In his report my tutor commented
that “the image quality is of a good
standard throughout – as is the print quality.” This was a great relief, as
I had been very concerned that I would have to re-shoot quite a few of the
images due to less than ideal composition, clutter caused by the feeding birds
etc.
However my other major concern,
that of narrative flow (discussed elsewhere in my blog in the update for the
submission of my work for Assignment 4) was a major issue. I had attempted to
integrate two separate themes, one dealing with our direct interaction with
wild birds through the process of feeding them and the other dealing with the
indirect interaction with wild birds due to man’s change of land use and the
resultant habitat and food loss for many species of birds. I knew that this mixture,
which involved combining different genres of images and therefore did not provide
an obvious visual flow from image to image, might not fit the remit. I
desperately wanted to include my environmental concerns in the final portfolio,
but as I commented in the update provided with my Assignment submission: “as a
“fall back” position I have the option of removing the “environmental” images
from the portfolio, perhaps adding a few more images of interactions between
people and wild birds, to produce a portfolio made up entirely of the direct
interactions between people and birds.”
My tutor’s comments confirmed
these fears: “there is without doubt
evidence of some difficulties in making these images sit together as a set of
work” and “there is not a real fit,
visually and contextually, as a set of work for the landscape/environment images
with the bird feeding images. I feel it would be difficult to present the work
in the way that the story board is currently set out”. On a related theme
he made two other points. Firstly, he reminded me of earlier feedback: “again there is the issue of the different
genres. It may have an unobserved or unexpected result in seriously undermining
your quality”. Secondly, he reminded me that the “environmental” images did
not inform the answer to the key question in my original proposal: “why do we
feed wild birds?”
To be honest, I had been
expecting these comments and had been preparing to assume the “fall back”
position described above. I was therefore very happy to take on board an
alternative suggestion by my tutor that I had not considered or thought possible
within the confines of the remit: “Your
initial question – why do we feed wild birds – may be where the issue lies.
Perhaps something along the lines of what wild birds do for us and what we do
for wild birds? Your images would fit this type of question much better.”
He then went on to suggest submitting the images as two sets. The first set
(“what wild birds do for us”) would feature the images showing people feeding
wild birds, whilst the second set (“what we do for/to wild birds”) would
feature the “environmental” images. Furthermore, he suggested that I could
adapt the video work that I had planned in order to prepare a multimedia
presentation (a “third set”) that
would act as a link between the two sets of images. As he pointed out, “this is perhaps a self-contained learning
experience and it should inform visually and literally”. Windows Movie
Maker was the recommended medium for the multimedia presentation: it was also recommended
that I experiment with using both music and commentary, as well as moving and
still images, in the presentation.
I was happy to take my tutor’s
suggestion on board. Following a telephone conversation (my tutor’s suggestion)
I decided to produce a 5 to 8 minute multimedia presentation, using video clips
to both express the themes and concepts behind the project and to link the images
in the two sections of the project together. This would necessitate a
modification of my original proposal from (essentially) “why do we feed wild birds?” to either “what do wild birds do for us and what do we do for wild birds?” or,
more specifically, “what does feeding
wild birds do for us and what do we do for feeding wild birds?”. Work on
the first set of images (people feeding wild birds) was essentially complete,
although I would continue to look for opportunities to improve on what I had
got. I would provide 10 to 12 images for this set. Some new images were still required
to make the second set (again, 10 to 12 images) complete. I hoped that the video work for the multimedia
presentation would provide fresh ideas and stimulus for creating and ordering
the second set of images.
At the time of writing (early
March) I have been experimenting with video work and with using “Windows Movie
Maker”. Like a child with new toys, this work has given me a lot of pleasure,
albeit with some frustration, and will be the subject of (a) blog(s) in the
near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment