Blog

From beginning to end

Whenever you watch the news, a newsreader hands over to some sort of correspondent. Invariably, that correspondent is twinned with a map of where they happen to be reporting from. Given the rolling nature of news these days, it came to my attention that certain geographic shapes have become loaded with certain connotations. You see North Korea… what’s he up to now? Afghanistan…when will this end?? Myanmar…how many forced out today? You can begin to predict the story before the reporter opens their mouth. In terms of the Western media, each disaster zone has one pressing matter and it comes and goes as time progresses.

This work (No Title) is about how these said places fall in and out of ‘newsworthy consciousness’ but are in many ways, interconnected.

The gallery refers to the moment I thought of it (when the Russian annexation of Crimea was mentioned again) to the finished piece. I thought that it would be interesting to show the evidence of progression, given that this piece is essentially about time.

Timewasters...

These images make up part of an ongoing collection dedicated to lost time. The buffer screen is something that we are all familiar with and every single instance presents an interesting visual paradox. Each one is obviously part of something larger but because of a technical glitch the image becomes serendipitous and shown over a longer period than was intended. It gave me the opportunity to recognise formal qualities at random; something that you also do when presented with a painting or photograph that you haven't seen before.

No matter which platform that you are on, the loading symbol has connotations of frustration and 'dead time'... but purely because we are forced to look at it, the image behind it takes on much the same role that advertising does. You don't choose to look at it but it's there nevertheless.

Any guesses as to what they're from..?

Contribute with your own buffer moments #TimewastersArtProject. Further the collection!

 

The Coincidences project

Whenever you get to the end of a feature film, there is always a part which reads something like this:    The characters in this teleplay are fictitious. Any similarity between actual persons, alive or dead, is entirely coincidental... etc   This indicates that the film companies are unsettled by the fact that people can sometimes look like other people; even if they are entirely made up, as the tone of the statement reveals, any apparent resemblance could lead to an image rights problem or something similar. However, it also indicates that any said producer is unwilling take responsibility for a pure coincidence. If, as many think, a coincidence is just a coincidence, then this brings up some interesting questions about falsity and characterisation.    Surely you must look like someone in a film somewhere? Is everything a coincidence? It just depends on where you are and who you're talking to etc? Is something still coincidental even if it's staged?   Overall, this project is about the last question. I think it would be interesting to fabricate exactly what the film people have warned against and provide 'evidence' of yourself as being that coincidental resemblance.   How to take part:   I would like you to take a photograph/record a short clip of a scene that you've made up .   It could be any film genre; thriller, comedy, period drama, sports...   Dress up   Use props   Do a group shot   Go on location   Make sure you’re in it   As long as the image could credibly pass as being from a random film   DON’T simply re-create something you've already seen however. It would, ironically, shatter the illusion of whether you are a coincidence or not. -----------------------------------------------------   Send your image to samvickersart@gmail.com

Whenever you get to the end of a feature film, there is always a part which reads something like this:

The characters in this teleplay are fictitious. Any similarity between actual persons, alive or dead, is entirely coincidental... etc

This indicates that the film companies are unsettled by the fact that people can sometimes look like other people; even if they are entirely made up, as the tone of the statement reveals, any apparent resemblance could lead to an image rights problem or something similar. However, it also indicates that any said producer is unwilling take responsibility for a pure coincidence. If, as many think, a coincidence is just a coincidence, then this brings up some interesting questions about falsity and characterisation.

Surely you must look like someone in a film somewhere? Is everything a coincidence? It just depends on where you are and who you're talking to etc? Is something still coincidental even if it's staged?

Overall, this project is about the last question. I think it would be interesting to fabricate exactly what the film people have warned against and provide 'evidence' of yourself as being that coincidental resemblance.

How to take part:

I would like you to take a photograph/record a short clip of a scene that you've made up .

It could be any film genre; thriller, comedy, period drama, sports...

Dress up

Use props

Do a group shot

Go on location

Make sure you’re in it

As long as the image could credibly pass as being from a random film

DON’T simply re-create something you've already seen however. It would, ironically, shatter the illusion of whether you are a coincidence or not. -----------------------------------------------------

Send your image to samvickersart@gmail.com