In reflection Michael Rush’s chapter on video installation art I found that I didn’t exactly engage with the content of the writing, as it was very dated and simply a cluster of examples of video installations. This isn’t neccesarily bad, but as fodder to enhance and reconsider how I might use the gallery space and spaces in the future in creating installation works I found that I didn’t exactly engage very well.
Alternatively however, I found the round table discussion ‘The projected image in Contemporary Art’ to be very interesting. What stuck out to me is when foster describes the change and definitive difference that is possible when working with an installation work instead of a film. A film installed on a single screen with no acknowledgement of the space seems to be ignorant of the viewer/audience’s perspective and seems to play irrelevant of whether the audience is there or not.
This is an idea that I haven’t considered before, while I’ve seen many works created by my peers that are interactive in some way or another, I haven’t myself yet considered the importance of space to the point of whether my work acknowledges or adjusts itself depending on the whims and placement of the audience within the space. While generally I’ve worked with single screen works I think this leaves me with a great opportunity to work towards a major work that has the audience’s perspective and experience considered in how the work is perceived. The point McCall makes that a work that has a motionless audience viewing a single projected screen isn’t a installation is something that I find myself completely in agreement with. This highlights to me the importance of experimenting and considering a lot of different possibilities in how an installation is and can be experienced by an audience.
Turvey, M., Foster, H., Iles, C., Baker, G., Buckingham, M., & McCall, A. (2003). Round Table: The Projected Image in Contemporary Art. October, 104, 71-96. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3397582