This weeks presentation was with Cheryl and having previously been told by Cheryl how 'intrigued' she was by the images, this is the issue I had to address within the presentation.
The 'failed images' marked the start of increased 'touching up' of the images, as I felt it necessary that now the notion of using photography has become more essential to my practice, the quality of the images should reflect this and whilst not initially intended, I used my recent images as a state of where things could end up if i didn't follow my plan of image creation, which I now feel necessary to stick to.
This being:
-Keep images Monochrome where possible
-Create the blank space in reality
Today's presentation was a lot more negative in terms of the response I got and I had to deal with criticism rather than what I dealt to be helpful feedback, but I took this on the chin, at least it was causing some discussion and stood out rather than receiving no feedback at all.
I had to deal with re-explaining my initial concept due to a different audience to the previous week, and I seemed to have messed this up as the word's "I don't really get it" were mentioned, but I decided to just concede this point, partly to me suffering a severe headache at the time and just wanting the presentations to end!
The whole confusion seemed to be at what I was trying to achieve with the work and what it's intended purpose is, whilst I like the notion of leaving this up to the viewer, it is also possible for this to happen whilst carrying out an intended motive as well and this seems to be what needs to be decided in future work.
Using word's such as 'Autership' in my presentation as a way of expressing how I see my work more as a filmic vision, seemed to get lost and misinterpreted as 'Authorship' which whilst being similar the differences in my head seem huge, autership is about ensuring that the work has all the elements I feel it needs, whereas authorship to me is about having complete 100% control over the work and having a clear personal stamp on it.
Although slightly frustrated at today's response it is now clear that I need to be more direct in my approach as my concept is clearly not as universal as it appeared in last weeks presentation.
I feel now that my work is becoming much more than just a statement about galleries, and even though I can't pinpoint the exact mechanics of what it is, it is clear that an audience is touched by something in the work. The solitude of the image that I originally conceived as a way of replicating the calmness of the white cube gallery I feel is the emotion a viewer feels, as it I can only speak for myself and that is what I feel, a moment of clarity within a powerful landscape.
It is becoming clear, that whilst the 'white cube' theory was the idea that spurred me into my current concept, the way the piece is developing is further away from it's origins and I now need to pin point exactly what is the focus/intention of the work and what motive the blank object is seeking.
