Angels and Demons

For this exercise, I picked three projections from my projection works: Lime Green (day 272), Orange (day 273) and Crimson Red (day 274) (see previous post)

This three pieces are part of a series that I have been developing since January, which consists of creating compositions using projected slides. There are 395 slides (bought in a flea market) and since the 21st of January I’ve been doing one projection work everyday.

http://395slides.blogspot.co.at

Among the Angels two major questions arose, the first one regarding the abstract aspect of the photographs, the second concerning the question of appropriation and authorship.

Regarding the abstract character of the pieces, one of the key points discussed was the question of uncertainty and curiosity, even though this images are photographs of projections, they create a certain uncertainty regarding what is actually being portrayed, which leads to question their material aspect. For me this “mystery” effect wasn’t something that I was aiming for she producing this works, it was a consequence of the process used. Like a lot of the projection works, the outcome of the images was not too planed, between the various elements whiting this three slides, the colour planes fascinated me quite a bit, therefore i decided to make them the “main characters” of this pieces. And as a result, the rest of the photograph (slide) was transported to a secondary plane, blurred, leaving no recognisable forms.

Much related to this, is the second point, the question of appropriation and authorship. The slides were not taken by me, nor do I have any connection to the people who actually took them. one of the comments was that it seems like the more I alter them, the further the original authorship is being digressed. I do not have a very rigid stand point reading this question, from the beginning of this project it has been on te back of my mind, but I the way I deal with it differs quite a bit. I have, for example, created short narratives for the people in those photos, as well as I have cut, painted over (even burned) some of them. In this case, I wanted the colour to stand out, not the people. And in that sense the original photograph became unrecognisable, deprived of it’s original function as an image. 

Much related to the above mentioned questions, were the Demons. The discussion was a lot centred around the issue of the image’s comprehension. Firstly, wether I was worried that the viewer’s interpretation might decline towards something which I did not intent. My answer to this question was that I was not worried. As an author I know that whatever art work i show will be open to various interpretations and it it my role to establish within the artwork, how open that should be, how much “direction” shall I give or not. Another question asked during the course of this exercise was why did I feel the need to name the colours, since the colour is one of the few things that is clear. For me this related directly to the question of interpretation: it was my way of saying “yes, it is about the colour fields” in an attempt to get that out of the way when looking at the works. The discussion around this issue let to a point that for me was particularly interesting: the abstract nature of the photographs, related to wether it gives more or less space for interpretation. on one side, the lack of recognisable signs, opens the image to curiosity regarding it’s original content, therefore, more space. On the other hand, the lack of those signs leaves the viewer estranged from the image, not relating to any of it’s elements, with less space.