Reflective Writing: Studio with Kevin Hamilton

By 9pm Wednesday write and post a reflected writing on our multiple projection studio with Kevin. There is a lot to reflect on. Try in your reflections to conclude with indicating new thoughts/understandings in two areas 1. studio: the fabrication of images 2. theory/ criticism/ understanding/ culture: what do images do and how do they do it.

Also include any suggestions of how this studio method might be used in further work.

Paste your text below this heading. You can do a horizontal rule between your entry and others.

When ever artists come together to collaberate on projects, no matter what it is, there are going to be wonderful ideas shared. Even if we couldn't completely understand the process while we were doing it, the
project took on it's own life and progressed quickly. Usually when artist have creative blocks the best way is to just start creating, and let the experimentation lead you to some new goals or ideals.

It was funny how the random images melded together more smoothly as each group came up with new ways to project the images. From there the digital photos added another layer of complexity that was too much to take in at first.->just seeing how everyone saw the same projections in new ways. In my previous classes, students didn't usually like to collaborate on projects because they din't want to screw someone else's work up. This is irrelevant to me because I enjoy the challenge of "happy mistakes," and just seenig the world through other's eyes.

-ryin g. Hill

The process, to me, was an easier “photo shop” method. It was quicker, more efficient, and created some amazing images that probably could not have been achieved on the computer. They defiantly had the human touch. The images that depicted the surroundings or area in the room were very reminiscent of early Bill Viola work; using props and projecting images on them. The images also very interestingly played with representation of 2 and 3 dimensional space. I would consider using this process to find relations between images and how they can be manipulated.
It was interesting to see how the meaning of the image changed depending on the arrangement. It further emphasizes that the meaning of an image is not inherent; it can change in an instant depending on the context (like the Marlboro ad). I would agree that if we do this again, we should reflect on what kind of connotations and relationships these images lead to. This would push the boundaries even more so and validate the meaning that the images take on. The activity was a great way to think about these sociological meanings within an image and consider another way of looking at them…

As i looked back at the collected images from friday, i can't help but think about how i can use a this process of creating images for my design work. The projection created such beauty images in which were created at random and that is what excites me the most about them. They are original, they are unique, they are fresh.

A look at the Farbication . What a clever way to use the equiment that is available us. Over and over, i think about how this process is similar to photoshop. It is like the projection project was the very first verse of photoshop, how they "use to" do it. I find the projection appoarch to creating images refreshing and gets my creative juice flowing. Flowing in such a manner that i let go of my habits that i use when creating an image.

The theory. Well, as we are learning that images are loaded and have codes and culture effects them, i can comment on the selection process. the selection process was random, between each choice made based on the one before it. the images selected had some connection but yet some disconcetion. The one image that stuck in my mind was the very first on we did. the image of the plane and the mushroom like object and the box of color. It just seem to inner twine with each other. the image as a whole, had a war like feeling attached to it. Maybe it was becasue of the plane and the thought of the atomic bomb cloud.

To sum the experince up, it was fun, interactive, and allowed me to think freely to create a image that made sense, visually.

Kristin

(first attempt at making sense, may change it again tomorrow)
the activity which we took part in during the workshop the kind which works so well with a group of people.
the immediacy is stimulating and as we progressed the methods of making the images evolved so quickly.
it was so easy , becuase everything was laid out and there were a million different ways to put the images together. it felt like you could keep going forever.

the experince of making the images i found more interesting than looking at them.
the idea of equality in an artist-viewer relationship could be applied.
if the artist selects the images but the viewers arrange them. you take some power away from the artist and give more to the viewer. (who is the artist the selector or the creator?)
then it makes me wonder about looking at the images or creating them, which is a more valued or worthy experince?

if we are using images created by someone else amd we use them inapporpriatly who is responsible, us or the creator?

the whole process was based on aethetically pleasing/interesting images. i think everyone is so used to stopping and analysig what the image implies it feels strange that we didnt do that on friday.

maybe it creates something more pure. there's no meaning, the viewer shouldnt try and interprit any meaning, its just about the act of looking.

however in a way the images we created didnt really do very much because they just existed to be seen (did not carry any message)
the way i seem to interprit images is through associations. with such a wide range of images maybe everyones interpritation will be very different because we all make different associations.
the associations we make is the only way this work has content.

im not really very sure about them beacuse i find it hard to rationalise their existance.
although i dont want to discount the experince of making them because that seems to have much more value.

i think its good to work in this fast way sometimes because strange things happen which you dont expect

amanda d

I thought that the studio on Friday with Kevin was pretty damn cool; I've never done anything quite like that and it's an experience I won't likely forget. At first I was sort of leery about the whole thing; it's not the sort of stuff that I do in my own work, and I was afraid that it would seem "boring" or "over my head" as some of the digital type art is to me. So, aside from my fawning, here's some thoughts on the whole deal.

(Fabrication of images) This aspect wasn't what I was dwelling on while I was actually involved, but the more I think about it, the stranger the concept is. I mean, we were playing around with "images," but really, it was just a bunch of different colored lights on a bare wall. (Obviously.) It just goes to show that art is a bigger thing than I had ever imagined. I want to play around with this sort of thing a bit more, just for my own amusement. (I'm not sure I've got the technical skills for it, though.)

(Theory/ criticism/ understanding/ culture) Kevin mentioned, during the process, how it bothered him that these images were all random and didn't have any meaning or content. Sure, they began that way. But it seems to me that that's the whole point: we create the meaning by placing them in different juxtapositions and playing around with the focus, space, etc. I'd liked pointing out the formal aspects of certain images placed next to each other, but I suppose that doesn't count as content . . . well, for example, I believe it was the second or third piece we did with the soldier who's head was an oil drilling machine. That instantly became loaded with content for me, especially given the events happening overseas. So I disagree about the lack of true content; who's to say that art has to begin with "content" in the first place anyways? Sometimes, the most spontaneous stuff becomes the most thought-provoking.
Manda (Portenga)

[Fabrication of images] This process fascinated me! I am so used to flat images on a computer screen or printout (photoshop is my friend). Projecting and layering images on the wall made me think in a whole new way, about the potential of an image. I enjoyed the process and atmosphere of making the images too, being in a darkened room with huge patterns of light projected, people and chairs and objects interacting and being assimilated. It makes an image so much more experiential, which is a welcome contrast to my normal exposure to flat, bounded design.

[Theory/ criticism/ understanding/ culture] I agree that these images are pretty much devoid of any intentional meaning or message. Kevin mentioned that this was disturbing to him, but I wasn’t bothered by it. I felt our session was more of an introduction to a different way of making images, exploring something that most of us have never tried before. It was easy to get caught up in the newness and experimentation, and that to me isn’t a bad thing. If some of us were to keep using this technique in our own work, we would continue experimenting, and then begin to utilize this medium for expression. I mean, in any medium, we learn by doing exercises, then once we become semi-proficient, we start to try to convey an idea. This to me was just a taste of what could be.
Alexis C.

FABRICATION and THEORY: Criticism of the "Khamimagestudio" Project

(what a great word fabrication is...)

On a reflective level, the image fabrication, meant OBJECT ACTIVATION through image.

Objects, that are not art, becoming art through activation of imagery...

This idea is explosive, and feels refreshing for me.

Though images hold as much social responibilty, through thier production and reproduction, as sculptures, installations, and civic works do, I have held that images remain as images, and sculptures remain as sculpture.

Work of artists, such as Tim Hawkinson, whom seemingly connects single "works" or bodies of work within installations, through thier shared two and three demensional qualities, produce highly intellectual and sensatory experiences. In other words, undoubtedly, work that challenges both our three and two dementional perseptions, pose a greater "challege" and in turn "reward", when the work is reflected upon.

I believe we had the open opportunity to feel intellectually and sensory challenged in the image studio last Friday, when in attemp to grasp and make sense of the work we created ourselves.

(otherly: The implications that the images had (which is relative), or to say, the selection of the images, had me a bit skeptical, which is what an artist should be when given material to "work" with. Once I observed the careful consideration that each group gave to thier chosen image, I began to feel like the "given" material became much more open. I remember Elona Van Gent saying once (something like): "Once art is out there it belongs to everyone who sees it," in reference to me questioning the owership of any given thing that can be connotated as art. The compilations of images seemed totally random, and politically charged. Once I loosened up, I saw that the images themselves could teach me along the way. I leaned toward largely scaled images that held lesser political notions, like a yellow square instead of a picture of our president.)

The social or "cultural" significance of the individual image is very sensitive to me, as a subject. Unless the image was "universal" (which is still a biased thought), I felt I needed to be more aware of the orgin of the images, if this "project" was going to be taken outside of our instituationaly protected walls.

I beleive the possibilities are endless.

(At very least...)

ashley lieber

This studio project was an engaging experiment in image making. I'm sure we would all agree as a group that we were energized and captivated by the process that was invented. The strange thing is that the central idea behind the project (seeing what would happen to the content of images as they were chosen, combined, overlapped, and played around with by three groups), seemed to be diminished somehow as we progressed. The images that each group began with on their computers were for the most part loaded with content themselves. For some reason when we began playing with them, experimenting with objects and shadows, using people and the architecture of the room, the project to me turned into more of an experiment in form. Im not saying that the final images were devoid of content, but from viewing the images, I felt that I was not the only one that became more engaged with the colors, lighting, textures, and compositions that were being made, and less engaged with the content that resulted from the combination of three images. I stand by my statement during the discussion that we all became enthralled with the simple fact that we were playing with light in a way we dont normally experience. Could it be that we were just really engaged in the idea of using the technology of computers and projection that didnt involve sitting and staring at a screen? Perhaps there need to be some more limitation. Keep the images on one spot on the wall and use only the images. This would not have been as much fun but might have resulted in more focus on content.

joel b

On the subject of fabrication, I have to agree with those who feel the process to have been an intoxicating one. All of the technology combined with the freedom of experimentation to create quite a show for our eyes. It was similar to a fireworks display, or as Kevin said, the activity of channel surfing. the way we squickly learned the medium was most enjoyable for me. Initially we created some rather simple compositions which were not nearly as tantalizing as those produced toward the end of the activity. The photography became mmore manipulated as time went on too. In terms of producing beautiful, aesthetically pleasing images this process was a huge success. there is definately a great deal more experimentation which could take place.

However, the process failed to yield any strong meaning within our images. Why? I don't believe it was the process itself. I think the problem lies in our artistic training. That is, as artists we look at things formally, at least usually. We were learning a new medium which we quickly found could make some beautiful and mesmerizing imagery. Though we all read meaning into images artists also look for those formal qualities. We stumbled onto Grandpa's liquor cabinet and proceeded to get drunk on our ability to entertain ourselves with visuals. I think that most people would have had this problem, but I think those who are less concerned with aesthetics and more likely to simply project images over each other would have faired better conceptually. Once we began experimenting we had found an uncontrolable stimuli. I say uncontrolable because I don't think you could force a calculated outcome. Initially I thought that a less random selection of images and participants would produce something more meaningful. However i remain skeptical, perhaps we should pursue this in some way- maybe with a different medium? Still, looking back at those collaborative drawings from CPS I feel the artist will always create something visually stimulating. Maybe we could extend the period of production to a couple days or weeks. This would allow us to thoroughly digest the images and create a deeper meaning in our heads. Since we have already become accustomed to this medium of computers and projectors perhaps a new medium would be required.

Ultimately this activity left us all asking ourselves t5he same question: is something beautiful or "juicy" less valuable/as valuable as something with meaning behind it. I don't think I can answer that, I know that those images we produced only engaged me visually and while it can be enough it doesn't engage anything more than my eyes. There is something to be said for the sublime but the images which force us to think and motivate us are ultimately more powerful- meaningful.

ryan d

The studio we had last Friday was for me, a very refreshing experience. As an artist, I know I tend to think inside the box a lot of the time and take and image for what it is, not trying to read into it too much unless if I have to. I didn't know what the outcome would be when we started putting different images next to each other and on chairs and bubble wrap. I didn't really like the idea of not having control over the outcome, but you know what, it was such an eye opener for me. It made me realize that not all imagery has to be straightforward. It's the images that don't always make sense that invoke questioning and can have a new found beauty.

The way that we went about creating these collages made me think outside of my box too. It's something about not knowing what could or might happen with the imagery that gets my creative juices flowing. There was something I took away from that class that I never could have discovered by sitting and experimenting on the computer for 3 hours in my graphics class. It makes me realize that there is so much potential out there for creating images that are unpredictable and still they are beautiful and provoke thoughts and emotions.

As for the images that we created themselves, I think that there is something positive and yet negative about them. The positive part is the imagery had endless options and perspectives. There was something beautiful about how each final collage had different ways of being see and interpreted. Even if they weren't there to be interpreted, the images were seen as a mural, sculpture (with the use of other objects), painting, digital... there's so many different forms that the images were taking on. The negative part about the collages was that there was still some planning on what images would go with other ones and trying to relate the objects in the picture with other images. I think it would have been even more invigorating if we had no control over the images and didn't have the opportunity to pick and choose. As the studio went on though, I think we started to take more chances with the imagery and it's outcome yielded fascinating and unexpected forms of art as imagery.

Heather