Month: May 2022

Through this unit I’ve been exploring the cyclical nature of making and interpreting meaning. I hope this exploration considers the role of the author, viewer and the subject in influencing the ways in which we make sense of information. The project is about the labour of ‘seeing’ – it interrogates the purpose of ambiguity and clarity in encouraging imagination and interpretation.

An Exercise on Seeing – Version One

In week one, I combined visual, textual and audio elements from ‘Ways of Seeing’ by John Berger and ‘Sentences on Conceptual Art’ by Sol Lewitt. I became interested in how combining seemingly unrelated material can disorient a viewer. I hoped to explore how the fragmented nature, the confusion and ambiguity intercut with brief moments of clarity can encourage the viewer to carefully look, interpret and draw new connections between different source materials.

Based on this idea, I made version one of ‘An Exercise on Seeing’. Here I combined fragmented (yet – to me – loosely associated) pieces of found footage, a voice-over narration and text-captions that interrogate how we ‘see’.

I hoped to find out how different people would ascribe meaning to seemingly unrelated materials when they are juxtaposed together. What are the connections they make? What are the thoughts, concepts and ideas this exercise can trigger? I also wanted to understand how ambiguity and disjointed-ness could encourage imagination through multiple open interpretations

Interpretation Cards – Does this change how you see?

I then asked people to view and note down their interpretations, thoughts and responses to the moving image piece.

I used the responses to create prompt cards. I imagine a viewer to receive one of these cards prior to viewing the next version of the exercise. How does the interpretation of one person prompt and influence another person’s perception? How do the perceived meanings continue to evolve through this cyclical process of making and interpreting?

An Exercise on Seeing – Version Two

The interpretation cards above subsequently influenced version two of ‘An Exercise on Seeing.’ In this version, a new sequence of found footage is added in a fourth panel. How does this new frame, based on viewer interpretation change the way this moving image piece is understood? Does it give new ways for people to form connections and make meaning?

Additionally, how do the prompt ‘interpretation cards’ influence the way new audiences see the video? How do the prompts encourage you to see in a way someone else has previously seen? Does the layout with 4 panels change the way your eyes move across the screen? Does it increase the intensity of viewing? Does it add clarity? Does it increase ambiguity?

Written Response – List of References:

Readings

1. Ahmed, S. (2017)  ‘Introduction’ in Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 1–18.
2. Barthes, R. [1967] (1977) ‘Death of the Author’ in Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana Press. pp. 143–148.
3. Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. New York: Penguin Books. pp xx-yy.
4. Lewitt, S. (1968) Sentences on Conceptual Art.
5. Sontag, S. [1966] (2009) ‘Against Interpretation’ in Against Interpretation Against Interpretation and Other Essays. London: Penguin.

Practices

1. HyperNormalisation (2016). Directed by Adam Curtis. [Documentary Film]
2. View From The People Wall (1964) Directed by Charles and Ray Eames.
   [A Multichannel Film Installation]

The Position

The position I started to develop at the end of the previous brief was to begin to consider the labor involved in making and interpreting meaning, while considering the relationship between and the position of maker, viewer and the subject or object being perceived.

In this Unit, I’m interested in encouraging the labor of considered looking. I hope to do this by overlaying ambiguity, distortion, interpolation and other methods of manipulation onto the perceived material. How does this affect interpretation? How does this affect a viewers experience and perception? What are the multiplicity of meanings created? Who creates them? Who is right – the maker, viewer or the subject? Are there even ‘correct’ meanings? Or is a better question… What do you make of the things you perceive regardless of what is ‘correct’? What is the value of misinterpretation?

The References

The three reference I chose to respond to for this unit were, [1] Ways of Seeing Episode 4 (1972) by John Berger as televised on the BBC; [2] Sentences on Conceptual Art (1968) by Sol Lewitt; [3] I Am Sitting In A Room (1969) by Alvin Lucier.

All three of these references build on the iterations and references from the previous brief, where I was looking at [1] the ways in which we read images and text; [2] the ways in which a maker makes meaning and how a viewer may interpret, misinterpret and evolve the meanings made; and [3] the ways in which diminishing or distorting the qualities of a material/subject/object being perceived may lead to seeing/listening and understanding said material in different ways that may not be as straightforward as what is being presented.

The Iterative Responses

Using the above references as a starting point, I created three moving image iterations that interpolated parts of the contents of two or more of my chosen references.

Sentences on Seeing: Part 1

Sentences on Seeing: Part 2

Sentences on Seeing: Part 3

Through this experiment, I wanted to explore a few things.

1. How does the interpretation of each iteration vary from one another?
2. How do people interpret (moving) image, text and voice together?
3. Does the fragmented nature force the viewer to look more closely?
4. If so, does the viewer draw connections between the three references as it forced me to do?
5. Do these connections exists already?
6. Or are they slightly new variations of meaning we create as positioned, subjective and individual perceivers of these references juxtaposed in a very specific context?
7. In certain parts the connection between references are clear, but can the absence of connection or ambiguity of meaning in certain parts of these iterations create room for new ideas, concepts and connections?

Tutorial Feedback

1. The idea and position are rich areas to look further into. Focus on the lens of maker, viewer, subject and object. And their relationship/influence on meaning and multiple perspectives.
2. The experiment does begin to explore how variables in manipulating a message can shift its understanding. How can this be pushed further? What are the variables?
3. Works that it deals with subjectivity, makers voice / intent and viewers own meanings and connection. There is no right interpretation.
4. The cropping, narrowing and withholding of clarity works in making the viewer question what is going on – it intrigues. It works to encourage sense-making.
5. Consider the line between being able to form some sort of understanding (potential for new meaning through distortion) and total incoherence (viewer gives up trying to form any understanding).
6. The voice-over having a more human sound rather than sounding so robotic can help the listening be a bit smoother.
7. Play around further with the text – voice – found image – found footage combination. How do you combine these ‘found’ and ‘authored’ elements to make something new?
8. How can this be pushed further? Can there be multiple screes? Can it be a multi-channel installation?
9. What is the content I will manipulate next? How will the message be manipulated? Will it effectively encourage considered interpretations? What are the interpretations people will make?

Reference Suggestions

1. HyperNormalisation (2016). Directed by Adam Curtis. [Documentary Film]

2. View From The People Wall (1964) Directed by Charles and Ray Eames. [A Multichannel Film Installation]

References That Guided Further Iteration

The references below helped me contextualise my initial iterations as an inquiry into how we shape and see things. They guided my iterative process in the second week of this project towards exploring concepts of the constructions of reality and perception, the labor involved in shaping meaning and subsequently the labor involved in interpretation and sense-making.

• Haraway, D. (1988) ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.’ Feminist Studies, 14(3). pp. 575–599.
  
  
• Rock, M. ([1996] [2009] 2013) ‘Designer As Author’ and ‘Fuck Content.’ Multiple Signatures: On Designers, Authors, Readers and Users. New York: Rizzoli.
  
  
• Ross, L. (2014) Language in the Visual Arts: The Interplay of Text and Imagery. Jefferson: Macfarland.
  
  
• Sontag, S. (2003) Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  
  
• The Girl Chewing Gum. (1976) Directed by John Smith. [Film]
  
  
•  Margitte, R. (1935). La Clef des Songes. [Oil on Canvas]. Available at: https://www.moma.org/audio/playlist/180/2390 [Accessed: 5th May 2022].
  
  

Week Two Iterative Experiments

I began this week’s iterations guided by my references to experiment with the authoritative control held by a designer/author/director over the construction of a narrative and the relationship this ascribed meaning has to a viewers interpretation. 

In my iterations I manipulate and obscure viewer perception through, captioning, distorting, repetition and varied sequencing using imagery extracted from unedited documentary footage. 

Using the initial 100 iterations, I added 20 more captioned stills – here the images are clear yet the captions are totally unreliable, useless or misleading.

Based on the feedback from the previous week, I wanted to focus on the form, sequencing and narrative potential these 120 iterations hold.

With these 120 image-text combinations, I first created a grid or graphic key, which maps out the sequence of images and their corresponding captions. Each image and corresponding caption are sorted, tagged and coded in a sequence.

I used this graphic key to create a collection of iterative printed publications using different permutations and patterns of the image-text combinations to create multiple distinct narratives.

The publications consist of multiple versions of a singular narrative made up of images and captions that vary in levels of clarity and accuracy.

View all publication iterations through the links below:

Unreliable Narratives: 1
Unreliable Narratives: 2
Unreliable Narratives: 3
Unreliable Narratives: 4
Unreliable Narratives: 5
Unreliable Narratives: 6
Unreliable Narratives: 7
Unreliable Narratives: 8
Unreliable Narratives: 9
Unreliable Narratives: 10
Unreliable Narratives: 11
Unreliable Narratives: 12

Some Questions I Wanted My Iterations To Explore…

How might my work embody the subjective nature of engaging with difficult information? How do we make sense of information? What is the relationship between maker’s intent and viewer’s interpretation? What is the relationship between image, text, sequence and meaning? Can these relationships be challenged?

Feedback Notes

• The project is most successful when the narrative (or poetic) sequence achieves the right balance in levels of clarity and accuracy between the image and corresponding caption. 

• The graphic key poster that catalogues each still and corresponding image in sequence and degree of manipulation worked well to contextualise the set of publications created.

• They work best when viewed together as a collection.

• It successfully reflects the intention to create multiple narrative constructions and subsequent interpretations from a single information set.  
  
• The process of understanding the content more as you are experiencing it over a period of time as a whole collection reflects the emphasis on the labor involved in creating, engaging with, and interpreting difficult information. 

• There is an optimal range for image manipulation where the intent to challenge the relationship between image and textual interpretation works best. In some of the manipulated stills and accompanying captions it was too difficult to perceive any meaningful formal qualities within the image, leaving the text to narrow the ‘meaning’ too much.

The Starting Point

For my starting point, or ‘Iteration Zero’ to base my 100 iterations on, I chose an unexplored thread in my Methods of Translating project. In the first week of the project, I obscured some raw documentary footage and added captioning to guide how a viewer might interpret the obscured footage. However, in further iterations, I did not focus on the idea of an authoritative voice and rather focussed on the audio visual form of a memory.

The 100 Iterations

For these new iterations, I chose a different portion of the footage. I extrapolated 20 stills from this portion of the footage. My iterations were a repetition of the act of captioning 5 versions of successively diminished versions of the extracted still images. As the quality of the image decreased, the captions become more detailed, descriptive and accurate. This resulted in five versions of each of the 20 stills with varying degrees of clarity of the caption and image.

I chose to print them as an unbound set of pages, as I wanted to present them laid out in a grid that showcases the chronology of the stills (vertical) and the diminishing clarity of image and increasing clarity of caption (horizontal).