George Shaw

I saw a Shaw the other day in Birmingham in a new accquisitions show, this was the first time I'd seen one since his Ikon show. They suffer very much in reproduction I feel. Looking at one for real I'm struck by an overwhelming admiration for the technique, it seems to pay reference to the pre raphaelite work in the next gallery. It appears at first glance unerringly precise in its vision, almost forensic but its not ,this is most definitely about paint and its application in a particular way.Looking at an old catalogue i am struck by the difference between these painings and the preparatory sketches which are much much looser.

Algernon Newton

I came across Newton's work years ago and was fascinated by their emptiness and the subject matter it seemed so every day, they were painted in the 20's and 30's . There's one in the Harris Gallery Preston , this one is in the Tate and recently I saw a drawing in the Geffrye museum. I liked their precision.

this just isn't going anywhere.I haven't done anything with the lighting but I have been using a flocking gun.I just get the feeling that if I'm going to make work less emotive then something is going to have to change

start

starting something but the lighting needs to be much more like daylight

Aye therein lies the rub.

This image exemplifies some of the issues I am encountering. This is the side abutment of a bridge under a motorway. The embankment rises above, its construction throws up these odd spaces which are not useful but a necessary byproduct. They've been fenced off to stop access to the carraigeway above. The space is undecided and an ideal example for me to create some response in minature.
The trouble is the approach. The construct presents various challenges to simulate; vegetation, the fence, though these can be overcome.It remains a matter of how to see it. As a forensic teutonic excercise? A neo gothic Lynchian idyll with low lighting,mist and limited artificial illumination? Or what? what is the English suburban slightly menacing approach and how does it translate in to producing an image which has an aesthetic which is appealing.
All my art school training wants to make it something luverly.

CRUDE

I've been trying to video a model I've made for sometime now. I find video difficult to comprehend in a practical sense. I've tried filming this imagined interior, but each time the quality is poor in places and distracting. I wonder if its the low light levels and the need for maximum depth of field that defy the video camera. The one I'm using isn't best suited for what i want it to perform.
I really want to use a digital SLR with a video facility, but in the meantime until I can afford it, I've tried some very crude stop frame with a digital SLR. I quite like the jerkiness of it and with some fiddling with filters it could be quite interesting.

dilemma

I've been trying to make work about anonymous places or places that are unexciting and dull. Its part of my PHD proposal on undecided spaces. This is an early try. The problem is simulating natural things like foliage, leaves, grass etc. Its difficult to make it look convincing, also I want to start using the "daylight" rather than the appearance of night time.
Of course restricting the lighting can hide the imperfections. I used bits of a scarf I found in a charity shop and some old twigs to do this , I sprayed the whole lot white and grey. I desaturated the image and added a warm filter in photoshop to make it appear like sodium street lighting. Its not working yet.
Its a real problem, to make convincing images of very dull places.