Display

Two immediate options come to mind with regards to displaying this work - TV/monitors and projection. I need to test both out first, but I'm leaning towards having the two works on self contained monitors or television screens for both conceptual and more pragmatic concerns.

Conceptually, the work is in some ways an interrogation of the way in visual media is increasingly doctored to manipulate and put the viewer ease - to operate on a subconscious, less consensual plane. A television screen invites the viewer to focus and engage, to involve themselves in a way similar to how they would involve themselves in a book, in the manner of the more traditional, education-based programming of television networks before the focus-group culture took hold. A projection signifies immersion, is meant to encourage it, and this may well work as counter-intuitive to the some of the core ideas behind my work.

Technically, the video quality of the work, especially Sean's piece, is grainy even on a small screen and I worry a large-scale projection may magnify its flaws. But the fine details go some way in making the work, and these will be, at least partially, lost in the lack of definition one finds in a projected film. It may work effectively in a dark room, but I'm presenting my photographic Visual Research work in the same space so decent lighting is a must.

I'll need to test both options once I have a finished work, but I have preferences in mind.

Feedback and editing

Of the many points of view given in feedback after I presented, a few stand out as being particularly stressed:

• The relationship between the viewer and the subject was mentioned more than a few times, specifically the identification with certain aspects of Sean's morning routine and the comparisons that can be made between him and the viewer, as well as him and Alex. Certainly I appreciate any engagement made, although I don't try to forcefully engineer such an engagement in either the shooting or the post-production. But if people find an academic interest in his life and how he applies himself to various situations then I will try to present the video in such a way that it can be, as easily as possible, interpreted and regarded openly with reference to the life of the viewer and that of other subjects.

Sean's conservative breakfast spread of only two Weetabix was remarked upon as being particularly meagre by some, perhaps effecting a judgement upon his identity as relative to his subscription to the national corporate character.

• Susanna Castleden raised the possibility of my reflection on the work and the decision making process I undergo being incorporated into the work itself, perhaps through voice-over, a term I let slip in disparagement. I feel, instinctively, that it would interfere with my stated aim to provide information for the viewer to interpret, with the arrangement of the isolated samples of the video my main editing creative contribute. But Global Village, one of my inspirations for the project, has Silvio Rivier's voice of reason politely informing the events unfolding on screen without interfering with them, so perhaps part of my prejudice needs to be challenged.
• Susanna also mentioned Tracey Moffat's series of women fighting back in film, which sounds like a very interesting exercise in editing, especially the dramatic qualities of separate clips from hundreds of films across a common theme and sequencing them.
• The number of people I'm going to film could be kept at two or expanded to four. If I keep it at two, I received the general impression, which I'm very content with, that the footage I have so far stands on its own and it's possible to engage by editing and displaying it alone. But filming more people could further the number of potential comparisons and relationships, expanding the size of the proverbial canvas for both myself and the viewer. Which I suppose makes it a question of workload.
  

Editing Alex

The storage constraints of the footage (several hundred gigabytes at the moment - it took nearly half as many hours as it did to film to transfer the footage from the camera to computer storage) have been overcome momentarily by keeping it on cold storage and the student art server, but this isn't safe as a long-term solution, and eventually I'll need to compress the raw footage, if only a little, and burn it on to several DVDs. At least ten will be needed per subject, probably more (if I can get the double-sided 9 gig variety). Currently I am working out sorting Sean's and Alex's footage into themed clips which can be activated by a future tagging system, but there are some common sequences between them:

• Both wipe their faces thoroughly with a towel at some point.

• Both spend some time in front of a mirror as part of their morning preparation.

• They both make breakfast and wash their crockery, although in different orders.
  

  
  

The tagging system and Jo Richardson

After consultation with artist Jo Richardson during a seminar, I have begun work on a tagging system in presenting my video for my final review. This will involve isolating several clips from all the footage I have based on certain very tangible concepts - 'eating', 'washing', 'coffee', 'self-reflex' (recognition of the camera), 'abject', etc. I will then organise an installation where these keywords can be selected by the reviewers, and all the associated videos will be played immediately across a series of screens. This will, for the moment, work in conjunction with a playing sample of the finished documentary (if it is finished). Also, I would like to setup one computer so that the reviewers can peruse a time-signified collection of all the footage I have taken, functioning both as documentation and an artwork in and of itself. The challenges facing me are:

• Learning the software which will allow this (I'll ask Kev about software I've used for similar projects involving much more interactive video before and if it's appropriate).
• Defining a series of appropriate tags and isolating individual video clips appropriate to them.
• Determining how much computer monitors the installation will necessitate, how the computer or computers will communicate the videos to them and how this will figure in the total number of clips (perhaps a monitor per subject).

Jo also suggested that the footage I've taken of Sean should be enough, if need be, to flesh out a finished body of work for the review, which is somewhat reassuring. The possibility of accompanying stills was also raised, and I have a few in mind which are deserving of printing.

On postproducing Sean

While in the early stages of postproduction, I found one of the most 'natural' feeling methods of editing the video involved focusing on processes with a definable beginning and end, and breaking them up with smaller clips of an implied process or lack of process. So the basic editing process for the earlier part of his day can be reduced to something of an explicit/implicit/explicit/implicit series of images, or perhaps even process/contemplation/process. However, this isn't a hard and fast rule and many clips cut to different stages of one single, explicit process, in order to give it a beginning and end, and often the process is also invoked implicitly. An example of this would be Sean's rather drawn out process of making breakfast - the entire process is begun by his walking into the kitchen and concluded by his leaving it, but it is comprised of several internal processes which often conflict with one another, such the realisation of separation components of the meal. But I consciously edit with the general rule kept in mind, and improvise where required.

Two subjects and Chloe Hughes

At the moment I have two possible subjects I haven't got around to filming yet, but I hope to next week. They are the aforementioned Alex, a jewellery student and waitress, and Lachlan, an engineering student and hockey enthusiast. Ideally, I'd like to film them within the coming week, and I'm also throwing around the idea of bending the rules of the project a little to accomodate multiple sessions to cover an entire day. This may be especially relevant in the case of Sean, who's schedule is allowing of such practices.

I also saw Chloe Hughes's work at PICA, Structures to move to (conversations on work), which is similar to my work in the sense that both are documentaries of sorts, focusing on multiple individuals and their working environments. However, the most I can take from her work in terms of inspiration is justification for not prioritizing the audio in my piece. I found the monologues vaguely insightful, but almost without exception excruciatingly self-revolving and inwardly turned. Her work would have perhaps benefited from a small button placed next to the projection that, when pressed, mutes the video, and I was searching for this button within 5 minutes of sitting down. The claustrophobia may have intentional, but even if it was it completely contradicted any possible engagement with the work. I may then rely on a fixed standard of much video art and let the visuals say more than the audio.