Degree Project: Digital Sketchbook

Before going to uni to work on the Riso machine, I had researched The People of Riso and came across Lol Gallimore’s Ink Spill, see below. The pink pink and yellow caught my eye, “Lol aimed to create a sense of fluidity and movement in her prints using simple ink overlays with varying depth and contrast” (People of Print, 2019), after seeing this piece I realised its all int he editing prior to the pint, the use of Gallimore’s editing has considered different areas that may be darker than others, where to allow bold yellow/palest colour through and the layers of the colours themselves. Placing the prints in the machine multiple times per layer makes it bolder and more mixable with the other colours if repeatedly printed straight after.

Lol Gallimore, Ink Spill, 2019.

“Gallimore’s latest project explores fluidity and depth inspired by the patterns in oil spills” (People of Print, 2019), you can see the inspiration of ink spills within her work, though they feel more digital than real life fluid, they still have this movement to them which seems to be accentuated by the use of layers and colour. “Gallimore loves to experiment with beautifully made papers, how the colours and textures overlap and bounce off of one another, how the ink sits on the paper, all the way to what technique will be used to bind the spine” (People of Print, 2019), this quote made me realise there maybe more to use of different papers, inks, colours and the formation, so I wanted to start.

In our print session 17/03/21, we worked on photoshop to edit our images to envision how they would look like as a print – I trialed a cream background with a pink images on top. I was hard to know which kind of pink to use without trying the printer first. From this I got to understand the colours of the inks may change due to over lapping.

Reflection 30/03/21: I won’t be working this way again e.g. the planning of the colours digitally, its no where near as exciting as the actual print – I prefer the unknown!!

22/03/21 I went into uni and booked a 1-1 with Glen to show me how to use the print machine. He took me through the steps of the machine and the colouration with showing me some examples. I had already printed out my edited images of To Bite and the gradient background to use within the print, see below. I wanted the first experimentation to be fairly straight forward, using pink and yellow. – I was amazed at its brightness and its blend of inks together. I felt inspired by Galliomore’s Ink Spill and its blend/layering.

These above are where I am working with my current practice, I wanted to explore them in a different way to projection. These first prints below were very pale and slightly fuzzy but once the machine warmed up, they became detailed and bright, see below. This was such an exciting and quick process which pushed my use of bold colouration (like from Are You Watching?) into a new format. The prints gave the film stills that extra sweet like feel like projection did, but in a more intense way as currently I’m working with black and white in projection, Sweet Tooth B&W, it was good to work in a new material in a more concentrated and minimal format. I liked the control of ink and that these prints were tied to a tight box as with projection you can’t help the image from bursting across the room.

Reflection 20/04/21: After experimenting with Sweet Tooth B&W imagery in my current print, I prefer the look of To Bite above and aim to use it again. It’s more recognisable as to what the image is – breast in mouth, where as Sweet Tooth B&W was too dark and confusing.

I began to experiment with different papers and see which ones work in the machine well and with the ink. I really enjoyed the outcome on white/cream paper. It’s here where I learnt to centralise the two colours to almost pasted in a box together, I play with this and under aligned the two layers to create a pink/yellow shadow in image 2. I also sent this print through the machine twice to see how it would appeared in reference to Gallimore’s and the change of intensity was great, gave the Riso inks more depth – so bright/eye catching.

I did learn that a paper arm can effect the print and smudge the ink.. A bit annoying!

• !!! I aim to also experiment with their display e.g. placement/layout.

I really enjoy the photography in the sun/sunset – warms up the paper/colours.

Reflection 04/05/21: Even though this print was my first ever attempt, I think it’s one of my strongest and I aim to explore a similar outlook of the second completed print which carries ideas of censorship – using a similar black line surrounding the image, creating a box, to make it appear finalised and in line with the other print.

It wasn’t till I began to create did I realise that different papered textures effect the way the ink sits, the ridges from the brown paper almost broke up the dots from the bitmap into collums, see below, this isn’t nesicarily a bad thing, they play to the depth of the image. There was also two different sides to the brown paper one with a shine and one with out. I printed on both sides but I loved the shine, especially in the sun see below, it continues the element of glorification of consumption of the female form which I am currently working with in my practice.

I felt with the cream/white paper it worked most effectively for the use of colour, as Gallimore uses in her prints they allow the colour to stand out and project the movement/fluidity. When it came to trialing coloured paper I wasn’t sure how I’d like them. The imagery/colours are almost lost in the pink and orange paper, but I quite like this – this was an idea I initially has before making. In some ways they accentuated the pinks depth. The blue was very unsuccessful in the blue, appeared patchy and altered the colours to a weird tone, would the blue be better if it trialed it with blue ink? Different shades of blue paper too? One thing I learnt from trialing with coloured paper is that the machine didn’t like the thinness of it that much, it seemed to get stuck and cause the foot of the printer to press down and ruin the paper/original print. See below where the ink has stretched.

After this session in total I printed 38 prints, working with different coloured paper, textures and layers, I love how they’re all different and enjoyed this process. Ideas I have after this first trial:

• Different imagery – work with drawings, actual images rather than just bitmap (may help mix up the texture within the print), images from Are You Watching? – this will help me find an area of work that will fit with my peers as we make our group print portfolio!
• Coloured paper – find better quality paper with different tones (pastel colours will help the ink stand out), paper/card?
• Composition – all layers don’t have be level, work with aligned or unaligned works together and a variety of sizes.
• Inclusion of text/collage as one layer???

Reflection 21/04/21: I have recently begun to use text from Dworkin’s Pornography: Men Possessing Women within the prints I think these work great. It adds more depth/understanding to the image. I am currently trialing layering and colour, as I don’t want the text to dominate the image.

Group crit 24/03/21: I put forward Sweet Tooth B&W Projection, Sweet Tooth B&W Reflection and Sweet Tooth Film Still X3, see below. I wanted to get different perspective on different mediums, compositions, lay outs, angles of how I work/project my films. VERY successful. See my initial notes of the crit feedback further below.

Reflection 21/04/21: This group crit gave me confidence in my projection and work, I felt they were successful but the crit confirmed it form people who weren’t so involved in it. I had continued this emphasis on the cellophane, monochrome and the uncomfortable feeling – trying to deepen this further.

My class discussed the disturbing feel the film gave of the frame being up close to the mouth, was hard to sit and watch a breast being eaten so close up. It was mentioned by Susan that the black and white was just as strong/intriuging as my coloured films/slightly stronger? I was glad to see this as the B&W films/images are completely new. Even though the film is striped from its colour, the “lusciousness is still there without the colour, I derived the lusciousness from another approach” – definitely a path to continue to follow.

My peers said the cellophane suggests the packaging of sweet wrappers, women being wrapped like a treat, a clear message of  sexual objectification. The use of the cellophane on the projection wrapped like a sweet forces the projection to become a 3D/sculpture, more than a projection, adds to the space/work of a candy/breast wrapped in plastic/objectified as a treat. A clear visual for the metaphor of consuming, women being consumed, reflects what is happening in the world still to day! Also feels quite political/makes you question/really think about the sexual objectification women face – I guess it is political, its a battle women feel they struggle against sexualisation/objectification all the time. – Look at current times of anti Asian hate where they’re trying too fight the stigma of sexualising.

Reflection 27/03/21: I have looked at Sarah Everard’s case and relating it to my work made it feel more real, almost putting faces to the women being objectified/abused by male dominance. Researching the current moment of anti Asian hate may intensify this further. Almost makes it feel more upsetting/disturbing.

Reflection 30/04/21: I am unsure how I feel about my work being identified with male violence after regarding my 1-1 with Gary – all about different perspective.

Depersonalisation of the male too, not just the women. I have reduced the male down to an object as well – mouth/beard, women – breast. They have no identity, but are still clearly gendered allowing the viewers to register the simple message of male dominance/objectification. Tony Oursler was mentioned in relation to the isolation of the mouth.

Reflection 26/05/21: Srin mentioned in a recent group crit, that there is a confusion/graduation of who’s gaze is at play here. Swaps from the males POV to the females POV as the breast is chewed, and then changes when its back at the start.

The simple film of the projection may have been more successful than the film of the reflection. – It becomes more impactful viewing it straight on/a cinematic presence! I was so excited to hear these theories/thoughts were reading exactly how I wanted them to through the audience. It was also mentioned they create an old fashioned film like image (!!) its great that this has been portrayed right, interestingly my peers said it also looks like an old fashioned ‘forbidden’ film you shouldn’t be seeing, works well with the feedback ideas of censorship below. This was a new angle and would be interesting to follow through as in a 1-1 with Jane (12/03/21), we discussed the use of researching more pornography and the use/display of women as object of pleasure, may play to the imagery of disturbance/intensity.

B&W film works well with no sound, feels dramatic and sharpens up the images and drives attention to the actions in the film. As there’s no colour of the breasts/mouth available, a peer said it eliminates the race aspect and makes it less complicated/more inclusive. The use of B&W portrays the visual message for what it is, in front of you in black and white/straight forward message – women are consumed/displayed as objects. There’s no room to guess, this is what I wanted! As well as this, B&W suggests the lay out/colouration of horror films e.g. a young beautiful woman being killed by a dominant man, it adds to the aggression of the act of biting/on edge.

Cellophane, in Sweet Tooth Film Still (wrapper) my peers suggested it feels like a censored image. Reflection 29/03/21: This was an area I discussed in my dissertation – the censorship of social media, warning you there may be a disturbing/sexual image underneath before you see it. Or, suggests a cover up what is underneath, you can look but you can’t quite see. Only makes people want to see it more – relates to the cinema and their glorification of sexualising women. 

The quick comparison of Reflection and Projection – are they are the same film? Reflection is a flipped upside down and alters the view of abstraction and confusion. Sweet Tooth B&W Reflection, my peers mentioned the mirror as it gave an oblique angle, different to what you normally see, making it hard to identify. It gave thoughts of voyeurism, looking into something intimate you shouldn’t be seeing, or ideas of watching something at the cinema that you’re scared to see straight on, looking at it from a safer space. No direct contact with eye/object. Peep hole?

Reflection 27/03/21: Made me think of projecting on the floor/ceiling/corners of the room – adds to horror like element of something as scary as male domination over the female body. Projected in corner of a room like a scary monster you think you see when you’re younger. Will it make my work sinister, dark?

The display of the film is looped, forcing all viewers to continually watch, he never stops eating, made my peers feel sick after a while and almost wanted it to stop. – Why is there no pleasure now? Consider ways to loop it better, does the mouth ever stop chewing? Or does the breast continually get placed in the mouth? Is there an end? – No end would relate to how women feel under consumption.

Reflection 29/03/21: Referring to my dissertation/research of Maclean’s Make Me Up is almost sickly sweet, watching too much makes you want to stop and this is reflected in the display of Sweet Tooth B&W. They carry similar elements which I want to accentuate – where it’s almost too much.

Analysing the performance of the mouth. When you’re young you’re told to eat with your mouth closed, you grow up to do this so by seeing a mouth chewing open now puts us on edge, in disgust and uncomfortable. Is the male eating with his mouth open on purpose, to show what’s in his mouth (breast). The male does it with ease, as though he does it all the time/greedy/look at me/showing off at how he consume women. – Sadistic pleasure in eating, it feels mean spirited but almost looks pleasurable??? – Interesting element form the group crit, peers said they feel they want some of the candy breast … Interesting conflict from scary/off putting? A comment was made that after a while the breast looked like a lump of fat and not candy, changes to aura of the film a lot weirder. The darkness of the film feels a lot scarier and isolating as the mouth and breast looses their identity. The breast of icing was said to have imagery of the nipple as an eye watching back at the viewer watching you watch.

Reflection 26/05/21: I have now manipulated this film so it loops seamlessly when projected so there is almost no end, ever. Becomes uncomfortable and many peers have said many times they feel as though they miss something if they look away. Compelling and continuous.

Bruce Nauman is an American Conceptual artist and works a lot with performance, neon lights and film. These are also the materials I have been known to work with. He approaches this materials very differently and I am mostly interested in his performances pieces, this was a name given by Jane in my 1-1 12/03/21, in response to my recent films To Bite, Just a Nibble or Two etc, to look at the way he changes the film once its been recorded and how this impacts the viewing and its portrayal. In Poke in the eye/nose/ear below, Nauman focuses the attention on the in and out focus of the camera, meaning “your attention moves around quite a bit” (Art21, 2013) as almost there’s too much to take in.

Reflection 28/04/21: I used this approach with Sweet Tooth B&W because this is how I want it to feel when you watch Sweet Tooth B&W in a space – very consuming/immersive. Because the mouth is continually moving and is projected so large, it almost is so busy to keep your eyes on the two moving mouths. Quite stressful but this is what I want, the viewers to experience this stress like women under male domination.

Wtih the focus editing comes time. He slows his films down quite a lot, see above, as “things happen slowly enough it becomes almost like a landscape, just watching the slow frame by frame change” (Art21, 2013), you can see a slight gutter in the film from where its been slowed down so much, it adds to the impact of the performance. The slowed time also gives you the to view the frames and “to see things you couldn’t see otherwise, making you watch the formal part of it” (Art21, 2013). See the eye poking section below, the slowed down approach, is what makes it feel like the act of poking is being drawn out to disturb the viewers as soon as the finger touches pokes the eye you expect it to stop, but it keeps going, it feel gruesome in a way it becomes unbearable to watch because it’s a strange act on its own, without the slowed down view. I really intrigued by the poke in the eye the most, I feel like its the most unusual, “it forces the viewer to watch an uncomfortable situation” (Pena, 2014) and this is an element I want to work with when editing my films further, could be quite impactful in regards to how the audience may feel after watching.

Reflection 21/04/21: The slowness of a projection works so well for experimentation in the studio as part of the exhibition proposal. I feel the slowness is more beneficial in person as you are in the space with it, where as for this as we are unable to have a physical exhibition, it has to be digital and I think the slowness of the film gets almost lost in documentation.

• Some people experiences phobias with eyes and poking, called Aichmophobia. Poke in eye/nose/ear could almost be trigger for someone, making it quite a dangerous film in a way as it could really upset someone.

Bruce Nauman, Poke in the eye/nose/ear, 1994.

Reflection 25/03/21: After my group crit yesterday, 24/03/21 I put forward Sweet Tooth B&W and edited this a similar way to Nauman but included points of slow motion instead. I looped it and my peers and tutors said after a while they felt slightly sick as it’s a disturbing concept of a breasts being eaten and your forced to watch it in slow motion, a similar approach to how Nauman has potentially worked with a phobia of eye poking to disgust viewers, as well as a finger in the nose and ear.

The staring at the screen feels like he is watching you watch him, this introduces ideas of the reversible gaze, even though Nauman in the film cannot see you, it holds this feel that he’s watching you watch him as the “viewer’s gaze moves around the screen at various points in the video” (Pena, 2014). I feel the staring almost distracts you as you almost forget what’s going to happen, even though you already know due to the title but when he pokes his eye I felt surprised and immediately weird watching. Nauman states its “more painful for the viewer than it was for me” (Art21, 2013), there’s this off putting sense of not wanting to watch but not being able to look away – this is a reaction I have with To Bite and I aim to create this feeling more intensely as I grow the film further.

Reflection 25/03/21: From the group crit 24/03/21 I was successful in the sense of the viewers sign unable to stop watching and questioning what else is going to happen even though nothing does. It holds people to the point they feel sick/weird similar to Nauman, in my response.

Poke in eye/nose/ear plays on all levels of disgust as a child you’re told not to pick your nose, but Nauman has a zoomed in an approach, forcing viewers to watch the act – the same with my film To Bite. You’re told as a child to close your mouth but in this film the male munches aggressively with the mouth open wide. Its actions like these that we’re not used to seeing, is what makes us uncomfortable. It is also the reaction “an enormous partial shot of Nauman’s head moves in slowed response to auto-violent acts” (Heathcote, 1998) where you can see the impact the act has had. There’s no noise at all with the film so it makes the work feel a lot more destructive and eery. “This retrospective is his ever-increasing desire to explore ways in which performance can both conceal and reveal the self – a self that is increasingly dark and cerebrally sado-masochistic.” (Heathcote, 1998) a self that people chose to ignore and possible hide from, he puts it on display, whether it has noise or not.

Reflection 25/03/21: I decided to use this aspect within my own work of Sweet Tooth B&W to use no sound, because there’s nothing to be heard, it almost makes the visual of it more aggressive, just like Nauman’s Poke in the eye/nose/ear, feels harmful. A peer said its like your other senses become heightened so while you’re watching you feel immersed into it further – you’d think sound would do this!

From my exploration of Sweet Tooth Colour, Jane questioned in my 1-1 last week, what would To Bite look like in black and white. I felt tempted to try this the night before I submitted for my group crit 24/03/21 and after my research Bruce Nauman, I also felt intrigued to experiment with slight slow motion. In reflection to Sweet Tooth in colour, I liked them but felt like they weren’t quite right, too much going on. I decided to cut this back and to start again – edit the film differently, trial it in an intense black and white. It immediately had Hollywood cinema old fashioned films, see initial notes below.

Reflection 30/04/21: It’s interesting to see that this was a large turning point for my work – I have really used this film to explore all aspects of it when installing it in situ. It has also up rose many ideas of how it can be perceived by both male and female audience.

Reflection 24/03/21: From my group crit 24/03/21 the black and white felt stronger to my peers, it was mentioned its just as visually bold as my coloured images which I was worried it may not be. It appeared much more effective and felt more like a statement due to the colouration being black and white just like the statement I am tying to make with the art work – sexualisation/consumption/desirability of women in film/by men.

With old fashioned films comes the sexual objectification of female actresses being used for their beauty and their body. Hollywood cinema aimed to build starry women for the gaze of the world – Marylin Monroe. From L5 where I used Monroe as a symbol of women from the 1950s+ that were used for their “to-be-looked-at-ness” (Mulvey, 1973, p 62) in the cinema, the media for the male gaze. The visual of this has surprisingly been continued through to Sweet Tooth B&W with an aggressive image of women being controlled/destroyed/consumed by male control. Monroe and among many women within Hollywood have experienced this, Judy Garland from The Wizard of Oz was told to live up to the expected image of a beautifully small young women on screen. “Garland was hassled about her looks for the majority of her career” (Green, 2019) and battled with issues regarding her body size, she was told by the directors “whether or not to eat, how much to eat, what to eat.” (Green, 2019) “She was banned from having a single bite of candy, and she was put on a strict diet to maintain her figure. Her diet consisted of black coffee, chicken soup, and 80 or so cigarettes a day (which was intended to help curb her hunger)” (Green, 2019). Hollywood glamorises young happy women on the screen but wouldn’t never discuss the issues that lead to this. It had scarred her as it’s “the magic of Hollywood style” (Mulvey, 1973, p 59). “The cinema builds the way she is looked at into the spectacle itself” (Mulvey, 1973, p 67).

Mulvey talks about these kind of issues in “Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema” where “she is isolated, glamorised, on display, sexualised” (Mulvey, 1973, p 64). This quotation has stuck with me, it’s represented in Sweet Tooth B&W below as the women, a breast, is isolated on display and sexualised. I introduced some slow motion parts – puts you off as you wouldn’t expect parts to be slowed.

Reflection 21/04/21: Currently I am working towards researching the representation of women in pornography, artists like Naomi Uman uses pornography to highlight the sexual objectification they face in Removed – pornography act as the cinema, creating a situation/context to normalise it, making, mostly men, refer to this way of using women.

Reflection 26/05/21: Me and Jane discussed how I, a women, have directed the male to put and bite down on the breast in his mouth, if this was a males instruction/direction, the outcome of the film would be different/sexualising and glamorising the control of the female form, instructed by a male. A female instructing a male to do the act makes the work feels female dominant in the sense of myself having control over the male in the film and essentially the breast. OR does it encourage sexual objectification?

B&W suggests no identity it becomes relatable for all women. See above, in Sweet Tooth Replay, I was interested in capturing this same repetition of an ongoing film, one that would “become an object just by being there, visit it whenever you wanted too” (Art21, 2013) as Bruce Nauman stated in a talk with Art21, but I wanted to change it slightly, to cut the other half of the film in reverse a moment, one that wouldn’t be expected. Does it suggest something different to the beginning of the film? Or does it edit the way the first half is perceived?

I continued with the breasts representing women as “Evidence from behavioural data suggested that female sexual body parts could be better recognised in isolation, whereas male sexual body parts are better recognised within the context of the entire body (Gervais et al., 2012). Bernard et al (2015) also found that the occurrence of sexual objectification results from a focus on the sexual body parts of women” (Zucco, 2019), it goes onto say that “women’s bodies are more likely to be perceived with a localised focus, especially the sexual regions, rather than as entire bodies” (Zucco, 2019) and its with medias such as Hollywood cinema Pornography and now arguably social media, that continues this portrayal of women, meaning we are unable to shake from the stigma. This is what is being explored through the breast perched in between the teeth of the male in black and white, the aggressive destruction of women by the media, the male gaze and the cinema.

Reflection 10/04/21: Dworkin stated “male dominance of the female body is the basic material reality of women’s lives” (Dworkin, 1981, p203) as that though that is all they’re there for, a sexual possession, this is highlighted in Sweet Tooth B&W, the harsh control/clutch of the male upon the female form. – Makes the film feel more intense and disturbing after researching Dworkin’s writings of pornography.

I installed the film, to work with the space the same way I did with Sweet Tooth in colour. As the film is very performative I felt it didn’t need much else, I wanted the focus to be on the action, the breast and the mouth to deepen this grotesque/uncomfortable emotion that follows. I projected Sweet Tooth B&W and it immediately gave off a new feel, more intense and a scary element which I was surprised about. Placements been important within my work and I’ve noticed it especially here. I projected it high up to begin with, see below, to have the feel of being at a cinema gazing up and this felt effective see below. The black seemed darker and the white seemed brighter, showing it for what it is, men consuming women.

Reflection 21/04/21: The term scary/sinister was used in the group crit 24/03/21 and it’s something I have continued to work with. I aim to get a reaction from the viewers, an impact. It’s a very delicate subject which I am passionate about I want it to come across that way.

Cellophane – I aimed to continue this glamorised view of sexualisation and destruction of the female form/representation in Hollywood – the cellophane stood out more and seemed to have a better place with Sweet Tooth B&W projected as the coloured projection felt confusing. I kept it simple with one mirror below the projection to focus on introducing ideas of voyeurism and developed this with angling the camera certain ways to suggests peeping in, watching something you shouldn’t see as Mulvey spotlights within her essay. See film above, it suggested thoughts of watching from a distance, looking without being seen, a grotesque angle. See below, the behind the scenes of the images further below.

Reflection 20/05/21: Cellophane has been massively influential within my installation of my practice form here. It has transformed the space as well as the way the work is seen. It also has evoked ideas of trying to hide something but not doing a very good job – like Hollywood cinema. This also worked very well in relation to Sweet Box projection.

I worked from Bruce Nauman’s Poke in the eye/nose/ear and Richard Serra’s Catching Lead where they include no sound in their films and focus more on action, this benefits the impact of the my film as there’s very little distraction. No dancing around the point of the art, but making a strong statement to watching/think about the work/message.

I captured stills to share a relation to Cindy Sherman Untitled Film Still #2 – she explores the way women are used/dismissed within film representation and Hollywood itself, hence the use of the title, Sweet Tooth Film Still. As researched previously, Untitled Film Still #2 works with the gaze, mirrors, young women and also photography. See images below, I wanted to work with the thoughts of women being an edible, a treat, a dessert, and the cellophane accentuated this. I wanted the aim to be on the mouth, the moving lips that encapsulate the breasts and to evoke emotion whether that’s anger, disgust or frustration to express how we as women feel.

Reflection 26/05/21: I was contacted by A-N to be part of their Degree Show Guide 2021, so I put forward a still from the selection above alongside 3 other images capturing the graduation of my work from them to now! Following the same themes of consumption, it was so exciting!!

Reflection 10/04/21: Also the white icing breast becomes slightly unclear, just like women in Removed, once projected and suggests showing all that is wrong with male dominance over the women in sex/sexual objectification. Feels confrontational to pornography as well as sex obj.

See above, I used the large wrap of cellophane to create a sweet wrapper effect around the breast, highlighting this desirable like feature of the breast further. I wanted it to feel aggressive and almost angry, the screwed up cellophane appears like its been crumpled – does this add to the effect?

Reflection 24/03/21: From my group crit 24/03/21, my peers picked up on this use of a sweet wrapper and creates the projection to become a 3D sculpture in situ of the space, not just the projection. It becomes an object of its own, like the objectification of women. And also suggested it has ideas of censorship, almost a warning/cover up before seeing the real image. Does this make it feel more disturbing? Is this a good thing?

After my feedback with Catinca 12/03/21, I projected To Bite first at uni in my studio 17/03/21, but they weren’t as successful due to the bright lighting. I used this as an experimentation, using the walls to create different perspective of the film. I centralised the film in the hollow box to add shadow/distortion to the image (I wasn’t sure how to approach this work yet), it made it feel like the mouth was consuming the space, it brought parts of the mouth closer. The mouth sat directly in the box you can’t take your eyes off, purposely drawing your gaze in to the mouth. The lips, chin and mouth stretched inside the box and onto the floor, see below. It stretched the chin, making the male in the film have slight creepy feel. This was what I liked about CUBED and Are You Watching?, the film/image covered the figures/breasts as well as the walls, making the whole space the exhibition, not just a display.

Reflection 18/04/21: Purposely objectifying the breast, the women for the viewers to understand the objectification present.

Reflection 26/05/21: I am glad I decided to work with B&W as I think it has transformed my practice with a level of seriousness/intensity to it with the need to listen/watch what I am trying to explore.

These helped me have an idea of how I could use objects/space around me to deepen the appearance of the film/content. I projected To Bite on my home studio wall 18/03/21, I wanted to work with changing the appearance of the projected film and continue the direct focus of the mouth. The dark space made it feel over powering and as though its invading your space – disturbing, this was a different feel compared to the projection at uni. See below, I used pink card to highlight the mouth as it chewed, I noticed the mouth/lips appeared very wet/shiny as they chewed, I wanted to exaggerate this.

Reflection 21/04/21: I began to accentuate this with cellophane and it has become a massive part of my practice/projection from this point which adds to bringing the projection into the space.

Reflection 23/04/21: From my 1-1 with Jane, it was mentioned Jane liked this image above. The square colour capturing the mouth/movements almost drawing the eye in. There’s this inverted approach in my prints – black text in the mouth and a pink mouth which may be interested to mimic in my exhibition proposal projections, with text?

Mirrors – Catinca suggested working with them, from my series of US in L5 semester 2, they changed the way you viewed the clay figures, create a new angle you wouldn’t often see. I placed a large mirror below the projection. The shine on the lips reminded me of cellophane, I decided to drape it across the mouth and the space to accentuate the wetness. I laid the cellophane on top see below, this created another view/peculiar approach to the mouth. Made it feel like the more you peek over into the mirror the more you maybe seen, relation to the gaze by Lacan, quite a grotesque/scary angle. – What if mirror below was the whole of flooring?

• NOTE: Could project this film a lot smaller to fill the mirror. Could be strange having a large space with an intense small projection of a destructive mouth? Having to bend down to see it? More voyeuristic? Impactful upon the viewers? – create a box surrounding it?…

Reflection 26/04/21: It maybe interesting to use these elements in my exhibition proposal – coloured cellophane? Coloured paper? Coloured text? Working with the black and white film.

The projection light bounced onto the cellophane creating a glistening effect matching the lips made me think of sweet wrappers, especially with the icing breasts caught between the teeth – seductive/idealised yet intense, continues to play off this idea of women as a treat. I positioned the pink cellophane to bring the wet look out of the projection/environment. Editorially bold colours are captured in this film, representing this idea of how society glamorises the way women are controlled and treated as objects e.g.films/magazines. The cellophane glamorises the appearance, creating a cover up of what is trying to be said like how Hollywood cinema creates a glorified cover of castration anxiety/sexual objectification. This cover is clear meaning you can still see the issues, its up to the viewer to chose to ignore them and focus in on the cellophane, the bubbly/pretty/sweet like wrapper, instead of the destruction that is happening to women behind, like society does.

21/04/21: I realise I was trying too hard with the colour because I felt I needed it due to the reaction from Are You Watching?.

See Sweet Tooth below, there’s this play on words with the way women are used as a desirable treat, something to consume by the male gaze. Will the male gaze always has a sweet tooth for the female form, no matter the repercussion upon women?

• Bruce Nauman’s Feed Me comes to mind – face/mouth focus and Live and Die – bright neon like colour.

I chose to trial a peephole through toilet roll to create a tunnel gaze reflecting on 1-1 with Catinca, peep holes from her work I Am The System Master (No Signal). Helps zone into the area of the mouth that is doing the destruction, bringing the issues of objectification/female consumption by men/society to the forefront, to force the viewers to see what I want them to see/take away. I use the camera as if it is the audience. So really, does the audience have a choice? The peephole limits the rest of the environment e.g. this is what you’re only allowed to see, similarly how women are told what to do. Will women always be stuck under these stigmas? Also suggests peep holes aren’t always safe to look into – the aggressive teeth/bite becomes negative an angry reaction to looking? Appears confrontational, see below.

I also film the tunnel vision through the roll – a fun aspect to the work, use it as a device to watch/move over the film, see below. Something disturbing by watching someone eat, becomes repulsive seeing it in a up close in space. As researched in L5 Marcel Duchamp’s Étant Donnés explores depth, perception and the female form’s legs sprawled, he almost uses the woman as a decoration for this piece. I liked that his piece was “visible only by looking through the peepholes” (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2021).

Using small mirrors, as discussed with Catinca, divert the initial gaze, it changes the relationship with eye to work, creates an illusion visual instead. I aim to use these for my upcoming group crit 24/03/21 as they have a lot going on, open to many interpretations. See below. There’s a lot of experimentation here but I feel the cellophane is most successful.

Reflection 13/04/21: The night before my group crit 24/03/21 of Sweet Tooth B&W I decided to change the appearance of this current works and colour the film black and white, stripping back the extra materials e.g. mirrors, peep holes and focused on the film. This worked so much better. I feel these upcoming works are too busy and not the angle I want to approach, but they were fun experimentation.

NOTE: Mirrors call to reflection and individuality, it calls to female experiences making the work relatable for each women. –  Sarah Everard, speaking out about their experiences with male dominance.

The delicate hand holding the mirror, almost acts as an invitation to look, suggests this accepting gaze Mulvey discusses, “there is pleasure in being looked at.” (Mulvey, 1973, p59), yet it appears to be contrasted with the aggressive imagery reflected in the mirror, does this image juxtapose with the rest of the work? Or is it another way of exploring this glamorisation of the raw/real effects that is present within film? I am unsure.