Evaluation

I felt that it is important to evaluate the piece that I have produced for the final degree show. In this evaluation I plan to discuss my original proposal in relation to the finished piece. I want to focus on my initial intentions for the work and whether these have materialised to the standard required. I plan to discuss the various parts of the work and how these in turn have contributed to the final outcome. 

The Rhizome brief asked for us to reflect back to move forward, the connections throughout the degree were evident once I came to a greater understanding of what my practice was. This is reflected in the work, with its focus on the idea and the writing being prominent as well as the way in which the piece itself is based on observation and understanding. There are certain proposed aspects that I feel I have fulfilled within the final piece. I mentioned that although I understood that theory was important, I wanted to create a balance between both this and the visual element of the work. I aimed to make my final piece easily accessible and engaging for an audience, something that they could be comfortable with watching. I also was right to suggest a sufficient amount of time for editing, which is something I have worked hard to stick to and I am glad as it took me slightly longer than expected to finish off the films to the standard that I required. Nevertheless there are some points that I feel have developed much further than what I had proposed. The connection to essay film is something that remains but is not such an integral part of the work as I expected it to be. I have also made four short films instead of the one. I proposed that the work would be an addition to the artist statements for the show, however I feel that the piece has become something that is much more personal than I originally intended. I was surprised at how closely I had stuck to the brief, but this is also something that has been consistent within my practice; a love of planning. I am going to consider how these intended outcomes have or have not been achieved within the work, and evaluate these findings. 

The degree show piece is inspired by Linda Weintraub’s Making Contemporary Art: How Modern Artists Think and Work (2003). The book is a collection of essays and interviews with various artists. Weintraub asks questions at the beginning of the book to allow the reader to begin to formulate their own answers to these. They are: Why are you an artist? Who is your audience? How do you communicate with your audience? and What is arts function in society? I recorded interviews with the other students within the studio space and encouraged them to consider where they would place themselves in a wider context. I edited the footage together and compiled four films loosely based around each of the questions. The films focused on what was being said rather than the image itself, for me the visual nature of the work was secondary. I played with the use of sound and experimented with cutting to footage of the students working. The subtitles became one of the most important elements of the work as they highlighted the written word. They became a part of each persons individual character as they merged and adapted depending on who was speaking. The work was shown on old TV screens that were sitting atop a table that I made with a stool in front of each screen. I had spent the time transcribing each of the interviews, which made the editing process a lot smoother, however, I felt that it was a shame that most of what was said during the interviews would be lost, therefore I decided to include a bound text with these transcripts. 

Films

When I think more carefully about how I first envisioned the work to be I know that what has been completed is not even remotely similar. One thing that is mentioned within the work is the way in which it is difficult to discuss the process you go through when you are putting a piece together like this; there are steps that you take and rules that you follow, and through that the work is formed. This was a task that was extremely out of my comfort zone, I have not had much experience with filming on this scale, nor have I had any experience with editing professionally. I am proud of myself for the way in which I decided to learn what I needed to know to get started and face it head on. I threw myself into the filming, although this was because I was conscious of the time I would need to refine the work, it seemed that the process of filming became a piece of work in itself. The interviews were an experience for both me and the other students. Not only did I learn a lot about who they were and what they were interested, but the feedback suggested that it enabled them to understand the context within which they sit more than they have been able to before. There were times when I was concerned about the quality of the footage. I researched and sourced advice on ways to adjust the lighting to allow for a better quality image, as well as exploring the use of mics for an improved sound. It wasn’t long before I realised that these changes were not necessary, not only because in both cases they helped very little, but also because the films were not about the quality of the footage, the focus is on what is said. Similarly, research into essay film displayed the importance of found and poor quality footage to this format. Once I had decided this I felt comfortable with what I was recording and was able to fully immerse myself into the experience. 

I didn’t realise how deeply Weintraub’s book Making Contemporary Art would be ingrained into the work. The questions became the base of the conversation and sparked answers that interconnected between the various individuals. The vagueness of the questions allowed for different interpretations of these as well as the different answers. It was evident that patterns had begun to emerge, and even from the first few interviews it was easy to see the various strains of conversation that would be included in the final outcome. What I liked the most about this process was the way in which I was not searching for an answer, I used what was given and this meant that the work was in the hands of the other artists, they were creating the content. After reading an extract from the work of Susan Sontag’s ‘Against interpretation’ (1966) about transparency in art, how the work should be transparent and only then will we be free from the clutches of the critic. This is something that struck me about the interviews that had taken place: they felt very honest and true, and I was privileged to have the chance to talk to these people about things that can be quite personal. I knew that this transparency was something that I wanted to be evident throughout the work. 

I had originally intended to make the one film, however, the idea of multiples came from attempting to work out the way in which the single film would be displayed. I didn’t believe that the use of a large screen would be particularly interesting, and projection, I felt, would lose the physicality of the image. I felt that if the film were to be split and shown on different screens, that this then could be much more immersed into the exhibition. Although the questions asked often evolved in conversation I knew that I would choose to structure these by the different questions. This structure would then enable the viewer to engage more fully with different subjects; a much longer film would have more likely discouraged the viewer. I felt that shorter films would be more accessible, which is one thing that I really wanted the work to be. Linda Weintraub’s book was inspirational with its accessibility and so I felt that this is certainly a part that should be reflected in the work. The films are split into the questions: Why are you an artist? Who is your audience and how do you communicate with your audience? What motivates you to make a work of art? and finally, What is arts function in society? I knew however that with the vast amount of footage I had gathered, condensing these down into short films would be another challenge so therefore I knew that I would need a set of rules and a process in order to make this plausible. 

The focus on the content of the films and the writing is perhaps the most important element of this piece, and has been consistently throughout the degree. Due to this I knew that if I was to focus on the footage first then I would lose sight of what it is that I wanted to achieve. The process of choosing the content of the films was definitely the smoothest part of making the work and this was because when gathering the footage I had taken the time to transcribe all of what was recorded. Initially I did not do this for myself but for the people being interviewed as I felt it was a shame that they would not have a record of everything that they had said. The transcriptions became an integral part of not only the editing but also the work itself. With the transcriptions I went through and highlighted any parts that I felt were particularly interesting, or sparked something within myself. It would often be if I agreed with something that was said or I felt that it differed greatly from my own interpretation. At this stage I was not interested in the footage that went along with the writing, it was important for me to make the work from the words, not the image. After singling out the areas of text that I felt should be included I then attempted to place these individual parts into different categories. These closely resembled the questions asked however the conversation moved on so far from the original questions that it was often difficult to place certain parts. The next stage in the process was to separate each of the questions and the categorised answers. I placed the different snippets into a grid and cut them out into smaller squares. This allowed me to play around with the formation of the individual films, and the way in which different parts would link well and others would contradict, I could see how the films would be formed and created storyboards from these. This part of the process took place in front of the screens in the edit suite. Doing this meant that the content stayed fresh in my mind and was much easier to change and manipulate. The transcriptions allowed me to easily find the placement of these smaller sections in relation to the footage, and so the next stage was to collate these together by cutting the smaller films. Through this I finally had a look at the visual element of the work, if I felt that the footage wasn’t working within the film I removed it with the intention of adding in extra footage that I would be gathering of the students working in the studio. This process meant that even down to the editing, the focus was on what was said. 

Editing is something that I had had no previous experience with. I sought advice from the TLR staff on how to achieve what I wanted with the films, however my skills only began to improve as I continued to practice. The task at this stage was to try and overcome any problems that I encountered, I used a mixture of help from members of staff and youtube videos to attempt to gain a clearer understanding of how to achieve the finish that I wanted for the films. This was certainly not easy, I was correct in mentioning in the proposal that I wanted to allow myself time for editing and making mistakes, this was a necessity and I am glad that I finished off the filming earlier than I had originally foresaw. After having the basic body of each of the films I then had to take time to get the cuts and changes right between footage, as well as using different effects to manipulate the quality of the image. A characteristic of essay films is that they often play with the mixture of colour and black and white footage. This is something I wanted to achieve with my own work. My initial instinct was to make all of the films black and white, as this is how I usually worked, however I felt that it would be a shame to lose the colour in some of the footage. For example, the colour behind Alison’s work is key when she speaks of her relationship with paint and colour and how this is evidenced in her works, however the footage of Sarah was shot in the TV studio with the bright green back drop, as this is a space that Sarah felt comfortable to talk in. The green background was extremely vivid and changing this to black and white softened its dramatic effect in comparison with the rest of the film. From the testers I made I realised that this mixture of black and white and colour footage is something that can work seamlessly and in fact there was something I liked about seeing the same image stripped of colour, it was again a play with honesty and purity which I felt was effective. 

I spent time gathering extra footage of the students working as I felt that this would be good to include in the films as there would also be a reference with their work in the exhibition, the audience would be able to connect what they were seeing with the work on display. Another part I also liked about these small clips was the way in which it contrasted well with the static shots of the interviews, I had aimed for a balance with the movement of these images. There were also certain clips that worked particularly well when paired with the conversation. Alison was an example of this when she speaks of allowing something to happen without her control; I had captured an image of her pouring paint onto the canvas and letting it disperse. This was also consequently one of the most exciting parts of her large paintings and so I was extremely pleased that I had recorded that moment. I must admit that there were certain times that these connections happened by chance, and it was because of these moments that I knew as I was going along that I was doing the right thing with these films. 

The sound was something I was particularly worried about. The noise of the studios made recording the conversation difficult, although the DSLR’s were could at capturing great footage and sound there were times when it was simply impossible to hear what was being said. I attempted to combat this with the use of a microphone only to find that this in fact made it worse. I knew that to get this perfect would be something that would require equipment that I would not have been able to get a hold of and learn to use within the time I had, therefore I had to find another alternative. Essay films play with the idea of narration and subtitles frequently and I decided that I would use subtitles to neutralise any problems I had with the sound recording. The subtitles effectively managed to solve multiple concerns at once. Not only would it mean that I did not have to worry about reshooting and relocating the interviews to a quieter location, but I felt more than anything subtitles were a way to fully engage the viewer with the work. From personal experience I have found that subtitles make an image which captures dialogue easily accessible. There is something that I find about listening to what is said much harder to do than simply reading it. The subtitles allow for the audience to see what is being said at a glance, as well as easily dip in and out of conversations. After seeing the films working with the subtitles I also felt that the writing on the screen emphasised the importance of the words. I still wanted to have the sound, but the subtitles meant that this could be low so that it would not impact the other people exhibiting. The sound at a low volume sounds similar to the constant hum of the studio. 

The format of the subtitles is something that I struggled to get right, and I have still been adjusting even a week before the installation of the work as the sizes of the words altered depending on what screen they were playing on. In a series of testers I made with various different fonts and sizes, Gilbert Richards, upon viewing these, noted that he felt the fact that the subtitles were different gave a sense of the individuality of the person speaking. I was particularly struck by this idea and realised that the connections between the four films was stronger because the individual texts referenced the different people. Most importantly my aim was to make sure that the subtitles were easy to read, and clear so that again the work is accessible. The idea was for the work to be an easy and enjoyable experience, a way in which the audience could learn more, not only about the artists themselves, but also about their own interpretations. I chose the fonts depending on what I felt worked for the footage and I also considered the person speaking and aspects of their personality that I felt could be displayed within a font. An example of this is the way in which I associate Sarah with a typewriter as the use of this style of writing has been consistent within her practice, therefore the font for the subtitles over Sarah’s footage is similar to that of a type writer. I was concerned that the different subtitles would look odd, however I felt that this was certainly not the case, and in fact the different subtitles added an element of interest and diversity to the films. 

After deciding that I would have the four films, I didn’t taken the timing of the work into much consideration. As mentioned previously I wanted to focus on what was being said and what I wanted to include without worrying about certain restrictions. It just so happened that each of the films ended up being roughly five minutes long. When these are combined they are the length I had aimed for originally with the single film. I didn’t want them to be too long as I feel that a short film is much more likely to engage an audience than something that was longer. The films are on a loop so that each one would be played continuously without the need to restart them. I added a section of roughly forty seconds onto each film where it just goes blank. I wanted to highlight the ending of the films for a few reasons: the first is so that the films do not seem to be much longer than they are, and the second is because I felt by allowing that time where the screens go blank it gives an audience the chance to move onto the next film or decide if they want to continue watching at all. I also wanted to make sure that there wasn’t necessarily a start and a finish to the films, which will allow for the opportunity to interact with the work from any moment without feeling like they have missed any key points. 

Presentation

I knew quite early on that I wanted to use old fashion box TVs for the showing of my films. I have worked with them previously and love the aesthetic quality of the screens and the individuality of the different models and makes which is lost with newer screens, there is also something about their size that gives them a presence, the object becomes a being. I collected the screens from boot sales and trash for nothing sites. I was surprised at how cheaply this was done and how easy they were to find as this was a concern for me at the beginning. I acquired some old DVD players cheaply and found that these were effective at displaying the image to a good quality, however this greatly depended on the screen. The only concern I still currently have about the work is the reliability of the TVs and the DVD players, although they have all been PAT tested, I have had a few problems with the running of these and I am afraid that there will be a problem during the exhibition. To combat this I have left a spare TV and DVD player at the college just in case anything was to go wrong, however this is a worry that is always present when working with technology, even new technology. When working with found technology like this it is difficult to pick and choose what style you want or the quality of the image, as I had gathered more than I needed I was able to choose the TVs with the best picture quality as well as the DVD players that played the films in a widescreen mode, which meant that they were not distorted by the shape or size of the screens. 

As mentioned previously the idea to split the films was inspired by the discussion about the way in which the work will be presented. This is also true for the amount of films that I made. Although I had gathered all of the footage I was still unsure about how to display the work, it was necessary to come to a decision about this because I knew that the editing would depend greatly on how the work will look in the end. I knew that I wanted multiple TVs and originally I experimented with the idea of splitting them up and spreading them around the exhibition, displaying each film in a separate area. I thought at the time that this would immerse the films much more in the work of the exhibition, however, I realised that effectively what this would be doing would be changing the intention of the film, it would move the focus to the exhibition and instead of the work being a piece on display it would become something in the background. After seeing the screens together I knew that it would simply not work if the screens were split up, together they became one body of work that intermingled and connected, apart they became separate and disjointed.  

I experimented with stacking the TVs, and placing them closely together to form a wall of moving images. I used a plastic wracking to attempt to visualise what this would look like as I intended to have assistance in making more stable wooden structures of the same dimensions, and these would certainly take time. There were positives and negatives with this form of presentation. I really liked the way that the wires and the backs of the TVs were on show, this again visually provided this idea of transparency that I liked so much about the films. This is something that I didn’t intend at the beginning but felt right when seeing it, therefore this has remained in the final presentation. I did not like the way in which the work had become less about the films and more about the structure itself, it had become sculptural and although it was visually interesting the films were lost with the mass of wires, plastic and screens. Although I initially like the screens being close together I later realised that again the vast amount of screens too close together were straining on the eye and deterred the viewer from the content of the films. There were certainly elements that worked with this however it was not what I was looking for. I decided to think more closely about what it was that I wanted from the work and I realised than more than anything I wanted the viewer to have the chance to engage more fully with the films and learn from the conversation that took place. I knew then that any previous ideas about how to display the screens would never work. It was then that I tested out how well it would work if the screens were on a table, with chairs in front, so that the audience would be forced into this situation of having to sit and interact with the work. After trying this out it became evident that I was over complicating my ideas and refinement was key, simplifying the work down to the four screens was the answer. 

After deciding that I wanted a table to place the screens on I sourced a large piece of wood from the workshop and set about planning how I was going to construct it. I knew that anything I could buy would be expensive and would not necessarily work correctly. I don’t have much skill with the wood workshop and building, but I am proud of what I did achieve with the table, and I have learnt a lot in the process. There were times at which I needed assistance with cutting wood and attaching parts to the table top however I am pleased that I managed to do the majority of the work myself. The table top was two and a half metres long and I ordered eight worktop table legs to attach to the bottom of it. Not only did these combat any issues I may have had with the bowing of the table because of the weight of the TVs but they also had the shape of the plastic stand that I felt worked well with the TVs. I am pleased that the legs have drawn the elements from this and they have been reinvented in this piece. Two legs were placed under each TV for stability, and what I found surprising about this was the way in which the legs transformed the TVs into a being, they became a representation of the human form that reflected the close up shots of the students in the screens. I liked the way that the work still felt transparent, the wires from the TV sets and the extensions and plug sockets were all on show and as I realised previously this was not something I wanted to hide. I felt the same way about the DVD players and knew that although I didn’t want them hidden I needed to find a way to attach them to the table so that they were not at risk of falling and were completely flat. I had three shelves made which attached to the bottom of the table, this meant that you could access the DVDs to turn them on and off and the wires around the back were still on show. I made the middle shelf slightly bigger so that there could be two DVD players placed on here if the TV with the DVD built-in happened to fail. As for the colour, the black was another aspect of the original plastic stand that I knew should be drawn into this format, I painted the table top a gloss black, which tied together the plastic of the TVs and the legs. I feel that the gloss works well as gives the table a sleek finish, to add to this I added a wooden trimming around the edges of the table to ensure that the corners were crisp. I am incredibly proud of what I have achieved with this and particularly pleased with the finish. 

I want to evaluate how effective the presentation of the screens on the table is. I feel that it does evidence the transparency of the piece and I also feel that the table has a professional finish, particularly when you consider the lack of practice I have with making something such as this. I got four stools for the seats in front of the screens as I thought that it was important to get something that worked well with the visual aesthetics of the piece, like the black lines and the plastic, but also that wasn't too heavy and could be moved about so that any type of person would be comfortable with the experience. I felt that to have white boxes made to sit on would detach the seats from the work and although I didn’t want them to look like furniture I still felt that they needed to be a part of it. This display shows all the elements of the work and one part that I am particularly pleased with is the way in which the wires hang down the back of the table and pool on the floor behind. I have allowed for space behind as I wanted to make this a feature as I feel that the connecting wires demonstrates the way in which the films themselves intertwine and connect in such a rhizomatic nature. I feel having the work positioned in this way clearly invites the viewer to sit and interact with the work on a personal level, as they almost become a part of the conversation when they are positioned in such a way. They are seated in the role that I was in throughout the process, behind the camera but evidently present. I think if I was to develop this work further I might experiment with placing the TVs on four separate tables, and explore the different types of chairs that could be used for this. I feel that this might possibly highlight the individuality of the people in the work but then it might also give this feeling of separation that I disliked so much about the original idea upon seeing it. 

I am pleased with the placement of my work in the exhibition, as I have a lot more space than I ever thought I would, the TVs almost look dwarfed against the white walls. There were two requirements for this work, the first was that there was access to power and the second was that it would not be directly facing a window as the reflection of the sunlight on the screens made them difficult to see. The area that my work was placed in had an easily accessible power supply, and with the help of Martin, two extra long extension cables were run along the top of the boards and down the centre of my work. I felt that the finish of this was fantastic and I particularly like the way in which there was left over cable that pooled on the floor of the piece, adding to the effect of the wires. One concern is that although the work is very far back into the studio it is still facing a window, however, in the studios this cannot be helped as it is very bright. This was a problem with filming and in the end I decided to embrace the sunlight and so will be doing the same again. I am thrilled with how the work looks, and its association with the reading corner is definitely something that I encourage! 

Booklets and Artist Statement 

I knew that I wanted to publish a longer artist statement along with my work which consisted of an acknowledgement of the inspiration from Linda Weintraub’s book and the participation of the other students. I also wanted to include the full transcripts as I felt it was a shame that the rest of the  information outside of what was included in the films would be lost, I wanted to display to the audience that there was a lot more behind what they were seeing on the screens and that that was an experience in itself. I wanted this text to be professional, and so got it hardback bound within a black cover. Although the book looks great there was a visual disconnection between this and the work. I had a book stand made that was attached to the wall and I felt that the separation of this from the main area of the work and also the closed, coverless book were very harsh compared to the approachable nature of the rest of the work. I searched for a way to combat this and felt that I would be much happier if this text became a part of the work. I produced four copies of a shortened down version of this piece of writing, which I have sat on top of the chairs. This not only more deeply connected the chairs to the screens and made them feel less separated, but they are there the offer the audience a choice. I do not feel it is necessary that everyone reads the texts, however the chance is there and more than anything I wanted the text to acknowledge that the writing is an important element and the wider context behind the work as well. I feel that the texts are easy to hold and access, they are not precious and can be placed around the work, they act as a tool for the audience, not a requirement. 

I originally didn’t intend to have an artist statement with the work as I felt that the larger body of writing was the artist statement. However because I have condensed down what was included in this I felt that I wanted to include a reference to the key text to the work, and so my artist statement consists of this quote from Linda Weintraub’s book Making Contemporary Art:

‘On the production side, artists transform the private zones of their imaginations, insights, knowledge, emotions, and intuitions into forms that are transmittable to others. On the consumption side, viewers not only have the option of purchasing works of art, they also consume art each time they delight in it, learn from it, and identify with it, or reject it, criticise it and condemn it.’

This was one of the quotes included in the original version of the longer statement and I felt that these words summed up the work much more than my own ever could. I am glad that this also reinforces the connection between this book and the work as it is such an important part. I like the way it acknowledges the viewer and the artist, as this is a relationship that I feel is present within my work, and also the word ‘transmittable’ is what initially made me decide on using this quote. Not only do I aim for the work to be transmittable but I feel the wires and the way the TVs connect speaks of this. 

Conclusion 

Overall I am extremely proud of the piece that I have produced, at the beginning I found it difficult to imagine what the work would look like in the end as I was too busy trying to overcome the initial hurdles that I faced. I feel that if I was to go back to that time and try and picture the final piece fully installed I don’t believe it would look like it does. I never would have thought that I would make something like this table and attempt most of the work myself. I also would not have pictured the work looking as refined as it does, I am often one to overcomplicate something, which is apparent in the processes I went through to get to this stage, however I feel happy with the way that the work looks and I am excited to see how the audience will interact with the work on the private view evening. Although, you can try to predict how an audience would engage with the work, you will never truly know until this becomes a reality, this coincidentally is something that Sarah mentioned in her interview. The further I got into this project the more I noticed these kinds of connections. Although the work is based on the other students, more than anything the project has enabled me to learn more about myself and what my interests are and who I am as a person. I also have Linda Weintraub to thank for this, as her book was particularly insightful. I emailed Linda Weintraub to mention how important her work has been to my practice and what a difference her writing has made, her reply expressed her thanks and her excitement that her work had become a part of something like this, and for me this was the best way to end the journey I have been through with this piece.