After successfully getting the caravan from Friday to Tuesday, and ripping out as much as I could of it, I came to a standstill last week - what did I do with all this stuff? I had a studio space full of dirty bits of caravan interior, and the only thing I could imagine doing with it was rebuilding it back in the shape of the caravan. My initial ideas were to rebuild the interior, with added seats and curtains and these "lived in" touches, and then project a Super 8 film onto the window. My main concern was that one of these peices would become redundant - that actually, I didn't need the interior if it just became a seating area for watching the film, or that I didn't need the film if the interior was far more exciting to the viewer. I also didn't just want an installation where the caravan became "twee", just a novelty, and that my ideas got lost in the setting up of an installation. After talking to both Louisa and Rory, I think my concerns were backed up, and that I could do so much more with this really exciting oppurtunity than just set it up again.

I think that really, this is the ideal oppurtunity to think about my audience, and how they will respond to the interior of the caravan. I have reservations about the word "installation" - it denotes to me the exact twee-ness that I am trying to avoid - I want the viewer to feel a disgust, a claustrophobia, the torment that I feel with caravans, and that is so often left out of happy holiday photos and films. I read a text from the brief, "But is it installation art?" by Claire Bishop in Tate etc. I liked the idea of the term "display" rather than installation; and also that a lot of artists don't like this term. I've also been reading a text in my image and culture elective relating to reception aesthetics and phenomenology that really interested me, and gave me insight into how a viewer puts themselves into a piece of work.

The image above is part of an installation "Hypnodreamduff" by Georgina Starr, set up in Tate Britain. The idea is very similar to my own, in that a film plays in the interior of a caravan and the viewer has to get into the caravan and experience this to view the film (which incidentally is set in the caravan the viewer is in) and complete the story. I think this example reiterates my feeling that if I play the film inside the caravan, the viewer doesn't take note of the interior and this is redundant. Starr's film is directly related to the interior, whereas mine wouldn't be so obvious.

I think for me, the strength in my work comes from the audience's interaction and direct contact with the work (as in my meat project) and my main interest lies in the physicality of the pieces of caravan - this is what I need to explore the most, and how the audience reacts to this.