Week 5: Three ‘Surfaces’

Roadmap Plan

**Figure 1** Murray, J. (2020) *Roadmap*

Title of your work/project, with 3–5 keywords: e-maGen, (e-identities; imagined; imaged; selfie)
Methods/methodology you will be exploring: selfies collaged with mannequins, scanning layered into images.
Number of shoots you will need: 10 maximum
Possible outcomes and where to show them: Work which comments on internet identities such as e-girls, soft girls, and how the identities we showcase transform and discard at almost a click of the button, are not necessarily how we live our non-internet life, ultimately a disposable identity. A key option for my practice has been showcasing online and I may incorporate tech such as arsteps to facilitate this.
The results you are looking for/expecting: I aiming for a result which references clearly to internet identities and provides commentary regarding the phenomena.
The relationship between this work/project and overall research for the MA: My overall research and practice at this point in time has revolved around a commentary of my generation and our consumption and interaction with the internet, with the hopes of opening a dialogue and discussion around why.
Landings: Having some experience in the past with organising and assisting at exhibitions, I have gained an experience in what to do, vs what not to do when advertising an exhibition, as well as an eye curatorially on ordering and layout of imagery.

Project Development

Figure 2 Murray, J. (2020) Rejected Stills

This week has been fairly experimental in terms of project development. From previous feedback querying how this work ties into the internet, first led me to look at inserting graphical elements into my images that directly link to computer tech, the internet and social media in the form of chat bubbles and error messages. However I did not think this approach (Figure 2) worked, it was perhaps too overloaded and overwhelming than I had wanted it to be, as well as too graphical. Talking to Cemre during my 1-2-1 this week, she agreed that the images were too overloaded and that my messages had become confusing and unclear, and that perhaps I should try minimising the amounts added in and on to the image.

This made me re-think on my approach, with a leading image with a internet related graphical element and then the combination self-portraiture and the mannequin (Figure 3), I feel like these outcomes are a lot more successful in regards to conveying the message I want to my audience. e-maGen is a series that carries on from An Authentic Lie? (2020) as it persists in commenting on the notion that social media and photography is non “authentic”, a lie of perfected curated manifestations of the social media feeds. However unlike An Authentic Lie? (2020) e-maGen is intended to be a commentary on the inauthenticity of internet aesthetic personalities referencing to the manipulation of selfies through a proliferation of apps that leads to the output that inevitably looks plastic, fake and ultimately more doll-like than human with exaggerations of features such as the mouth, eyes, and waist. My current intentions are for these images to reference to current popular aesthetics, such as Soft Girl and e-Girl aesthetics, amongst my generation and those in Generation Z in the hopes to make them engage critically with the images and reflect on their own usage of the internet, to question what these social media monoplies intend on doing with our content.

Throughout the various series under my current practice, the audience is paramount to the images I make, whilst they are in a sense personal to me, in that they refer to my own experiences of participating and interacting with the internet, I do not intend for the series to be only personal, but more of a series that resonates with my own generation and other generations growing up in the rise of the internet.

Curators have proved useful in the past with my practice, with recommendations on ordering as well as display methods being recommended to me in the past. I’m unsure however how much I would allow a curator to have free reign to influence the reading of my work, it would depend on whom the curator is and whether or not I felt that what they were suggesting was a positive improvement or at detriment to my message.