Reading following A5 tutor feedback

When my tutor said that my A5 was nearly there but not quite, I was slightly dispirited. I didn’t think that there was anywhere else for me to go with my work, however trusting my tutor’s feedback I set about the comprehensive list of practitioners that she had provided.  Long story short, I’m not sure that any of them provided a magic key to finishing the work, but they did get my creative brain working again and I cracked on. This post is retrospective because on checking the site for assessment I realised that I hadn’t written them up.

Problem: my work was in too many formats and needed consolidating.

Kurt Tong was suggested as an example of successful use of mixed methods for his work “The Queen, The Chairman and I”. This was one of the study visits that I didn’t make this year, and looking at the website, I wish I had. The work is vast, it’s like walking into someone’s life, looking both backwards and forwards in time. There must be hundreds of items in there, I think mostly found and family archived prints but also artefacts, letters, announcement cards. Without having seen the exhibition it’s hard to judge how he gained success in such a large and broad presentation, however I think the authenticity and the clear timeline must have helped. The work is set out almost in chapters. I love the idea of viewing the work during a tea ceremony.

Problem: a lack of visual context

“Who is working with the craft of the medium?” “Imagine you are curating a show, and your project is central to it, which other artists will be involved?” (tutor feedback)

The most useful source here was the website for the V&A Cameraless Photography exhibition. It included short videos and transcripts from Floriss Neususs (who made a photogram of the window at Lacock Abbey), Pierre Cordier (he makes photograms but works like a painter or a printmaker), Gary Fabian Miller (works with light on photographic paper), Susan Derges (photograms at night, under water, uses water as we use air, but shows its movements) and Adam Fuss who makes photograms with a spiritual element.  Obviously, my work is not camera-free but the focus on the photographic object is common to both camera and camera-free work, and I found the work very inspiring for this reason. I found myself agreeing with Adam Fuss who said “Photograms have less information and more intimacy and feeling than a normal photograph”. My polaroids are essential about destruction, and carry more poignancy as they are deconstructed.

Tutor feedback was that time was important here, and she suggested looking at the work of Idris Khan. I had seen some of his work before, of London landmarks, but it was very interesting to see more of his work. He works with multiple mediums and on quite a large scale, and he puts multiple instances into a single work for example his image that condenses every page of the Koran onto a single page.

Thomas Demand’s work “Dailies” reminded me of Kurt Tong’s exquisite “In case it rains in heaven” because both are photographs of constructs that were destroyed after the photographs were made, so the photographs are all that we have to remember the objects by. This feels as if it aligns to my Polaroids, except that I have unmade the photogaphs to show traces of the object.

Reading about Joachim Schmidt made my brain fizz. He works mainly with found images or images from Flickr. He’s published a series of books “Other People’s Photographs”, categorised from “Airline Meals” to “You are Here”.  This reminded me of Taryn Simon’s categorisation in Contraband. I think that as a trained librarian I’m always going to have a bit of a thing for forensically classified work. I’m not even going to think about the copyright implications because to be honest, I don’t want to, but see below.

You can’t ignore the copyright implications when considering Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine however. As far as I can tell, if you’re going to appropriate (art-speak for using someone else’s work), it needs to either be public domain and you’re honest about it, or you need to be completely brazen, take images from Flickr or Instagram, and have the time and cash to go through the legal process until a judge agrees with you. Artistic intent plays a huge part in this, and intent seems to come under environmental context in that you can’t immediately tell what it is when looking at two identical images, by two different practitioners. Intent is invisible, to all intents and purposes. Is the image transformed (cf Penelope Umbrico‘s collection of sunsets)? Is the whole point that the image isn’t transformed, but that our understanding transforms when we think of the work being made by someone else (cf Sherrie’s appropriation of Walker Evans)? Can you transform an image by adding your own caption (cf Prince and Instagram)? Do you consider that copyright doesn’t apply because the image is not original (cf Schmidt)? As soon as you start engaging in debates about these, and other questions, you’re not really talking about the work any more, and I think that loses the point of making the work in the first place. Which is such a shame because there is so much that we can learn by working with other peoples work, from social media images to advertising icons.

I have Sultan and Mandel’s Evidence book on order and am hoping to write more fully on it once it arrives. My tutor said that my Polaroid work was creating new meaning from something existing (Fox Talbot’s window), and I would like to learn more about this.

Fox Talbot’s The Pencil of Nature was the first photography book. It’s interesting that it was sold in separate parts (like so many hobby journals) and the purchaser would have had the component parts bound to their wishes. I would like to learn more about this.

Finally, Mat Collishaw’s Thresholds VR exhibition, which recreates the first exhibition of Fox Talbot’s work. Fortuitously, this is now at Lacock Abbey for a few weeks and I am looking forward to seeing it.

Looking back at this blog post, I’m making a mental note to return to the practitioners listed here over time and see how my understanding improves. It still feels as if I’m scrambling in the dark trying to make sense of my own work, never mind anyone else’s.




Assignment 5 self assessment

Note – this was written after I followed up my tutor’s feedback comments and hence covers two iterations of the work.

a5 self assessment

I spent a lot of time on A5 and I believe doing so has paid dividends. I am very grateful to my tutor who helped me to find direction and focus when it looked like extending too far beyond the “Photography is simple” brief. Paradoxically, this was achieved by exploring yet more areas which guided me back to what mattered for this submission.

Technical and Visual Skills

I started out with working with Polaroids, with no clear subject in mind other than simply to explore. Over the weeks and months I continued to work with Polaroids, deconstructing and tampering with them, but I also added in macro work with my DSLR to record temporary moments of colour change, floating emulsions in water, mounting work in acrylic, and scanning and displaying images on other obsolete technology (a Nokia 3310 as part of the rework). Always in my mind was the need to make something that was visually appealing, that was interesting. This set used different skills to those in A4 – using a Polaroid camera and exploring a range of manual and digital processes that were new to me.


Quality of outcome

I explored a range of outcomes and settled on a book and an acrylic block containing a translucent emulsion of the Fox Talbot window. I was also very happy with my other outcomes – digital macro shots, scans of Polaroid fronts and backs and then these scans transferred onto a phone, but took on board my tutor’s comment about not taking too many formats forward to assessment. Everything else remains open for further development of course.


Demonstration of creativity

I was thrilled with my work here. I wanted to explore the Polaroid format extensively, and felt I did so, credibly. Tutor feedback led to me exploring it further still, something which at first, I didn’t think I had in me. I am thrilled that what started out as a disappointing attempt to die-cut a Polaroid has turned into a credible and interesting piece of work that to some small degree pays tribute to William Fox Talbot. Credit and thanks are due to Clive on the OCA discussion board who spotted the potential in what I considered to be a bit of a damp squib. This led to a subject – Lacock Abbey windows – and the creativity ballooned from then on.


There was plenty of context available on the various Polaroid manipulations and manipulators out there, although I did not find any work that included embossing. Equally, there’s a raft of work and writing about Fox Talbot. My first submission, as my tutor commented, was very strong on theoretical context but rather less so on visual context. Following up her suggestions helped to fire my creativity and continue to work with a surer footing in terms of where my work sits within the contemporary canon.

Assignment 5 rework

It kept on growing. Then I had a conversation with my tutor, and it got smaller, back down to one concept with a supporting cast of thousands. Then I met Holly Woodward, who’s studying Identity and Place (blog here) at Lacock and she diagnosed the problem in about three lines and half a cup of coffee. Now, the book is tighter, more logical and just feels like it’s right. It needs a fine black cord through the holes as my ribbon is too wide.

What did I change? I took the front cover off, along with the transparency inside it (it wasn’t as good as the other transparency). I removed one of the negatives from its home on watercolour paper. Again, it wasn’t as good as the other one, which remains in place. I took the film’s protective cover and made that the cover (“It’s the title! There’s your title!” as Holly said.)  I reordered, so there’s a rhythm to the pages now and a logic to each double page spread. To me, there’s a feeling of balance between the backs and the fronts, each is as important as the other. The transparent Mylar sheet, painstakingly lifted from an embossed Polaroid and generally ignored from that point on as it kept being flicked over in favour of whatever was visible through it, became the first page after the front cover. It’s in between two plain black back pages so now has to be looked at. I punched a couple of extra holes to allow pages to be flipped over and re-ordered. That last lovely transparent image can be turned in its own right, and viewed either from the front with a silver background or from the back with a cream paper background.

So next up is a condensed blog post for assessment. In the meantime, here’s a rough video of the book, minus its ribbon.


A5 scanning Polaroids

One of my tutor’s suggestions for reworking A5 was to look at alternate camera technologies such as scanners and old digital cameras. As my old digital camera seems to have been thrown out, I investigated scanning on our basic HP inkjet.

It’s definitely a promising approach in that it gives me something in between the sheer physicality of the Polaroid and the modernity of the macro shots taken with my DSLR . Unlike the Polaroid, it’s digital so I can use it in other ways. I’m thinking more about a photobook, with a modern photo on one half of the spread and a scan on the other, probably offset, possibly with the two images both relating to the same original Polaroid. I could attach an actual Polaroid inside the front or back covers, using either Velcro dots or transparent cd wallets, to allow the photographs to be removed and handled.

On the scanned Polaroids I like the inverted images – it ties in with Fox Talbot’s invention of the negative. More to follow…

Assignment 5 Tutor feedback

Posting as is for the moment, will return with more perspective in a few days. Click link below to view.


A few days turned into a few weeks. It’s slightly frustrating that this work is so close to being there, but not quite. The feedback was positive, possibly more positive than the written report suggests as my tutor has sesnsibly focused on how to improve the work after identifying the strong points on the skype call. I am hopeful that the shortcomings are not the difference between pass/fail but between pass/better. The two main issues are the need to consolidate from the current three approaches down to one (or else find a way to present mixed methods in a “consolidated and cohesive” way as per Kurt Tong “The Queen, Chairman and I”); and to add more information on the visual context for the work. Fixing these two issues should result in work that is more refined and competent, a bit slicker.

My tutor provided some very useful recommendations. I’m confident that I can provide a suitable visual context. Consolidating the work is providing some challenge. I find myself wondering what it is about Kurt Tong’s work that makes it “consolidated and cohesive” given the wide range of presentation media. I wonder if a group of disparate approaches can be regarded as a group by virtue of their differentness. The easiest decision to make is to abandon, for the moment, the digital jpgs of the polaroid backs, showing the blue developer before it dried white. These somehow feel a bit too “technical”, a bit too “current”. So by discarding those I can think more clearly about the characteristics of the work.

The acrylic blocks provide some pause for thought too. The brief specifies a set of ten images. I think 10 images mounted in acrylic blocks would be a bit unwieldy, and I’m not sure the concept would hold strong over all ten. Yet I feel very strongly about the block with the emulsion lift of the Fox Talbot window, and the way the window can be held in the hand and looked through, that the viewer can see their world through the FT window. We talked briefly about layering the images, to make something like Noemie Gordon’s works (ADD REFERENCE), but I think this would be a bit clunky on my smaller scale.

Moira suggested that I consider what other artists would be involved at a show featuring my work. This has given me much to think about and allows me to start building a visual context for the work. So there’s a method there – refine the work, and identify the context, then the two should help each other.

Part of the issue, hinted at by Moira, is that I haven’t fully understood the work myself yet. There is still more meaning to be “unpacked” and I’m not really seeing it. It feels as if I’ve locked myself out of my own work, and I’m fumbling around the smooth outside trying to find a way in.

Exploring this further, I started out by simply deconstructing Polaroids, physically, and then manually processing the results into a book and two acrylic elements. As time goes on, I can see that I’ve moved from deconstructing Polaroids to deconstructing photography and examining some of the formats used in its history. Moira mentioned “shifts in technology – perhaps the early (or defunct early digital technology) could come into play”. This turned out to be a rich seam to mine. I started out by scanning the Polaroid backs and found that the results actually felt finished, something I hadn’t expected to feel without including the actual Polaroid itself. This got me thinking about how to present any scans, there are prints of course but I was curious about using “defunct.. technology”. I looked into digital photo frames, digital photo keyrings and am currently charging a Nokia 3310 mobile phone to see if I can download jpgs onto it and display them on its screen with the nice Polaroid aspect ratio. I am also interested in using MS Paint for processing the scans, as it too has had a recent brush (sorry) with obsolescence. I’m intrigued by the idea of “translating” my polaroids through physical and digital manipulation from the early days of Fox Talbot through scanning, basic digital processing, and the introduction of camera phones, which now take most vernacular photographs. Travelling from print to digital. Interestingly, the original Nokia 3310s predated the camera phone by some years. This re-launch does include a camera and a colour screen so I am interested to see if I can use it to present “alien” jpgs. The work has broadened from being about Polaroids to being about photography, technology, obsolescence and nostalgia.


Of course the elephant in the room is whether it’s at all realistic to present work for assessment on a device that may well need charging, even the month long standby on the Nokia may not be enough for the long wait between submission and actual assessment. However, I can’t let practicality stand in the way of creativity so let’s explore and see. I suspect that in the real world, requiring power would not be that much of a barrier to showing the work so I don’t think it’s entirely unrealistic. At the very least it can be blogged. Perhaps a video would work.  I need to explore digital keychains too, they might be a better solution in terms of power.

I’m still unsure about what I’ll actually be submitting. I need to try out more approaches and see what works. My gut feeling is that the Window acrylic block will still be there, so perhaps two complementary formats rather than the current mix of three.

Notes for Skype call

I liked the scans. I like the idea of using old technology.

I thought I might do a blurb book with prints of the scans and the polaroids stuck in with glue or Velcro. But that feels a bit normal. The scans somehow feel finished.

Then I thought of putting scans on a digital keyring (mini electronic photo frame) but they seem to be massively unreliable. One reviewer of a digital keyring said that buyers would be better off just putting their photos onto their phone, and that made me think of old phones, especially the Nokia 3310 that’s been relaunched onto a 2.5G network that’s nearing obsolescence. I bought a phone and worked out how to get scanned polaroids onto it. I love that it shows the arc from print and chemicals to digital in one picture on one screen, that it shows obsolete polaroids and chemicals on an obsolete digital phone.

I inverted the colours to explore the idea of the negative (Sietsema). There is still more to do – consistently scan the images to the same size, investigate jpg quality options. Somehow the negatives feel more FT ish and I like how the layers show on the altered/cleaned ones. Interested in using MS Paint on some of the backs. I like the idea of having them on a phone, either submitting the phone or a video of the photos being viewed.

Visual contextualisation – Justine Vargas (conveying information without using a traditional portrait. Paul Sietsema (inversions, negatives). Noemie Goudal (acrylic blocks, layered images). Joseph Kosuth (different ways of looking at chairs). Floris Neususs at Lacock Abbey. Adam Fuss (less information = more meaning). Idris Khan but need to look more. Stephanie D’huppert’s series on backs. Mat Collishaw FT VR exhibition.

In terms of consolidation – not there yet. I’m definitely taking out the jpgs of the backs of the images. I think I will take out the non-window acrylic block. So I wonder about submitting the window block, the video of the phone, and the original book of the polaroids.

I need to continue to reduce the number of circles that I’m going around in. What images do I want to use? Negatives of fronts and backs, positive backs, processed backs? Just fronts, just backs or both? I only need 10 in total. Do I actually need to include the original “book”? If I don’t, I’ll need to sort prints.

These are not the final versions of the scans, they are rough crops. Samples rather than a final selection. The different resolutions need to be addressed, the final images will all be the same size.


A5 – post Skype and pre written feedback initial thoughts

I need to do more on this work, neither me nor my tutor is exactly sure what that “more” is.

I think the content is ok, I don’t think I need to shoot more Polaroids.

My tutor suggested the following:

  • several practitioners to research (this was very helpful in freeing up my creativity once again)
  • looking at “time” as an aspect of the work and investigating making lower-res digital copies of the polaroids (backs I think) using either a scanner or an early digital camera. She observed that this would develop the idea of photographing Fox Talbot’s home with a camera that’s out of modern production. Thinking about it, I have the macro jpgs to represent the current technology.
  • thinking about a “perfect bound” book rather than my current loosely associated pages
  • She said that the fronts of the polaroids (ie the normal side) were rather less important to her on viewing than the altered backs. This allows me to explore other forms of presentation where the front is harder to access.
  • She liked the acrylic blocks and the way that one of them allowed the objects inside to move slightly. One option is to explore making use of more blocks.
  • More contextualisation. Her suggestions will help here, particularly the VR artist Mat Collishaw’s installation of a FT exhibition.
  • She kindly offered more feedback in the summer before I start putting everything together for assessment.

So where next? I have updated my post on the OCA forum. I will do a test scan and see if I can source a very basic digital camera. I need to decide how important the actual physical polaroid is to me in the presentation of this work. Am I happy to dispense with them and present for example scans, using the two acrylic objects to show the physical traces, in their almost museum context of being preserved in “glass”? I am wondering about a photobook, on thick paper, with one side printed with an image and the opposite side holding a polaroid that’s secured to the paper in some way (either removably or not). There’s the potential to match polaroids with the macro shot of the same back.

I need to pull the work together a bit more. I don’t necessarily want it to feel “resolved” but I do want it to feel unified.

Self assessment

I’m still a bit stunned that A5 is finished. It seems to have been here for ages, we’d got used to each other’s company. It’s over, but I’m not finished.

What went well?

I feel as if my technical skills are improving, though this has not necessarily been the project to showcase them. Exercise 5.2 was a watershed moment, and I am happy with the jpgs of the Polaroid backs. I’m even reasonably happy with the picture side of the polaroids, they worked well in black and white and carry the mood of early photography. I’m happy with the work creatively too. I tried absolutely everything that occurred to me, some ideas worked, some didn’t, but I feel as if I explored it from the inside out, and extensively (not completely, there is always more). It feels like my work too.

What didn’t go so well?

Decisions! Well the easy ones were fine. This is going to sound like an ungrateful complaint but sometimes it felt like I could barely keep up with my ideas, which is probably a good thing as it took me to some interesting creative spaces, but I do wonder which bit of my brain is in charge sometimes. I’m aware of a lack of polish on the physical work too. One of the acrylic blocks didn’t clean up too well after I decided against the emulsion lift on it… I should have bought a spare. I could have done with more polaroids too, as I used quite a few testing out techniques and making test books. Contact sheets caught me out, I should have photographed them as I went.

What would I do differently?

Everything identified above. I want to continue developing this work, the next step is photographing emulsion lifts in water to show motion, both sides, and the light through the image.

review against assessment criteria