Although I think may have slightly misjudged my approach to the Interim Review last week, I feel that I received some pretty stellar criticism and questioning that has afforded me a grateful piece of perspective in which to move forward with. The main issue raised, that I can clearly remember from the presentation anyway, is as follows:
The idea that the employment of film or video as a medium in which to capture and communicate a narrative thread intrinsic to the subject being recorded [in the case of the interim review, the subject being a card model produced through the investigation into “Show a Threshold” prompt] the addition of a particular lighting arrangement, colour palette and sound in order to construct a mood, behave similarly to the layers of a drawing; or perhaps even the actions of reading and producing a drawing.
I believe that the discussion of this point was followed by a warning of the precarious nature of this approach, as to hopefully evade the trappings of applying visual and auditory layers upon this form of representation that have been encouraged by unsuitable or incongruous ideas; or perhaps even worse, for the sake of it. The narrative of the story being played out around the model of the window, in terms of atmosphere and context, offered itself to a kind of tongue in cheek, cliché’ film ‘noir-esque’ aesthetic filter in which to communicate it through. Whilst this particular model felt as though it appeared to comfortably sit inside a blanket of shadow, allowing focus to be guided by strongly contrasted cold white light and a slow, underscoring jazz track, others may not do so. At least not as willingly. I think this would be most imperative to take forward in approaching the representation of the eventual interventions, as well as in considering which materials may be used to construct the models of them and to explore what these kinds of decisions can offer both the hypothetical effects that these would have within their spatial environments of the scenario and how it is that they would be captured in a film.In the wake of Julia and Sam’s comments on the performance of film and its suggested layering of information, I began to consider if there were other kinds of layers that the filmic portrayals of the interventions could begin to explore.
[Not in the sense that these will be filmic in applying a specific aesthetic onto them, but that they will be examined and communicated through film].
I was interested in the possibility that there could be more added to the video than sound, text and images, and that perhaps the removal of any of these almost fundamental and conventional components could begin to open inquiries of their relevance in communication of the spatial proposition [possibly showing the models being constructed?]. I have no idea currently! But I will take some time to investigate the idea of film as a form of layered translational device and I am excited to understand and discover how each intervention can and will negotiate with the medium differently in its depiction. It will be interested to see if perhaps a particular intervention is most suited to add a degree of humour say, as oppose to sense of tension in its portrayal, or whether perhaps instead that these kinds of intensities may be applied as to evoke a degree of unconventionality or deliberate inappropriateness to provoke and enable further intensive presentations of space.
That sounds pretentious.