Following the group Crit we received with the L5 as well on 19/02/21, they also critiqued our individual films and its context which helped massively as the main focus as been on the practicality of the making the film etc. See notes below.
One large piece form this feedback was how effective the pink lighting was – created a mood of femininity. The lighting/projection gave the representation of women as a whole and the pink projected this feeling of femininity. The imagery projected of many small breasts equated balanced with the sculptures, see below, this is what I liked on the oven, they felt mirrored in some distorted sense.
But, a peer said the projection of the breasts make the sculptures seem even more like small objects. And the fact the breasts are individual created ideas of how women are only reduced to one object, not even two breasts but one, and a hard cold object too, is this the only worth they have?
- This made me want to explore this path way more for my final project – a more direct objectification, work with the display of the material in a unique way.
The projection wasn’t viewed as a projection by one peer, they didn’t realise it was – was there too much going on over the oven?
Another comment was made that the breasts didn’t read as breasts to begin with, in the film they are so far away that they resembled pieces of dough, small objects that made you squint to see what was coming – this was the aim for the film, I didn’t want to showcase too much in the beginning of the film – I’m glad it was seen the way I wanted it to be, a surprise to create some suspense as to what they were.
- The fact they were apart from the body confused the image even more so – if I would’ve used my clay figures in the kitchen instead, they would’ve been too easy to read and wouldn’t have had the same effect as the clay breasts.
It was question ‘is this problematic? That the context was taken out of them’ – I don’t think so, I think it added more once you get into the film and the environment, hopefully leaving an after thought in the viewers mind. It WOULD HAVE been problematic if the breasts were unreadable throughout the film, but they weren’t.
Continuing the analysis of the sculptures, one peer said they represented the COVID time period – they all seemed socially distanced which wasn’t the initial intention but I found this quite funny as it does appear this way.
There is this playful aspect to my work with the introduction of the environment and cross the breasts being apart from the female form. ‘Confrontational/playful with a dark side’ – I like this comment because Rachel Maclean in particular channels this way of addressing issues in her film Make Me Up, she plays with this idea of ‘sickle sweet visuals’ to the point it gets too much/too close to home where you don’t want to watch anymore. There’s this attitude with Are You Watching? that visually addresses these issues e.g. ‘get back in the kitchen’ – Martha Rosler inspiration.
‘The colour scheme was seductive, fansinating and beautiful’, it gave a ‘party/concert/theatre vibe’. It’s great to see that this idea of audience/main stage like a cinema visual is being recognised. It bounces well off my theoretical research of Laura Mulvey and Metz when it comes to the cinematic display of women. – Almost like women are viewing themselves, viewing themselves. Is it in a negative or positive way? I’m unsure at the moment. While writing my dissertation exploring this theory I have approached it to have a negative impact, yet viewing the work from the POV as a ‘party’ a peer said, it acts as a celebration of all kinds of women/femininity, almost like another world, the colours and the lay out – I love this! Would be worth exploring more in-depth.
I posted Consuming on the Instagram post for the take over – within this crit, one peer said it changed the way the film was received, as though they are edibles/treats/deserts, as though the breasts were sat waiting to be eaten. Seductive…? They also have this repulsive contrast to them as they do represent flesh. Has this grotesque that is visible in Cindy Sherman’s Grotesque series and Maisie Cousins’ Finger.
- !!! It has become a unique form of grotesque a point I want to revisit and explore !!!
Reflection 23/02/21: It also has Hal Foster’s ideals of abjection but in a new form. This is something I have discussed in my dissertation, that I have realised there is different forms of abjection, even though they’re not labelled. – Sherman has a form of abjection that Maclean does not – bodily fluids etc, but it has the same affect on the viewer e.g. ‘sickle sweet’ too uncomfortable to watch in Maclean’s Make Me Up. This questions if there’s a form of abjection within Are You Watching? that is different to Sherman’s and Maclean’s use of abjection. In my film, I create imagery of real breasts in a preparation space, ready to be eaten, not sweets, clay breasts painted real, which is gross when you think about it and makes you feel uncomfortable. Which is a similar reaction to Martha Rosler Hot Meat with the display of the naked female form on a consumption space.
- Yayoi Kusama – Constellation installation pieces (I am very interested in this artist and her installation – I visited one of her Infinity Mirrors in Amsterdam). I can see the resemblance to the imagery of growth on the walls/never ending.
- Chila Kurmari
- Singh Burman
- Sarah Lucas
Was a very useful group crit – lots to think about e.g. infinity room illusions I could make at home, the grotesqueries, abjection & placement of the sculpture. This exhibition has made me realise where my work is most effective – projection/photography and film, again!