I presented work this month on Saturday 27th April, using a collection of found images from albums to which I had added my own thoughts with minimal edits. I asked peers to look at my blog post of images and words before the critique session then opened up a share of my screen during Zoom call and briefly introduced my creative works as a prompt to the discussion.
My creative works and my description of these works can be found on blog post below but for clarity, I will also show each image as I reflect on the feedback.
Some very interesting comments on the technical side of this image.The group discussed the baby and the mother, whether indeed this the mother or a stand in which might explain why head been removed. It wouldn’t explain why edge of image been faded in the way it has. One very interesting suggestion was that I shouldn’t look for elaborate reasons around the mother but that loss at edge of image might have a technical explanation. Is poor quality printing to blame? Maybe too much bleach been used. The group found this to be a very moving image.
The work above comes from some photographs from 1930s Germany. Again this attracted some technical comment over whether space between trees too dark and uniform. I have darkened this in Photoshop but maybe too much. Maybe the dark space needs some kind of focal point or gateway? There was interesting comment of the children wearing dark clothes and if they to take a few steps towards forest would be camoflaged and lost to view. The line between the light and the dark is the liminal boundary.. The boy’s foot behind the tree hints that he has just peeked from behind the tree trunk which both children with hands on the trunk seem to imply some kind of joining with the woods. To me it speaks of Hansel and Gretel and children abandoned in the woods. On another level, I wonder what became of these children with war coming. The liminal nature in this image works on different levels. How much of this might I present to audience though?
This work shows photograph album, focussed on an image of two women. There was discussion on whether the women content and happy or in darker mood mirroring their clothes. Maybe image a typical pose shaped for the camera pointed their way. The other images I presented in this set gave my audience more of a sense of vulnerability was one comment. I think I agree. This experimental work was perhaps weakest of those on show.
This photograph of Baby Andrew is one I have worked on before but here I decided to show the image in its cardboard mount with Santa on the cover. I felt that this asked lots of questions. Why is card so dirty? Is it because the card and photograph have been treasured possessions, handled often? To me this raises question of why Andrew has stayed as a baby and picture not set aside as Andrew grows. Where is picture of Andrew’s first day of school or his wedding or on holday and so on? These are questions I ask and stories I invent when picture has no obvvious story of its own beyond the briefest facts. One of peers commented on quality of the print and wondered about the folds in card and whether this had been placed on mantlepiece which is maybe why some parts are dirtier than others. Again it raises question of why this such a treasured picture. Another wondered if Santa dressed in red might date the print as this used as Coca-cola advertising. I did some quick research on this and it seems that Coca-cola used a red suit for Santa in the 1930s but that earlier images on Santa wearing red go back to the mid 19th Century. It appears, from a very brief look, that the Coca-cola/red Santa angle is an urban myth.
My next two images I photographed against a green background. I was susprised that my choice of background generated a lot of comment. That the green had meaning for my peers and that the texture of the cloth worked well. We discussed the emotional response to colour and how this would have looked with say a red or blue background. Green is supposed to represent hope, growth and renewal but also as the green darkens, of isolation and sickness or stagnation. This image to me was as much about the missing part of photograph as it is about the boy. Again I was surprised that the tear in the photograph generated lots of comment. I saw that tear at the liminal boundary. Others commented in how deliberate the tear looked. Had scissors been used? What was being carefully removed from view? One of my peers saw a witches face in the tear which is a fascinating insight and not something I had seen before. Also now that it been pointed out, it something we can’t unsee.
My final piece for review is photograph if very small locket. Each half of locket is only 3cm x 2cm so my image above englarges the object. There was comment on apprent layering of the woman, the child’s face and a lighter patch above teh child’s head which I cannot make out. A suggestion made then when faced with memorial, any choice made might be rejected and then subject to edit. So what is seen might not be as first intended. The word used for the locket was disquieting.
As part of discussion, I asked group opinions on sizing and scale. For each image I have shown the original size of print and of the locket. Do I show these as a group at real size, maybe with magnifying glass or do I present digital enlargment either on screen or as a print, or maybe I provide both, side by side? The locket above was one which my peers felt the original locket should be shown, perhaps in a case supported by an enlarged photograph. I wondered about putting images into a digital exhibition to try this and see how different scales work. One suggestion was to go large especially the stringing image of the dead child. How would such an image look if it filled a wall?.
As I answered questions on my work and give more details or explain the reasons behind each piece, my peer’s engagement with my work seems to grow. This is the age old quandry of how much description is needed alongside a visual work. An exhibition supported by a book and the detail of ensuring any book has ISBN number so that a trace of this survives. An interesting thought regarding memory. If thinking of books, i should speak to Helen Rosemier.
At a point where I had just received my 3.2 feedback and so my mind still thinking of that feedback, this was very helpful critique session. It was a small group, just the 4 of us and we only had 2 3sets of work to look at, so we had time to look at work and talk it over without feeling rushed. I have some things to think about; scale, books or exhibition or both, presenting images on a monitor or as prints on a wall, looking again at my image of Max and Kathe.
One final comment. As I was presenting and answering questions and taking notes on comments made, I made a realisation. It was no longer important to me that people liked my work. This is not to say I didn’t value feedback and opinion good or bad but just that getting a gold star and smiley face for my work isn’t what it is about nor why I make it. Maybe this about growing confidence in my area of expertise?