Showing Not Telling Using Google Maps/Street View

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.

Showing Not Telling

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.

The Logistics of My Project

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.

WiP #9

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.

WiP #8

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.

WiP #7

Ironically, as I walked away from another composite shooting session, I was inwardly quite disappointed with how it had gone. I had waited patiently for about an hour once I had set the tripod up correctly (which had taken another quarter of an hour), for people to pass the scene but only two had crossed by the time I was waiting. I feel there are two lessons I have learnt from a practical perspective about the session going forwards which turned out to be quite positive in the end.