part of it

I'd spoken to Iain yesterday, about having a chat with him, I think we both feel the need to get talking again, this semester seems to have floated by, without much participation (on both sides of the coin). We agreed to meet in the afternoon...

I'd taken in my rough sketch about the development of my realTime video feed abstraction installation. I'd talked of it's genesis and possible realisation, Iain liked the idea, and we'd had a good talk round the potential of it. I think the concept of the work is sound, it's about technology simplifying us (as quantifiable elements in "their system" (converting us to data, and using that information to ends that are unbeknown to us). Iain had pointed out that it's reminiscent of retinal scans, covert observation by video etc.

I'd brought up the idea that the work was similar to a Calum Innes "exposed paintings" in a way, a repetitive process, application, re-application, deletion, application (etc) to "make an abstract picture". The major difference is, that the data application is the part that you'd never see of innes's work, the final product from Innes, is where the process has finished, my realTime data reaction, would always be changing. Stills can obviously be outputted at any time, but this would trap this living image in time, something I'd avoid, as the reflection and reaction to peoples presence in a room is always dynamic, the crux of the work.

Some physical aspects need to be addressed of the work, I'd talked about "back projection" with Iain, and he shined to this idea, It'd be a challenge, but something that would ultimately benefit the space (the lack of technical equipment Vs the purity of the abstracted image, with a back projection, I'd also avoid the intrusion of shadows, obscuring the realTime changes...

Need to invest a lot of thought into creating this back projection. (mirrors, white sheets etc....)