The image was projected onto the wall of gallery A402 with a slide projector for a group show comprised of work from the students of a critique class that was taking place in another room, D206A, within the larger architectural structure of the institution that semester. Both rooms are prescribed as specifically differing spaces, notably the classroom and the gallery by administrative classification and colloquial verbal description. There was a movement which intrigued me in the shift of the class from a space of discussion to a space of display, that there may have been some feeling like culmination for the members involved in ending the course with a gallery show. This exhibition was not planned in conjunction with the course or its description; instead, it came up as a possibility midway through the semester due to a week in which no exhibition was scheduled to occur in gallery A402. The gallery space, once accepted by the members of the course, became an additional component to it though it was not to be a factor in the grading process, not a requirement. With the date of the show falling at the end of the academic semester, the exhibition could be perceived as a final project, conclusion, and reward to the group in the course.


For my contribution, I was interested in attempting to open a space of context for the relativity behind the members involved in the group show as there was no overtly apparent continuity in the various works exhibited; whereas in another course, the focused topic or criteria of study may establish a thematic for an exhibition as summary or culmination of learning. The participating artists/peers had shared a significant amount of time together as a group discussing each other's work previous to having been offered the gallery space. It was due to being a student in the context of critical discussion that the individual artists had the opportunity to show their respective works in a gallery context. This factored into accepting the opportunity. A member could display an instance of his/her practice publically after privately having discussed it.


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. The image I chose to process as content on the film was a view from within the empty classroom in which the critique course had taken place. The document visually served as an indirect indication that the other artworks in the room were directly linked to a previous singular space, prior to the current grouping. The image provided a context that an ongoing conversation had taken place yet provided no explicit record of any having occured; for instance, by means of transcript or audio files thereof. As the standard function of a slide projector is to enlarge a still image through projected light, I acknowledge this use as both literal and metaphoric within the instance. The projection filled my allotted space within the gallery and substantiated as both floor work and wall work, sculptural and pictoral, 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. This image ultimately presented a slight blur due to the prolonged exposure. Upon reviewing the resulting record, 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, relating simultaneously back to the passage of the conversations and the non-record thereof. This evidential prolonging of a visual, indexical record represented a contingent inability to align material classroom and material conversation therein. A visitor to the exhibition was given the visual of a space of and for contextual conversation but in a way was not admitted to it. It was by and for the members enrolled in the class to use and think during the semester within and currently, in the context of the exhibition, on.


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. This information established grounded an indexicality for the projected image: the room number, time and day, instructor, and class title moved a viewer to a clearer understanding of the slightly blurred slide projection, which alone is 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 in the work, not as an externalized didactic element. This also served to take entire association away from the image being the central focus. The projection pragmatically highlighted the course information on the wall of a specific room and usage thereof inside this gallery space, which had become an extension of the classroom through its members albeit not its actual content.


As it happened, a poster advertisement was privately developed by some members of the exhibition and posted around campus. "Undergraduate Group Show" was the title included on the poster by the self-elected designers. It was nondescript, giving no rational as to why there was a group show by the people contributing to it other than through an affiliation as undergraduate students. 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 and in the midst of transition through the movement to 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 empty 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 object on a pedestal, had to initiate viewship through interaction. This primary action and shift into a discursive observer was a way for an individual to begin considering the work under a specific finitude. The interaction also enabled a certain level of privacy that was made in part by turning on and off the projector much like a private screening.