I installed the oval mirrors with prints and took photographs of them. The first print is weaker than the rest in terms of the image fitting into School of Art architecture (the geometric shapes) in the reflection, as well as the positioning of the ink and the tone of the image on the oval.
It didn’t work as well as the other ones. The others had a darker tone that blocks out the reflection, allowing the viewer to see the image clearly while also having parts of the oval reflecting them.
The combination of mirrors and prints work best in a binary of: areas of ink that blocks reflection, and areas that are completely clear from ink that allows that space of the mirror to reflect the viewer back. I’ve tested this by standing in front of the mirrors and documenting it.
This one didn’t work.
This one worked.
This one worked.
The binaries of materials in relation to concept
The composition of the areas on the oval mirrors that are opaque with ink and the clear areas, is a physical tension where the ink is distributed on the mirrors: all or nothing. But also as a concept of binaries between make belief and physical architectural space. The tentacles on the images is a manifestation of the subconscious – the subconscious in itself can’t ever be proven to exist, so it’s the binary of the concrete reality with fantasy.
There’s also a tension between geometric shapes within the round shape of the mirrors, relating to the incongruence of nature (the shape of the mirror as a rounded structure of the human eye) and construct (the architecture) summed up by these artifices. It’s in the domain of the outside and inside phenomenon that the artists I’ve mentioned previously in my blog were looking at.