Thursday, February 18, 2016

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Crit 1 response

My last first critique...how bittersweet. I was/am energized by the discourse surrounding the work I presented yesterday. I get excited and enriched when the conversation goes right into ideology, concept or perspective towards the constructs of the world. The stock videos offered up a lot of room for me to maneuver and play while simultaneously reinforcing a lot of the ideas I am concerned with. The saturation and inundation of imagery is something I am constantly investing in because it creates a magnetic energy that consumes the viewer. The stock videos also made me think much more about layers and how they interact or fail to interact, the boundaries between planes, space and visibility. Stock videos are the 'status quo' the 'normal life' and maybe its not that they ARE but that they are SIMULATING the 'status quo' silently reinforcing structures of expectations. I think the funny part about utilizing the stock videos was that I was in turn SIMULATING an event or experience surrounding my personal pedagogy. I was using the user.
Malcolm wrote 'the ambiguous, confused queer body being used as a puppet, object, a prize that is not desired....simply an object to be laughed at then forgotten. While trying to find its skin and its presence it is struggling without a community and this is powerful I think' Malcolm talks with such clarity and eloquence. Even when Miranda began talking about armature in relation to gender constructs and the limiting effects it has on all of us they were activating the discourse. I think about a lot of the things said yesterday on a daily basis. I am constantly checking in with myself and editing myself which in turn begins to dissolve these limiting placeholders that are stressed upon.
I was interested in how people  began to only talk about the one on the far wall (taking off clothes). It definitely had the most going on (the final video had 196 layers) visually but I also think conceptually. At the same time most everyone stated or wrote that the pieces work best together and not as separates which HOLLA I am all about multi channel projections. I also am into video to video relationship (imagery, action, color palette, etc).
Overall though I was pleased with the dialogue and left the critique really energized to keep making. I will say..this was the first critique in awhile where I went into it completely in love with what I was showing. That sounds really vain or narcissistic while I am typing it out and even thinking about it in my head but whatever.
In my process pictures you will see that I made objects (screens) to project on but I just was not attached or in love with them. The objects were not in service of the videos and visa versa so that is why I knixed them. I also felt (After having a conversation with Kotone definitely helped) that the videos had so much content that adding another layer would detract and convolute EVERYTHING and make it muddy when it does not have to be.
Moving forward I want to incorporate my live performances with my video work and see what happens then. I have been thinking about the body a lot and you wrote down 'I wonder about a fourth wall that could be just a projection of light that makes images out of the viewer' which I found interesting but I began thinking about extending my body in space too. Also adding silhouettes (you mentioned also) to the video to simulate/play with viewer interaction and relationship to space and the video(s)/performance. I am very excited to see what unfolds. I feel liberated. Which you mentioned a lot throughout the critiques specifically Zach, Sang and I.     

PROCESS