Feedback for Pitch (Task Three)

Although I was first for task three (which is generally the unfavorable spot – I would much rather get it over and done with, public speaking is not my forte!) I received some good feedback for my process for Task Four and some ideas to develop further. I thought three minutes is quite a challenge, there is so much you can talk about, but you want to pick out the best details that best describe the experiment and what I wanted to develop from Task Four. I did my pitch as a power point, which connected me to my pitch, which I read out – my power point presentation had some of my photographs from my third experiment, as well as what I have learned and what I want to develop for Task Four.

Once done with my speech, I recieved feedback from the panel which consisted of Hannah, Sophie and Paul. I feel like the panel situation was quite interesting and gave me a wide range of perspectives on my media projects.

Firstly, I received feedback and was asked some questions on my intention for some of my experiments and how this developed in my ideas for not only my pitch but my conclusion to Task Three.

I then focused on Task Four and my ideas that will develop from Task Three and what I have noticed.  I received feedback on the focal length of my lens when I shoot my “wide angle photography” that I spoke about in my pitch (you can also read it here) – to develop a single length to shoot on, focusing on the wider details rather than singular details which I developed in Task Three, Experiment Three. This could then further be developed into mosaical structures, where individuals either pinpoint or screenshot the certain aspect of media which captivates them or is most prominent to them. This could be done in either a ‘screenshot’ idea or physical, where they describe or circle the certain element which is prominent to them. This could then draw different conclusions between me and the subject – whether or not I decide to draw conclusions before speaking to them about why they chose the certain elements in the media.

This could then further be developed into mosaical structures of what each individual notices in my imagery:  individuals either pinpointing or screenshotting the certain aspect of media which captivates them or is most prominent to them in the image (this could also be further distinguished to what I notice further). This could be done in either a ‘screenshot’ idea or physical, where they describe or circle the certain element which is prominent to them. This could then draw different conclusions between me and the subject – whether or not I decide to draw conclusions before speaking to them about why they chose the certain elements in the media.

Another idea that was suggested by the panel was making either a video piece or a panning still image of a certain environment, or two or three. These environments can be linked together or be under a certain theme (urbanism, nature etc) – this would allow individuals to not focus on the subjective nature of the image and would present more options to notice different ideas of photography. This is something that I think will develop further in Task Four as it allows me to focus on my ideologies about detail and how individuals notice different elements in media.

Although there are some questions around subjective framing (and proactive imagery framing – meaning I almost ‘set up’ to capture imagery that does not have many details, or is overloaded with imagery) which were brought up and is something that I need to consider around whether I would like to develop this further in a video or photography elements. I also would like to think about audio and how this can influence the viewer, although this is something I have not given much thought to yet. I think a problem that I will encounter with this, coming from my reflection and the ideas discussed on the panel, is not ‘framing’ the photography piece to allow the viewer towards certain elements such as lines, circles, shapes, lighting etc.

Another idea that was suggested by the panel was making either a video piece or a panning still image of a certain environment, or two or three. These environments can be linked together or be under a certain theme (urbanism, nature etc) – this would allow individuals to not focus on the subjective nature of the image and would present more options to notice different ideas of photography. This is something that I think will develop further in Task Four.

All of these ideas are things that I will take on board when developing Task Four and my media development in the future.  (Also was suggested to give a name to my piece!)