I’ve been looking at one of the proofs from earlier — specifically, proof #2 from Marbling Set 5.
When this is scanned, it changed. More detail appears. There is more nuance.
Taking it a bit further, simple things such as isolating the image from the background change it. Normally I apply a gray background. When its removed, its different.
A simple rotation changes it into something else.
But, when the image is desaturated, the lack of a background enhances it. This was something I subconsciously did when I made the proofs for the expo at Chelsea SU. In the case of m2p5, however, I;m not convinced that desaturation works.
Macro and micro consideration.
Its interesting that, when small, especially when viewing on the web, images look a lot better with the gray surround. It frames them. But in life, they look better without. I made a large proof (24” x 24”) with a gray surround, and it looked awful… remove, and have the image fill the whole sheet, and its looks far better.
Curation at the macro level. Selecting which image to use. How to frame it (or not).
Micro-curation. Treating a selecting image, can produce other images (which then need to be reexamined vis-a-vis macro-creation). Rotation makes a new image. Cropping similarly a new one. As does the application of filters. A stack of issues to consider.
Two crops of the image. One of it as a photograph, the other as a scan. As noted above, there is a different level of nuance between the two. The color fields are less consistent and more detail is extrapolated.
Time is needed to evaluate and appreciate. The image — m2p5 — is one that I initially did not think much of, especially when compared to its siblings. But the more I look at it, the more potential it has. Being too quick to dismiss proofs is bad. Like wine, they need time to mature. Like wine, some will cork whilst others will age well.comments powered by Disqus