On repeating experiment 1, I found that each time I put the image through a different media (photocopy, print, scan) the colours would change. I would try to imitate the new colours for the next image, imitate subtle mistakes I made in the previous image and this altered the quality of the image. However, it was still recognizable to those that knew the painting. At one point, I drew some of the elements from muscle memory. When I moved to digital illustration, it brought some of the finesse back but it still wasn’t an accurate reproduction of the ‘original’ image. Thus, I took the idea of the image and reproduced it till the title became meaningless, or perhaps a challenge to copy infinitely.
Finally, I compiled all the drawings, creating an animated GIF to highlight the transitions occurring with each version of the image.
view the tutorial presentation here
“The poor image is a copy in motion. Its quality is bad, its resolution substandard. As it accelerates, it deteriorates. It is a ghost of an image, a preview, a thumbnail, an errant idea, an itinerant image distributed for free, squeezed through slow digital connections, compressed, reproduced, ripped, remixed, as well as copied and pasted into other channels of distribution.
The poor image is an illicit fifth-generation bastard of an original image. Its genealogy is dubious. Its filenames are deliberately misspelled. It often defies patrimony, national culture, or indeed copyright. It is passed on as a lure, a decoy, an index, or as a reminder of its former visual self.”
Hito Steyerl, ‘In Defense of the Poor Image’, 2012
Scanned copies of the drawings (size: A4)
Once I made a digital illustration of the latest image, I considered that as the new reference for Magritte’s painting. I put out a call on Instagram, inviting the audience to copy my copy. The new responses were more imaginative and subjective than mine. Some of them made dramatic choices, others were minimal. With each new interpretation, the concept remained the same but the image itself was wildly different from the original painting.
Feedback
What’s working:
- Response is deep and critical – visually very interesting
- One thing translated into an infinity (gif and reproductions). Therefore, no end to the project
- Contextualising the translation by showing the software window
- How specific media affected the quality of the images
- Instagram brought a lot of subjectivity
What’s not working:
- The triard GIF representation (omitted from the blog as there was no way to align it on WordPress)
To develop:
- Sounds could engage people
- Naming the files could engage people
- Showing the audience where the image is going – photocopy. Printer, colour pencils, etc can make it more exciting