plan is to parallel the distance between how others perceive us & how we see ourselves with the distance between an image and how we see. No matter how much technology improves, there’s always a gap between those experiences. You’ll always be ‘aware’ of the fact its an image. However, this gap is closing. When you see images taken with good cameras (or, hell, even our phones now) it can pretty well capture how we see. In other words, you’re becoming less aware it’s a photo.
Analog and older technology has more of this distance—the camera has its own “hand” in making the final result, much as the photographer or artist taking the photo has their own style. It doesn’t try to hide the fact it’s an image. When we capture others, we have a hand or style in how we see them. Not only that, but with photography, our perceptions and memories of others are retrospective---we can only see other people in the past rather than in the moment the way they see themselves.
When this image taken is a “Poor Image” it shows that this has been passed down and translated through many different lenses and from many different people. The final result fo a poor image almost becomes a mosaic of how it’s been treated. This idea from Steyerls work is compared with the different hand-me-down ways we see each other and ourselves. By asking someone to find an image they relate to, they have to not only relate to the subject matter, but the way it has been passed onto them—through social media, text threads, etc. It not only reflects themselves, but it reflects how they want to be seen, and by choosing others work it reflects how the photographer/original creator wanted to perceived, regardless of how it may have been altered or changed overtime. We see significant translation of these images before and after they reach the individual, which reflects both the lack of control and impact of the people we are around on our self-perception.
To achieve this, I asked a handful of friends to send me 2-3 images of how they perceive themselves. I responded with a few images of my own on how I perceive them. I printed their images, made them into a collage, then taped it to my wall. I took my source images and made a digital collage, in which I projected onto their images. Then, I found a few things some of them have given me in the past—a sculpture of my cat, a handmade frog plushie and a necklace with a windmill charm. I used these to cast shadows. From there, I took the final photos of the project.
Connection to “The Poor Image”
“It transforms quality into accessibility, exhibition value into cult value, films into clips, contemplation into distraction.” (Steyerl 1). I gravitated toward the word ‘accessibility’ this quote in regard to this project. A work from last semesters Drawing 2010 that was in conversation with Hadi Falapishis exhibitions discussed the idea behind commodifying yourself to others, or the amount of control we have over how others perceive us. When we fear we have parts of ourselves that should be hidden, we are making ourselves into accessible commodities. Similarly, when we strive to make a ‘realistic’ image, we are trying to hide our hand or the cameras hand in that work, so it’s more approachable. It’s both adding to that distance and subtracting from it. The distance between the image and the reality as we see it is smaller, but the distance between the image and the lived experience is larger. In other words, by making the image more ‘realistic’ we make it easier to digest, and when making it easier to digest we remove the chance for our personal experience to alter the image.
The lack of an artists/photographers hand in the image also implies a second thing: that there is no flaw or experience that clouds that artists views. Demonstrating a style or adding distance between a “realistic” image and the current one can be perceived as a flaw. If realism is the goal, deviations from that is seen as failure. So, when we produce an image that is identical to how it looks, it can be interpreted that the individual taking it has nothing wrong with them that can taint the experience of the image, therefore promoting insecurity.
Processes:
Part 1 (The “how they perceive themselves collage”)
1. The participants determined their source images were
2. Source images were downloaded/obtained
a. These were from various places such as Pinterest, google, or were taken by themselves. It is likely that multiple processes already changed the ‘original’ image, but for the purpose of this project, this is where the ‘source image’ begins.
3. Source images were sent to me
a. Through social media, text, etc
4. Source images were saved on my device
5. Source images were then copied into a word document for printing
6. Then the document was emailed to me to print
7. The document was downloaded on the computer connected to the printer
8. The document was printed in B&W
9. Images were then sorted and cut out
10. Finally, they were layered and glued together
Part 2 (Digital collage/projection)
1. Source images were gathered
a. Includes sources such as Pinterest, my camera roll, previous text threads, social media posts, etc.
2. Source images were saved to my device
3. Source images were pasted into Photoshop and organized
4. Source images were altered
a. Changes in hue, saturation, perspective warping, cropping, colour, etc
5. Source images were cut, erased, and organized in the collage
6. Finished file was saved to my device
7. Finished file was then projected onto the wall with the first part of the project
Part 3 (Presentation/photos of the photos)
1. Part 1 collage was taped to the wall
2. Part 2 collage was then put on the projector
3. Projector was manually set in and out of focus
4. Photos were taken (w/iPhone)
5. Photos were edited accordingly
a. Adjusting the crop, the perspective, the tone, the sharpness etc
6. Photos were sent to my laptop
7. Photos were saved in my laptop
8. Then pasted here!
No comments:
Post a Comment