25th May

We started with some admin. So whether or not we wanted to record our calls, looking for new administrators for Padlet ownership and for the Zoom call number since Holly given up her studies. On subject of Padlet, we discussed whether this best for our needs or a space on G drive to store works we can look at.

Then we moved on and discussed student works.

Adelina spoke of her work on cyanotype looking at consumerism / capitalism and linking this with materiality of the photographic image. We spoke of idea of a false dream and wondered why she had chosen cyanotype.

Linda spoke of ontology and indexicality regarding destruction of the landscape and forest fires and on using 8×10 photo sheets with home made developer. Reminded me of the work of Stephen Gill in trying to create an image where the physicality of a space is part of that image. Like me, Linda had no work to show group but promises to show some in subsequent weeks.

I spoke of my work and got interesting feedback and jotted down recommendations to look at Michael Colvin’s work on persecution of homosexuals during holocaust and of the Lost Child by Graciela Iturbide. Had a very quick look at Iturbide’s work and saw interesting piece on Mexico on Capturing Death so will look into that further. There was also body of work from student Helen Rosemier on hauntology which isn’t a term have heard before.

Lynda spoke of her recent work showing impressions of colour floating behind her eyes and the sounds in an MRI scanner which she loosely put under heading of ‘her failing body’. Very interesting to see how and if this forms part of her work on the invisibility or women.

Jonathanspoke of his work on the transcience of traces of humans within the landscpae around Rye Harbour which is an hour from his house. This was interesting view of time. Time as seen through experience of people compared with time seen by the land itself. Very different timescales and perspectives.

Managed to cover a lot of ground but as we filled meeting and in part because the size of group has grown, we decided to allow extra half hour for next call.

 

11th May

So pleased that in tonight’s call the group got back to what we originally devised these meetings for; namely the sharing of ideas, opinions, feedback on our research and creative works.

Someone mentioned that they had spotted some changes in course notes so will be worthwhile taking a look on the OCA learning site.

Barry went first today with some abstract images, looking at the play of light and some collage / double exposure images. The group chatted about these for a long time considering what makes photographs ‘real’. From my personal viewpoint, I found this work difficult to engage with. I my mind I performed a comparison with the abstract work Neil on the OCA Scotland group. Neil’s work had more of a story and a purpose which brought the reason behind the abstract images to life for me. I found Barry’s purely abstract work more difficult as it had no story or point other than a celebration of the play of light taken without a lens. It was interesting to compare that with his collage / multiple exposure works. Interesting to think that photography doesn’t need a focal point or a back story.

Lynda then showed her work and asked for help as she felt stuck. Her work was based around the invisibility of the female. I found the ideas she ws exploring fascinating. She spoke about different ideas such as adverts which use the female form or a personal insight when waiting to be served, shop assistants might overlook her and seek to serve the man behind her in the queue. I offered a view that the ideas she had expressed were worthy of further exploration and she seemed to have a positive response and said she felt less isolated and stuck.

Would be interesting to see how these works progress and whether my initial greater attraction to Lynda’s work stays as the works develop.

 

27th April – I not been documenting these meetings which is remiss of me.

I will apologise up front as this is going to be a moan.

The Photography 3.1 students have held a fair few meetings. The first one I dialled into was on the 23rd February. These been running every 2 weeks. The meeting started very positively discussing the student’s projects and research aims, even if these articulated in basic way for those near to the start of the level 3 studies, such as myself. I found these meetings very positive and supportive and a good way to share ideas and to get feedback and also to provide feedback to others. I learned that others were working on an abstract project, a project on landscape  and the materiality of photography and perceptions of reality and a project asking what is a photograph and looking at the destrucion of a photograph. All fascinating.

Because the Level 3 structure has changed with the move to 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, there are a lot of questions from students about the course such as the project plan, how the assessment will look and feel and what might be submitted, what the next course, 3.2, looks like and what we should take from 3.1 into 3.2 and more.  In general, while I have found such discussion interesting, but I would much rather we didn’t focus so much on the course structure and more on group sessions and trying to encourage and learn from one another. I have to admit that since the early sessions, I have become a little frustrated with the sessions which is why I not been documenting these calls.

We have had tutor along to the last two calls which I think is good to try and set minds at ease but it is another 2 meetings where we not discussed what I think is the more interesting topic of what we are creating and the difficulties we experience. We now have some tutor led group sessions in diary but I wonder if these might be more of the same.

Tonight 27th April, we did say that next call we should hopefully go back to original purpose of the student calls. I look forwards to finding out what our ever expanding group of students are working on.