CLOTHES
- Some thought that not seeing the face was more anonymous. I wasn’t really thinking about face but just wanted it to be natural. I understand the comment but I think it too much as it’s like almost erase of identity, which I don’t think is what I’m really trying to show. I still confirm my identity but it’s not independent.
- Michelle mentioned the dance of bones/Butoh. I read an article about it and found it related:
The exerciser can perceive that the body is not a solid object but a soft container of liquid.
https://www.ne.jp/asahi/butoh/itto/method/butoh-method.pdf
It’s like body without bones to form a structure.
OFF
- Craig said it made him think of household object/women/domesticity. I understand why he thought so, though it’s not my intention to relate to feminism. But maybe it’s a part of it as I am a female and dependant/passive.
- Mitchell suggested I instruct others to photograph themselves with other objects. It can be interesting but I’m just not interested in other people at the moment.
- Mitchell said usually portraits emphasises people while the hidden elements of body as background/wallpaper, like unused, was interesting. I never thought about it this way but it’s interesting. I did have thought about people living in others’ home without being noticed like parasite from last tutorial, but didn’t know how to show it.
- Alison said Clothes made her think what happened for all clothes to fall down, like an end/beginning of story. Though it’s not a story but I was glad to know that it made people think.
- Craig and Michelle said the flatness/gray tone of Clothes made skin part of the clothes. The surface of images could be looked into. I wasn’t thinking too much about it while editing the photo. But I think I did want them to be coherent. “Surface of images” sounds interesting.
- Michelle said for positions hard to do it myself could be filmed and screenshot. The problem is that I have to see the image to adjust the positions of the object and the camera.
- Mitchelle also mentioned if not connecting yourself to screen, where did you exist. It makes me think about the feature/function/meaning of photography. I use it to capture the existence I make. Without it, does what I make still makes sense? If not shared to others through this medium, do I still want to do it? But does it change anything about myself?
- Alison said it also made her think about lockdown fatigue, becoming one with your environment, being consumed by the space you’re confined to until you eventually turned into the objects you co-exist with. Though it’s not my intention, but the idea of being consumed by the space is interesting.
- Asked Craig if he had thought about making the card physical because I thought they made more sense being physical than digital. Also wanted to ask him where the sound/clips were from and why he used multiple layers.
- Asked Mengran why she applied multiple layers. She said they’re different perspectives (time/digital) of the same place. I don’t know why she wants to show it. It just seems very messy to me and I can’t tell which is really digital/real.
- Asked Alison if she had the photos/texts first. The process of retelling the story of the photos is interesting and I’ve never thought this way.
Eva Wang 