1 vs 24/36 –
Although the end results are still effectively a ‘photographic image’, ‘capturing’ a 3d scan feels very different to ‘taking’ a photographic image. Taking a conventional photograph, whether analogue (film) or digital, would typically involve framing the scene through the viewfinder/screen, and typically more than one shot would be taken in order to review, select, edit then print/output (thinking back to B&W contact sheets / shooting 24 or 36 shots invisibly on film, then processing, then contact sheet). Currently, when capturing (taking?) a 3d scan, the action does not feel like that of a photographic process (potentially more like an audio field recording or a bad piece of filming?). Only one take is captured which is a relatively time consuming activity when compared to capturing an image at 100th of a second (around 1 or 2 minutes walking around ensuring all angles are captured whilst avoiding my shadow).
Mesh becomes mush –
The results are genuinely captivating. The organic, painterly qualities are a refreshing detachment from a conventional, technical photographic capture. In particular areas where objects are smeared (through texture projection / mesh capture issues) create a dreamlike reality.
Erosion –
Re #2, control over vocabulary and contextual reference points seem to have eroded…
Continuation –
The aesthetic feels like a comfortable continuation of earlier landscape works which exploited parallax blur and compressed depth.
Untitled, 2008
Untitled, 2008
Untitled, 2008