It’s mentioned that my performance was like confronts of bumps/interruptions against physical space, struggle between me and environment, fighting against physical confronts, like my photos inside the cupboard/under the bed. I agree. As I’m not the domination of the space, it’s full of difficulties to interact with it.
Craig said it’s also pleasant at the same time. I don’t know why he felt that because my work has nothing to do with pleasure I think.
Alison said I almost saw space as enemy. I won’t say it’s enemy because I actually want to be a part of it or dominate it.
Michelle said it’s good the shooting was out of focus or moving sometimes. It’s not my intention and actually I’d prefer it to be focused and steady because it’s simply documentation of a performance rather than moving images.
Craig said it’s like I was looking for a hidden door/a way out but I couldn’t see. It’s interesting. I didn’t think about it this way. But from the video where I am walking against the wall, it does look a bit like so.
Michell said it’s like people lack of sight or with disabilities. It did have come to my mind that it’s a bit like the blind. I’d say that it’s shared on the dependency in some degrees.
It’s mentioned that it’s like being dominated by the space. I agree.
Michell mentioned about doing this in public space such as supermarket or gallery. I still think domestic space is better because it’s stranger that you’re not even the domination of your own place.
I don’t know why Mengran uses slow motion. If it’s too show repetition, doesn’t fast-forward make more sense?
For Yunqiu’s work, I actually don’t feel stillness because most of the elements are moving. The fact that the character is digital which is easily manipulated doesn’t show the effect of stillness well as real people.
I don’t understand the meaning of Yutong’s work.
I like Craig’s work although I didn’t know Elvis. To me, it feels the person is swallowed by a black hole gradually. I think the texts and the sound also work well to contribute to the atmosphere. It’s peaceful, quiet, unavoidable and a little depressed. Wanted to ask why the texts are like generated, then I thought it showed the uncertainness of one’s thoughts and difficulty of accurate expression.
Did a lot of test shooting to decide on the orientation of the camera, the angle of the speedlite, the exposure and white balance.
I decided on the landscape view because I don’t want to include the floor. And I kept the speedlite 90 degrees up to avoid shadow. Preferred bluer white balance. Realised that with this angle of the speedlite, I couldn’t adjust the brightness with an aperture smaller than f/8.
Arms
I think the middle one looks like hugging the most.EDIT
Legs
The aperture of the first photo was too big and some parts of the mirror were not clear so had to use f/13. Decided on the last photo because the front looked more natural I thought.EDIT
Neck
EDIT
Mouth
Wanted to capture mouth only but the lens couldn’t get so close.
Liked the first photo but the aperture was too big so the mirror wasn’t very clear. Tried that position again but somehow couldn’t get a bright reflection. So did the last photo.EDIT
Hands
I think the 3rd photo looks like hugging the most.EDIT
Tableaux Vivants – Inside the Statue
‘Pain suspends the desire to move’, wrote the philosopher Etienne Bonnot, the Abbé de Condillac in 1754, describing his hypothetical statue which is gradually thawed out to activity by sensations triggered by the external world.
AURA SATZ
Curiosity would motivate it to mobility: ‘[The statue] totters, it walks, leaning against everything that can help it to stay up; it falls, it hurts itself, and feels pain anew. It does not dare get up, it scarcely dares move: the fear of pain offsets the hope of pleasure…’
AURA SATZ
Haven’t really thought about not moving this way but it totally makes sense. I did a performance inspired by “leaning against everything that can help it to stay up”, which I actually had thought about before.
One might view the tableau vivant as a defensive cocoon, a protective armouring of the body which safeguards its amorphous interior and gives fixed shape to liquid shapelessness.
AURA SATZ
The idea of shapelessness relates to my project CLOTHES.
I thought about using a plain background for some positions as some scenes just didn’t look good. Michelle said she liked the close-up of the hand best because it looked better. I started to think again removing the context of the positions just to focus on the state of being stuck by holding on to the mirror. Looking through the photos I took, I found the body parts stuck were hand, arms, legs and neck. Maybe I don’t need to set up specific actions because it can be obvious that any kind of activities cannot be carried out without using these body parts already. While I wanted to focus on different parts individually to make the mirror obvious, I thought about the meaning of produce multiple photos instead of one to include a whole body.
The idea of photographing small body parts is also inspired by Lin Yung Cheng’s photos.
Without different contexts, I’m thinking about capturing one position in multiple photos. I think it goes with pieces of mirror as media to see self, as multiple photos are media as well. And it shows the fragments of the body/sense of existence instead of wholeness, which shows the body/self-existence lacks self-domination. For the position, I thought of the project HOW CONNECTED CAN WE BE. I want to use the action of hugging, which may indicate the theme of “relationship” better. Michelle mentioned putting mirror in the mouth. I think it could apply for the action of kissing.
I also want to have the model wear nude vest because the mirror is not obvious reflecting black.
I’m not sure how if it’s gonna work because I only want to include one body part in one photo while it’s consistent for one position.
Tried to hold jars myself and found it very hard and I even dropped a jar. So I decided to stick tapes on the sides of the jar to secure. Cut the mirrors to put into the jars.
As I only have one speedlite, it took a while to adjust the speedlite to get rid of shadow:
I found it difficult to recognise mirror in the jars so I got closer:
I think that the photos only capture the legs look more natural than the first 2 photos. And as this position is to show being unable to walk so the legs are the emphasis. It makes me think that portraits usually focus on the face with or without upper body, rarely legs. But why not?
I can’t get rid of both the shadow and the reflection on the jar, and I think that the model can try to hold the mirror directly, as it’s the important object, not sure if it’s gonna work though as it’s hard to hold it.
Want to set the position in the middle of the hallway, and maybe photograph the legs from the back so it looks more like the situation of walking.
My recent “relationship” is hurting me but I can’t let it go. It puts me to a position where I’m not in control and I can’t change the situation. It’s like I can’t move physically. I’m holding on to this fragile “relationship” that is still precious to me. I’m constraint by it. It’s hard to maintain the balance. Mainly influenced by Erwin Wurm’s photographic sculptures, for example:
It’s a physical state where you cannot move unless you drop the items you’re holding on to. It applies to my emotional state as well. It reminds me of the work I collected for the project HOME:
I think the action of holding on to something suits my emotional state better. Thinking about objects to stand for the fragile “love”, it should be something that would break if I move and drop it. I thought of glass. It also reminds me of the Little Prince:
He uses a glass jar to protect the rose that he loves.
Jars are usually used to store food to keep it fresh. I think it tells my desire for the “love” to last. For what should be in the jars to stand for the actual thing I’m holding on to, I thought of mirror that is also fragile. The more important reason is that I think what “love” does to me is that I feel my existence through it, which is inspired by Lacan’s theory I noted before:
The Imaginary is the psychic place, or phase, where the child projects its ideas of “self” onto the mirror image it sees. The mirror stage cements a self/other dichotomy, where previously the child had known only “other,” but not “self.” For Lacan, the identification of “self” is always in terms of “other.” This is not the same as a binary opposition, where “self”= what is not “other,” and “other” = what is not “self.” Rather, “self” IS “other”, in Lacan’s view; the idea of the self, that inner being we designate by “I,” is based on an image, an other. The concept of self relies on one’s misidentification with this image of an other.
You’re my mediation to see myself, like a mirror. It also reminds me of A Narcissist’s Love Letter by John Howell:
When I say I’m in love with you, I mean I love the way I feel when I’m with you. I love myself through you. I love seeing myself through your eyes. I love seeing myself through my eyes imagining how I look through your eyes. I love having someone new to tell my stories to, to express my opinions, and to share my profound theories and beliefs about the important things in life. I love hearing myself say these things as I imagine how they sound to you, and how enthralled with me I imagine you are.
When I say I’m in love with you, I love having someone beautiful to wear, like a new outfit. I love the way you feel on me. I love the way I feel about me when you are with me.
When I say I’m in love with you, I love not being alone. I love not being that tree falling in the forest. I love having a full-time, personal audience.
When I say I’m in love with you I mean I love being your mystery, your riddle, being what keeps you up at night, your obsession. I love being your altar, your sacrament, your icon, your miracle. I love being your answer. I love being the object of your sacrifice. I love being your pain.
When I say I’m in love with you, I mean I’m in love with being your sun, monopolizing your orbit, being your gravity, keeping you drawn back to me no matter how hard you try to jump or fly, keeping you down. Keeping you mine.
When I say I’m in love with you, I mean I’m in love with breathing your air, sucking your blood, eating your dreams. I’m in love with being your drug, your dagger, your suicide note.
It falls to a conflict of holding on to the illusion of self-existence and its damage to my actual existence, which shows I’m not the domination of my existence again.
I thought of 5 situations where the body tries to carry out daily activities and holds on to the jars at the same time:
Walking (hallway)
Eating (kitchen)
Sitting (laptop)
Brushing/washing (bathroom)
Cooking (kitchen)
I want to show how this emotional state makes my daily life difficult.
I’m actually still not sure what size of jars would work better and if the mirror in the jars would show because it’s small. Maybe I should do both a distant and close shot.
Yunqiu asked me if I had thought about shooting outside on the street and the difference between shared kitchen and private bedroom. The reason why I chose domestic/private space was that I thought it’s the closest space to mental space that’s supposed to be dominated by myself, while shared/public space is not dominated by individual.
Alison asked if I had thought about what I was wearing related to the space. I didn’t really think about it. I just wanted something simple and plain and it’s only what I had. And I’m not sure if it would be too much effort to wear something blended in the space because it’s not real hiding after all.
Michelle mentioned that objects where I couldn’t fit could be interesting. I didn’t think about it while taking the photos. But I had the thoughts of not fitting before.
Mengran said it’s both hiding and exposing, which is like I want others to find me at the same time. I agree that it’s not real hiding because it’s my private space after all. It’s a conflict that I live like a parasite in my own space.
Inspired by last tutorial when Michelle talked about living in others’ home without being realised/noticed, I thought of the movie “parasite”, where the poor family relied on the rich family secretly while they could never be the domination of the house or their own living. It also reminds me of a note I took before:
Roxana’s body and her house are bound together by parallel clauses in an identity she will learn to exploit. Within this chilling interior emptiness she begins a series of invisible occupancies, secretly inhabiting (and learning to control) spaces that appear closed and empty to the rest of the world […]
THE DOMESTIC SPACE READER
It’s an effort of occupying the space as well as her own identity.
Domestic space is like materialised mental space. I don’t feel I belong, which is like I’m not the domination of the space, and I’m not the domination of my emotions. I live like a parasite, depending on a host dominating/saving me.
I found the following words related as well:
The Modernist break from tradition is a rupture with rootedness. At stake of course is the nature of dwelling and the home and the modern anxieties over the inevitability of ‘homelessness’ (Heynen 2001). This is the problem that Heidegger identifies: ‘The proper dwelling plight lies in this, that mortals ever search anew for the essence of dwelling, that they must ever learn to dwell’ (1993: 363). This problem is what Morgan refers to in his preface to Houseand House-life of American Aboriginals (1881): ‘Every institution of mankind which attained permanence will be found linked with a perpetual want’ (quoted in Bohannan 1965: xvi). This restlessness is what characterises the Modernist preoccupation with the architecture of dwelling. Transfixed as we are by this problem, as Heynen observed, we have tended to focus on the melancholic object of our restlessness and loss: dwelling – despairing to fix and grasp it (as with Heidegger) or more nihilistically despairing at our own despair (see Heynen on Adorno, Eisenman and Cacciari).
Handbook of Material Culture
The sense of not belonging/no root, the conflict of dwelling and ‘homelessness’, the constant desire of occupying the house.
My body form is dependent on the surroundings, inspired by VALIE EXPORT’s work:
Tried different positions and lighting angles, and found the last one was with less shadow and the arms were placed against the table so that it’s less visible.Edit
Behind the Curtain
The portrait view looks better and the placement off the center shows the idea of hiding/not dominating better.Edit
Thought of completely hiding behind the curtain while showing the shape of the body through light but there’s not suitable light to achieve the effect. And I think the final position relates better to other photos as they’re all not completely hidden. It supposed to be my own dominated space after all.
Under the Bed
Tried different positions and found the second one looked better.Edit
Beside the Bed
Edit
In the Cupboard
Tried different positions and decided on the first one because it’s more off center and as the other photos were not showing the face, it’s more natural not showing the face here as well.
I removed the stickers because they’re distracting and I didn’t want to show the information about this space.Wanted to photograph the space above the wardrobe but it’s too high to climb up…
Wanted to photograph the space under the sofa but I couldn’t fit in…
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.
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.
Mitchellsaid 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.
Michellesaid 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.
My body is not dominated by myself. I can’t stand on my own. It’s soft. I can’t put myself together. There’s no core my body can attach to. It’s like body without bones.
No structure.
It reminded me of empty clothes, formless/shapeless, easily manipulated/controlled. Clothes without body.
The process of cleaning clothes to function, which is relied on others, is like the daily activities to clean myself to function. I ought to do it myself, but I rely on others to do it.
The relation to clothes is also influenced by a HK movie called Chungking Express, where a heart-broken character talks to some objects like they’re emotional. Wet towels/flooded house are seen as they’re crying. The character thinks the shirt is cold so he irons it. And he thinks the shirt is hiding from reality and it gets mouldy so he hangs it under sunlight.
The idea of “hang me up to dry” is also inspired by the photo below:
Wash me
Inspired by my previous photo “clothes” under project “off”.
Tried using lights but there’s no stand so I couldn’t get a right angle.
Hang me
Tried different positions and thought the first one looked better.
Iron me
Edit
Tried using lights but it produced more shadows…
Fold me
Wear me (out)
Even though the clothes/body are cleaned and seem ready to function, the body still lacks domination like empty clothes and it’s formless so its shape depends on other objects such as a sofa.
Tried different positions and found the last one showed the form of the body better and a more clear focus.
Eva Wang 