I would like to work with a practising artist, Bo Jones, to enable me to develop skills in using digital media and projection. Through developing my own practice as an artist I have come to use video in combination with manual drawing techniques to respond to subject matter, but my skills are limited in terms of knowing what apps/ software/ hardware to use to best combine traditional media with this digital response. I have begun to make work that explores projected light and video and would like to explore site-specific projected drawing as an end outcome.


Face to face meetings:
1. April: Installing video apps and looking at editing footage taken for Dis:placed project so far; ideas for developing this further. Looking at Tagtool app and possibilities – setting idea for developing use of this app with projection for July meeting
2. July: Review work made using Tagtool. Look at skills needed for using projection with a digital projector/ hand held mini-projector, explore projecting onto different surfaces. Critique how work produced since April has combined traditional and digital drawing processes.
3. August: Visit location to respond to and collect visual information to work from. Collaborative use of Tagtool on two Ipads in developing location based work.
4. October: Critique work produced in response to place and video site-specific projection on location. Reflect on ways forward/ sharing/ further collaborative ideas.
5. December: Evaluate project and develop ideas for next steps with other artists.




Our third session looking at creating responses to the site involved taking Bo to visit the Brindley Village location and to critique ideas discussed so far. As mentioned in a previous blog post, it has been interesting to consider making art in a public place that hasn’t been officially sanctioned in some way. Previous pieces of work that I have left at the site have sometimes been removed straight away, or if left near to existing ‘shrines’ have remained untouched.

One such piece that has remained intact is a re-made sign that I produced as part of a recent collaborative project (see for more information). In researching the site I came across images of handmade signs that had been made to commemorate the individual mining homes that had once stood on the site:

When I eventually found the sign for Number 3, it had worn away to be totally blank, the frame still in place but looking rather weathered. In thinking through ideas for making a response to the site I decided to remake the sign and replace it back where it had originally been placed.

Until now this sign remains in it’s location and this led Bo and I to look at using existing signage as a potential surface for projected video work at the site. There are various types of plaques and memorial inscriptions screwed into the trees to commemorate people who used to live there, and these shrines are ‘allowed’ and left untouched. As my work serves to make visible what is now invisible, maybe it can be considered a memorial in itself.

So the next part of the process is to decide on the content that is going to be projected at the site, and the surface that will be used. There is also a third consideration which is how to leave a permanent piece of work that could reference the video content (so a Layar piece that could be scanned?). Whilst considering these things I took Bo to visit a nearby reconstructed war hut, to give an idea of the shape and structure of the buildings that would of been on the site originally.

To our good fortune, a previous resident of the village was there and showed us her personal photographs of living at the site when it was a mining community……..well this exciting bit of synchronicity answered the question above; surely the video content would be about a remembrance of the village as it was? So the next step is to meet with the resident and see how her memories and narrative can inform the projection element of the work. Watch this space!

Fourth Session – digital drawing and projection

On working with the former resident and some others involved in documenting the site and narratives of those who lived there, I have been able to gather some visual images of the village to use in my work. What interests me about this collection is the fragmented nature of the archive- personal photographs, hand drawn maps, historical aerial photographs and newspaper clippings. It seems that my journey of gathering an understanding of this place is to remain still shrouded in partial mystery.

Using these found images I have been drawing over them and recording the sequence as sets of video using the Procreate app. I love the painterly qualities available in the app and the ability to make imagery that retain the quality of archive photographs. By using the digital sequence of painting over and revealing parts of the image I am interested in recreating the sense of memory and a place being remembered and then forgotten, by working over and then obliterating the image. Due to the format of this blog, I am unable to share the video sequences here.

In the fourth session we tried projecting these video sequences at the site, onto various surfaces which were at the location of the original buildings drawn. The results were mixed, and it was difficult to record the projected image from the mini-projector, which led to discussion around either-

1.Needing to find or create a larger surface to project onto. Discussion ensued about the relevance of maybe using a hospital medical screen positioned in the trees as a ‘screen’
2. Not projecting at the site but instead placing a Layar image which could link to an online video.
Again, I am unable to upload the video footage of the projected images to this blog.


‘Projection’ is a word I have been pondering in the most recent developments of this body of work. To begin with, at the start of the Bursary, my perception of the word ‘projection’ involved using a device to play images or a slideshow onto an object. What I have found through the early developments of this work, is the action of light through the object develops its own narrative.

Ghost buildings 1

Ghost buildings 2

Ghost buildings 3

I am interested in pursuing further the dynamic between a light source and the surface qualities of the work to explore how ‘projected’ images can be created.

My source of inspiration remains the Brindley Village War Hospital site on Cannock Chase, where the huts once used as a hospital then a mining community no longer stand. So the next step for me in the work is about creating forms for projection that are based upon this shape:

When considering how to combine the element of projection with these developing forms I am interested in two directions. One is to use Augmented Reality (Layar) to create a video projection that exists digitally and can be accessed through the physical object in situ:

The second direction I am keen to pursue is to look at the inclusion of solar light in these transparent structures; to see how this type of light can ‘project’ imagery. And that will be the subject of my next blog post…….


A lot of discussion around the context of this work started our first session together, examining the symbolism of the ‘house’ motif and the importance of location. The work leading up to this project is rooted in a fascination in derelict or no longer existent building structures, specifically at a site called Brindley Village on Cannock Chase (more here:

Having made some inroads to discuss the possibilities of making work about this site, I came up against interesting boundaries in the replies that I received. Work that is left without ‘permission’ is considered to be ‘vandalism’ by the owners of the land, plus there are also considerations to the choice of media if making public art that will be interacted with by the public in a non-controlled manner. So these factors may steer the type of media that this set of work uses, and is why I am interested in how temporary pieces using light projection may be a way forward.

Initially our session looked at the Equil Smartpen and the potential to use this to make marks that can be projected as well as drawn in a tactile and traditional manner. The decision has been made that I will purchase one of these for myself to develop the ‘drawing’ potential in coming months. The main thing that I found interesting about using the pen was the way that the marks on the screen are different from the actual drawing, depending which tool is selected.

Bo and I also experimented with a couple of apps to try to combine the linear marks from the initial models into the ‘house’ sketch.

Our next point was to talk about materials and the way forward with combining what we make as ‘models for projection’ with using light to create imagery. What I like about the acetate buildings is the form created by the shadow of the acetate. We discussed how to make a grid format that is semi-translucent in a variety of materials: 3d printed, fabric, leaves, wire, resin, paper.

The next steps before we meet again will be to make a set of ‘models for projection’ that will be placed at the site location as a trial. I have identified a set of post-holes where the original buildings stood to use as our first ‘place’. What is important is how these structures will interact with light/ projection and also how they can be semi-transparent and therefore disguised in their setting in some way.

I have started to examine how the app ‘Foldify’ can enable visualisation of ideas; it is possible to print the flat net and fold it to create a ‘house’ model. In the first experiments I am using the shadow photographs from my acetate models to see how I can change their form by making the flat image three-dimensional. More to follow in the next blog post!

1 Comment

Development of ideas from Bo Jones’ digital designs based upon the dis:placed project ( “Subtereanean”

Digital sketches in Brushes app converted into printed acetate forms.

Acetate forms used with projected light to create shadow structures.

1 Comment