Critique

Work being critiqued: https://www.laurensimons.art/post/install-and-artist-statement-1

This critique session provided valuable insights into how lighting and presentation affect the reading and interpretation of my work. The discussion was split into two modes of viewing—first with the room lights off and projection lights on, and then with the room lights on and projection lights off.

Notes taken:

Room lights off and projection lights on:

• More of a push from previous seminar works

• Close up portraiture

• Harder to read as drawings, could be printed

• Opening and closing of the eyes

• Tightly cropped

• Sequence of cropped images

• Focussed on the eyes

• Not super realistic

  • A variety of comics, from framing and cropping, graphic novel feel

• Dramatic shadowing

• From perspective of artist

  • Their way of seeing

• Seeing from the whole

  • Reference from cubism

Room lights on and projection lights off:

• Different feel, not so personal

• White light as part of projection suggested

• Reason to stay tightly cropped?

• Eye to eye contact

• Eyes more concentrated

• Could you do more repetition across the wall?

• Moment to moment suggested by repeating

• Terry Stringer leans into a way of seeing, which is flatly, hence his sculpture

• Could you lean further into your way of seeing? as an advantage

• Can you isolate the eyes?

• You have good effects/tricks - use them to go with your idea

• Not relying on lights - could be part of show

When the projection lights were on, the work appeared more immersive and personal. The eyes intensified under the projection light, pushing the portraits beyond traditional drawing into something more dynamic and performative. Several comments noted the the pieces could be mistaken for prints or digital works rather than drawings, which suggests that the lighting blurred the material boundaries of the medium. This along with the dramatic shadowing contributed to a graphic novel feel.

With the room lights on and the projection lights off, the works shifted back toward their material reality as drawings as the white light allowed the subtle tonal variations and drawn textures to be more legible. The eyes became more concentrated and the repetition across the wall suggested a moment-to-moment progression, such as frames in a sequence.

With the works being viewed in two different settings, I was surprised that the responses/comments were split evenly between the preference of one setting over the other. Regarding this, there were no identifying factors between groups of people and preference: for instance the age of the viewer didn't determine their preference of setting, nor did their personality, etc...

A number of comments I received when viewing the work with the room lights on and projection lights off, still referred to the use of projection lights on. One of these comments suggesting adding a white light frame into the RGB projection sequence—a second comment wondering what it would feel like for the viewer if the full room was in use rather than a singular wall. To me this hinted to the curiosity of the projection lights across all viewers.

The comment about having good effects/tricks stood out to me as it is something I have been thinking about for a while now. This comment references how the projection lights are linked to the work. As it stands I use a projector and projection mapping techniques to utilise the Samoiloff effect in my work, which does work well when creating the static movements that I aim for, but with the projector being a stand-alone component the work shifts into coming across as more of a trick. This comment was questioning how I can move this trick (stand-alone projector) into a cohesive work? How do I make the projection/light feel integrated rather than seperate?