Mark Selinger (MS) was joined by Martin Schoeller (MSch), Photographer, and Matthew Modine (MM), Actor and Director, for this programme. I noted points of interest (to me) that occurred throughout the programme and then considered them later. I find that so much is talked about in this sort of programme that there is a tendency to miss the import of particular statements that have occurred in general conversation.
MM made the comment about simplicity of an image. He argued that by looking at the work of a photographer over that person's lifetime it is possible to detect a reduction of things within the images arguing that the aim is to get it down to the simplest gesture - the thing that best portrays the message that the photographer wishes to convey. He further suggested that the less things you have the greater the possibilities of what you put on the paper. On closer examination this statement appears paradoxical - most photographers include more than they think they will need in order to capture the essence they are seeking and have room to compose the picture in development. Equally what is a 'thing' is not necessarily something upon which all would agree.
During the programme a close up photograph of the actor Jack Nicholson was shown. Essentially it was just the actor's face so, at one level, there was only one 'thing'. At another level there was the individual elements of a face (eyes, nose, mouth) but as we drilled down into the picture individual bristles, wrinkles and skin blemishes became important. The number of 'things' increased to be almost innumerable yet each was important to the overall impact. As often the case in human portraiture the eyes were the part that conveyed the greater part of the message. It was the detail within the eyes that provided that impact and there condition and appearance offered us many clues about the person. Within a relatively small part of the overall image there was a multitude of 'things' that provided us with clues. It was far from 'simple' although at first glance it was just a face.
It is worth asking the question whether my interpretation of the image was influenced by my limited knowledge of the subject. I recognised the person immediately from having seen him in films, television programmes and reading about him in the media. Was this prior knowledge a 'filter' through which I saw the image and by which I attempted to fit what I saw with what I knew? Later in the programme a photograph of Richard Altman was shown and MS described as being "a picture of a troubled soul." I have only the vaguest idea of who is Richard Altman. I have no idea whether he is a troubled soul or not and certainly this was not the message I received from what I saw. What we see is a product of what we see when presented with an image and the prior knowledge we have about the subject matter. We will always attempt to fit the image into a schema even if we are unsure of the subject matter. There is no such thing as a virgin view.
Knowing the subject matter can be a barrier to us seeing what it is the photographer intended us to see. Equally knowing who the photographer is can be a barrier to seeing what is actually in the photograph.
In the programme MM talked about how the photographer creates an illusion by where the camera is pointed. When taking a photograph we ask ourselves - What is the story I wish to convey? Having decided the next question is - Where do I point the camera to 'grab' the detail/atmosphere that best portrays that story? Whilst I agree that this is a very positive way to approach photography what cannot be controlled is how the viewer interprets that image. What is within the frame of the photograph provides the opening chapter of a story that the viewer creates for herself. We create an imaginary world that lies outside the frame. For example in street photography we create a story for each of the characters that we see - why is the child crying; why is the man laughing; what are they saying to each other. Whatever the intention of the photographer that intention is unlikely to be understood by others in the way he wished.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
A bit of Bad News
Just been told that I have an overactive thyroid. One of the side effects is a tremor (it was this that caused me to go to the Doctors) which can be quite severe in my left hand. May well explain why my tutor detects 'camera shake' in some of my images even though I use 'stabilised' lens. Just started a drug regime that will take a couple of months to clear my system so have decided to use a tripod wherever possible as this will sidestep the problem. Fortunately my next series of photographs will be landscape based which makes the use of a tripod worthwhile anyway.
Usual appointments with specialists scheduled for the very near future - whether this will help remains open to question.
Usual appointments with specialists scheduled for the very near future - whether this will help remains open to question.
Sunday, 11 May 2014
"Capture" - Sky Arts1 HD
Watched one of the series of these programmes which, on this occasion, featured Mark Selliger who hosted the programme together with Alan Cumming who is an actor, director and photographer; and Sebastian Kim photographer.
The programme contained some fantastic black and white images by Kim whose other area of expertise is Fashion photography. Not so keen on the latter which seemed to be exercises in the bizarre use of colour. I found Cumming work less successful and he himself makes the comment that his earlier fame provided the necessary recognition in the world of photography so that his work was not judged on its own merits but on who was the photographer. A case of being known rather than knowing someone who mattered in the chosen field.
In his opening Selliger remarks that a great photograph needs no introduction. A comment of doubtful validity which is contradicted almost immediately by Cumming. He tells us that the photographer is telling a story and that is why he writes stories about each of his photographs because sometimes his story is very different from what is portrayed by the image. As he puts it - it is only right who sees the picture should get the full monty. It could be argued from this exchange that judgement of a picture has more to do with fame of the photographer than any intrinsic merit.
Kim told us that he had not intended to be a portrait photographer but the opportunity had arisen and he had taken it. Whether he is happy as a portrait photographer was less easy to determine from his comments and he admitted that he felt intimidated by the celebrity who he was photographing. He seemed to be much happier taking photographs of his wife, particularly a set of her figure seen through a shower door. As he himself said "If your heart is in it you tend to work harder at it." This was endorsed by Selliger who commented that the things that you love are your best subjects.
Roughly 30 minutes in length the programme was too short to fully appreciate the work and views of the photographers. It provided only a glimpse. I have viewed both photographers web sites (www.sebastiankim.com; www.alancumming.com) and would recommend a visit.
The programme contained some fantastic black and white images by Kim whose other area of expertise is Fashion photography. Not so keen on the latter which seemed to be exercises in the bizarre use of colour. I found Cumming work less successful and he himself makes the comment that his earlier fame provided the necessary recognition in the world of photography so that his work was not judged on its own merits but on who was the photographer. A case of being known rather than knowing someone who mattered in the chosen field.
In his opening Selliger remarks that a great photograph needs no introduction. A comment of doubtful validity which is contradicted almost immediately by Cumming. He tells us that the photographer is telling a story and that is why he writes stories about each of his photographs because sometimes his story is very different from what is portrayed by the image. As he puts it - it is only right who sees the picture should get the full monty. It could be argued from this exchange that judgement of a picture has more to do with fame of the photographer than any intrinsic merit.
Kim told us that he had not intended to be a portrait photographer but the opportunity had arisen and he had taken it. Whether he is happy as a portrait photographer was less easy to determine from his comments and he admitted that he felt intimidated by the celebrity who he was photographing. He seemed to be much happier taking photographs of his wife, particularly a set of her figure seen through a shower door. As he himself said "If your heart is in it you tend to work harder at it." This was endorsed by Selliger who commented that the things that you love are your best subjects.
Roughly 30 minutes in length the programme was too short to fully appreciate the work and views of the photographers. It provided only a glimpse. I have viewed both photographers web sites (www.sebastiankim.com; www.alancumming.com) and would recommend a visit.
Anna Fox Lecture - Composites
My initial response to the lecture is set out in a previous blog - An Audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2014 (posted 8th May 2014).
A part of the talk that I found particularly interesting was Anna Fox's use of composite images in her completed work. We were shown a number of projected images where what we were shown was a combination of a number of single images. I remember in particular the one taken in Butlins Bognor Regis of a children's play area. It showed what appeared to be a children's slide that had the structure of a big top from a circus. The composite image was full of activity and my attention was drawn, by the composition of the image, to the group of children climbing the slide. The tension created by this element suggested that the whole scene was about to descend into chaos and injury. I found myself looking for responsible adults who in some unstated way would bring their calming influence to bear and bring stability. A happy picture of children playing became one of pending disaster. (I have no idea whether this was the intended outcome of the photographer or whether anybody else viewing the image at the same time had the same response).
The 'reality' was that what I saw had not existed as a whole at any time. All elements of the composite were true, in the sense that they were photographs of something that had happened and captured by the camera, but the sum of the parts was false. It is interesting that I claim that the sum of the elements that are true in themselves can lead to a false outcome. Usually one would expect that true + true = true. What is missing is the temporal element. The elements were not concurrent. They happened at different times possibly spread over a significant period. They appear as one event in the photograph because the photographer offers them in this way. Although there is an increasing cynicism amongst the general population about the veracity of photographs my guess is that when this photograph is published it will be accepted, without thought, as being an image of something that happened. Given the possible use of the image as advertising material our engagement with the image is such that we have no reason for or interest in questioning its validity.
A question that the viewer is unlikely to ask is - What is not there? We were told that some elements had been removed and this was the subject of discussion between the photographer and those of her team responsible for the creation of a possible final image. We were provided with knowledge that would not be available to the general public. Yet the decision to leave these elements out of the finished image is as misleading as the overall composite and possibly more so. Removing things that were there may well lead to a better result but how honest is the practice? Every photographer leaves out possible parts of the overall picture the moment the camera is aimed at an area of interest and the viewfinder used to exclude unwanted elements. We never take an image that includes all possibilities. In working on an image cropping is almost always an option. Leaving stuff out is something photographers do all the time and this is rarely questioned. So why the sense of unease?
I would suggest that the unease lies in the fact that we, as the viewer, cannot know why decisions of inclusion and exclusion were taken. Are we being deliberately misled to reach a conclusion that is pre-determined by the photographer or possibly the person commissioning the work? Just over twenty years ago I was transferred by my employers to another part of the Country which meant that my family and I had to find new accommodation. Registering with a number of estate agents I received the inevitable flood of hand outs on possible properties. Everyone included a photograph of the exterior. In one case (and this was not an isolated instance) the photograph showed an attractive bungalow with a well cared for front garden. What it failed to show was a huge water tower and an electricity pylon that were almost literally at the bottom of the garden at the rear of the property. The photograph was true but was taken in such a way that the negative elements of the surroundings were not shown.
Is there any difference between this example and the decision to remove elements exercised in the Butlins picture? There is the underlying element of personal trust that differs between the two. Very few people trust estate agents so we distrust the information we are given by them. Although the decision in the case of the Butlins photograph lies with the photographer and her team the general public will see the image, however published, as being the product of decision making by staff at Butlins headquarters and presumably accept it as being true. They trust the source. Yet in some ways the Butlins picture is more dishonest than that of the bungalow. The image of the bungalow is true in so far as it shows something that was there in front of the camera when the image was taken. It was untouched and published in the full knowledge that the client would see the reality. Its purpose was to entice. The same thing could be said of the Butlins photograph except in this case the proffered image was of something that never existed as shown.
Is there an ethical problem with the composite and other images created in the same way. Composite pictures have been part of photography for almost as long as photography itself. Early photographers faced difficulties in exposing for the sky and for the rest. This was largely caused by the sensitivity of the emulsions used at the time. They learned to combine two images to get the desired result much the same as modern photographers do in, say, creating HDR images. It is rarely seen as dishonest. Much depends upon the purpose of the photograph and how much information the viewer is provided with at the time of viewing. We do not, apart from in technical publications, publish all the details about the type of camera, exposure settings etc used in the production of the image. Even more rarely do we share the use of image enhancing software all of which help us to produce the image we, as the photographer, want to publish. So is there a need to inform the viewer that the image shown is a
composite? As always the answer is - it depends on what the photograph will be used for and the photographer cannot know this for certain. In the end it has to be a personal decision by the photographer. Personally I see nothing wrong with the Butlins photographs but I am sure that others will disagree.
On a slightly different note and wearing a once discarded health and safety hat if I was Butlins I would not publish this image under any circumstances. It is clear evidence that the safety of the children is not a primary concern. I am sure that this is not the case but the image can be seen as documentary evidence.
A part of the talk that I found particularly interesting was Anna Fox's use of composite images in her completed work. We were shown a number of projected images where what we were shown was a combination of a number of single images. I remember in particular the one taken in Butlins Bognor Regis of a children's play area. It showed what appeared to be a children's slide that had the structure of a big top from a circus. The composite image was full of activity and my attention was drawn, by the composition of the image, to the group of children climbing the slide. The tension created by this element suggested that the whole scene was about to descend into chaos and injury. I found myself looking for responsible adults who in some unstated way would bring their calming influence to bear and bring stability. A happy picture of children playing became one of pending disaster. (I have no idea whether this was the intended outcome of the photographer or whether anybody else viewing the image at the same time had the same response).
The 'reality' was that what I saw had not existed as a whole at any time. All elements of the composite were true, in the sense that they were photographs of something that had happened and captured by the camera, but the sum of the parts was false. It is interesting that I claim that the sum of the elements that are true in themselves can lead to a false outcome. Usually one would expect that true + true = true. What is missing is the temporal element. The elements were not concurrent. They happened at different times possibly spread over a significant period. They appear as one event in the photograph because the photographer offers them in this way. Although there is an increasing cynicism amongst the general population about the veracity of photographs my guess is that when this photograph is published it will be accepted, without thought, as being an image of something that happened. Given the possible use of the image as advertising material our engagement with the image is such that we have no reason for or interest in questioning its validity.
A question that the viewer is unlikely to ask is - What is not there? We were told that some elements had been removed and this was the subject of discussion between the photographer and those of her team responsible for the creation of a possible final image. We were provided with knowledge that would not be available to the general public. Yet the decision to leave these elements out of the finished image is as misleading as the overall composite and possibly more so. Removing things that were there may well lead to a better result but how honest is the practice? Every photographer leaves out possible parts of the overall picture the moment the camera is aimed at an area of interest and the viewfinder used to exclude unwanted elements. We never take an image that includes all possibilities. In working on an image cropping is almost always an option. Leaving stuff out is something photographers do all the time and this is rarely questioned. So why the sense of unease?
I would suggest that the unease lies in the fact that we, as the viewer, cannot know why decisions of inclusion and exclusion were taken. Are we being deliberately misled to reach a conclusion that is pre-determined by the photographer or possibly the person commissioning the work? Just over twenty years ago I was transferred by my employers to another part of the Country which meant that my family and I had to find new accommodation. Registering with a number of estate agents I received the inevitable flood of hand outs on possible properties. Everyone included a photograph of the exterior. In one case (and this was not an isolated instance) the photograph showed an attractive bungalow with a well cared for front garden. What it failed to show was a huge water tower and an electricity pylon that were almost literally at the bottom of the garden at the rear of the property. The photograph was true but was taken in such a way that the negative elements of the surroundings were not shown.
Is there any difference between this example and the decision to remove elements exercised in the Butlins picture? There is the underlying element of personal trust that differs between the two. Very few people trust estate agents so we distrust the information we are given by them. Although the decision in the case of the Butlins photograph lies with the photographer and her team the general public will see the image, however published, as being the product of decision making by staff at Butlins headquarters and presumably accept it as being true. They trust the source. Yet in some ways the Butlins picture is more dishonest than that of the bungalow. The image of the bungalow is true in so far as it shows something that was there in front of the camera when the image was taken. It was untouched and published in the full knowledge that the client would see the reality. Its purpose was to entice. The same thing could be said of the Butlins photograph except in this case the proffered image was of something that never existed as shown.
Is there an ethical problem with the composite and other images created in the same way. Composite pictures have been part of photography for almost as long as photography itself. Early photographers faced difficulties in exposing for the sky and for the rest. This was largely caused by the sensitivity of the emulsions used at the time. They learned to combine two images to get the desired result much the same as modern photographers do in, say, creating HDR images. It is rarely seen as dishonest. Much depends upon the purpose of the photograph and how much information the viewer is provided with at the time of viewing. We do not, apart from in technical publications, publish all the details about the type of camera, exposure settings etc used in the production of the image. Even more rarely do we share the use of image enhancing software all of which help us to produce the image we, as the photographer, want to publish. So is there a need to inform the viewer that the image shown is a
composite? As always the answer is - it depends on what the photograph will be used for and the photographer cannot know this for certain. In the end it has to be a personal decision by the photographer. Personally I see nothing wrong with the Butlins photographs but I am sure that others will disagree.
On a slightly different note and wearing a once discarded health and safety hat if I was Butlins I would not publish this image under any circumstances. It is clear evidence that the safety of the children is not a primary concern. I am sure that this is not the case but the image can be seen as documentary evidence.
Saturday, 10 May 2014
Anna Fox Lecture - Networking
My initial response to the lecture is set out in a previous blog - An Audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2014 (posted 8th May 2014).
In her talk Anna Fox mentioned the importance of networking, something she considered to be of vital importance in having a successful career in Photography. Whilst of secondary importance to me, as I have no intention of following a career in Photography (I am happily retired), the idea did raise important questions in my mind not least of which was the thought why is it necessary at all. I should make clear that I think that networking is of fundamental importance in any career particularly in the Arts where so much seems to depend upon the work being seen in the right place and by the right people at the right time.. There is no point in displaying your work unless it attracts the attention of the opinion formers within the field that you work.
However it does raise the very important question as whether there is any 'gold standard' in Art generally and in photography in particular. Stories abound of impoverished artists whose work was sold very cheaply during their lifetime. One such artist was Monet who often visited London to paint the River Thames. His work was considered unfashionable. His works could be purchased for a very modest price and the landed gentry of the time bought a number. Now they are worth millions and even allowing for inflation the prices have rocketed. The only thing that changed between times was the desire of deep-pocketed collectors to own one of his masterpieces. The actual painting had not changed at all apart from the possible patina of age.
It is probably naive to suggest that a painting (or in our case a photograph) is outstanding from the moment it is finished and therefore should be desirable/accepted purely on its intrinsic quality from the very beginning. Naive because this is not how the world works. I would argue that not even the most expert of critics or collectors can regularly spot the next big thing - acceptance can only be created. There is a good case to argue that the quickest way to become an accepted photographer is to get someone to buy one of your images for a large sum of money and then publicise the fact. The 'followers' (as opposed to the opinion formers) will have an unquenchable desire to hang one of your photographs on their walls no matter how good or poor the actual work is. Your career is made - well at least until the next bright star appears in the firmament.
There is something sad and, for someone pursuing a career in photography, frightening that there is no agreed criteria that will settle a discussion about the quality of a photograph. In many ways this is the delight of all the creative arts and it is that which maintains the grip on those who pursue a career or a demanding hobby in the creative arts but at the same time leads one to the conclusion that so much is chance. Of all the many students studying photography in England and Wales (I was told that there are close to 100,000) it is impossible for anyone to predict which ones will be successful (what is meant by 'successful' is another matter). A student may gain first-class honours but that is no guarantee that she will have a successful career in her chosen field. Indeed there is every reason to believe that the one thing an academic honour in photography cannot produce from the years of study is a photographer. Anna Fox made this very point in her talk and I have heard similar comments from other academics in the field. (Personally this was a bit of a blow although I had come to the same conclusion earlier in my career as a student with the OCA. I can say with certainty that my photography has markedly improved over the years of the Course but this is down to the thousands of photographs I have taken in the past few years and the comments and criticisms from my tutors on the work that I have produced).
It is perhaps to state the obvious but there is no such thing as a photograph that will be universally acclaimed. It is equally obvious that the one thing that (almost) guarantees success is to become famous. It seems that once you are acknowledged as one of the 'greats' your future and indeed your past is secure. It is as though you cannot produce a bad photograph or have ever done so. Yet this seems to fly in the face of reality. It is not possible for every photograph taken is a success - that is why the wastepaper basket is full of discarded images or, in modern terms, the 'trash' on a computer of a photographer is full. Nor is the fact that a photograph appears in an exhibition by a particular photographer all of the same high quality. I recently visited the Martin Parr exhibition held at the National Media Museum in Bradford and it was obvious that some of the phtographs were there more because of Parr's fame (I am a great admirer of his work) than because of their intrinsic quality.
As in most walks of life it is not what you know but who you know that increses the chances of success.
In her talk Anna Fox mentioned the importance of networking, something she considered to be of vital importance in having a successful career in Photography. Whilst of secondary importance to me, as I have no intention of following a career in Photography (I am happily retired), the idea did raise important questions in my mind not least of which was the thought why is it necessary at all. I should make clear that I think that networking is of fundamental importance in any career particularly in the Arts where so much seems to depend upon the work being seen in the right place and by the right people at the right time.. There is no point in displaying your work unless it attracts the attention of the opinion formers within the field that you work.
However it does raise the very important question as whether there is any 'gold standard' in Art generally and in photography in particular. Stories abound of impoverished artists whose work was sold very cheaply during their lifetime. One such artist was Monet who often visited London to paint the River Thames. His work was considered unfashionable. His works could be purchased for a very modest price and the landed gentry of the time bought a number. Now they are worth millions and even allowing for inflation the prices have rocketed. The only thing that changed between times was the desire of deep-pocketed collectors to own one of his masterpieces. The actual painting had not changed at all apart from the possible patina of age.
It is probably naive to suggest that a painting (or in our case a photograph) is outstanding from the moment it is finished and therefore should be desirable/accepted purely on its intrinsic quality from the very beginning. Naive because this is not how the world works. I would argue that not even the most expert of critics or collectors can regularly spot the next big thing - acceptance can only be created. There is a good case to argue that the quickest way to become an accepted photographer is to get someone to buy one of your images for a large sum of money and then publicise the fact. The 'followers' (as opposed to the opinion formers) will have an unquenchable desire to hang one of your photographs on their walls no matter how good or poor the actual work is. Your career is made - well at least until the next bright star appears in the firmament.
There is something sad and, for someone pursuing a career in photography, frightening that there is no agreed criteria that will settle a discussion about the quality of a photograph. In many ways this is the delight of all the creative arts and it is that which maintains the grip on those who pursue a career or a demanding hobby in the creative arts but at the same time leads one to the conclusion that so much is chance. Of all the many students studying photography in England and Wales (I was told that there are close to 100,000) it is impossible for anyone to predict which ones will be successful (what is meant by 'successful' is another matter). A student may gain first-class honours but that is no guarantee that she will have a successful career in her chosen field. Indeed there is every reason to believe that the one thing an academic honour in photography cannot produce from the years of study is a photographer. Anna Fox made this very point in her talk and I have heard similar comments from other academics in the field. (Personally this was a bit of a blow although I had come to the same conclusion earlier in my career as a student with the OCA. I can say with certainty that my photography has markedly improved over the years of the Course but this is down to the thousands of photographs I have taken in the past few years and the comments and criticisms from my tutors on the work that I have produced).
It is perhaps to state the obvious but there is no such thing as a photograph that will be universally acclaimed. It is equally obvious that the one thing that (almost) guarantees success is to become famous. It seems that once you are acknowledged as one of the 'greats' your future and indeed your past is secure. It is as though you cannot produce a bad photograph or have ever done so. Yet this seems to fly in the face of reality. It is not possible for every photograph taken is a success - that is why the wastepaper basket is full of discarded images or, in modern terms, the 'trash' on a computer of a photographer is full. Nor is the fact that a photograph appears in an exhibition by a particular photographer all of the same high quality. I recently visited the Martin Parr exhibition held at the National Media Museum in Bradford and it was obvious that some of the phtographs were there more because of Parr's fame (I am a great admirer of his work) than because of their intrinsic quality.
As in most walks of life it is not what you know but who you know that increses the chances of success.
Thursday, 8 May 2014
An audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2013
Attended this study day at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham Surrey. I have to be careful that my comments are not coloured by the horrendous 123 mile car journey endured on my way there. (It was equally as bad on the way back.) However it does raise the question of the worth of such visits when costed against the cost and hassle of trying to get there. My experience based on a number of study visits over the years has, overall, been positive because the 'good times' have outweighed the 'bad times' but it remains in the balance.
Having arrived just in time for the meeting with others who had arrived at the same time I have to say that the welcome lacked a certain warmth. Perhaps a very brief explanation of where were going and why may have helped. Obviously there was no time for the exchange of the usual pleasantries or a verbal explanation of what we were doing there and what it was hoped we would get from the afternoon.
The sense of chaos and lack of caring was not helped by the very poor quality of the projected images. Despite the best efforts of Professor Fox and a technician summoned to sort things out very little changed so that we were subjected to images where the colours were wrong (Professor Fox's response) and far too bright. It was impossible to make any realistic judgement of what was being shown. I was always taught that it is essential to test all equipment fully before lecturing and to have at least a workable knowledge of the technicalities involved. To fail to do this was likely to give the impression that you were unprepared and had a low opinion of your audience. It is also not very helpful to offer the audience printed images in a book form of what was being projected if the lighting in the lecture theatre is dimmed and dominated by the over bright projection.
I am not sure whether Professor Fox was thrown by the problems created by the poor projection, her apparent inability to use the provided equipment and the constant breaks in the flow of her talk necessitated by trying to sort out the mess that was being created or whether she was under-prepared. Whatever the cause I personally was left unsure of what was the overall message - if indeed there was one. A number of important issues were raised but never seemed to be discussed. Overall the whole experience was a massive disappointment.
Having arrived just in time for the meeting with others who had arrived at the same time I have to say that the welcome lacked a certain warmth. Perhaps a very brief explanation of where were going and why may have helped. Obviously there was no time for the exchange of the usual pleasantries or a verbal explanation of what we were doing there and what it was hoped we would get from the afternoon.
The sense of chaos and lack of caring was not helped by the very poor quality of the projected images. Despite the best efforts of Professor Fox and a technician summoned to sort things out very little changed so that we were subjected to images where the colours were wrong (Professor Fox's response) and far too bright. It was impossible to make any realistic judgement of what was being shown. I was always taught that it is essential to test all equipment fully before lecturing and to have at least a workable knowledge of the technicalities involved. To fail to do this was likely to give the impression that you were unprepared and had a low opinion of your audience. It is also not very helpful to offer the audience printed images in a book form of what was being projected if the lighting in the lecture theatre is dimmed and dominated by the over bright projection.
I am not sure whether Professor Fox was thrown by the problems created by the poor projection, her apparent inability to use the provided equipment and the constant breaks in the flow of her talk necessitated by trying to sort out the mess that was being created or whether she was under-prepared. Whatever the cause I personally was left unsure of what was the overall message - if indeed there was one. A number of important issues were raised but never seemed to be discussed. Overall the whole experience was a massive disappointment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)