tolerances in alignment

I’m planning to produce some works for our two week exchange around this phrase ‘tolerances in alignment’ which comes from this 1950s booklet called ‘Binoculars and how to choose them’. I’m also keen to follow on from ‘inverted’ drawings I’ve been doing as seen on my temporary blog/noticeboard The things that Rachel O’Neill did – I need to try this inverted drawing business out on the mini lightbox and see how they go but I like the print phenomenon that is black line turning into white/coloured space – simple but effective perhaps as far as the lightbox backlighting goes. Could work with a range of marks from fine line to woodcut to human/animal/vegetable silhouette/curvature…

I have a narrative in mind for the drawings which draws on, reworks and somewhat fictionalises what’s going on in the binocular booklet – its language and technical drawings - emphasising what I think will be some invention story of a ‘happening lense’* (*name subject to change), which accelerates tolerances and alignments – a central character or two will drive the narrative. I have a character called Beatrice Krill who could be a good trial subject for the ‘happening lense’.

This projected work isn’t much collaborative in nature I realise but thought I’d put it out there and it might lead to discussion/directions when we skype.

Also interested in thinking about the scale of the boxes – where the viewers eye line will be – how to draw viewers closer and where needed maximise long distance effect. The boxes also seem to work in pairs – due to fan-like pattern of layout in the square. Any way we could torque this in an interesting way?

How might we arrange images that face the road or the pedestrian area for example?

Random thoughts here – text on the street side/image on the footpath side? Text/image interlocking? Guess I’m thinking about how we create the undulations Marnie first mentioned – would be great to get at this in the content as well as the formal flow of the works and how we want them to read…

Curatorial brief:

For me it’s important to have a way of describing this project so that it’s true to our wider practices and also that we’re not ‘generalising’ who the audiences are. It’s also important for me that the project brief doesn’t suggest we are coming up with a new (by default as emerging artists) ‘description’ of homosexuality, definition of glbt culture or map of the Homo landscape. In this sense I know what I don’t want it to be so hope to do some thinking with you all about what it could reveal when the project traverses into language.

Personally I don’t usually align my work with blockbuster tags such as feminist, or lesbian, or queer. This isn’t because I’m not prepared to talk, given the time and space, about the work in relation to these things. For me, it’s more that the work itself is directed at burying clues, and revealing opacity's around how a viewer chooses to motivate or make inactive their (identity, but more like their accurate fictions of self) or my accurate fictions of self (if at all) in relation to public/private concepts, declarations, modesties, fears, hopes and facts/fictions etc.

What are your thoughts – want to be overt, less overt than overt, slightly a little bit overt, kinda maybe...no…yes?

I'd like to find some way of using the notion of 'accurate fictions of self ' in relation to this brief...there is this literary genre which is the most popular published form in the US at the moment called Creative Non-Fiction which basically translates as 'accurate story' + 'style' - this informs how I imagine what an accurate fiction might be - how it might behave...where it might be taking the left hand of darkness...