I’ve spent
a little bit of time on this process over the last 2 or 3 weeks – looking at
the original brief, the images I submitted (and those I didn’t), the notes I
prepared and the feedback from my tutor.
I’m confident that my submission for assignment was, at least, a
personal portfolio of images. I took
photographs that I wanted to take, with subjects, framing, etc that were of
interest to me. In the notes submitted I
refer to quite a range of concepts/themes – stone, dilapidation, history,
ruggedness, absurdity, survival, adaptation – and all of those are present in
the submitted images. What I didn’t do,
looking back now, was narrow that down to a common theme/concept and explore
that through the images I prepared and chose.
The
feedback was broadly good – a strong collection of images, a critical
investigation of the area, good observation and commitment, conveys the
atmosphere, good editing – and so on.
But there was a comment that my tutor ‘would have liked to see more
focus on one of the strands’, followed up in a subsequent exchange by ‘articulate
the motivations behind your images a bit more ...’. So, once again, it seems to be a case of
trying to get more focus and direction.
Thinking
about it, there could have been two ways of doing that – 1) essentially have
taken the same images but then edit with a strong focus/intent; 2) do more
research and thinking up front, choose a theme, then go out and take photos
that reflect it. Seems to me that either
could be acceptable. The first is along
the lines of Anish Kapoor – letting the ‘spiritual’ speak through the artist in
the creative process & then the ‘reader’ reconnects. In fact, these are not mutually
exclusive. My ‘personal portfolio’ for
Assignment One was, probably, more akin to the first, but reflecting on the
assignment now presents an opportunity to use that process as the ‘research’. What concepts and themes do I see now, when I
review the longer set of images from which I made my choice? What appeals to me and seems to speak about
the local area in a voice to which I best relate? What, in fact, do I want to say about the
area? And what sort of edit does that
produce? What new images does it make me want to capture that further the
theme.
I’ve spent
some time doing just such a review.
There were 35 images in my long list, from which I selected 15 (probably
too many) for the submission. I already
had some prints of the submitted ones, but I’ve printed off the others and been
shuffling them around, re-selecting and, I guess, re-reading. It seems to me that what I want to say about
life in this corner of the Holme Valley (and I always intended to focus the
assignment into a very narrow geography – bit like painter George Shaw in my
earlier posts & his images from within a couple of hundred metres of where
he grew up) was/is:
·
Life
is tough;
·
Life
is absurd;
·
Life
is rarely pretty;
·
But
we can make something of it.
And, of
course, those are ideas that apply to life in general, not just the Holme
Valley; universal concepts that are as much about man and his struggle to
survive as they are about me creating images that evoke the neighbourhood where
I live. And the ‘making something of it’
is as much about my images being the ‘making’ as it is about documenting what
others have ‘made’. Bringing the
techniques of the sublime landscape image to a shot of a pig farm is, in
itself, a metaphor for man making the best of his lot.
So, where
does that leave me in reviewing my images for Assignment One? It informs my edit of the images that I’ve
already taken and it provides direction for me to continue to create images that
will add to the portfolio. It provides
me with a focus, when I’m out with the camera, locally; and I can continue to
add/develop, so that by the time I submit for assessment I have a more focused,
more clearly directed set of images for this assignment. It’s something I can continue to work on over
the months to that stage – and beyond, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment