At the Big Crit I showed a pretty complete version of the faux local regional news feature I will be having in the installation. The reaction was interesting and some were pretty sucked in by it, some utterly dumbfounded and others who knew the intentions put it under the microscope pointing out it's many flaws. The reaction was definitely mixed to put it mildly. The feedback was obviously clouded by the fact that this was one piece which will sit within a suite of elements that all work together as a whole to create meaning and describing this is obviously not as good as demonstrating it. The other works are being developed but are not ready for this crit. The critique and screening produced some answers and a lots of questions but as always lots of food for thought. Below is the piece that I screened to the group.
TV NEWS CUT BEST from Jon Saward on Vimeo.
See the main comments below and my feelings towards how I can use them to move forward.
What is the intention of the piece? Stronger call to action?
I feel this would be clear once all of the elements are curated in the installation in a room or single space. It is hard to tell from the one piece.
It needs to take us in more at the beginning. It has a comedic layer and seems a little "spoofy". Spinal Tap flavour. Is this intentional?
These two are linked. The piece starts with a title card to let the audience drink in the wording on the screen and for that feel of authenticity but this could be stronger. I feel the unintentional spoof quality also detracts a little from the authenticity of the piece. This was not intentional however I do want the TV news piece to be slightly flawed and 98-99% right to create the sense of uncanny and set doubts in the viewers minds. The balance is possibly about 90% right and this is making it look not real enough, although a few viewers seemed to be taken in. I need to dial down the spoofy TV News reporter at the start and play this straighter. I feel the script is working though.
The professor looks scripted. What is the in-between? Does it matter that it may be seen by viewers as a spoof?
Spoof claims again and on repeated viewings the Professor does seem to be acting and he was indeed an actor. This is a very fine line to tread as often media commentators from fields are used a lot and a degree of performance does come in if they are used to being on camera and are briefed/coached by the crew so they get exactly what they need and quickly. I know this as I did a little work in TV news. There is valid comment here though and perhaps a re-shoot would get to the in-between or at least closer to realism. This does hol up as the non-performer (my mum) in the piece no-one had issues with as she had that natural quality and lack of performance.
In the club or in the know? Should audiences get the "in" joke? How much do you allow the viewer to be in the know?
I always feel an in-joke or being in the know should be a privileged thing not for everyone and the flip side to this is that it creates discussion and argument which is what I am after. If everyone gets it then this does not happen. It should also be earned by picking up the clues. The use of the surnames of famous hoaxers or illusionists, the date of Ben's disappearance 1st April and photos that are a little uncanny valley. There will be more such clues within the other elements to the installation.
The photos need more work to seem real. A little too uncanny valley. Less pictures as main man looks too similar in them all.
I agree wholeheartedly with all of this and there are definite areas to develop here. I am not a photoshop expert and all of the photos used to graft onto originals of Ben Wright (played by a friends son) were taken at the same time and could be more different. I will look at making these more believable as some are OK but I do like the fact that they are not 100% right. However as with the whole piece I wanted it 98-99% right to create the sense of uncanny and set doubts in the viewers minds. The balance is once again possibly about 90% right and this is making it them look quite real enough. Another tactic is to use less photos and possibly incorporate other images and footage without Ben in it and/or to not leave them on screen for so long or zoom in to focus on them as this shows the flaws more closely.
Link more the fictional characters with real historical ones? For instance highly influential Silent Spring book by Rachel Carson.
There could be links to other real people around at the time and this is a fair comment. However the main purpose of the piece as mentioned earlier is to quickly and effectively set-up the story get the audience up to speed and get a lot of the exposition done. It does this really effectively in my opinion and serves this purpose well. I will look at the script again and possibly see about adding more real historical characters.
Is the work historically and factually correct? Is this important? Fact checking.
The facts about global warming are corrects and the fictional events all fall on the right dates. I have been very careful to do this as although the piece is based around a fictional narrative and characters the facts, figures stats and real historical figures I want to be bang on. I have a very close friend who is the head of UK's Greenpeace climate control campaign (Ben Stewart) and he will be double checking the facts for me.
Possibly needs more on the "what if" factor and where we are now.
I agree that this needs to be in the final piece but this is just the set up. This will be covered in other elements of the installation and I will make sure that it is.
Humour can be a good vehicle for triggering emotion and creating memories of what is happening.
This is a great statement and whilst I agree it depends on the type of humour. I do not want the spoof style humour of Spinal Tap but I do want t more knowing humour and getting the "in joke" and realising the artifice of the piece for what it is. I will need to be careful to not have the whole piece dismissed as fake though. But humour can be used to help remember moments, facts and to make points.
How will the piece work in a gallery? Is it stand alone? Consider presentation in the gallery.
The piece will not be a stand alone and will work with other elements such as a doco, artefacts, web-site, blog and even possibly performance when the cast will simply be in and around the whole MA exhibition in character to see how people react to them if at all. The exact presentation I need to develop but there will definitely be a display case with ephemera in it and a screen or possibly two for the TV News piece and the doco. There may also be computers with the blog/website on them.
WHAT NEXT?
As well as developing all of the above I need to show it to different audiences who do not know the project, are not as critical of the work aesthetically in a art critique environment and to get their feedback. I will look to re-shoot and try out different elements in the TV News package too.
No comments:
Post a Comment