Sunday, 24 July 2016

Final exhibition layouts

Alternative arrangements

Commonly with filmic work the projector is hidden often above and behind the audience. In 'Corpse' it will be seen and placed in the visual domain of the work, the viewer walking in-front of it becoming an active agent in the work. The explicit relationship between projetor and screen can be seen in the work of artists such as Liz Rhodes and Steve Farrer. Discussing Liz Rhodes work 'Light Music' in her essay 'Mutable screens' Nicky Hamlyn describes the effect of placing projectors 'inside' the work.

'By placing the projectors in front of the image and thus incorporating them into the visual arena, Rhodes forces into conjunction several highly contrasted aspects of film: the bulky clattering machine, its delicate film strip, and the immaterial yet powerful image it throws out. This forced conjunction stresses the irreducible complexity of film as a technological medium of stages and parts.'
Nicky Hamlyn - Expanded Cinema: Art, Performance, Film - p216-217 - 2011

Here Hamlyn is talking about film projection while in my own work I use digital projectors, however I still see them acting on the work albeit with a different agency. This is not the mechanically clattering of the machine age but the quiet hot hum of a digital future. 

My first idea for the final exhibition was to display two identically sized projections side by side in my space. Projecting two different forest video onto the front of the screens, and using slightly different versions of my charcoal animations on the back. This would in effect create a strip which the viewer could walk along. However with this arrangement space for the viewer to move about the work is going to be tight, the screens blocking off at least one third of the space. (Plan 1)

Plan 1
Alternatively I had thought of projecting one single larger image which would bet placed centrally. Two back projected images would then be used to cover the rear of the screen. However this would create a join which may be visually 'messy' and would have to meet precisely with no overlap. This could be technically very difficult when taking into consideration other layout considerations such as placement of screens and projectors.(Plan 2)

Plan 2
The 'Plan 2' arrangement would also have the drawback that a viewer will not be forced to move in front of the projection, thus revealing the image behind. I may have to put markings on the floor to indicate where the viewer would need to stand. Another more subtle way of manipulating the viewer  would be to create a small internal wall to force the viewer to move in front of the beam on entering. (Plan  3)
Plan 3

Setting up 'Metaphors we live by' at Pop my minds first birthday exhibition I had been given a very similar space to the one I will be using in the final exhibition. Here I found the space worked better with the projectors placed in apposing corners and the screen pushed as far back as possible into the far corner. Using the corners maximised the space, having the screen cut off a corner gave the viewer a much better space to move into. The room still felt like a room and not a corridor.

The only drawback with putting a screen into the corner is it allows space for one instead of two. However I am starting to think that this more simple arrangement would be preferable. (Plan 4) In 'plan 5' the same arrangement is used as 'Plan 4' but an internal wall is added to direct the viewer into the path of the beam. In 'plan 6 'the same effect is hopefully achieved by marking out where the viewer should stand on the floor.

Plan 4

Plan 5

Plan 6

It may be possible to project from all four corner with two screens arranged as a chevron in two adjacent corners. However the entrance to the space has been dictated as being in one of the corners, this would make the placement of a projector there problematic. I also think that visually this arrangement may look to 'busy'. (Plan 7) However I would be interested to see how the viewers silhouette would be cast onto both screens and how this would create a different kind of dialogue with the work.

Plan 7

'Plan 8' is the most simple arrangement and would only be used if I decided to exhibit  'Process and Perception' video instead of the 'Corpse' body of work. The only variation from this may be if I chose to project this onto a paper screen. The 'jeopardy'  of projecting a fire onto paper is something I have experimented with and can create a moment of tension as the viewer may be uncertain if they are watching real or videoed fire take hold.

Plan 8

At present I favour Plans 1 and 5. In 'Plan 1' the viewer is encouraged to walk in front of the first screen to better see the second. Having two screen also presents a visually richer environment for the viewer to consider. However 'Plan 5' maximises the space and therefore screen size. While there is only one screen I'm unconvinced  two screen really develops the narrative of the work beyond what is already achieved with one. The internal wall also helps 'push' the viewer in front of the projector beam so that they cannot see the work without being aware of the back projected image. The internal wall also stops the viewer seeing the projector behind the screen so they won't be initially aware how the image is generated.

Future projections

While I will decide on an arrangement I believe best suits the exhibition space I see the future presentation of the work as open ended. Changing the context in which the work might be displayed would affect how I would display it in future. One arrangement I would like to try would be for an extended strip of screens, between 5-7 all of which being of similar size to the one used in my final show. The viewer would then be able to walk along the the work seeing themselves actively  'passing through' a kind of fractured environment. 

I would also be interested to see how others might interpret and display the work. In Mersa and Butler's 'The Autonomous Object - 2008 - ongoing' the artists produce a film which once shot is sent off for others to decide how to present. 

'Formally incomplete, the work's final arrangement is the responsibility of someone else, ensuring each particular completion is subject to a particular place and time, thus replacing authorial ownership with a contingent use value in which film as a medium is subject to the way in which it enters the world of finished products and consumable goods' 
Duncan White - Expanded cinema: Art, Performance, Film - p228-229 - 2011 

Moving on from the MA I see myself exploring how works can be adapted to new contexts so that they exist not as copies or documents of an original event but as unique events with their own unique agency. 

No comments:

Post a Comment