I had a hunch that analogue processes were important to my process to practise-based research. I very much did not want this research to be about solely my approach. What I intended was to demonstrate how analogue processes or apporaches to recording seascape/skyscape could inject more time and space for reflection into the creative process. And that this would allow for subtle reflections of a specific culture or area into visual responses. Culture is probably the more accurate word as introducing place-based tends to encourage responses very tied to traditional notions of place. I think culture is more amorphous.

Looking back I would say that I am not sure if my methods would suit each creative. What I think would have to happen for the methodology to be success is for creatives to be encouraged to take part in and reflect on analogue processes that suit their creative personality, i.e. if a creative has a propensity or drive to use textiles then maybe that is the approach they take. I think perhaps the issue with that or maybe it is not an issue is that 2D visuals have a distinctly different visual language to 3D which are more about the materiality. I wonder how much this matters?

What I have come to the conclusion is that in terms of practice the research question is a lot more tied to creative practices, analogue processes and time for reflection in the landscape/seascape. This is might all describe (in one way) place-based but this term is very misleading to most and so does not fit the research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *