I'm struggling a bit in making a piece for our coming show. My first instinct was to do a video projection or some sort of work with monitors. However, the installation space is a public area where security would be an issue. Not that it should deter me, but feel that even with a video, it seems like it would get lost in the space somehow. So I see as an opportunity to do some print based work, but still conveying a passing of time or a potential to shift perspective.
The above are sketches made using found images from an old home movie and crayon. The act of mark-making cover details but also seem to make the images more alive, as if to activate a memory. Through activation, memory is animated but not accurate.
Since these are stills from a film found on an online archive, I feel like there might be conceptual issues surrounding the use of media. The footage has gone through stages of mediation will continue to do so if I choose to go forth with this project. Existing as an actual film, it has been digitized (with the level of quality reduced), then will be printed, and marked. The question I pose is this: Is there a difference in the project if I marked the actual film vs. marking the mediated image? How is it different from marking a photograph? Somehow I feel that trying to "animate" a film after printing it as stills is a little redundant. Perhaps it's an attempt to give it new life (abeit a false one)? Is it just an illustration of movement? I don't know yet.
