The work consisted of an image projected onto the wall of Gallery A402 with a slide projector for a group show comprised of contributions from the students of a critique course taking place in another room, D206A, within the larger architectural structure of the institution this semester. Each room corresponded at face value with a different primary uses assigned by administrative classification and colloquial verbal description: one, a gallery; the other, a classroom. There was a movement which intrigued me in the shift of this class from a space of discussion into a space of display. There may have been some feeling like culmination for the members involved in ending the course with a gallery show of their personal work. This exhibition was not preemptively planned to be in conjunction with this course and did not appear in its description; instead, the oppportunity came about as a possibility midway through the semester due to a week in which no exhibition was scheduled to occur in three student gallery spaces on the fourth floor of the institute: the Lime Gallery, the Mint, Gallery, and Gallery A402. Once accepted by members of the course, the anticipation of an exhibition became an additional component to discussions though it was not to be a factor in the grading process, and by extension not a requirement of the course. With the date of the show falling at the end of the academic semester, the exhibition might be perceived as a final project, conclusion, and reward to participants in the course.

For my contribution, I was interested in attempting to open a space of contextualizing the relativity between the members involved in the group show as there was to be no overtly apparent continuity in the various works exhibited or efficacy for this grouping of various student-artists; whereas in another course, the focused topic or criteria of study may have provided an underlying thematic for an exhibition to serve as summary or culmination of this collective learning process. By comparison, my participating peers had shared a significant amount of time together as a group discussing each other's work previous to having been offered gallery space. It was due to being a student in the context of critical discussion that these individuals had the opportunity to show their respective works in a gallery setting. This factored into accepting the opportunity. A member could display an instance of their practice publically after privately having discussed it though they were not bound to exhibiting what they had previously presented for group critique earlier in the semester.

I opted to use slide film to denote a transition in time and space that had taken place, amplified further through its light-based projection. A view from within the empty classroom in which the critique course was taking place was photographed. This document visually served as an indirect indication that the other artworks in the display space were directly linked to a previous interior, presented independent of each other, prior to the current grouping. The image attempted to provide context of another architecture which supported this ongoing conversation yet provided no explicit record of any having occured; for instance, by means of transcript or audio files. As the standard function of a slide projector is to enlarge a still image through projected light with distance from the point of contact, the use of the format on this occasion was both literal and metaphoric. The projection filled my allotted area within the gallery and substantiated as both floor work and wall work, sculptural and pictorial, situated in a time-based format.

When documenting the classroom interior for the image content, the camera was hand-held. Incidentally, the shutter speed was incorreclty read prior to taking the shot. Upon exposing the film and hearing the prolonged open shutter, an attempt was made to remain as still as possible for the duration of the shot. The processed image ultimately presented a slight blur due to this prolonged exposure and human error. Upon reviewing the result, I recognized that this blur was indicative of a time lapse in the process of acquiring the image. This seemed slightly averse to the utility of slide film, which by this time was nearly obsolete, as the primary means for artists to generate photographic documentation of artworks for archival purposes and/or surveyed presentation in the format of a portfolio. The blur not only gave human presence in an empty classroom, presenting the potential of it, but also allowed the image to seep and take in more than a moment, extending it, and relating simultaneously back to the passage of conversations and the non-record thereof. This evidential prolonging withing the visually indexical record represented a contingent inability to align material classroom and socially-motivated learning. A visitor to the exhibition was given the visual of a space of conversation without being admitted to it. It was by and for the members enrolled in the class to use and think during the semester, in the context of the exhibition, and onward.

While the work did not have a title, a supplementary title-like card was provided which comprised the most basic publically-accessible information on the class found in the course catalog published by the institute that term. This information provided an embedded caption for the projected image: the room number, time and day, instructor's name, and course title moved a viewer to a clearer understanding of what the slightly blurred slide projection consisted of, which alone was no more than a white room with a table and chairs. The card was placed inside the projected field of light on the wall, positioned just within an interior corner of in the work, to distinguish it from presenting as an externalized didactic supplement. This embededness also served to take association away from the image being the central focus as it was also the light source through which the information on the card was easily legible. The projection pragmatically highlighted the course information on the wall of a specific room and specific use inside the gallery space, which had become an extension of the classroom through its members albeit not part of a conjoined architecture under the circumstances here.

As it happened, a poster advertisement was privately developed by some members of the exhibition and posted around campus prior to a group discussion. "Undergraduate Group Show" was the title included on the poster by the self-elected designers. The poster was relatively nondescript, giving no rationale as to why there was a group show by the particular people contributing to it other than through an affiliation as undergraduate students. The central axiom being a course of study seemed intentionally non-consequential. The projected image and course information inadvertently came to be the only instance which provided any description for the reasoning behind the show through addressing a social relationship built within a space in the midst of transition into another space. The slide projection provided a temporary window view that stopped at the wall, enabling what seemed a necessary transition of work surrounded by discussion to work left in an vacant room.

Within the gallery, the slide projector sat on a pedestal measuring 12x12x18 inches. A label reading "Please, turn projector on to view slide and turn off when exiting the gallery. Thank you" was attached to the top face of the pedestal next to the projector. Requesting a level of interactivity, the visitor, in order to interpret more than a slide projector as inert machine-object on a pedestal, had to initiate viewership through direct interaction. This primary action and shift into a discursive observer was a way for an individual to begin considering the work as a specific procedure. The interaction also enabled a certain level of privacy that was made in part by turning on and off the projector much like in a private screening scenario where an audience serves as their own projectionist.