Yesterday I had a meeting with Ruth online and this morning I have added to the feedback form and sent it over to her.
An abbreviated version below:
The film demonstrates technical and visual skills, and imaginative handling of the found footage to draw out its haptic qualities and communicate a critical re-reading of the material. The three sections ‘verses’ have distinct atmospheres. Overall sense of the film: it could be much shorter and thereby allow the viewer to be swept up in the whirl of the imagery and music but not start figuring out what is going on. The length somewhat detracts from the open-endedness of the film, and suggests a potential narrative. Let’s discuss this, along with choice of film, precedents (similar/related work); rhythms (from sound and visual edits such as speed, image manipulation etc.)
Before meeting for an online tutorial, I sent Ruth a blog post (password protected, available on request or supplied for assessment) which explained why even though I agreed in the main with her about the film, I felt reworking Sirens was impractical and undesirable. I have been working on another collaborative project and suggested submitting the results (or a part of them) for the A1.2 and sent some work in progress. I can see that the course wants us to be prepared for reworking projects as part of an ongoing process. But I have often done this in any case during my time with the OCA and either do so or sometimes choose not to, moving on to something new instead or ditching previous ideas/work altogether and starting again from scratch. So accepting feedback and reworking is not unknown to me. We agreed in the end that Sirens had been a good stepping-stone but that my time would be better used moving forward with the next project.
Extra information which I’ve not talked about on the feedback form
Ruth and I agreed that submitting the Pic London work will be the best use of my time. I had shared some Work in Progress.
- A film
- A set of stills taken in the village I was in Italy (some of which are in the film at the moment – WIP – so who knows if they’ll stay)
- A poem I wrote while making and thinking about this work. The poem will be in a booklet accompanying the installation made by the Pic London group and is a research document rather than a catalogue.
Ruth said as the film stood now she couldn’t make sense of it. But that she thought the poem was strong. I ended the session ready to ditch the film altogether but that feeling had dissipated by the end of the day. The film is important but needs more work. I try to remind myself of Adam Curtis’s comment about showing unfinished work. “I just think it’s incredibly risky to show stuff early on when you’re trying to combine, say, two or three different narratives together to make a bigger point. It’s so easy to get it wrong. Because you can see it in your brain, but they don’t know your brain.” (2018)
However, it was great to have such positive feedback about the writing and I have been thinking about how I might show it outside the book, if at all. Ruth suggested submitting that part for A1.2.
I think the best thing to do is forge ahead thinking in terms of the exhibition and then think about which elements I submit to the OCA, if not all of it. One thing Ruth said which struck a chord was that there will be a lot of work at the venue, and it will be like a graduate show which I have thought before too. How do I make sure my work doesn’t get drowned out? Maybe I can’t ensure it doesn’t but presenting something striking but simple is one possible way of addressing this. The writing could potentially work, as it’s full of visual imagery but isn’t an image.
SJField - OCA Level Three Study Blog 