1. 2nd volume of experiments more interesting. There is more of my own interpretation layered into this one. 2. There is evidence of a ‘purpose’ – which is to build a system of re-cataloguing and re-animating content that is pixelated, indecipherable or lost. 3. The 1st volume of experiments work more to provide context of deconstruction to support volume 2.
What didn’t work:
1. Volume 1 lacks the layering in of my own examination and purpose. It is a re-categorisation, but on it’s own it needs a purpose. 2. Volume 2, can expand on the process of identification & interpretation of the visual forms within the pixelated frames.
How can this progress further?
1. What are some other systematic techniques I could use to guess or decipher the frames? Notation, digarams to break down shape and form. Other photographic material with similar grammar to visualise my sense-making process. 2. How can I document and present these techniques within the volume of pages? 3. How can I weave experiments from ‘volume 1’ to support ‘volume 2’ to create a more comprehensive catalogue.
The process of cataloging comes through when I start to identify and break down patterns & forms and start to organise them into sub sets. It would be interesting for me to further look into the ways in which we use these types of images to decode the kind of life that has been captured within them through the forms and visual cues present.
It could be expanded and built upon to create an anthropological study or portrait of the type of life that has been shown within these photographs. I could bring in more images, formal patterns and textual artefacts as well.
The methods of cropping, zooming, isolation and recontextualisation can change the intentions of the original set. They are methods that can compel a reader to look/see the images presented in a different context. However without some additional contextualisation through notations or symbols; the new sequencing and interpretation of the deconstructed images can become too ambiguous.
The aesthetic choices of the 4th experiment here highlight the aspects of ‘home archiving’ as opposed to archiving systems and methods adopted by institutions or museums. It highlights not only the contents but the personal and the personality of who is creating this archive as well. It might be interesting to take this ‘personal’ archiving further.
I could do this by experimenting with the form, adding in notations and/or symbols to help decode and contextualise the meaning I am trying to generate through this process of recording and deconstructing images.
Walid Raad, Notebook Volume 72: Missing Lebanese Wars (plate 137), 1996–2003. Archival inkjet print. Copyright: Walid Raad. Courtesy the artist and Paula Cooper Gallery, New York.
At the start of my exploration, I was inspired by the process of gleaning portrayed in Agnès Varda’s, ‘The Gleaners and I’ (2000). Varda examines the various contexts in which people are motivated to glean. Gleaning is depicted as the act of collecting that which has been forgotten, discarded or left behind, yet still holds the potential to be utilised by those who glean (ibid.).
I was interested in gleaning as a method to investigate and subsequently communicate the qualities of my chosen site. I chose the space on Caledonian Road between Bus stop A and R. I was immediately drawn to banal objects and traces of mundane human action in the space.
Though I couldn’t physically remove some of these traces from the space, I used different methods to obtain or glean them. I photographed the texture, imagery, signs and language that were found on the surfaces of the space. I created 3D replications of objects and detritus left behind on the street that were composited and stitched together from multiple images. I also extracted actual printed ephemera, which I later utilised as material to print on and give form to my findings. These methods of gleaning from the space highlight the features of permanence and impermanence of that which exists and is left behind in our urban environments.
Focussing on collecting objects and elements that occupy my chosen space forced me to examine the ordinary and unintentional ways in which we access, behave, communicate and relate to our public spaces.
FORM
Whether it involved photographing traces of human action or collecting printed ephemera; my investigation seemed to flatten my chosen physical space since it was captured on or took the form of pages – on print and screen. Johanna Drucker suggests that our methods of sense-making, both digital and analog, have long been influenced by the ‘conceptual capacities’ of printed form (2014, p. 180). I was interested in exploring the potentials and limitations of print and its ability to translate my interpretations of a physical site.
My investigation developed through a ‘graphic interpretation’ of the space using both analog and digital methods to deconstruct and rearrange the visual and textual qualities collected from the space (ibid., p. 181). I scanned, isolated, manipulated, distorted and re-printed photographs from the site to create repetitive patterns juxtaposed with textual narratives constructed from my subjective interpretations of the space. Alongside this, my investigation included pages that mapped and contextualised found objects, images and text found in the space. The printed form also allowed me to experiment with the tactile qualities of paper stock (including printing on material gleaned from the space), size, textures, opacities, layering of pages and ink to help mirror the complex textural qualities observed in Caledonian Road.
Developing a subjective visual reading and translation of the investigated space involved extensive editing and abstraction. The ambiguity of what eventually made it onto the page reflects the limitations of translating the exhaustive and complex qualities of a space into printed form.
REFERENCES
Drucker, J. (2014) ‘Designing Graphic Interpretation’ in Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 180-192
Visually, it works. The idea of collecting text and creating new meaning was interesting. As well as collecting traces of texture and human affectation to layer over. The connection between the text and patterns are a bit unclear or ‘too big of an area to focus on.’ How can I highlight the connect between the two?
I feel like it makes sense to keep these different elements of image, text, textures, signs, symbols etc. They all make up the of the ways in which we communicate and leave behind traces of human action and I don’t want to lose out on those complexities.
The form of print works – using layers, transparencies and textures to translate the qualities of a physical space. How can I push this further. How can I play with size, scale and different materials.
I would like to continue to expand on printed form. I am interested in print as a means of documenting/evidencing and disseminating knowledge/information. can include or print on physical ephemera actually found in the space.
But conceptually, it’s not about creating a response or outcome. But evidencing an exhaustive process of investigation.
On reflection, I definitely feel like I can be a lot more detailed in illustrating my actual process of moving through and experiencing the space. What were the questions I was asking of the space?
It needs to be more clear in the presented findings what my thought process was. Showing my notes. My understanding of what I was seeing.
Can I map more clearly where the pieces of text were found? Where were the visual materials collected? Can I map or illustrate or diagram that process of collection?
Can I present my process from the source images to processing to responding and presenting my findings more clearly.
There was some conflicting comments on whether the ‘statements’ ‘new meanings’ worked or not. “The statements were maybe a bit ‘Didactic’ or ‘Prescriptive.’” “I like them. They sort of mirror the aesthetics of protest.” “I like the idea of using found text and connecting them to make new meaning”
I think I would like to keep these meanings as one of the experiments. I don’t think I’m trying to force meaning or my perspectives onto the space. I dont think this particular bit of output removes me as some outside observer and claims to be a neutral replication of what was found. But very much acknowledges my lens. I think I am more trying to illustrate that people can choose to absorb and reproduce information subjectively. I feel like the meanings I have created acknowledge their subjectivity and individual position. And are not descriptive of the space as much as they are reflective of my response to show ‘discomfort’ or ‘opposition’ to the dominant kinds of ways in which we communicate in public spaces.
Our preoccupation with consumerism, buying, selling, corporate identity, access (or inability to access) space clearly manifest in most of the ‘legitimate’ text and imagery collected. I found it interesting to find ripped up or scratched out bits of graffiti, stickers, self-made posters, handwritten signs that showed anger, asked for support, reflected communal activities, independent businesses and promoted alternate music or art or political movements like extinction rebellion. Once these bits of text were collected, the only way to respond was to be uncomfortable or oppose that certain types of information, language or methods of communication were given legitimate space in the ‘public’ while others were maybe not.
It seemed like an interesting way to respond to it. But I need to be a bit more clear on the reasoning behind that response in the actual evidence of my investigation. Show more of how I arrived at the narratives made? I can also develop a more comprehensive directory of the text collected and try to create connections that may be considered more banal / are guided by a system rather than my lens?
Also ask myself what is the point of this very clear position of opposition to the dominant forms of language used in the space. And whether this response is actually critical towards the idea of accessing means of communication in public space? What is the purpose of the aesthetics of ‘criticality, activism and protest’ as a graphic design output? Do they serve a purpose at all? Maybe/maybe not?Maybe acknowledge that this work isn’t meant to presume some sort of ‘changemaking’ ‘activist’ ability, but is just a reflection of an individual thought process.
What’s missing is to illustrate more clearly the context of the actual space.
The work presented deliberately ‘removes context.’ But to evidence my exploration it might need to ‘layer back in some more information’ and re-contextualise my findings in Caledonian Road. Situate myself and the findings back specifically in the space.
How does the space relate to the investigation. And how is the investigation related to the ‘new meanings created’? More evidence of being present and observing the space.
