[the written tutor report is still being finalised, I will add a link to it asap]
When I submitted the assignment I wrote a note that it felt riskier than previous ones: the brevity and medium gave me that sense.
The tutorial was immensely useful and helpful in unpacking that sense but also spending some time to examine what is contained in the work, where it may be heading, what are tricky parts and what deserves further investigation.
A point we kept returning to was a sense of playfulness and inventiveness – initially, that the methodology that I have begun to devise for myself in the investigation of the institutional space allowed for both and also facilitated a way to investigate difficult aspects (by having tools to fall back on); and later though, the advice or cautious commentary was that I should give my tests more space, more room to breathe, that they (such as the post 1/7) warranted more space, attention to allow for more play and invention. This was an interesting loop, and I didn’t find it easy initially. It took a couple of iterations until I felt I was able to unpack what was substantively, as subject matter, in the project (the limitations of the corridor, questions over hardworking, conduct and whether I have a place there) that was at once also limiting and restricting play and invention, hemming the project in, making parts of it feel claustrophobic. — If anything, I generally feel that I play and invent rather well in my work, so it was so curious to hear this as advice, but then of course it made perfect sense as to what was the nature of the work that I investigated.
— I also figured out how the ‘stumbling upon’ the video snippet and deciding to work with this present a subversion of play, a trickster figure to go one step further with remove, to present a sideways move, and it’s fitting.
We spent considerable time unpicking and tracing the series of moving image material that I presented and that was great: it was really useful to hear back what was present in the work; the biggest insight possibly around the Ken Burns effect of wip: green (moving image and sound); I completely had not realised that this anticipated the pendulum movement in the final submission (just as an effect, a cliche); that the use of the audio also undid the cliche of the effect was also good to discuss.
I had the sense that the moving image material is significant (as medium but also a physical movement) and it was good to explore potential avenues where this can go: that the assignment piece works as a piece but also can be taken further: as part of a bigger installation, as part of a longer video (after all: while there is a release, an ease, it is also a loop, what happens if I let the loop become unstuck?). — That this may become the Parallel Project, but also that the artist book of Part 5 can be a moving image work is intriguing, and despite the learning that I will need to do (so much time at the computer again), it feels really fitting as to where to go with this material.
The tests and experiments that I did not conduct on other green will become the starting point for Part 4, Environmental interventions, and should provide a fairly smooth base, transition, as I have been attending to a fair part of that course part already.
We discussed timelines for assessment, Doug raised the November one as possibility, having checked timelines and work commitments, I think a completion in November is more feasible — I do want to heed his advice of running with the momentum that I currently have built up (I know I sometimes hunker down too much with projects), so possibly completing 4 and 5 before October would be good. And I am getting excited about Level 3 moving into reach.
Changes to assignment submission:
The only change that I currently can see myself making is to rename it from swivel green to Green (Am I working hard enough)