The following is a summary of what I have already set out in more detail in my learning log at aprocter231.wordpress.com

Background
Shipwrecks as archaeological sites provide valuable insights into the past. They have been considered as “time capsules” containing objects being used at the time of the sinking. Because of the precipitous nature of the sinking there was often no opportunity to remove objects and they remain as they were while in use at that time.

Wooden wrecks such as the Mary Rose (flagship of Henry VIII’s Vice Admiral of the Fleet, sank July 1545) may be preserved for many years allowing recovery and interpretation of artefacts. The systematic exploration of such an archaeological site depends on the careful recording of where precisely each object was found. In this way the spatial relationship of one object to another is recorded and from that spatial information, function may be inferred. The Mary Rose has revealed huge number of artefacts and a unique insight into Tudor life because of this.

Iron and steel wrecks are not preserved in seawater and decay much more rapidly and as a result there will not be a similar archaeological record for these. Amateur divers regularly dive the wrecks of iron and steel vessels in relatively shallow, coastal waters. Some of them do this as part of systematic investigations of the wreck, but most are informal almost “sightseeing” trips to the wreck. These latter divers often take objects from the wrecks as souvenirs and build up small, unsystematic collections. For many wrecks these collections may soon be all that remain as the iron and steel decay.

These objects recovered by amateur divers lack contextual information and therefore are unable to contribute to knowledge about their use or the wrecksite more generally.
It is the lack of contextual information about the objects in these collections and their isolation and separation from their origins which I want to try and capture in my Project. By so doing I hope to highlight the importance of recording finds so that an effective record of this aspect of nautical history can be recorded.

Approaches
I have obtained a number of objects recovered by amateur divers and I considered several ways of photographing them.

I explored images of the objects as items of interior design, as museum exhibits and as “trophies”. However I believe none of these approaches encapsulated the lack of contextual information about them.

I adopted an approach used by Robert Enoch in his image of cyanide and by Lisa Draycot in images of taxidermied animals. These photographers showed their subjects against a black background removing contextual cues and thereby enabling the observer to bring their own preconceptions to the image.
Technical aspects
I adopted a view-point (ie camera position) as if the observer had the object in their hand. This enabled viewing of the object with a “normal” perspective, regardless of the size of the object. The objects vary in size, but are all presented in the images as filling the same amount of the frame. I used small aperture to give a depth of field to have the entire object in focus.

I positioned the objects some distance from a black background and on a black surface. I used two flashes with softboxes to light the objects and minimise the light on the background. Some detail can be seen of the surface on which the objects sit, but I have minimised this with exposure adjustments in Lightroom.

Evaluation
What Worked Well
The final images I have made show artefacts recovered by amateur divers on a black surface against a black background. This was the effect I tried to achieve and in general has worked well.

The objects are appropriately lit and focussed.

What didn’t work so well
There are elements of the background apparent in some of the images and in those arranged along the diagonal of the frame may appear somewhat strange. (I composed the image on the diagonal by tilting the camera so as to maximise the size of the image).

In some images traces of a support (“Blutack”) can be seen.
I am not sure that the images in the series are linked in any way, any one image could be removed without it affecting the overall series. These are a random set of objects which were available to me.
What I Would do in the Future to Improve This
The major improvement would be to somehow make the objects linked to each other. However, as the whole point of this series is that the objects are now isolated, removed from their original context it is hard to see how this could be achieved and not affect the overall aim of the series.

The other thing I would do is explore more ways of photographing such objects and the technique of displaying, mounting and lighting the objects to most effectively show them separate from their background.

I have tried to analyse the work against the assessment criteria points for the course.
• Demonstration of technical and visual skills – Materials, techniques, observational skills, visual awareness, design and compositional skills.
I believe that the images in this series, and those I took in the development of my approach show sound technical skills. I chose a viewpoint to model that of an observer with the object in their hand so as not to distort the perspective. I have photographed the objects in a setting where they are isolated from their backgrounds. I have lit the subjects so that detail is shown and the images are appropriately exposed and in focus.

I could have achieved a separation from the surroundings using post-processing with Photoshop or similar, but have been able to achieve this effect with the setting and lighting. There are images where it is clear the object is sitting on a surface (most obvious in Artefact #2) however I am not sure if this detracts or enhances the effect – what can be seen of the surface lacks any contextual detail, and serves to demonstrate that I have not used a post-processing manipulation of the image.

In terms of composition – I chose a square format to avoid giving any cue as to the orientation of the object. The composition is of its nature very simple.

• Quality of outcome – Content, application of knowledge, presentation of work in a coherent manner, discernment, conceptualisation of thoughts, communication of
ideas.
In my blog I have explained the background to the work, and the effect I have tried to achieve. I have not yet sought other people’s views on this, but will be doing so.

• Demonstration of creativity – Imagination, experimentation, invention.
I have not used these techniques of lighting and composition in a “studio” before – so for me this was quite experimental. I cite similar works in my influences, but do not know the techniques those photographers used to achieve their result. The initial approach I had to the subjects of images of the objects in their normal locations and as museum displays is perhaps an obvious way to show these, but I believe fails to highlight the lack of important context which characterise these objects.

• Context – Reflection, research, critical thinking.
I have tried to reflect on my project as I developed it and looked at some other types of image of these types of collections.

What Worked Well

The final images I have made show artefacts recovered by amateur divers on a black surface against a black background. This was the effect I tried to achieve and in general has worked well.

The objects are appropriately lit and focussed.

What didn’t work so well

There are elements of the background apparent in some of the  images and in those arranged along the diagonal of the frame may appear somewhat strange. (I composed the image on the diagonal by tilting the camera so as to maximise the size of the image). In some images traces of a support (“Blutack”) can be seen.

I am not sure that the images in the series are linked in any way, any one image could be removed without it affecting the overall series. These are a random set of objects which were available to me.

What I Would do in the Future to Improve This

The major improvement would be to somehow make the objects linked to each other. However, as the whole point of this series is that the objects are now isolated, removed from their original context it is hard to see how this could be achieved and not affect the overall aim of the series.

The other thing I would do is explore more ways of photographing such objects and the technique of displaying, mounting and lighting the objects to most effectively show them separate from their background.

Influences

The image of cyanide by Robert Enoch appears that of an anonymous white powder. As such it is then open to the observer to put his or her own interpretation and expectations onto that image. There are no clues in this image as to what the substance is. It is on a black base with a black background with no other detail than the powder itself.

The work of Liza Dracup in her work “Re Collections” is of taxidermied birds and animals. These are also set on a black background with no context included. As I have previously cited critic Michael Prodger as describing Lisa Dracup’s work as “not about capturing a particular moment in time but about timelessness.” In this case the lack of context relates not only to what something is and where it is from, but also when it was in existence.

‘Stoat’ – Liza Dracup

‘Greenfinch and Weasel’ – Liza Dracup

Setting the subject against a plain dark background takes away some of the contextual cues for the observer. I have used this technique in other photographs I have taken of marine life underwater.

Thus it is my aim to replicate aspects of these images in a studio with the artefacts. This approach will not only take them out of any context, but model the appearance of a subject underwater.
Technical Details
I have chosen a subject to camera distance to make the object look as if it is in the observer’s hand – like this.

That is about 500mm, so have adjusted the focal length accordingly to compose the shot. I have also used an aperture to keep all the subject in focus, but render the background out of focus.

I have set up a black background some distance behind my subject and photographed the subjects on a black cloth. I have lit the subject with flash, and modelled the two flash arrangement I used in the underwater images. For the glasses I used  a combination of  direct light and some back light. To minimise shadows I have used softboxes on my flashes. The arrangement is shown below.

The images are shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom with minor adjustments of local exposure. I have chosen a square format for all the images as this seems deliberately ambiguous and removes any clues about orientation.

I considered representing my artefacts as objects from historical collections (which they are).

Examples of how such objects may be displayed include the images from the Mary Rose Collection. Some of these are shown below.

These images show the objects catalogued (with reference numbers included) and a scale bar to show their size. They are against a neutral background and show the detail of the objects.

I tried to replicate this with images of some of the objects I have. I have made catalogue labels and typed these on an old typewriter to attempt to model the appearance of an old collection. These are show below.

Technical Information
Again, I chose a focal length of lens adequate to fill the frame, but show the object from a distance comparable to that which someone would view this as an exhibit in a museum. I have used an aperture to maintain a depth of field to have the object, scale bar and label in focus. I have used flash lighting as these were indoors and I wanted control of the lighting to best demonstrate the features of the objects.

Critique
Technically, these images appear to me to meet the aim I had set myself. They show the objects in a similar way to those from the Mary Rose collection. There are some shadows, but these highlight the detail especially on the spoons. My main concern regarding these images is the composition – I have had difficulty positioning the elements in a satisfactory arrangement the horizontal and vertical elements are not all in line, and this could warrant further work.

The other critique I have of these images and this approach is that depicting these objects in this way implies that we know more about them than we do. That they are catalogued and recorded systematically. However the fundamental aspect of them that I am trying to capture is that they have been removed from their background and origins, and we have therefore lost the contextual information to make sense of them.
For this reason I have tried another approach.

I began by considering that the amateur diver collects artefacts as souvenirs or trophies. Extending the concept of trophy I considered depicting these objects in a manner analogous to the trophies of big game and other hunters.

There are two approaches to this which I examined:

The first is the formal portraiture of the hunter with his trophy and I found examples of early depictions of these.

The historical image by Mollard, shows a pair of hunters with their catch.

A later image by Barnett of a African big game hunter also shows the game and from his stance and bearing, we infer the pride he has in his achievement.

One approach I have considered was to replicate this type of image with the diver holding his “trophy”. I have had offers from subjects who are willing to sit for such portraits, but have not yet had the opportunity to do this.

The trophies of hunters have often been displayed in houses and form an iconic aspect of the grand country house. This feature of interior design continues to be employed by contemporary designers – even if the owners of the house did not shoot the animal themselves. Thus taxidermy heads may be used to create a impression of the classic country house and I show an example below.

I have tried showing the artefacts as they are displayed in the divers’ homes, and examples are below.

This approach has the advantage of showing how out of context the artefacts are – how they have lost their connection with their origins and are now reduced to objects of interior design.

Technical Information

These are images of artefacts in the divers’ homes in the position where they are normally displayed. They were all on window sills so back lit. I chose to use flash to supplement the ambient light to better display the objects.

I have chosen viewpoints at a distance where they might normally be viewed, so have selected a focal length of lens to match this. This gives the object itself a relatively “normal” perspective. In the images of “ornament 1” and “plant pot holder”, I used an aperture to give a depth of field sufficient to have the surrounding objects in focus as I considered these to be show the important context in which the objects are displayed. In “Ornament 2” I have used a larger aperture and thereby have shallow depth of field to render the detail of the window out of focus and allow the observer to concentrate on the artefact and surrounding two objects.

The images have been shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom, to crop to a 10×8 landscape format for each which is consistent and frames the objects and their surroundings appropriately. I made minor adjustments of exposure only.

Damien Hirst: Treasures of the Unbelievable”

The exhibition by Damien Hirst “Treasures of the Unbelievable” was an exhibition of objects supposedly recovered from a wreck off the East African coast (https://news.artnet.com/art-world/damien-hirst-review-918074). The exhibition included film and photographs explaining the back story to these objects, and their “recovery” is described in Hirst’s film of the same name (https://www.netflix.com/title/80217857). While the works in the exhibition and the style are not a direct influence on my project, this series of works by Hirst demonstrates the importance of context in interpreting and explaining the significance of objects.

The objects look as if they have been recovered from a shipwreck, they are covered in coral and encrustations. However they are given meaning by the elaborate descriptions of the discovery and recovery of the wreck and its “history” which was set out in other elements of the exhibition and the subsequent “documentary” film.

The “Lion Woman of Asit Mayor” is covered with encrustations, like a real recovered artefact. The film includes scenes showing the “excavation” of the wreck, and the same attention to detailed recording as would be made in an archaeological survey.

The importance of this work to my project is that these objects were never underwater, but are given meaning by the context Hirst has created. The objects I will photograph, were underwater and are from real wrecks but many have now lost their contextual information and background and tell us little.

Shipwrecks as archaeological sites provide valuable insights into the past. They have been considered as “time capsules” containing objects being used at the time of the sinking. Because of the precipitous nature of the sinking there was often no opportunity to remove objects and they remain as they were while in use at that time.

One such example is the wreck of the Mary Rose; flagship of Henry VIII’s Vice Admiral of the Fleet. The Mary Rose sank in the Solent on 19 July 1545 with the loss of hundreds of lives. Despite attempts at salvage by Venetian salvors, much of the Mary Rose sank into the soft sediments of the seabed and was eventually covered by hard mud and protected from erosion. Following the re-discovery of the wrecksite in the 1960’s the wreck was systematically excavated and mapped until it was raised in 1982. The wreck has revealed a remarkable collection of objects and a substantial part of the hull as well as the bodies of the men who died during the sinking.

Wooden wrecks like the Mary Rose may be preserved for many years allowing such recovery. This is illustrated by the recent discovery of the wreck of a Greek vessel in the Black Sea, which is thought to have sunk 2400 years ago (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45951132 accessed 09/01/2019). However iron and steel wrecks are not preserved in seawater and decay much more rapidly. Reports of the condition of the Titanic indicate it is decaying due to a combination of several factors including the effects of ocean currents, chemical reactions between sea water and the iron and steel, and the effect of marine organisms. (eg https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100818-titanic-3-d-expedition-shipwreck-science-collapsing/)

Similarly the less high profile, but popular dive site, the wreck of the Thesis in the Sound of Mull, Scotland, is similarly decaying. Following a major collapse of the bow of the wreck a few years ago, a survey in 2015 by the Scottish maritime archaeology project, SAMPHIRE, concluded this was due to the “fragile and highly corroded nature of the surviving elements of the bow structure” (http://blogs.wessexarch.co.uk/samphire/2015/07/06/defending-the-thesis/).

The artefacts recovered by projects such as the Mary Rose Trust provide an insight into the functioning of the ancient ship and life on board at that time. However if the iron and steel wreck decay as they appear to do, there will not be a similar archaeological record for these.

Amateur divers regularly dive the wrecks of iron and steel vessels in relatively shallow, coastal waters. Some of them do this as part of systematic investigations of the wreck, but most are informal almost “sightseeing” trips to the wreck. These latter divers often take objects from the wrecks as souvenirs and build up small, unsystematic collections. For many wrecks these collections may soon be all that remain as the iron and steel decay.

Wreck Policies and Legislation
There is legislation regarding the removal of objects from wrecks. Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, all wreck material regardless of size or significance must be reported to the Receiver of Wreck if it is recovered from within UK territorial waters or recovered outside the UK and brought within UK territorial waters. Reporting requires completion of a Report of wreck and salvage form which is then sent to the Receiver of Wreck within 28 days of the recovery of the object.

The National Governing body for Sport Diving, The British Sub-Aqua Club, BSAC) has a policy to remind divers about the legal position, “Respect our Wrecks” ( https://www.bsac.com/advice-and-support/respect-our-wrecks/respect-our-wrecks-policy/). This BSAC policy also however promotes that divers should explore wrecks but not damage or disturb them and take photos rather than souvenirs. Because many wrecks have an important history, reporting finds to the Receiver of Wreck, enables such information to be passed to archaeological experts.

Archaeological Interpretation
The systematic exploration of an archaeological site depends on the careful recording of where precisely each object was found. In this way the spatial relationship of one object to another is recorded and from that spatial information, function may be inferred.
An example of this is that of a shaving mirror recovered from the Mary Rose.

This was found in a chest outside the carpenter’s cabin, possibly indicating who it belonged to and their social status. There was no glass in the mirror when found, but fragments found nearby indicating that this object, which in itself does not look like a it, was indeed a mirror. Alongside it was a razor and shaving brush indicating it was likely to be a shaving mirror rather than some other type. This wealth of knowledge about a small, apparently unassuming object has only been pieced together by knowing the spatial context of the object and what surrounded it.

The objects recovered by amateur divers as “souvenirs” lack this context and therefore are unable to contribute to knowledge about their use or the wrecksite more generally.
It is the lack of contextual information about the objects in these collections and their isolation and separation from their origins which I want to try and capture in my Project. By so doing I hope to highlight the importance of recording and declaring finds to the Receiver of Wreck so that an effective record of this aspect of nautical history can be recorded.