Looking afresh at the final image I created for project 6 the other day was valuable. Putting that little bit of distance of a couple of night’s sleep between me and the work suggests it’s not quite right yet. For example, the edges of the image are too straight and clean and I think I need to create a similar type of image that also evokes a sense of corruption.
So I continued to work and experiment as I did not want to lose the sense of distance and alienation but needed to add a sense of corruption to it. After some time I came up with a final image for this project. This is it.
As viewers will see I have kept the white point at 255 so the image requires a boarder or it will bleed into the page; and I have removed pieces of the image to offer a sense of corruption but not washed it out so much so people can see more clearly the subject matter. I also think the colour values of a washed out blue are better to either suggest a faux objectivity or offer a more neutral emotion that if the image was red. Indeed the blue put me in mind of cyanotypes.
My original plan regarding final outputs has been to develop a body of work for year 1 and then spend the rest of the time on the MA considering and forming its outputs. However yesterday’s session at Camberwell got me thinking more about the context and form of output for this image and how the issues are sometimes inextricably linked. For example, if I were to present a final image from this work now I would imagine it at say 20 by 20 inches then I think and hope the strong lines and shapes, very heavy border and small size would all help convey a sense of anomie. But what will the image look like in a book? Should the image in the book be of it exhibited large and in situ or produced purely for the book?
Klaus Ottmann’s book (2010) on Yves Klein illustrates some of these issues as he shows Klein’s work both as photographs of the images in situ in exhibition spaces and as small reproductions of the image on the page. Thus looking through Klein’s work you can’t separate some of the exhibition values with the quality of the work. For example his large blue rectangles – massive would be a better word – dominate some walls and when compared to their reproductions in the book it’s clear that the images of the pictures in situ evoke much more powerful sense of the artwork than a small square blob of blue printed on the page. I think this has important implications for my work. How I present it is almost as important as what it is. However my criticism of the reproductions on the pages don’t apply in all cases for example on page 31 Untitled blue monochrome 1955 a dry pigment in synthetic resin is cleverly and tastefully reproduced. The viewer doesn’t get the sense of scale, we are told that it is 66 cm x 46cm, but still it’s a reproduction and it gives a sense of what the original looks like.
The issue of the white point is an interesting one and got me thinking about the images production values if I created it as a physical entity. Would I keep the white point the same as the paper if printed in a book? If hung would I offer it borderless?
Once an image is made digitally it is only half made unless that is it’s intended final point. However if it is going to be created or reproduced as a physical entity then thought must be put into its form and how it will be presented in other formats such as books.
I will have to make such decisions at some point in the future. However it is clear to me that the final images I am producing in these projects may well not be the final images used in some outputs because other images might articulate and evoke.
So I should stop trying to get to a final project image in terms of output now.
I have sort of always recognised this to a degree and that’s why my website of the final project images hints at this. But yesterday’s meeting crystallised this.
Ottmann, K. (2010) Yves Klein Works|Writings, Published by Ediciones Poligrafa