During the course of this weeks work we have been asked to consider the following:
- How your practice may (or may not) be seen as adhering to a specific ideology:
- I don’t think I adhere to ideology – in some ways the new direction I have taken uses ideologies to show my narrative. It takes a somewhat suspended view of what is seen as normal to understand my work.
- The potential impact of this given the subsequent meaning and reception that your practice might attract. From whom?
- The people most drawn the the theories that I have used will most likely be those with alternative beliefs, outside of the mainstream.
- The reception I could receive could be complete disagreement that inanimate objects are just that, inanimate. Also that it is not possible to think of them having another from such as a soul or a spirit. It is possible that people could see the theories that I have incorporated as nonsense. As with the previous incarnation of my work there is always the possibility that some people will just not understand or get it.
- Any power negotiations within your own practice:
- I don’t believe that I have power negotiations – I photograph inanimate objects they would not normally be something that could be stereotyped in the same way that humans could be. Although maybe I am creating stereotypes in the life events that I am creating. Overall though as with all art my work will be subject to judgement.
- Your practice in the context of other visual practices and theoretical points:
- I am using a lot of theory to help back up the narrative I have created. Other visual practices I could identify with would be portrait photographers/artists, who are capturing the passage of time by completing a series of portraits of developing individuals. An example of this would be Steve Pyke’s Jack, Duncan and Lola-Rae series – showing the children develop and grow up or even his acts of memory series which shows the passing of time https://www.pyke-eye.com/
With regards to my project work this week I have carried on with the theme of life cycles and inanimate objects I have begun to look at the Japanese Philosophy of Wabi Sabi
“It offers an aesthetic ideal that uses the uncompromising touch of mortality to focus the mind on the exquisite transient beauty to be found in all things impermanent” (Juniper, 2003, Pg2)
I particularly liked this extract from Andrew Juniper’s text it made me really consider the impermanence of everything and how I aim to focus my audience attention onto the “transient beauty” of the inanimate objects.
I have also been looking at the essays in Animism Volume 1 – Edited by Anselm Franke, in particular Franke’s essay “Much trouble in transportation of Souls or: The sudden disorganisation of boundaries” Franke is a curator and writer.
Whilst much of this I don’t think is particularly relevant to the channels I want to explore it was interesting to consider the distinction between life/non-life. Perhaps this is something I can think about whilst taking my images.
I decided to return to my iPhone this week and retake/develop upon the images that I took last week
With these images I wanted to look at a sense of heartbreak/confusion with my first images and moving through working life, to instances when a person might feel broken, with the pencil shavings being recovery, a person moving on along the lines of a rebirth.
The new narrative is really working for my and this has reignited how I feel towards my work as it seems like there is a real direction that I can go in now.
References:
- https://www.pyke-eye.com/
- Juniper, Andrew (2003), Wabi Sabi: The Japanese art of impermanence, Tuttle Publishing, Boston, Pg2
Kirsty Logan Photography 