Ugo/methods/session1

S1: DESCRIBE THREE OF YOUR WORKS

for each work describe What (100 words max) How (100 words max) Why (100 words max) 300 word description of three works = 900 words (max)''

LAYERED IDENTITIES, UK, London, February 2017

WHAT

The work is made of seven colour images representing human faces, one man and three women. They are colour digital photographs, displayed as portraits. The images are highly contrasted in the vein of chiaroscuro’s paintings. The faces are centred and lit on a dark background, positioned straight and from ¾. They are clear and sharp, but the face appears to have a transparent layer covering the skin with various inscriptions, symbols and textures. All the subjects appear calm and with the eyes closed as if they were sleeping. If we look closely, we can see that the transparent layers are in fact other faces with their eyes open. Those layers integrate the subject’s face like a makeup, giving to the overall image a dramatic and bizarre feel.

HOW

Portrait photographs from official documents such as passports and ID cards were scanned and then digitally projected onto the subjects' faces. The subjects sat in an isolated chair in a studio with their eyes closed. Two flashes are set very low to illuminate hair, skin and clothing. The projection of the passport photograph completes the facial lighting. The face becomes a surface, on which the pixels of the scanned image and the grain of the skin can be seen superimposed. Photos are taken at various points during the process of adjusting the scales of the superimposed image in an impossible attempt to perfectly match the passport photo back onto the subject’s face. By trying to match them, the process brings out visual conflicts that give way to an unexpected and uncontrolled new face.

WHY

What is the legitimacy and potential of the photographic portrait to question, represent, transmit and (re)construct identity and non-identity?

Triggered by the Brexit’s vote of 23 June 2016, I began to question the notion of identity through a series of photographic portraits. These distorted portraits, layered identities, question the portrait’s legitimacy to represent and convey one’s identity in a world of hypervisibility in which the recording and registering of the face is a central tool of integrated global surveillance systems. I think identity should be perceived as a flow, a malleable material that evolves in a continuous temporality, outside of such systems. Instead, the systems predetermine the kind of identities that are ‘authoritative’ or ‘valuable’ and rejects other identities which do not fit into the preconceived designs. This raises questions about the administrative power of the state in setting the questions, and deciding the answers, about who we really are. One participant stated that they looked “like a monster”, does the use of the term "monster" invite us to see identity as the strange composite of private and public modes of identity?

NATURE MORTE, FR, Marseille, June 2017 Collaborative work.

WHAT

A series of seven digital colour photographs. Each image is representing a composition of objects and materials, laying on a textile background. The photographs are displayed as portraits. The compositions are mostly centred and are made of a multitude of materials like fruits, crockery, tar, rope, dead rat, fabrics, flowers, paper, cardboard, electronic components, computer screens, glass, metals, water, sand, earth, cement. In one of the image, the objects are covered and shaped by the background. While we can recognise most of the materials and object, two of the images feature rather abstract results. Overall the plasticity and the sculptural quality of the compositions turn out flatten by the photographic process.

HOW

A multitude of objects and materials were collected in the surroundings of the studio then resituated on an approximately 1.5 meter by 1 meter surface. The materials were confronted with the tools present in the studio like brushes, paints, foams, glues, scissors, powders, scotch, hammer, pliers, fire or camera. The process uses a variety of techniques such as painting, carving, cutting, breaking, gluing, folding, covering or burning. In a collaborative and improvised gesture, the objects are fused on a textile surface and photographed as portraits. The work took place over a few days, in a collaboration completely structured by intuition and improvisation. (Re)composing practically in silence, leaving space to the practice and the gesture to express themselves without the oral language interference.

WHY

How do we explore together?

This work was mainly started to explore the idea of collaboration within art. But more widely, how can we produce together? We wanted to interact with the neighbourhood were the studio is located. The work can be seen as a kind of archaeological investigation into the materiality of the Porte-D'Aix district in Marseille. We tried to bring into dialogue different materials and objects to interrogate concepts like memory or identity. The images aim to propose a contemplative and poetic interrogation of Marseilles that can raise questions about the collective identity of the city, and the neighbourhood. How does the photography of collected objects and materials reflect the specificity or identity of the sampling site?

EDITED VERSIONS

LAYERED IDENTITIES, UK, London, February 2017

The work consists of seven colour digital photographs, representing the faces of one men and three women. They are portraits, displayed on a website. There is little space around the heads, and the shoulders are out of frame. The images are highly contrasted. In the vein of chiaroscuro’s paintings, the faces are centred and lit on a dark background. Every part of the face is in focus. The facial features are recognisable, but one may notice a transparent layer covering the skin with various inscriptions, symbols and textures. The subjects appear calm, eyes closed as if they were asleep. Looking closely, one can see that the transparent layers are in fact other faces and that the eyes are open. Opened eyes on closed eyes, the layers integrate the subject’s face like a makeup, further emphasizing the dramatic and strange quality to the series.

I invited friends from different nationality to come and pose in my studio. I scanned the photographs from official documents such as their passports and ID cards that I later digitally projected onto their faces. They sat in an isolated chair in a studio with their eyes closed. Two flashes were set very low to illuminate hair, skin and clothing. The projection of the passport photograph completed the facial lighting, allowing for more sharpness. The face becomes a surface on which the pixels of the scanned image and the grain of the skin can be seen superimposed. The photos were taken at various points during the process of adjusting the scales of the superimposed image. It was impossible to perfectly match the passport photo back onto the subject’s face. But by trying to match them, the process brings out visual conflicts that give way to an unexpected and uncontrolled new face.

What is the legitimacy and potential of the photographic portrait to question, represent, transmit and (re)construct identity and non-identity?

Triggered by the Brexit’s vote of 23 June 2016, the doubts and uncertainties it created, I began to question the notion of identity through a series of photographic portraits. These distorted portraits, layered identities, question the portrait’s legitimacy to represent and convey one’s identity in a world of hypervisibility in which the recording and registering of the face is a central tool of integrated global surveillance systems. I think identity should be perceived as a flow, a malleable material that evolves in a continuous temporality, outside of such systems. Instead, the systems predetermine the kind of identities that are ‘authoritative’ or ‘valuable’ and rejects other identities which do not fit into the preconceived designs. This raises questions about the administrative power of the state in setting the questions, and deciding the answers, about who we really are. One participant stated that they looked “like a monster”, does the use of the term "monster" invite us to see identity as the strange composite of private and public modes of identity?