Photo's from camera three

Yesterday at lunchtime I went back to check my camera to see if it was still there, and how many photograph's had been taken. I was really pleased because it was still there and all of the exposures had been used!

I've had the photo's developed and they have turned out really well!

I'm really pleased with the quality of the photo's. Considering they were taken using a disposable camera from the pound shop, they're not half bad at all! I like the way that the photo's are not pristine and untouched/manipulated in terms of finish. I think that this really adds to the concept and process of what I am doing and placing an onus on the public to co-create the work within a given context. Why should the images be manipulated to make them look of a better quality? Would this have ethical connotations? E.g. they are not my photographs so would it be acceptable for me to manipulate them and then claim them as my own?

Thank you to all those who participated! You have created brilliant responses to my experiment!  :-)

Would I get different responses documented on film if cameras were placed in different locations?

I think that the next step is for me to now to try and work out how I can develop the concept of participatory art further, and get the public thinking and exploring a question, or responding to a task

Camera number three

So this morning, I put another camera out on a bench in the quad area at uni. 

I have been observing people's participation in both using and engaging with the camera from a distance. It has been really interesting so see that some people are really inquisitive and participate with my experiment by using the camera, others have a good look and then carry on with their business, some people didn't even notice the camera, whereas I have also observed some people will go up to the camera, and then choose not to participate. This is all really interesting stuff.

 

I have seen people use the camera on at least 4 occasions, so hopefully when I go back to collect it, there will be some great images captured on the camera! So thank you to all those who have participated so far! Thank you muchly! :-)

Photo's as promised

Here are the photo's from my first disposable camera as promised.

They have turned out really well so thank you to all those who participated! I really appreciate it! :-) 

Photo's

I haven't had chance to scan in the first set of photo's that were taken on my first disposable camera in the Hawkesbury Conservation Area as of yet. But I promise I will scan them in tomorrow and put them up! :-)

Camera number two

Yesterday, I was up at 6:40am and I went out to put my second camera out.

I attached the camera to a bench in the Hawkesbury Canal Junction area, which is a much more prominent and busier area than my first location. I was hoping that as a result of the location, more people would see and use the camera to respond to my experiement.

I went back later in the afternoon to find that the camera had been taken. I was mega disheartned and annoyed that somebody would do this in the first place. I always knew this would be a risk that I would have to take with this concept, but didn't think that anyone would actually do such a thing.

It was very frustrating to come to terms with the fact that any potential responses to my experiment that had been documented on the camera so far had been compromised. So I left with the hope that somebody may have taken the camera to another location as a part of the experiment, and that they would then bring it back. But they didn't.

So this got me thinking...

The concept that I am exploring and experimenting with is participatory art i.e. providing opportunities for the general public to be involved in co-creating art. So rather ironically and ambigously, did the person/people who removed the camera from its location/context aim to be critical by excluding others from art and documenting their artistic endeavours as a response to art and my intnetion? By removing the camera, did they in fact participate in the experiment by actually not participating at all? Does this mean just because a response wasn't documented on film, that the person/people who took that camera is/are not participating?

Now that I have reflected on the situation, I'm not as frustrated as I was because I have thought about why the camera may have been taken in the first place. As Donald Crawford (1991, p.24) states, "The appreciation of an art object usually goes beyond simply enjoying looking at it and involves coming to understand its meaning as well...Consequently what one sees would also involve an interpreation of what is seen - an explanation of the work's meaning. It may be based on what is readily seen in the work but often goes beyond that by making use of information about the artist's intention, and the social or cultural context of the work." At the end of the day, if a person has chosen to participate by removing/taking the camera, who am I to question/justify their actions? Surely art should be subjective, objective, and personally interpreted by the individual?

I am now considering leaving another camera on campus at uni with exactly the same intention as before (well for now anyway). But I am considering how to develop this concept of participatory art further by encouraging those who choose to participate in my art to consider a question or complete a task and then document this via the camera. But for now, I just want to get a wider response from people by encouraging them to use the camera to take photo's of anything they wish. Maybe I could see if any common themes/issues are identified from these photographs? I just hope this endeavour will get a more positive result, which will hopefully allow me to progress and extend my ideas in the contexts of both participatory and conceptual art.

References:
Crawford, D. (1991) Aesthetics and Arts Education. University of Illionois Press           

Pictures!

I have had my first disposable camera developed and 5 out of the 7 photos that were taken have turned out really well! So I owe a massive thank you to all those who got involved with this experiment! I will scan in and post the images tomorrow so you can see how they have turned out.

I am also considering leaving another camera along the canal tomorrow morning before I leave for uni, as it's quite a busy area during the course of the day and hopefully this will encourgae more members of the general public to get involved!

Hawkesbury Conservation Area

So I went back earlier this evening to see if my camera was still there, and it was!    :-)

By looking at how many exposures have been used, it looks as if 7 photos have been taken using it! I could keep this camera undeveloped and put it back out, but this runs the risk of the camera being pinched from another location and the images that are already on there being compromised.

I was quite surprised that only 7 photos had been taken when this was deemed as a 'good' location. I now need to reconsider and evaluate the location in which the camera is placed. Maybe I should think of a more prominent position where I could get more people to use my camera. Maybe alongside the nearby canal junction?

Hopefully the photos on the camera will turn out good as it was a nice sunny day, but you never know! It's all a part of the fun and games!  Let's see what happens...

First camera

I put my first disposable camera out today for people to use. I attached to it a fence that runs alongside a pathway in the local conservation area, so it's in quite a good visual area. Hopefully when I go back later it will still be there, and people will have taken photo's. I felt a both nervous and excited putting the camera out, as I didn't want to get spotted! Fingers crossed...

Disposable camera's

Whilst on an adventure to The Walsall Art Gallery to see the 'Party' exhibition (which was brilliant!), I ventured into a pound shop and managed to pick up some disposable camera's at a good price. Guess how much they were? :-) 

I have decided I am going to use these in some way to begin the process of experimenting with and recording participatory art, but I'm not completely sure in what way as of yet. Maybe I could leave these camera's in different locations and ask the public to take photograph's (similar to The Secret Lives of Benches)? However, I am considering this purely as a starting point. I am really keen to develop an idea and a concept that is individual to my development and progress. So let's see what happens...

Progress so far

So I know I want to explore and experiment with the concept of participatory art as my focus for my art practice.

So I now need to think about and taken into consideration a number of things:

•  What do I want the public to do/make/respond to? Do I need to ask a question?
•  How will I record this? Camera's? Cheap ones e.g. from the 99p shop?
•  Do I need to leave instructions in relation to my intention?
•  What locations am I going to use? Will these differentiate the responses?
•  How many times am I planning on creating and installing the conditions for this participatory art?

I'm going to think about these questions over the next few days. I plan on having something to begin this journey and prcoess by the end of the week and taking it from there.

The SOD Project

I came across this piece of research with thanks to my fellow arty farty Rachel :)

So again, a theme which is emerging from my findings is that installations play a key role in participatory art. They create conditions which evoke responses and reactions from the viewer.

Roger Maddox, who was one of three artists working collaboratively on this project was inspired to create a crosswalk (or a crossing that is similar to a zebra crossway in England) and actually install it as a crossing by using strips of sod, otherwise known as dry grass.

  

Maddox stated that,

"As we observed and documented people traversing the crosswalk, we noticed that children were the most notably excited, jumping over and upon the strips of sod, and then retracing their steps. Many people walked around the strips of sod, most probably due to cultural conditioning - some may have not wanted to 'disturb' the sod. Those who are attracted to what departs from the norm were clearly impressed. No one appeared to be either upset, or annoyed, some were clearly amused, and others paid little attention."

Taken from: http://www.lukanovich.com/installations.html 

So the installation recieved mixed responses from its interactees. As Maddox highlights, it was mainly children that were excited about the 'unsual' crossing whereas others were not particularly phased by it and it evoked no response whatsoever. The term 'cultural conditioning' is interesting. What does this mean? Does it refer to the context that the work had been placed into? Did certain members of the public not want to interact with it as they thought that this would explicitally identify them? Or did other members of the public interact with the sod as it temporaily replaced the crossing as required them to engage with it to allow them to safely cross the road?

But does this installation constitute participatory art even though the public didn't create the strips of sod themselves? I would say yes! I say this because the public were being documented interacting and engaging with the installation and the sod, or in some cases not at all.

There is an element of risk in this kind of art. Responses may be gained, or responses may not be gained at all. Or, the materials that are provided to create participatory art may be stolen, for example as documented in The Secret Lives of Benches blog that I am following.

So in the wider schemes of things, maybe participatory art doesn't necessarily have to be about asking the public to physically create something, but respond to something that has already been created/installed? Very interesting indeed...   

Here's some interesting research!

I've done some research into participatory art and I have found some really interesting stuff!

I have discovered that this kind of art can be manifested and linked to installation art. In 2008 at 'Sculpfest' Anne Dean who is a sculptor and ceramic artist, created an installation called 'Make a Sculpture and a Photograph'. She provided the public with clay tiles and a polaroid camera and invited viewers to create their own art in the form of sculptures and document these by taking photographs of these. Here are some images taken from the websites I have come across. These have been taken from these websites:

 http://blog.openmuseum.org/2009/02/participatory-art.html 

  http://www.openmuseum.org/objet/show/204?facet=536  

So these are the mateirals that the public were provided with to create responses to sculpture.

These are examples of art that the public had created in response to the installation and the context that was provided for participatory art.

The variety in responses from the public is great. From sculptures whichh have a distinguished subject matter e.g. pyrmaids to sculptures that are free form. It is interesting how people have named their responses to document and record the existence of their work alongside having taken a photograph of it.

So far my findings have shown me that the artists have used cameras to document the results from their intentions of allowing the public to co-create the art. Are there other ways in which this participatory role and action could be recorded and documented? If so, how could this be done?