Maria de la O Garrido on Maria de la O Garrido



The installation that I presented last Monday, is still part of my project There. It was composed of two different pieces, completing each other by different connections, but far away in the space. First piece is formed by a wooden construction where we find the head of a Greek statue which is not complete. It missed a part of its face, concretely one eye and part of the nose. In the empty space that has been generated by this lack, we find a Jacinth plant. This Jacinth plant works as a reminder of the rhizome, the multiplicities that build the whole project. The reason why I used the fragmented image of the statue’s head is that it works as a kind of metaphor, using the static element as a symbol of the feeling of being in the context of posing for someone else, where I am there in a physical way but I’m also ‘somewhere’ else. The juxtaposition of the elements of the statue’s head and the video represents the separation between the material space/place and the inner world which is simultaneously within and outside of that material space.

The second piece of the install, which is situated in another part of the space/gallery , has again two parts. One is the missing part of the Greek statue head, and the other one is a video exhibited in an old monitor. The video is a compendium of different poses installed using an old monitor because I am not looking for a very defined image but a diffused one. The lack of details then obscures the changes and differences of mimesis, the repetition. The video uses an “original”, a model, in this case statues of female figures in Greek civilization, which is imitated and repeated. This repeated model is myself posing as those statues, I try to emulate the original but many changes are produced at the same time. The new model, the one that has been repeated has a new meaning and is perceived in a different way. The interesting point of this is the ambiguity of not knowing if it’s a still image or not. The key is the breakdown at the end of every pose that transforms the perception of the whole content

.Captura de pantalla 2015-02-02 a la(s) 01.43.17                        frames video duration

I found Suky’s help and suggestions at the setting to be very useful and the feedback especially rich and wide, with suggestions in many directions.

Daniel suggested to play with time of the video by stretching and shrinking time, something that I did at the first chance by using and abusing the elasticity properties of time in the video with some very subtle changes. Pat also pointed that the piece might be too complex with both pieces and that maybe it would work better with just the video. There were different opinions on the election of the monitor to show the video, Daniel came up with the video of using two monitors instead of one, a digital frame maybe. Pat made me think about the possibility of changing the monitor and use instead a different device, maybe a bigger screen or with more definition.

Suky asked me if I knew if the character represented at the statue head photo was Aphrodite. It is a photo that I took at the British museum but I’m not sure if it’s actually Aphrodite and think it’s important to find out. Some artist related to my project were named by Pat, Daniel and Suky. I found the work of Martin Arnol to be very connected to my video, and I was very seduced by his videos. Jean Leon Gerome’s painting The artist and the model is also a great find.





I enjoyed working together in the install to create a show where our work interlinked. The exercise of doing an elevator pitch describing our work was very useful and helped us all to see where our work was related. It was hectic towards the end but I learnt what tools I need to bring for the next installation to simplify the process. It was satisfying to see what could be achieved by working together in a such a short amount of time.

In an attempt to access duration I presented a rectangle of pink and red roses, framed by a white rectangle projected onto them. The piece was attached to a white wall at eye level, in order for the viewer to be within reach of the flowers. The projector was placed on a white plinth, in keeping with the pristine aesthetic of the piece.

During the initial install of the piece in the Big Space exhibition I saw spectators approaching the piece to investigate if the flowers were real or a projection. It lead me to question the inseparability of an image and the tangible; ´It´s far more difficult to murder a phantom then a reality´ (Woolf, 1942).

The piece worked differently in the classroom install as everyone already knew that it was not an image. By this point the flowers were fading more, which added to the interpretations that it was about death. The connotations were mentioned of the rose as an erotic part of the plant. The feedback taught me to be open to what the work means to others and led me back to investigate and clarify my own intentions as I move forward.

Federico Redaelli on Federico Redaelli (Jan 26th)

IMG_2782 IMG_2781

Paraphrasing Deleuze and Guattari, being nature a process of production, the pleasure of the artist lies in the production itself, and not in the result of the production process.

A “production of production”, for its own sake. And again, in their words: “incorporating recording and consumption within the production itself, thus making them the production of one and the same process. […] There is no need to distinguish here between producing and its product” (Deleuze and Guattari 2007)

The main aim of this installation – “A portrait of GG” – was to put the process of production of a work of art at the very centre of the work of art itself, showing how the pleasure found by the artist in such process of (in this case the making of a photographic portrait) is more important and central than the actual resulting outcome.

The collection of objects, memories, visual and auditive stimuli that were part of the process of creation, seen by the viewer through an empty frame used as a “point and frame device”, makes the very process of creation the main subject of the image.

Consequently, the final output of the process, i.e. the tangible result in the form of the print of the photograph, being irrelevant for the sake of the purpose of the whole work, has been omitted.

During the crit, it emerged in the discussion that even the video footage of the studio session and the collection of sounds were somehow redundant, because even though they were indeed part of the process of production and never allowed the viewer to have a clear idea of what the final portrait would look like, they potentially could increase the chances for the installation to be excessively descriptive and representative.

For this reason, the further developments of the work, that will be visible in the final version of the installation, titled “Portrait” (it is important to notice how also the woman subject of the original omitted photograph, previously mentioned in the title, has later been removed), are going to be based on the subtraction and omission of non-essential elements.


Andrew Kiddie on Andrew Kiddie

2015-01-26 17.22.41_1









“The Photographic Universe” consists of a tumblr page with the exact same image uploaded every day until graduation in 2016. The image is of a camera on a tripod, Photoshopped together with a wooden picture frame. Every day the image is uploaded via¹ The installation as a macbook, table, and chair, mimics the factory of the information age.

“The Photographic Universe” works on two fronts: firstly the image itself, and then its repetition. Inspiration for the image came from a press photo of an exhibition on in which the (usually invisible) camera was reflected in the glass of the picture it was photographing.² I was interested in how this might constitute a break through of the programme of the camera as explained by Vilém Flusser (2012).

Screen shot 1

Flusser explains that each seemingly new photograph within the stream of images we encounter in day-to-day life, actually works within the prescribed programme of the photographic apparatus. And that breaking through this would constitute a break through of the photographic universe, opening up new lines of flight. He goes on to say:

“What would be informative, exceptional, exciting for us would be a standstill situation: to find the same newspapers on our breakfast tables every day or to see the same posters on city walls for months on end. That would surprise and shock us.” (p.65)

The work inhabits the murky waters of difference, repetition and the new. While each image is identical with respect to the code it is generated from, each takes its own place within the HTML coding of the tumblr page and pixels of the screen. And the massing of images in the “archive” page that each tumblr page is programmed with creates a rhythm, in a similar way to Google Image search.

Screen shot 2

Feedback was mixed in the sense that the repetition created an interesting situation, but the project’s subversiveness could have gone further: The image was too “safe,” and the project as a whole could be more concretely connected to/implicated in the systems it relates to, for example, selling the images online with the price linked to the value of gold or some other commodity.


¹ I am indebted to Neale Willis for bringing this website to my attention.

² See:


Flusser, V., (2012) [1983] “Towards a Philosophy of Photography” – London: Reaktion Books


My third installation is the evolution of my previous ones (based on the concept of simulacra related to sexuality ).

It is a set of three pieces ( 3 prints and a mannequin on a plint). What makes it different is the size of the prints which is three times bigger than in my second install, and the mannequin.

The mannequin i chose this time represents a unisex character, a very facinating and complex piece with the charming confident face of a woman and the strong body of a man. It stands in front of the prints that work as a prosecution of him and aim to express the same concept and idea in a more “digital” and “photographic” way.

These prints are the central part of my work cos they are the result of my artistic process which consists in overlaying three different medias and transitions :

  • The sculptures/ installations (I build these sets of sculptures)
  • The photographic media ( I take pictures of my sculptures and i build very peculiar sets and lights that place them in hyperreal atmospheres)
  • The digital/ manipulation media (I change and transform my pictures on photoshop by applying human parts to them)

This last part of the process is precisely the key of this installation because it’s the breaking point between the “real”(photography as pure representation of reality) and the “hyperreal” and “simulated” which moves photography on a completely different level of intepretation and reading.

It’s this creation of multiple coexisting hyperreal dimensions that gives photography this aspect of repetition, modulation and continuous change. Photography today is not singularity or individuality but a complex fascinating mash up of all these aspects and transitions thai i’m trying to resume with my work and creative process.


installation 1

cyborg3333bb   12345