As I alluded to in the post Showing Not Telling, I have decided to make a post detailing how I make a map-based approach to titling the diptychs for my body of work. One of my concerns with map-based titling was that the project should have something to do with a map in the first place. I feel in retrospect that this isn't necessarily true. The concept that drives the project doesn't have to start by drawing a circle on a map for instance in order for the project to be titled this way. Instead the map can be a tool that embellishes the project, by inviting the viewer to delve deeper into the map or coordinates that point to the map.
Some questions have been floating around in my head concerning my project for Body of Work so far. These questions are based around how/if it relates to regeneration and these questions inevitably lead to more questions! I have therefore jotted some of them down in an attempt to provide answers to at least a few of them.
Although not strictly photography related, I went along to a book launch of Deptford is Changing (2020) by Anita Strasser. I follow her blog (which has the same name) which has helped me form a better idea of how gentrification and austerity is affecting Deptford.
My photographs in the past have been quite literal; not leaving much to the imagination. In other words telling, not showing. Often I’ve left the text anchor out because I thought it wasn’t necessary. For me if text is there as an anchor it should help inform the viewer, inviting them to dig deeper, without just describing the image. Conversely, if text is there as a relay it should have a rapport with the images, bouncing back reflexively. I feel I am quite an imaginative person and strangely this reflects back to the viewer as not leaving much to the imagination. Perhaps because I have tried to squeeze a lot of information into the image, there isn’t much more room for interpretation.
I have decided to make what seems will be a pretty boring post concerning the logistics of my composite making and the selection of location from which to photograph from. I feel this is necessary because it is useful firstly as a reference point to remind myself of why I’m making the choices I’ve arrived at. Some of these reasons are practical while others are more thought out. The other use for making this post is that I might arrive at realisations I hadn’t conceived before writing this down.
At first glance, when looking at the original composite and the composite I’d just made, not much has changed in terms of place. However, upon closer inspection the composites reveal change which took place sometime in the 5 or so months since the original was created. I feel the time between composites allows for change and it is up to the viewer to look for the differences. It is also up to me as the artist to entice the viewer in. I’m beginning to think this will come with how I eventually present the composites (including text) as well as framing the composites as similarly as possible so these differences are more discernible.
I produced another composite with the same framing, based on an original composite of the same location. I happen to feel this particular location is quite strong in terms of juxtaposing the old and the new. In my mind this is a way of symbolising change is taking place within an area. The sleek, modern aesthetics of the block of flats on the left of the frame show they can’t have been there too long, while the disused, dilapidated pub in the centre/right of the frame is clinging on to existence in its present state.