reconstructing flow
I am intrigued in the process of audio recording. It is an interesting way of getting my thoughts down. When I write, I write in fragments; I have been struggling this semester with taking notes, and distilling information. When I take notes, I start off by looking at words, looking at ideas, and then I branch out from there. I end up distilling the information down to a word, or a sentence, or even part of a word. I end up looking at the syllabuls of a word, and studying different broken up words that can then be put together into other segments and other juxtapositions.
I think that how I write is remarkable different than how I speak. It is telling of how I make sense of things. I think in fragments and I see in framing things. I am cutting things apart, when I am reinterpreting them I do not make coherent sentences. I think that the idea of construction of individual parts seems to happen naturally when I speak. When I write I have the same separation of image and text, it works well for photography might not work well for writing when I am trying to incorporate logical flow.
The idea of flow came up last week in Core Samples, the fact that this is a continuum in my projects. I am not interested in one specific moment in time, even though I am looking at moments, I am looking at the relationship between moving moments. Whether this looks like a still from a movie, but it still looks like part of a movie. It is meant to be seen in a sequence, or in a relationship with other stills. I am intrigued with that idea, that it is not using space as a moment. It is seeing seeing space through sequence, through time, through different intervals.
That is how you experience a building, You don’t stand in one spot, you are walking through a hallway or circulation spine you continuously changing your perspective and your experience is reframing the space in a new way. That is how architecture works, and sculpture works. Every direction is a different perspective and a reframing of the original subject. When you look at the 2D page everything is on the surface of the page. There might be depth on the surface it is still a flat medium. When you have a book, the format of the page the back of the page, the sequence of the pages. That front, back relationship is the equivalent of having the compressed foreground, middleground, background. Space is revealed out of the relationship between the parts. Space and time are always linked.
Looking at the definitions of time and space, they are related. Again, it is not about a moment it is about the continuum, and about multiple perspectives, multiplicity, multidimensional. That is where the time lapse come sin. I am not interested in time on its own. I am interested how progression and sequence play out over how you interpret a specific image or a room, or a space. It is really about the linking of those individual parts. I don’t get much out of one thing. I never show one thing in my reviews, and I don’t like working on one thing, one poster. This is why a book format is very similar to an architectural building. There is a sequence, you are building up the experience, whether it is a predetermined path (some books you have more variability in how pages are turned, maybe the pages are not bound together. That is probably why I am so interested in this format, as opposed to the poster format. As opposed to something that is a closed, singular system.
A camera is a system of framing. How can different systems of framing create a different reconstruction of a space?
I think that how I write is remarkable different than how I speak. It is telling of how I make sense of things. I think in fragments and I see in framing things. I am cutting things apart, when I am reinterpreting them I do not make coherent sentences. I think that the idea of construction of individual parts seems to happen naturally when I speak. When I write I have the same separation of image and text, it works well for photography might not work well for writing when I am trying to incorporate logical flow.
The idea of flow came up last week in Core Samples, the fact that this is a continuum in my projects. I am not interested in one specific moment in time, even though I am looking at moments, I am looking at the relationship between moving moments. Whether this looks like a still from a movie, but it still looks like part of a movie. It is meant to be seen in a sequence, or in a relationship with other stills. I am intrigued with that idea, that it is not using space as a moment. It is seeing seeing space through sequence, through time, through different intervals.
That is how you experience a building, You don’t stand in one spot, you are walking through a hallway or circulation spine you continuously changing your perspective and your experience is reframing the space in a new way. That is how architecture works, and sculpture works. Every direction is a different perspective and a reframing of the original subject. When you look at the 2D page everything is on the surface of the page. There might be depth on the surface it is still a flat medium. When you have a book, the format of the page the back of the page, the sequence of the pages. That front, back relationship is the equivalent of having the compressed foreground, middleground, background. Space is revealed out of the relationship between the parts. Space and time are always linked.
Looking at the definitions of time and space, they are related. Again, it is not about a moment it is about the continuum, and about multiple perspectives, multiplicity, multidimensional. That is where the time lapse come sin. I am not interested in time on its own. I am interested how progression and sequence play out over how you interpret a specific image or a room, or a space. It is really about the linking of those individual parts. I don’t get much out of one thing. I never show one thing in my reviews, and I don’t like working on one thing, one poster. This is why a book format is very similar to an architectural building. There is a sequence, you are building up the experience, whether it is a predetermined path (some books you have more variability in how pages are turned, maybe the pages are not bound together. That is probably why I am so interested in this format, as opposed to the poster format. As opposed to something that is a closed, singular system.
A camera is a system of framing. How can different systems of framing create a different reconstruction of a space?
posted by agnes at 9:45 PM
<< Home