I have taken recent advice and read, re-read and read again the report before making comment, however I can find nothing negative in the note at all. In fact I would go so far as to suggest it was wholly positive.
My tutor suggested that I reflect on one aspect of the work which was to look at the differences between the ‘solid’ images – those of the boat, the figure, the skin – and those of the play of light on the walls (or wherever I found it). There was a recognition that these ‘solid’ shots were there because they were important for me on a personal level, that the connotative presence (of these mimetic occurrences) – coupled with the text – provided a stronger sense of a personal narrative. It is true the texts are all extremely personal and this sense of ‘me’ in the work was something my tutor commented on positively, but I realise that I have choices with text and image and the purposeful coupling of them – and, because of the way I presented them, the channeling of narrative discourse.
The work is a set of images and text bound together in a ‘book’ form, I shan’t attempt to deconstruct the edition I sent to my tutor though I shall consider re-making it for assessment. The comment in the report “…. The more successful ones for me [tutor] were the shadows and light against white walls. As I saw these repetitions I began to create my own visual stories – much like looking for pictures and stories in the clouds as kids! The wooden face, the porcelain figure, the glass diamond, the plant, the green leaf (?) and even the skin are all too solid for me. I want to float in this series and not be directed by colour or recognizable objects. This is my personal take and you may decide that those objects are important to putting you in the work. If so I understand that and you could write that up.”
I’m really pleased and somewhat flattered that someone might develop there own sense of narrative from this work – that is exactly what I hoped would happen – from my submission “The position (of the images) in the sequence, together with the ordering of the sequence came about after some lengthy deliberations with all of the images spread over the floor, and they are in the order as set out below. I wanted to suggest connections and then to break them; this is also the reason for the different placements of the text in the frame and the variance of landscape to portrait images, an effort to ask questions both of the viewer and the narrative elements in the images. I suppose the first and last images have a narrative sense that might appear to be obvious (?). I have presented them to my tutor as a sequence of images rather than fifteen individual images. I have attached the prints together and thereby forced ‘connections’ between images and forced, to some extent, the narrative journey of the images – though of course one may start to view the images in any place, but their relatives will always be the same. Whether it works for anyone else but me I’m not sure but I have enjoyed this process immensely and I’m hoping it has legs for the future.”
I have now to ready the work for assessment and thank my tutor Sharon Boothroyd who has provided guidance and inspiration (and all the associated texts on this page!), for challenging my reaction to my ‘pretty pictures’ and for helping me to see beyond that dark glass.