form space 1
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 2
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 3
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 4
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 5
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 6
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 7
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 9
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 11
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space 15
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 30 cm
form space 18
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space noise 12
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space noise 17
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space noise 30
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space noise 33
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space noise 44
2007
digital c-type print, 30 x 40 cm
form space is a series of photographs of lego bricks arranged on a flat surface. the photos were processed using HDR software and composite images created, so that the forms of the lego became ghostly, translucent, floating. the images contained a lot of noise due to the lighting conditions and the extreme application of HDR techniques, so i cleaned them by removing the noise. this was done manually, pixel by pixel, so as to preserve the underlying image in a way that applying automated software noise removal wouldn’t have done. during this process, details showing the noise (black pixels) were saved as an image series in its own right, because i started to see the tiny black bricks of noise as beautiful and meaningful as the image from which they were being extracted.

in spending so much time at the pixel level of an image, i realised that every pixel had as much right to be there as any other; the noise is as valid as the signal. so where does that leave our pictures, when their equality with random noise is made visible? and is this noise really random, or are there connections between the noise and the conceptual space of the image which still remain hidden?

this project is inspired by the idea of fundamental forms (the Platonic ideal) and the ways in which the nature of forms can be explored in photographs; is it possible to peel away the layers of forms until there is almost nothing left – and is it possible that at some point in this uncovering/reduction process we might arrive at a stage that perfectly describes the true nature of a form? if we take an image and progressively sample and re-sample it, or distort it, at what point does it loose it’s recognisable identity and become something purely abstract?

perhaps what exists in reality cannot be visualised in terms of fundamental parts, but instead can only be understand in terms of transformation, how something changes into something else whilst retaining some kind of common identity / archetypal symbolism. if we imagine that there are many layers to the material world (in terms of scale, materiality, form etc) and that they all exist together simultaneously as a unified reality, how does this tally with the way we actually perceive things? how does our perception that we have a permanent identity (perhaps akin to a soul) correspond to our recognition that at the same time everything is in a state of flux and transformation from one state to another?
Back to Top