We interviewed Dr Ian Clegg in our publication “Abstracted” surrounding the concept of abstract. Visit the publication here.
How does the awareness of the circular nature of our vision influence the form, line, or compositions you choose within your art?
It is thought-provoking to consider the extent of contextual information that may be lost when iconic images are selectively framed or cropped, effectively omitting elements beyond the primary subject. Such omissions raise questions about the peripheral details and additional narratives that exist outside the boundaries of these celebrated compositions, which might significantly alter our understanding or make us re-interpret the scenes depicted.
What are some of the ways you think art may break free from the “framed, presented images” to reflect a much more natural field of vision?
It is exceedingly difficult to challenge the conventional presentation of framed prints books, or paintings within the ‘white cube’ gallery setting, a norm that has extended its influence to digital platforms, including computer screens and mobile devices. This traditional mode of display may soon be contested by advancements in virtual reality technology, where immersive 360-degree viewed environments could influence the shapes of the framed print back in the real world.
What reactions do you hope viewers gain when they encounter artwork that challenges the straight-edged perceptions?
A hopeful response is a critical acknowledgment that our perception is inherently limited, revealing only a partial view of our surroundings. This awareness invites us to interrogate what may be omitted from our visual fields, whether such omissions are intentional or inadvertent.
By questioning the ‘unseen’ we open ourselves to the possibility that significant elements remain concealed, shaping our interpretations and understanding in subtle but profound ways.
You use a long exposure and rotate the camera to gather more light, could you describe the process and what you hope to capture by working this way?
The methodology employed is somewhat improvised and mechanically odd, involving the use of a gimbal mounted on its side, allowing for manual rotation of the camera in an arc.
During this process, the camera captures exposures through multiple optical filters and a very wide-angle lens to maximize field of view. This setup is designed to record an extensive visual scope, capturing not only the central subject but also the outlying areas with equal emphasis, thereby simulating the inclusivity of peripheral vision and challenging traditional compositions.
What challenges do you face when using long exposure and rotational techniques and how do you work or bypass these limitations ?
Standard tripods and gimbals are primarily designed to support movement along horizontal and vertical axes, providing stability and controlled panning or tilting for conventional framing techniques. However, this setup limits the ability to capture images in a fully circular or orbital path around the camera’s central axis. To address this limitation, I manually rotate the camera during exposure to create a rotational movement around the lens itself.
Where do you see your practice evolving in the future? Do you have any projects upcoming that you would like to talk about?
Further exploration of this process is required to fully understand its potential and limitations. Ideally, the resulting images would be printed at a very large scale, which could increase their immersive quality and challenge conventional viewing experiences.
Alternatively, in-situ projection could offer a dynamic approach, integrating the images directly into specific location-based contexts, disrupting the constraints of the traditional rectangular frame, and inviting viewers to engage with the works in a manner that surpasses typical rectangular boundaries .