April MFA Seminar // critique notes

Presented video below:

Wednesday (Yolunda, Natasha, Tracey, Jess and Warisara)

Work runs on a continuous loop, no specific beginning or end. No audio at present. A montage of smaller works. Asked to get feedback on what is working in relation to statement and what people think in general. Mentioned one of the scenes stuttering a little but no one else had noticed!

Group feedback:

• concatenation - things happening together that come together into something

• closed door for full immersion in the darkened space

• Transfixed; mesmerising, drawing one in

• Natasha - feels three-dimensional; feels fascinating, curious about how it was made

• Yolunda - reminded of the numerations of starlings; the logic of a grouping; these points are static however and we the viewer are moving through the work; mentioned Sorawit Songsataya's work

• feeling of moving through a galaxy/space

• Natasha - close view point feels micro; looking at something very small, but scale uncertain

• Tracey - feels organic, doesn't feel like the forms could be man-made as they are complex, layered, intricate, irregular; the randomness can't be replicated easily by humans; feels transparent but also different layers (not one solid form); feels like a lace veil at times (ephemeral)

• Yolunda - depth of field; solid dots that we think of as connected together because of the blur of the point of focus - we are connecting the dots into a form, making it solid when it actually isn't

• Warisara - sand sediment feeling, mountain ranges, speckles of rocks/something geological forming into something larger

• Jess - feels like a type of mapping or modelling of landscape; reminded of drone shots; familiar imagery that we get with aerial photography; feels familiar even though the perspective is unusual to us (through the work)

• contrast between identified qualities - macro, micro, landscape, particle, etc.

• Jess - close up shots feel like we should consider the close micro view while distant shots feel like an overview of a mountain scape

• Yolunda - when we shoot something up close, depth of field is shallow, sense of the microscopic; wider shots feel like moving through a cloud; layering of form/dots/the more solid entity feels plant-like almost - we try to find form/shape/meaning

• are viewers to care about the overall form or the microscopic view?

• Warisara - statement ties things together and gives some context; talks about rock formations; people who have an interest in land/rocks/etc. would study/look at things through a microscope perhaps (minerality), but would also look at the bigger picture

• Yolunda - le Guin quote: everything is made of something else; "little blue dot"; scale can point to both bits the thing is made of and the thing is part of

• Warisara - can understand the points in relation to the rest of the things around them; the close up of the speckles vs. the bigger picture formations comes together to make the whole

• Jess - statement doesn't perhaps need to reference a specific place, but wonder if it does; not indicative visually of any specific geological space; more metaphorical than literal perhaps; leads to considering the digital landscape, AI, etc. instead of the physical landscape - is that a conversation to be had given how prevalent that discussion is in the media currently?

• reminiscent of infographics and data sets rather than physical land forms; uncertainty around the site

• Yolunda - specific places carry specific contexts/histories; hovering at the image of poetics, the beauty of things, which could be enough; depends on what you want the work to do

• Jess - noted specificity of earlier works; wondered if colonisation needed to be referenced in statement

• Yolunda - we're enjoying the texture and material form of the work; where do you want the emphasis to be?

• Scale and projection

  • Natasha - wondered about installation possibilities in the future; something closer to ceiling or on roof (reminiscent of sky), vs. on the ground perhaps (atmosphere of the ground, earth); where it sits in space can add extra layers

  • Yolunda - orientation of work uncertain; no specific horizon-line, up, down, etc... Installation choices can influence that

  • Natasha - cloudlike; we can go through the forms visually

• Tracey - variation of the content (the different scenes within the montage) feels effective; changes keep it interesting and engaging; can't hold expectation of what will come next; pace and length of loop feels good, any shorter and it might feel too repetitive the longer one sits in the space; there's enough breathing space between the loop's repeat not to remember exactly what was seen before

• Yolunda - variety of shots feels like something is going on, not in a narrative arc but an enquiry looking at something in different ways

• Warisara - screensaver-like trance quality; could sit and watch for hours; links to that digital context unintentionally but not in a bad way; another reference point that it taps into

• Yolunda - what makes it not a screen save? Important to think about the boundaries of those things are when we are reminded of them

• Warisara - the detail, the production value, the thought that has gone into it; the way each formation appears and how we are guided through it

• Natasha - if presented in a different way, i.e. on a screen, could that then tap into screen formats/histories/etc.; presentation considerations, what do you want emphasised

• Parts feel like sunrise or sunset; up/down/shadows/light, sense of time passing

• Yolunda - what does the blank space between scenes do? Effective, important, but also something to consider; duration? Do you pause with those moments more/less/etc.?

• Jess - jumping on that: changing of environments over time mentioned in the statement, but doesn't feel like the work is of a landscape that has changed over time; doesn't use a visual language that depicts change; feels like different shots of the same digital landscape; feels as if there's something missing between statement and work

• Yolunda - if wanting to do that, can that be played with/teased out? Do you start each scene in the same space and allow subtle change for example? Does the change have to be present in the work, or can it be present in our minds? Does it need to be represented, or something that a viewer is asked to think about?

• I mentioned that I'm interested in how the viewer spends time in the space as I'm working in an installation setting - does it feel like you are waiting for something? Feeling of body important to me in relation to the work; I don't want to force someone to stay in the space, but to invite viewing and spending time with the work

• On sound possibilities - something I'm curious about but haven't quite figured out the balance

• Jess - sound could add to that immersion and installation environment; different considerations but could build on the work; statement, title, etc. all very poetic in nature, even though it sits next to geology, data, etc.; do you want to lean into those more data-related things, or go all poetic vibes?

• Yolunda - do you have to generate the recordings yourself? Mentioned Auckland University's catabatic chamber; recording the sound in that chamber for example and playing it... the recording of nothingness can also be a sound; mentioned ocean sound recordings that took place in lockdown; AI generated or found audio also a possibility; could use these data sets to generate a soundtrack - keep ideas open, run with the poetics... Combining an unusual sound with the image could also allow the viewer to piece things together themselves (i.e. opens up imaginative space in the mind)

Friday (Sonya, Jess, Laela, Mike and Kerin):

No changes made since the first critique as I wanted to get feedback from others who hadn't seen the work in its form. Did mention having tested sound, and that I wanted to revise the statement a little after the first critique

Group feedback:

• work disrupts our sense of scale

• push and pull between internal and external (i.e. glow worm cave, interior space vs. expanse/landscape); floating in between states/spaces/etc.

• reminiscent of molecules, cells, stars/galaxy

• mesmerizing

• emotional response/affect - Kerin mentioned feeling a sense of loss/sadness evoked in the fading of forms to darkness

• looks organic

• topographical forms

• Laela - when there is movement, it is like a transmutation; different emotional response - felt less of loss so much as transformation between states, beings, things, modes of existence; sense of time/life cycle as the particles transmute and become something else; you can grasp it for a time, but it is elusive

• Mike - mentioned micro-cosmic theory; reminded of particle physics, astrophysics; the idea that most of space is empty; beautiful, ephemeral but also a but sense that it could blow away or collapse at any time (precarious). Felt he could blow the forms away with a breath - relationship of body's existence to the forms; body is implicated in the work

• Hard not to link it to personal experiences of nature and being in space in a body (i.e. floating in the sea, seeing dust motes in the sun, pollen, etc.)

• Sonya - the gravity isn't terrestrial; throws us into different physical space and relationship; forms depicted are of a surface rather than a dense object/form
  

• Statement in relation to work:

  • Mike - asked if the forms are based on data from geographical data sets (photogrammetry process explained; link to physical objects - walls - explained)

  • Sonya - asked why the word "wall" wasn't included more prominently in the statement; felt like the title could do with something to ground it (i.e. inclusion of "wall 1", "Cornwall Park", etc.), just a touch of something locational/specific; would strengthen the paradox of it perhaps (ephemeral vs. specificity)

  • goes to geological landscape and history; connection to Jess' work and practice around bodies noted

  • Mike - liked inclusion of le Guin quote ("parts of me are stone..."); macro-micro sense; we are all in a state of flux and that connection comes through in the statement; lots of room for the viewer to project self on the work

  • Jess - right space in terms of duration of loop; holds attention without becoming repetitive; keeps people engaged and makes you want to sit with it

  • Mike - asked if the audience weren't aware of how the work was made, is that important?

  • Laela - multiple layers to engage with the work on, and the research described in the statement adds to them; the work keeps giving and the statement adds to the encounter

  • wall as a human construct - what are the implications of that?

  • expressed wanting to be with the work, read statement, then return to work with that added layer of information