Susie, Mary, Merlyn Riggs (3rd year sculpture) and I head to Edinburgh today, to see the Edinburgh Art School degree show. This is a monster show with BaHons, MA and MFA (departments!) on show. BaHons Sculpture alone has 32 graduates…
Before we head to the art school, we see Aernout Mik’s show at the Fruitmarket Gallery. Four video installations, three of which are “fiction” and one which is “real wartime footage”. The first room we enter has one solitary video playing on a large back-projected screen sitting on the ground, as if the rectangle is an invitation into a parallel world, we could so easily step into. The scene presented appears to be a hostage situation (the notes liken it to the recent New Orleans / hurricane Katrina disaster, where locals were herded into the astrodome and “controlled” by national guard) I didn’t see this correlation, the scene was too sinister for that. For me, the work seemed more eastern European – therefore depicting the recent Beslan and Moscow Theatre siege, but this is where the comparison ends. If one was to casually observe this footage, that is, to pay no heed to it, to see it, but to not look closely, one would assume it was footage of a hostage situation, aggressors in uniform, victims in tatty attire (clinging to plastic bags full of possessions etc), but, when we look closely, we see that the aggressors are not too aggressive, they do organise (line up, prod and move) the “captives” in what appears to be menacing ways, but no physical harm comes to the people. It is also interesting to hear (or “not” as the case is) that there is no sound to this video. This point interests me, it is not a silent movie in the traditional sense – my understanding is that the sound is purposefully removed, in order to create ambiguity – it is the lack of information (aurally) that leads our brains to assume many aspects of the picture. If we heard shouting, aggressive and demanding vocals from the “soldiers”, if we heard whimpering, crying and pleading from the “captives” the work would be more definitive – it is our imaginations that keep us captivated by this situation unfolding. The sensory denial of sound, could also be reflective upon torture methods, sensory deprivation and overload are common techniques employed by torturers to keep their subjects second guessing, psychological warfare is cruel – but in an artistic context, it is another vehicle to “safely” test our perceptions and notions of our place in the world, we know we can walk out of the gallery at any point, where we feel uncomfortable. The seemingly unending act (we’re told) lasts for 40 minutes (we watch for 10). I get the feeling that nothing is going to happen in those 40 mins that we have not seen in 10 – perhaps this is a metaphor for the state of politics in the world – a sense of brinkmanship, North Korea VS the US, Iran with their nuclear weapons / energy and the US’s opposition to it – we seem to be in a state of flux – seemingly perpetual danger, but ultimately no resolve or peak. It is interesting to watch a work with no sound, no seeming direction, narratives and stories are conjured up when we engage with the work, imagined histories and lives are created in our minds, this is all derived from a contextual analysis of our visual inputs – uniforms + guns = oppressors, tatty clothes, unwashed, dishevelled faces = oppressed, or is it that we are looking at a group of terrorists being controlled by a brave and careful peace core? – this is where the openness of the work seems to leave that decision up to the viewer, it questions our perception of the visual, in a war / siege context, we base our assumptions on the histories and current affairs presented to us by the media. We assume a side, we can not be neutral when watching scenes of seeming imbalance
Monday, 25 June 2007
Sunday, 24 June 2007
Conservapedia
Collecting more URLs on the application / sense checking of technologies. I’ve been getting a steady stream of questionnaires sent back. Many people are filling in the answers with one liners, several are giving fuller, more considered answers. I am finding it interesting that the people that seem to know what truth is, in one line don’t have much to say about the subject. Whether it is because the questionnaire takes too long to fill in, or they just don’t think to much about the concept of truth, I’ll never know.
I saw on Jon Stewart’s “daily show” (more 4) that “www.conservapedia.com” (“An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.”) has been created to combat “the liberal propaganda that is wikipedia”… I check it out, and find that it is nearly identical (in look and feel) to Wikipedia (I later find out on a discussion board that this is because the software used to create “wiki’s” (Wiki is the Hawaiian word for “fast”) – so it appears that “wikipedia” has turned into the genericised trademark for user driven information collation and editing (when it is in fact, just one of many “wiki’s”). I was interested to see that the bloggers were disgusted by the apparent “pastiche” (or cloning) of wikipedia – as if conservapedia were trying to covertly steal or assimilate the market on “truthful information” – an insult to any “liberal minded web-goer”. It’s fascinating to see how passionate people can get over the apparent injustice of using information for political / religious gains, in the context of “a truly democratic medium” – the internet.
I tested conservapedia, the schoolboy test – “cunt”: “This page has been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation” (whereas wikipedia has a word count of 6,701 giving information about the word.
“Jesus Christ” has 2,016 words in Conservapedia, and Wikipedia has 14,090 words. Word count alone, does not make a collection of information any more valid, it indeed could contain 90% non-factual information!, but, the interesting aspect of the content, is that Wikipedia presents all aspects of information, from Christian accounts of Jesus as well as Islamic, Jewish, Hindu etc (although I did not see any Satanists points of view!) Historical information, “questions of reliability” all give the user (reader) a far greater breadth of information for them to then base their own opinions on, whereas Conservapedia only state Christian points of view, no consideration of any external religions – alternative ideas about the existence of Jesus Christ.
It is widespread throughout Conservapedia – the lack of broad, all encompassing information. “Conservatism” as an ideology is to be limited, to refuse to change from the status quo (“to conserve” is to keep, to retain and preserve). I can understand why it exists, people fear change, they fear the unknown – and with questioning “known givens” we open ourselves to unknowns. If progress is how humans evolve, we need change (it is the essence of evolution) – it is ironic that even fundamental conservatives (in most Christian circles) that evolution is nonsense – that the possibility of “nothing” evolving into “humans” is absurd. This is where my questioning, inquisitive mind would ask, “so where did your god come from?” – to which the answer is always “god has always existed”….we then delve into a world of human-centric argument based on assumptions and feelings, not of hard evidence and “fact”…which Is where I will stop this rant, merely to summarise that:
Information is at our fingertips, myriads of perspectives, points of view, fact and fiction, argument and evidence. We are presented this information in many forms, TV, radio, books, papers and most recently, the Internet. With all this conflicting information – it is evident that there are no truths (if there are, they are lost under a weight of opinion) – even if a scientific fact is undeniable – unquestionable, people can still disbelieve it due to indoctrinated scepticism, Religious Vs Scientific, Logical Vs Emotional. Like life, there will always have to be opposites, opposites create conflict, conflict is energy, and when there is no energy, entropy and nothingness take hold.
I saw on Jon Stewart’s “daily show” (more 4) that “www.conservapedia.com” (“An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.”) has been created to combat “the liberal propaganda that is wikipedia”… I check it out, and find that it is nearly identical (in look and feel) to Wikipedia (I later find out on a discussion board that this is because the software used to create “wiki’s” (Wiki is the Hawaiian word for “fast”) – so it appears that “wikipedia” has turned into the genericised trademark for user driven information collation and editing (when it is in fact, just one of many “wiki’s”). I was interested to see that the bloggers were disgusted by the apparent “pastiche” (or cloning) of wikipedia – as if conservapedia were trying to covertly steal or assimilate the market on “truthful information” – an insult to any “liberal minded web-goer”. It’s fascinating to see how passionate people can get over the apparent injustice of using information for political / religious gains, in the context of “a truly democratic medium” – the internet.
I tested conservapedia, the schoolboy test – “cunt”: “This page has been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation” (whereas wikipedia has a word count of 6,701 giving information about the word.
“Jesus Christ” has 2,016 words in Conservapedia, and Wikipedia has 14,090 words. Word count alone, does not make a collection of information any more valid, it indeed could contain 90% non-factual information!, but, the interesting aspect of the content, is that Wikipedia presents all aspects of information, from Christian accounts of Jesus as well as Islamic, Jewish, Hindu etc (although I did not see any Satanists points of view!) Historical information, “questions of reliability” all give the user (reader) a far greater breadth of information for them to then base their own opinions on, whereas Conservapedia only state Christian points of view, no consideration of any external religions – alternative ideas about the existence of Jesus Christ.
It is widespread throughout Conservapedia – the lack of broad, all encompassing information. “Conservatism” as an ideology is to be limited, to refuse to change from the status quo (“to conserve” is to keep, to retain and preserve). I can understand why it exists, people fear change, they fear the unknown – and with questioning “known givens” we open ourselves to unknowns. If progress is how humans evolve, we need change (it is the essence of evolution) – it is ironic that even fundamental conservatives (in most Christian circles) that evolution is nonsense – that the possibility of “nothing” evolving into “humans” is absurd. This is where my questioning, inquisitive mind would ask, “so where did your god come from?” – to which the answer is always “god has always existed”….we then delve into a world of human-centric argument based on assumptions and feelings, not of hard evidence and “fact”…which Is where I will stop this rant, merely to summarise that:
Information is at our fingertips, myriads of perspectives, points of view, fact and fiction, argument and evidence. We are presented this information in many forms, TV, radio, books, papers and most recently, the Internet. With all this conflicting information – it is evident that there are no truths (if there are, they are lost under a weight of opinion) – even if a scientific fact is undeniable – unquestionable, people can still disbelieve it due to indoctrinated scepticism, Religious Vs Scientific, Logical Vs Emotional. Like life, there will always have to be opposites, opposites create conflict, conflict is energy, and when there is no energy, entropy and nothingness take hold.
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Sketchbook flurry
After yesterday’s fantastic insight into Steve’s brain, how he sees and assesses a space (how we should ultimately see and think of all aspects of our work and placement of it) I start to feel quite excited about it. I need to get in and start playing in the space (Gray’s). His parting advice yesterday was “Keep busy, keep writing” (special study). I need to start to bash out ideas and just “start writing” (as the man said!).
I sketched out some rough Ideas on some of the experiments I’d like to construct. It’s a flood of ideas, one leading to another. I’ve been inspired, but I need to make sure I don’t tie these thoughts down, without playing with the concepts first. I know I need to work with specific elements (design, text, computers, INFORMATION) but I shouldn’t pre-empt the whole process of creating works. I do want to thread through ideas from previous works (Steve talks of his interest in how I saw the “you and I” installation develop through to the INtent experiment, and how it “appeared” to be open to input / ideas from the public (all be it a stoned 20 something). It is that openness – undefined but created by me. It is that quest to create something that can survive and exist on its own merits through me that will get me the MFA, it is that understanding that creating an artwork must be unrestrained by my simplistic definitions (“find your language Phil”). It is in reading periodicals and reviews that one can start to obtain the language for discourse – intellectual vocabulary that gives authority and conviction to my practice. I’ve got the ideas, sure, I’ve got the ability to create and “release” work into the wide world. It is my inability to talk about it without pitching (Jo and Tom) and without constraining the concepts within the work for an audience (Steve).
I sketched out some rough Ideas on some of the experiments I’d like to construct. It’s a flood of ideas, one leading to another. I’ve been inspired, but I need to make sure I don’t tie these thoughts down, without playing with the concepts first. I know I need to work with specific elements (design, text, computers, INFORMATION) but I shouldn’t pre-empt the whole process of creating works. I do want to thread through ideas from previous works (Steve talks of his interest in how I saw the “you and I” installation develop through to the INtent experiment, and how it “appeared” to be open to input / ideas from the public (all be it a stoned 20 something). It is that openness – undefined but created by me. It is that quest to create something that can survive and exist on its own merits through me that will get me the MFA, it is that understanding that creating an artwork must be unrestrained by my simplistic definitions (“find your language Phil”). It is in reading periodicals and reviews that one can start to obtain the language for discourse – intellectual vocabulary that gives authority and conviction to my practice. I’ve got the ideas, sure, I’ve got the ability to create and “release” work into the wide world. It is my inability to talk about it without pitching (Jo and Tom) and without constraining the concepts within the work for an audience (Steve).
walk round the degree show
We aim to have a group crit with Steve, to discuss several of our special studies in a group...but only Susie, Mary and I turn up for it. We start to bumble through some personal stuff, it doesn't feel right, Steve looks like he'd rather not be wasting his time here, so he suggests we take a stroll round the show, and crit others work, and keep note of the spaces and possibilities for our show / work.
We head to Kelly Connor's video works on level 2.5 ... the painting storeroom...a strange but fascinating space to show work. She has several videos, all looking at "energy", we have a hotplate with water dripping onto it, a smelting / casting video, a communications tower flickering on a hilltop, a tractor ploughing and gulls fleeing and returning, a drain being unblocked and the piece de resistance, several projected workmen, stretching down the entire length of a cramped and cluttered space holding old frames, stretchers, sculptures etc. We stay in the space discussing the merits of the work. Steve is an excellent guide; his insights (or ideas) around the works are very enlightening. I crudely convey points of view...my conversation with Kelly from Monday...I tentatively put the idea that I see the workmen as ghosts or residues of previous occupants, dutifully sorting, ordering and dismantling objects. It is amazing the ideas that a few pixels can invoke, when projected into an interesting space. If this were "just" on a wall, a traditional white backdrop, it wouldn't have any of the impact. It would appear as a documentary of a process. This is the lesson Steve wants us to have, an understanding of the context of space and place. How this is integral and essential to the meaning of the work we produce. It should be one of the main considerations of our placement and creation of work. I also venture an honest comment about the smelting / casting work. "I don't quite "get it", I see it as a documentation of a process, and as nothing else". Steve kindly explains the possibilities (by "looking at the wider context") - he talks of the videos relationship to the others in the room, he talks of the concepts of energy within the making of an ingot - as well as the energy it takes to "show" the work inside the TV. He takes the TV's construction into the equation, the constraints of technology - the slickness Vs the ancient methods of casting. He talks of the colours within the work, "talking" to the shining lights of the transmitter video ... It is this level of detail and consideration I too must embrace, if I have any chance of passing the MFA. Steve is obviously street ahead in this practice, but I think it's the confidence to think outside the box, to think and consider all the possibilities that enter my head when looking at work, I must embrace the bizarre and the strange, I must think outside the box - to push my understanding and practice at the same time. I must apply these same rigorous considerations to ensure that my work can hold up to scrutiny, so I can talk about the work on all levels. I must find my language, as Jo and Tom said last semester.
We head to PEM (Photographic Electronic Media), and explore the well crafted and prepared spaces. We note that the context is far more traditional in presentation, the use of screen (not as story teller, but the "comfortable" conveyor of image). There are not many surprises here, but the work is professional, the work is considered. We agree and disagree that several works "do it" for us, but we all agree that the professionalism shines through in these two departments (sculpture and PEM).
We head to sculpture, and I confidently talk about Martin Nelson’s work, as I've had a few discussions with him about his work (and development). I actually sound convincing, I have a lot of ideas about his work, it seems to speak to me, to allow me to speak for it. I "get it" on several levels...would I if I had not have met the man? If he hadn't told me of his intentions and development of the work? I do consider the work "at face value", but I also start to disassemble the concepts by questioning the content and material of the work. The premise is, the floor sculptures are binary representations = building blocks based on 1's and 0's, where groups of 1's present us with cubes in relative ratios. I speak to Steve about the material, as if the work was "about absolutes" (1 & 0), yet the material that makes this point, (wood) is also representative of another subatomic level of this "simplification". I liken it to atoms, scientists used to think that atoms were the smallest things that make "everything"...but we now know that quarks, Muons, Nuons, Higgs Boson particles etc make up atoms... so it is this complexity within a simple system that are offered to us...levelled consideration (perhaps not by the artist, but certainly by an intelligent and highly critical audience). It is the investment of time that affords us the opportunity to consider a work fully... We skitter round the rest of sculpture, we read statements and dissect people’s understanding and approach to work making. Several statements are picked out by Steve and held up to scrutiny, ambiguous (in a bad way), far to undefined and un-informing us of their intentions – I take note. He also makes us scrutinise the space (sans art), how perfect it appears, this enables the focus on the work – no deviation or distraction for the eye – concentrating our gaze on the art. Which takes us to printmaking and painting.
Looking at the spaces, the painters care only for the paint on the canvas. We see many large paintings, surrounded by shabby, taped and mucky walls. Is it indicative of the single mindedness of the painters? “You should look at only the painting on the wall” – fair point, but surely to enhance that clean focus, maintenance and sprucing up the very vessels that support “your art” would certainly create a better experience for art and audience? It is this level of detail that strikes me, where Steve is concerned…to know that this man looks at the floor, the ceiling, the walls before even considering the art, is amazing. I need to start being as rigorous, to expend that much energy into critically assessing space, context and art. The message I get is, become the picky critic, know the areas that need addressing, before someone else points them out to you. It’s that knowledge that gives you the strength; conviction and confidence to say “I am in control of this”, to deftly beat the critics off at the pass, to think for them, before them.
Indeed, this is the crux of the MFA, the advancement of my practice through rigorous, critical assessment. It is raising awareness of detail, in areas that one wouldn’t necessarily consider “essential” to creation of work. It is the next level of professional development. Knowing that context, placement and rigor (research, execution and discourse around the subject) is crucial. If I didn’t consider the walls, floor, dust and detritus piling up in the corner of the room, I will now! This feels good, to start to get this tour, we’re having a very worthy afternoon.
We head to Kelly Connor's video works on level 2.5 ... the painting storeroom...a strange but fascinating space to show work. She has several videos, all looking at "energy", we have a hotplate with water dripping onto it, a smelting / casting video, a communications tower flickering on a hilltop, a tractor ploughing and gulls fleeing and returning, a drain being unblocked and the piece de resistance, several projected workmen, stretching down the entire length of a cramped and cluttered space holding old frames, stretchers, sculptures etc. We stay in the space discussing the merits of the work. Steve is an excellent guide; his insights (or ideas) around the works are very enlightening. I crudely convey points of view...my conversation with Kelly from Monday...I tentatively put the idea that I see the workmen as ghosts or residues of previous occupants, dutifully sorting, ordering and dismantling objects. It is amazing the ideas that a few pixels can invoke, when projected into an interesting space. If this were "just" on a wall, a traditional white backdrop, it wouldn't have any of the impact. It would appear as a documentary of a process. This is the lesson Steve wants us to have, an understanding of the context of space and place. How this is integral and essential to the meaning of the work we produce. It should be one of the main considerations of our placement and creation of work. I also venture an honest comment about the smelting / casting work. "I don't quite "get it", I see it as a documentation of a process, and as nothing else". Steve kindly explains the possibilities (by "looking at the wider context") - he talks of the videos relationship to the others in the room, he talks of the concepts of energy within the making of an ingot - as well as the energy it takes to "show" the work inside the TV. He takes the TV's construction into the equation, the constraints of technology - the slickness Vs the ancient methods of casting. He talks of the colours within the work, "talking" to the shining lights of the transmitter video ... It is this level of detail and consideration I too must embrace, if I have any chance of passing the MFA. Steve is obviously street ahead in this practice, but I think it's the confidence to think outside the box, to think and consider all the possibilities that enter my head when looking at work, I must embrace the bizarre and the strange, I must think outside the box - to push my understanding and practice at the same time. I must apply these same rigorous considerations to ensure that my work can hold up to scrutiny, so I can talk about the work on all levels. I must find my language, as Jo and Tom said last semester.
We head to PEM (Photographic Electronic Media), and explore the well crafted and prepared spaces. We note that the context is far more traditional in presentation, the use of screen (not as story teller, but the "comfortable" conveyor of image). There are not many surprises here, but the work is professional, the work is considered. We agree and disagree that several works "do it" for us, but we all agree that the professionalism shines through in these two departments (sculpture and PEM).
We head to sculpture, and I confidently talk about Martin Nelson’s work, as I've had a few discussions with him about his work (and development). I actually sound convincing, I have a lot of ideas about his work, it seems to speak to me, to allow me to speak for it. I "get it" on several levels...would I if I had not have met the man? If he hadn't told me of his intentions and development of the work? I do consider the work "at face value", but I also start to disassemble the concepts by questioning the content and material of the work. The premise is, the floor sculptures are binary representations = building blocks based on 1's and 0's, where groups of 1's present us with cubes in relative ratios. I speak to Steve about the material, as if the work was "about absolutes" (1 & 0), yet the material that makes this point, (wood) is also representative of another subatomic level of this "simplification". I liken it to atoms, scientists used to think that atoms were the smallest things that make "everything"...but we now know that quarks, Muons, Nuons, Higgs Boson particles etc make up atoms... so it is this complexity within a simple system that are offered to us...levelled consideration (perhaps not by the artist, but certainly by an intelligent and highly critical audience). It is the investment of time that affords us the opportunity to consider a work fully... We skitter round the rest of sculpture, we read statements and dissect people’s understanding and approach to work making. Several statements are picked out by Steve and held up to scrutiny, ambiguous (in a bad way), far to undefined and un-informing us of their intentions – I take note. He also makes us scrutinise the space (sans art), how perfect it appears, this enables the focus on the work – no deviation or distraction for the eye – concentrating our gaze on the art. Which takes us to printmaking and painting.
Looking at the spaces, the painters care only for the paint on the canvas. We see many large paintings, surrounded by shabby, taped and mucky walls. Is it indicative of the single mindedness of the painters? “You should look at only the painting on the wall” – fair point, but surely to enhance that clean focus, maintenance and sprucing up the very vessels that support “your art” would certainly create a better experience for art and audience? It is this level of detail that strikes me, where Steve is concerned…to know that this man looks at the floor, the ceiling, the walls before even considering the art, is amazing. I need to start being as rigorous, to expend that much energy into critically assessing space, context and art. The message I get is, become the picky critic, know the areas that need addressing, before someone else points them out to you. It’s that knowledge that gives you the strength; conviction and confidence to say “I am in control of this”, to deftly beat the critics off at the pass, to think for them, before them.
Indeed, this is the crux of the MFA, the advancement of my practice through rigorous, critical assessment. It is raising awareness of detail, in areas that one wouldn’t necessarily consider “essential” to creation of work. It is the next level of professional development. Knowing that context, placement and rigor (research, execution and discourse around the subject) is crucial. If I didn’t consider the walls, floor, dust and detritus piling up in the corner of the room, I will now! This feels good, to start to get this tour, we’re having a very worthy afternoon.
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Keep it open...let it breath
I meet with Steve Hollingsworth today, for a first crit of the MFA.
It is as helpful as it is confusing.
Steve is interested in the area of information within a media context. He warns me to steer clear of "dealing with the truth" ("there is no such thing as a truth").
I show him my questionnaire, and he doesn't seem too interested in it, he seems to think that its restrictive, or that I know what I'll get back from my limited participants...I thought it did (or has) brought several interesting points of view, about truth and trust, about how people perceive the words, and how they implement them in their everyday observations and interactions. I am particularly interested in the arguments that people have with themselves, when trying to specifically define something they take for granted. Steve does say that it's "rigorous" (my ears prick up, thinking this is a good thing), but he's disappointed that it seems so prescriptive.... I was hoping it was open and non prescriptive...think again peep.
We start to talk about the philosophy books I am reading at the moment, and I talk about my interest in Turin, and his interest in computers during the second world war, and how he subsequently developed a test (to which no one has yet satisfied) to create a computer / program that can fool people into thinking they are sentient or intelligent... I am still reading the texts, and continuing research in this area, I think (and Steve seemed to think too), that this was something to get my teeth into.
One Excellent piece of advice Steve gives me, is "don't just illustrate a philosophers theory"... I understand this to mean that I shouldn't take a set of ideas, and translate them literally into a work of art. Like making a bad conversation in a pc - to highlight (illustrate) the inaccuracy of a computer's ability to "converse" (for example)...
I have to remember this point. Steve also talks about not making things before I've found the room (within Gray’s). He's adamant that I should create works from experiments within the context of my research. Computers, Texts, Graphics. I am getting confused as to how one can make art form things that you don't know exist yet. I still don't feel right thinking of ideas - before I've got materials...but I do, and I come up with lots of them...but are these just illustrations? Just single point - non-expansive, non-poetic and tired obvious banalities?
"Don’t make something that looks like art"...I don't know quite how to know yet, what I make that IS are, and what "just looks like art"...
This criticism is the big killer for my creativity. I've been scared into non-action, I am petrified to even contemplate thinking about making anything now...I think I am even expected to only make something that fits within the Tutors understanding of "my strengths" (graphics). I want to make an installation; I want to create an experience for the senses. I want to make something that is experimental that does titillate the brain...and do I know what for that will take yet? No!...but I hope it isn't constrained by "graphics", it's too easy (for me)...but is it for the tutors? Are they "expecting" something they know I can make? (Surely that's a bad thing?) But, all this is conjecture, and I might just be paranoid and stupid.
It is as helpful as it is confusing.
Steve is interested in the area of information within a media context. He warns me to steer clear of "dealing with the truth" ("there is no such thing as a truth").
I show him my questionnaire, and he doesn't seem too interested in it, he seems to think that its restrictive, or that I know what I'll get back from my limited participants...I thought it did (or has) brought several interesting points of view, about truth and trust, about how people perceive the words, and how they implement them in their everyday observations and interactions. I am particularly interested in the arguments that people have with themselves, when trying to specifically define something they take for granted. Steve does say that it's "rigorous" (my ears prick up, thinking this is a good thing), but he's disappointed that it seems so prescriptive.... I was hoping it was open and non prescriptive...think again peep.
We start to talk about the philosophy books I am reading at the moment, and I talk about my interest in Turin, and his interest in computers during the second world war, and how he subsequently developed a test (to which no one has yet satisfied) to create a computer / program that can fool people into thinking they are sentient or intelligent... I am still reading the texts, and continuing research in this area, I think (and Steve seemed to think too), that this was something to get my teeth into.
One Excellent piece of advice Steve gives me, is "don't just illustrate a philosophers theory"... I understand this to mean that I shouldn't take a set of ideas, and translate them literally into a work of art. Like making a bad conversation in a pc - to highlight (illustrate) the inaccuracy of a computer's ability to "converse" (for example)...
I have to remember this point. Steve also talks about not making things before I've found the room (within Gray’s). He's adamant that I should create works from experiments within the context of my research. Computers, Texts, Graphics. I am getting confused as to how one can make art form things that you don't know exist yet. I still don't feel right thinking of ideas - before I've got materials...but I do, and I come up with lots of them...but are these just illustrations? Just single point - non-expansive, non-poetic and tired obvious banalities?
"Don’t make something that looks like art"...I don't know quite how to know yet, what I make that IS are, and what "just looks like art"...
This criticism is the big killer for my creativity. I've been scared into non-action, I am petrified to even contemplate thinking about making anything now...I think I am even expected to only make something that fits within the Tutors understanding of "my strengths" (graphics). I want to make an installation; I want to create an experience for the senses. I want to make something that is experimental that does titillate the brain...and do I know what for that will take yet? No!...but I hope it isn't constrained by "graphics", it's too easy (for me)...but is it for the tutors? Are they "expecting" something they know I can make? (Surely that's a bad thing?) But, all this is conjecture, and I might just be paranoid and stupid.
Sunday, 17 June 2007
inTent day 1
I'm in Gray's today, setting up the "you" part of my "you and I" installation for the public to get a taste of "interactive art". Anita Haywood, Merlyn Riggs, Moira Third, Mary Cane and Mark Duguid join me in presenting a broad spectrum of work to which the common theme is "interactivity”: art that is only "complete" when an audience makes it.
Moira asks the audience to describe photographs she's taken
Mark videos people "playing" to be then digitised and transported into a video world
Merlyn has several works, a closet of un-wearable cloths along with reasons as to why her participants can't wear them, a cloth to be cut and sewed back together, and a plaster sculpture waiting to be "made" through the destruction and declaration of where and why (with one hit) from the participant
Anita asks people to act Shakespeare, in any language but English
and my exploration of personal space, volume and colour...
it's a quiet day, just as well, we're all ironing out several problems, the set up takes longer than we all expected.
The TV I am given doesn't work, so I go home and commandeer my flat screen from home.
works a treat.
no one visits my secluded part of the tent....probably just as well!
till tomorrow.
PS - no MFA work today, busy on revisiting and tweaking the past.
Moira asks the audience to describe photographs she's taken
Mark videos people "playing" to be then digitised and transported into a video world
Merlyn has several works, a closet of un-wearable cloths along with reasons as to why her participants can't wear them, a cloth to be cut and sewed back together, and a plaster sculpture waiting to be "made" through the destruction and declaration of where and why (with one hit) from the participant
Anita asks people to act Shakespeare, in any language but English
and my exploration of personal space, volume and colour...
it's a quiet day, just as well, we're all ironing out several problems, the set up takes longer than we all expected.
The TV I am given doesn't work, so I go home and commandeer my flat screen from home.
works a treat.
no one visits my secluded part of the tent....probably just as well!
till tomorrow.
PS - no MFA work today, busy on revisiting and tweaking the past.
Saturday, 16 June 2007
my birthday
today is my birthday, how nice. 34 again...no, for the first time ever.
Murray, Kerry, Hannah, John, Suzanne and Iona come round for tea n coffee (and juice n cakes).
John gives me an amazing book on "text within art"...I am pretty stoked by the thought, it's a fantastic Thames and Hudson book ("writing on the wall: word and image in modern art"). John had looked through the book too, and we talked about certain pieces, "the great bear" by Simon Patterson (in the book there is a statement: "the artist as a subverter of conventional codes") - the fact is, we "assume" we know what the "picture" is, but on closer inspection, another form of communication is hijacking our known position on the "London underground" (or pictorial, bastardised representation of the London underground). We therefore must always closely inspect and pay attention to information, no matter how much we think (or, assume) we know what it is about.
This gets me thinking about newspapers, I'd like to explore changing the articles in newspapers...I want to make a "fake" sun (cover), screen printed onto newssheet, I could take a guardian or independent cover, and make it look like a sun newspaper...sneak into shops and replace the original cover with the bastardised version...I wonder what the "sun reader" would think? all of the liberal views presented in a familiar format...would they read it as a sun "voice", or would they tell, straight away it was "an impostor?"
It’s an exploration of the acceptance of "truth" (one "they" are used to), is it a psychosis, "pick up sun...read words...agree...page three...ah, nice tits...get to the sport, these immigrants are pissin me off"...(or do I assume too much of sun readers?)
Just a thought: truth is the undeniable account of something that happened* - an impossible collection of information that reflects a particular point in time.
OPINION is based on truth, whether it follows the logic of the facts or not (which can then turn truth into a lie). The ability to believe or disbelieve "fact" and "truth" is the defect of the human brain - the ability for decisions to be taken in a non-logical (or emotional) assessment of a given point in time. It is this human condition, the need to form opinions that defend "the self", to commune with like minded people and to communicate this position to others that leads "truth" to become "lie" and vice versa. It is emotion, defence, historic and collective perceptions, which dictate that people follow their understanding of "truth". If people did not adhere to these human traits, the world would be more "ruthless" (seen through the eyes of our understanding of right and wrong) - but to be absolute (void of emotion and sensibilities based on rules we all know) would render human spirit void, we'd "simply" be animals** - no right and wrong, no love or hate it would be a world of inconsequential events.
* and of course, the language (or interpretation of the use of language when “describing” an event) will even skew and contaminate the absolute truth.
** and that is an assumption on my part that animals “don’t” have some form of understanding of “right and wrong” – the consequence of a lion killing an eating a bison, is that an animal dies and the pride survive another day.
-------------
gabi and I head to Gray's for the Alumi reception, and meet Chloe and Pat. Chloe gives me three books for my birthday:
The Norton anthology of Theory and Criticism, the great philosophers & literary theory: an anothology. She's spledidly marked a few pages on "truth and trust"...what a great present! now all I need is the ability to freeze time, and read the 4000 or so pages in all three books. Doddle. (only kidding, you know me)
Murray, Kerry, Hannah, John, Suzanne and Iona come round for tea n coffee (and juice n cakes).
John gives me an amazing book on "text within art"...I am pretty stoked by the thought, it's a fantastic Thames and Hudson book ("writing on the wall: word and image in modern art"). John had looked through the book too, and we talked about certain pieces, "the great bear" by Simon Patterson (in the book there is a statement: "the artist as a subverter of conventional codes") - the fact is, we "assume" we know what the "picture" is, but on closer inspection, another form of communication is hijacking our known position on the "London underground" (or pictorial, bastardised representation of the London underground). We therefore must always closely inspect and pay attention to information, no matter how much we think (or, assume) we know what it is about.
This gets me thinking about newspapers, I'd like to explore changing the articles in newspapers...I want to make a "fake" sun (cover), screen printed onto newssheet, I could take a guardian or independent cover, and make it look like a sun newspaper...sneak into shops and replace the original cover with the bastardised version...I wonder what the "sun reader" would think? all of the liberal views presented in a familiar format...would they read it as a sun "voice", or would they tell, straight away it was "an impostor?"
It’s an exploration of the acceptance of "truth" (one "they" are used to), is it a psychosis, "pick up sun...read words...agree...page three...ah, nice tits...get to the sport, these immigrants are pissin me off"...(or do I assume too much of sun readers?)
Just a thought: truth is the undeniable account of something that happened* - an impossible collection of information that reflects a particular point in time.
OPINION is based on truth, whether it follows the logic of the facts or not (which can then turn truth into a lie). The ability to believe or disbelieve "fact" and "truth" is the defect of the human brain - the ability for decisions to be taken in a non-logical (or emotional) assessment of a given point in time. It is this human condition, the need to form opinions that defend "the self", to commune with like minded people and to communicate this position to others that leads "truth" to become "lie" and vice versa. It is emotion, defence, historic and collective perceptions, which dictate that people follow their understanding of "truth". If people did not adhere to these human traits, the world would be more "ruthless" (seen through the eyes of our understanding of right and wrong) - but to be absolute (void of emotion and sensibilities based on rules we all know) would render human spirit void, we'd "simply" be animals** - no right and wrong, no love or hate it would be a world of inconsequential events.
* and of course, the language (or interpretation of the use of language when “describing” an event) will even skew and contaminate the absolute truth.
** and that is an assumption on my part that animals “don’t” have some form of understanding of “right and wrong” – the consequence of a lion killing an eating a bison, is that an animal dies and the pride survive another day.
-------------
gabi and I head to Gray's for the Alumi reception, and meet Chloe and Pat. Chloe gives me three books for my birthday:
The Norton anthology of Theory and Criticism, the great philosophers & literary theory: an anothology. She's spledidly marked a few pages on "truth and trust"...what a great present! now all I need is the ability to freeze time, and read the 4000 or so pages in all three books. Doddle. (only kidding, you know me)
Thursday, 14 June 2007
our place in this world
I am getting a few questionnaires returned now, some interesting points emerge, not that people's perceptions of "truth" are anything radical or ground breaking, but to see that people actually argue with themselves on paper. I can see the struggle that people have to actually identify what "truth" is. This is where my interest lies, the knowledge that people talk of "truth" - how everyone is supposed to know what it is (like an unwritten rule), but they still can't quite put their fingers on it.
I am also noticing that when people fill in the questions, they do so in order of sequence, that is to say, they don't read all the questions first, or read them in groups, to determine what to say in each answer. I have carefully ordered the questions to make people think of elements on their own. It is particularly obvious in the "technology" section, where I ask: "Do you trust technology to convey truth?" and many of the responses deal with the human implementation and involvement of the technology, then after this question, I ask "Do you trust the human element in implementation of technology?" - to which most people have already answered that, by thinking that technology IS human implementation, and not "just" a collection of wires and switches. Is technology "programming" ? it is fascinating to think that "all technology" has been developed by "human hand" - circut boards designed by a person, to which human programmers write code to facilitate the switches and gates within these boxes for a myriad of purposes, shopping, news, voting, census...killing imaginary aliens on an imaginary planet in an imaginary future...
The knowledge that our lives are directed by our actions (collectively and individually), in understood realms (personal experiences) and complex "leave it to the experts" realms - we seem to have it hard wired into our brains that anything we see, must in some form revert back to our influence or relativity. Even looking at the natural world, where mankind has not had a "hand in making", we anthropomorphises, we seem to assume ownership (farming, ecological "missions", preservation areas etc). This all points to a very selfish perspective of our place in this world. I wonder if ants care for the well being of the planet? I wonder if when ants chew trees, they "understand" the ramifications of their actions?
has all this come from asking "what is the truth?"...a large area indeed.
the degree show opens tonight - the sculpture department looks cool...lovely space
I am also noticing that when people fill in the questions, they do so in order of sequence, that is to say, they don't read all the questions first, or read them in groups, to determine what to say in each answer. I have carefully ordered the questions to make people think of elements on their own. It is particularly obvious in the "technology" section, where I ask: "Do you trust technology to convey truth?" and many of the responses deal with the human implementation and involvement of the technology, then after this question, I ask "Do you trust the human element in implementation of technology?" - to which most people have already answered that, by thinking that technology IS human implementation, and not "just" a collection of wires and switches. Is technology "programming" ? it is fascinating to think that "all technology" has been developed by "human hand" - circut boards designed by a person, to which human programmers write code to facilitate the switches and gates within these boxes for a myriad of purposes, shopping, news, voting, census...killing imaginary aliens on an imaginary planet in an imaginary future...
The knowledge that our lives are directed by our actions (collectively and individually), in understood realms (personal experiences) and complex "leave it to the experts" realms - we seem to have it hard wired into our brains that anything we see, must in some form revert back to our influence or relativity. Even looking at the natural world, where mankind has not had a "hand in making", we anthropomorphises, we seem to assume ownership (farming, ecological "missions", preservation areas etc). This all points to a very selfish perspective of our place in this world. I wonder if ants care for the well being of the planet? I wonder if when ants chew trees, they "understand" the ramifications of their actions?
has all this come from asking "what is the truth?"...a large area indeed.
the degree show opens tonight - the sculpture department looks cool...lovely space
little meeting
Susie and I head into the art school to hook up with Jonathan, just to keep each other supported and informed as to developments etc. We head to the library (for coffee, not books) and sit on the lawn, discussing life in general - which is indirectly pertinent to our MFA course.
Jonathan wants to leave Aberdeen, he's fed up with it all here - mostly inspired by the lovely people who inhabit union street after 9pm (he'd encountered a particularly lecherous and drunken oaf after the Aberdeen artists' opening he'd said, which started him really thinking about where he is in life. He also seems to be having some troubles at home, but in his inimitable, secretive and poetic fashion, we are non the wiser.
Susie is getting all scientific, in an artistic way (?!) she'd logging temperatures, cloud cover etc, all for her documentation of her swimming - an immersion (physically) into the landscape. Some cross pollination of "information gathering and usage" with my practice...we've got a lot in common, which is helpful - to sing from the same hymn sheet is always a bonus!
I talk about my questionnaire, and we start the debate about "what truth is"...and we've all got some semblance of understanding, about how it's all to do with perception, points of view (physically and mentally), about how one "truth" is a lie to others. They do worry it's "a large area" to look at, but I am sure I can fine tune the research to question technologies role in conveying "a truth" (news, television, information points (town centres etc).
Jonathan wants to leave Aberdeen, he's fed up with it all here - mostly inspired by the lovely people who inhabit union street after 9pm (he'd encountered a particularly lecherous and drunken oaf after the Aberdeen artists' opening he'd said, which started him really thinking about where he is in life. He also seems to be having some troubles at home, but in his inimitable, secretive and poetic fashion, we are non the wiser.
Susie is getting all scientific, in an artistic way (?!) she'd logging temperatures, cloud cover etc, all for her documentation of her swimming - an immersion (physically) into the landscape. Some cross pollination of "information gathering and usage" with my practice...we've got a lot in common, which is helpful - to sing from the same hymn sheet is always a bonus!
I talk about my questionnaire, and we start the debate about "what truth is"...and we've all got some semblance of understanding, about how it's all to do with perception, points of view (physically and mentally), about how one "truth" is a lie to others. They do worry it's "a large area" to look at, but I am sure I can fine tune the research to question technologies role in conveying "a truth" (news, television, information points (town centres etc).
Monday, 11 June 2007
difficulty writing questions
I wake up; knowing that time is of the essence (because of my stupidity in setting such a tight deadline for getting out a questionnaire)...
I get despondent about my task...again, I start to doubt my ability - but cling to the knowledge that the subject is interesting - and people have responded to it because of its interesting qualities...It's a good thing I do say things in public, this gives me the solid reason to commit to seeing it through. Talking about things is all well and good, but following up with actions surely makes the difference! we're learning about professionalism in the MFA...I've got my "processes" down, Documentation, eloquent emails, etc (all can still be polished and refined), but I feel that my practice lacks in solid evidence of execution. I've produced many design / video works for clients and friends, stuck to deadlines and communicated intensions, developments and outcomes...so I just have to apply it to my "artistic practice"....thing is, I've never had such a critical scrutiny in my design work as I have in my art, thanks to the level of intensity the MFA provides.
It's funny that I just get on with my design, I know what I do, and I have the ability to produce high quality work to a finished level...but, that's not good enough for the likes of Steve and J&T...and probably isn't if I were to apply a masters level to my design practice...
I am finding it amazing, and such giant leaps in understanding are taking place. Even from the end of semester 2 to jst after my last conversation with Iain, I have really started to click with what it is the "special study" is about.
Again, I think back to the professionalism, dedication and research needed to operate at the masters level. I know I am on the right track for my work now. I live to create work from opinion and experience, that's where the work comes from within me. I go for a walk int he woods, and I FEEL something, I want to SAY something about that experience. If it is gathering sticks and making a focus out of them, that's what I do. If it's photographing a tyre track in grass, I do that. I now understand that it's the context in which I react to the situation that is important. It’s the why, not the how (we're all great at "how" to make art...but no ton the why's).
I am also wrestling with the need to "not answer questions" with my art...I always will, perhaps, because of my logical / design part of the brain, occupying the same half as my arty side! I have been given the confidence to explore both aspects by Iain, his encouraging talks do give me a sense of direction, without being "prescriptive".
I feel the idea of collating others opinions to react to, to create works from is just what I've been looking for. Charlie Hackett's seminar is turning out to be quite influential on me. I'd put the point to him that "truth" is subjective, and how can he "trust" the participants to answer truthfully..."It doesn't matter to me" was his answer, and that's the difference between a Scientific / quantifiable survey / set of questions, and an artistic one. It's the fuzz, the greyness, the human fallibility that is committed to paper that is more interesting than scaled, predefined opinions (1 - 10) and yes no answers, so coke can sell you more drink or so "they" know where to charge more money for council tax...
If the questions I produce are deep, meaningful, interesting and engaging...perhaps just the list of them is "the work" along with my findings, presented in some form, picking up on anonymity or political / religious bias...(left / right) (up / down).
it's exciting, but I still need to get these questions down...tomorrow...I promise (there I go again!)
listening to : ui - iron apple : aberfeldy - young forever (thanks gabi....grumble grumble)
I get despondent about my task...again, I start to doubt my ability - but cling to the knowledge that the subject is interesting - and people have responded to it because of its interesting qualities...It's a good thing I do say things in public, this gives me the solid reason to commit to seeing it through. Talking about things is all well and good, but following up with actions surely makes the difference! we're learning about professionalism in the MFA...I've got my "processes" down, Documentation, eloquent emails, etc (all can still be polished and refined), but I feel that my practice lacks in solid evidence of execution. I've produced many design / video works for clients and friends, stuck to deadlines and communicated intensions, developments and outcomes...so I just have to apply it to my "artistic practice"....thing is, I've never had such a critical scrutiny in my design work as I have in my art, thanks to the level of intensity the MFA provides.
It's funny that I just get on with my design, I know what I do, and I have the ability to produce high quality work to a finished level...but, that's not good enough for the likes of Steve and J&T...and probably isn't if I were to apply a masters level to my design practice...
I am finding it amazing, and such giant leaps in understanding are taking place. Even from the end of semester 2 to jst after my last conversation with Iain, I have really started to click with what it is the "special study" is about.
Again, I think back to the professionalism, dedication and research needed to operate at the masters level. I know I am on the right track for my work now. I live to create work from opinion and experience, that's where the work comes from within me. I go for a walk int he woods, and I FEEL something, I want to SAY something about that experience. If it is gathering sticks and making a focus out of them, that's what I do. If it's photographing a tyre track in grass, I do that. I now understand that it's the context in which I react to the situation that is important. It’s the why, not the how (we're all great at "how" to make art...but no ton the why's).
I am also wrestling with the need to "not answer questions" with my art...I always will, perhaps, because of my logical / design part of the brain, occupying the same half as my arty side! I have been given the confidence to explore both aspects by Iain, his encouraging talks do give me a sense of direction, without being "prescriptive".
I feel the idea of collating others opinions to react to, to create works from is just what I've been looking for. Charlie Hackett's seminar is turning out to be quite influential on me. I'd put the point to him that "truth" is subjective, and how can he "trust" the participants to answer truthfully..."It doesn't matter to me" was his answer, and that's the difference between a Scientific / quantifiable survey / set of questions, and an artistic one. It's the fuzz, the greyness, the human fallibility that is committed to paper that is more interesting than scaled, predefined opinions (1 - 10) and yes no answers, so coke can sell you more drink or so "they" know where to charge more money for council tax...
If the questions I produce are deep, meaningful, interesting and engaging...perhaps just the list of them is "the work" along with my findings, presented in some form, picking up on anonymity or political / religious bias...(left / right) (up / down).
it's exciting, but I still need to get these questions down...tomorrow...I promise (there I go again!)
listening to : ui - iron apple : aberfeldy - young forever (thanks gabi....grumble grumble)
Sunday, 10 June 2007
edinburgh - dinnertime..that's it
Today we need to pick up paintings from Edinburgh (Gabi's mum dropped them off...so it's only fair).
I drive, and try to think of the questions to ask in the questionnaire...Gabi helps by writing them down.
I just get frustrated, it's not the best idea concentrating on driving and probing, deep, thought provoking questions, to find out about truth and trust...I get fairly angry with myself, and start to doubt my quest...I was so stoked with the response, I can't let people down (?) because they all seemed so keen to participate.
when we get to Edinburgh, we find the pick up point of the paintings easily, and head to Leith Walk, for lunch with Susie’s Beaslie (a very knowledgeable friend of Gabi's who works in a university, checking and collating research material!...questionnaires!).
Susie gives me excellent advice on how to create questions, and firstly to create a test (first draft) and release it to a small amount of people - for sense checking and feedback. I wouldn't have done this without this conversation.
Poppy seems to attract all the Italian waiters, she's going to be a heart breaker... he he.
we spend 2.5 hours having lunch! and we've got no time to see Edinburgh (got to leave early, to get Poppy home, as the bridge is being maintained, and the queues are horrid)...
I start to bash out some questions when I get home, but my brain isn't up for it...
listening to : many tunes on the creative mp3 player...love shuffle, it's the best.
I drive, and try to think of the questions to ask in the questionnaire...Gabi helps by writing them down.
I just get frustrated, it's not the best idea concentrating on driving and probing, deep, thought provoking questions, to find out about truth and trust...I get fairly angry with myself, and start to doubt my quest...I was so stoked with the response, I can't let people down (?) because they all seemed so keen to participate.
when we get to Edinburgh, we find the pick up point of the paintings easily, and head to Leith Walk, for lunch with Susie’s Beaslie (a very knowledgeable friend of Gabi's who works in a university, checking and collating research material!...questionnaires!).
Susie gives me excellent advice on how to create questions, and firstly to create a test (first draft) and release it to a small amount of people - for sense checking and feedback. I wouldn't have done this without this conversation.
Poppy seems to attract all the Italian waiters, she's going to be a heart breaker... he he.
we spend 2.5 hours having lunch! and we've got no time to see Edinburgh (got to leave early, to get Poppy home, as the bridge is being maintained, and the queues are horrid)...
I start to bash out some questions when I get home, but my brain isn't up for it...
listening to : many tunes on the creative mp3 player...love shuffle, it's the best.
Saturday, 9 June 2007
questionnaire - start
Before I write a lengthy questionnaire, I need to find out if people (I know and don't) are willing to participate. I've drafted a probing email, for my friends and colleagues, as well as an "open invitation" on a local music discussion forum. In one day, I've had about a 90% positive response from my email list, 19 people from the "open invitation" have contacted me, saying they would be interested.
The invited email went like this:
Hello!
As you probably know, I am in the final stretches of my MFA course, and I have to complete a dissertation (also known as the "special study"). I have chosen to look at the perception of truth, fact and how it is conveyed to an audience...this is where I need your help.
I am about to create a small questionnaire - asking about your perceptions of what truth "means", what truth "is" and how you can trust information, how information is conveyed, how bias, factual or emotive is information (in the context of news for example). I am also interested in your perception of the scope of "truth", how close to personal experience does your understanding of "truth" lie? etc....
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in completing a questionnaire? if so, I will send it when I have finalised it. (Within the next week June 11th - 18th).
I hope you can help, I value your input and help (why else would I be writing to you?!)
thanks!
Phil.
I am quite excited by the positive response. It is great to know that providing people with some intellectual stimulation, on a subject that I am sure most people have an opinion on has been successful.
Now all I have to do is write a questionnaire...which is actually harder than I'd originally thought. I have started to jot ideas down, but they all seem far to open, or vague at the moment. I have looked at a few websites in search of help on "writing a good questionnaire", but I recognise that most of the sites are considering that the questionnaires are for market research, or "quantifiable", scientific reasons...and I am looking for opinions and reasoning, not "marks out of ten on what you think honesty is".
This will make my dissection of "answers" impossible to compare / contrast...but, I don't think I can make a data set / representation out of opinions...perhaps I can (or pretend to)...a confusing work of art, based on "apparent fact"...
I need to get writing the questions, I've "promised" I’ll have it ready for "early next week"
The invited email went like this:
Hello!
As you probably know, I am in the final stretches of my MFA course, and I have to complete a dissertation (also known as the "special study"). I have chosen to look at the perception of truth, fact and how it is conveyed to an audience...this is where I need your help.
I am about to create a small questionnaire - asking about your perceptions of what truth "means", what truth "is" and how you can trust information, how information is conveyed, how bias, factual or emotive is information (in the context of news for example). I am also interested in your perception of the scope of "truth", how close to personal experience does your understanding of "truth" lie? etc....
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in completing a questionnaire? if so, I will send it when I have finalised it. (Within the next week June 11th - 18th).
I hope you can help, I value your input and help (why else would I be writing to you?!)
thanks!
Phil.
I am quite excited by the positive response. It is great to know that providing people with some intellectual stimulation, on a subject that I am sure most people have an opinion on has been successful.
Now all I have to do is write a questionnaire...which is actually harder than I'd originally thought. I have started to jot ideas down, but they all seem far to open, or vague at the moment. I have looked at a few websites in search of help on "writing a good questionnaire", but I recognise that most of the sites are considering that the questionnaires are for market research, or "quantifiable", scientific reasons...and I am looking for opinions and reasoning, not "marks out of ten on what you think honesty is".
This will make my dissection of "answers" impossible to compare / contrast...but, I don't think I can make a data set / representation out of opinions...perhaps I can (or pretend to)...a confusing work of art, based on "apparent fact"...
I need to get writing the questions, I've "promised" I’ll have it ready for "early next week"
Friday, 8 June 2007
Gathering opinions...
Before I write a lengthy questionnaire, I need to find out if people (I know and don't) are willing to participate. I've drafted a probing email, for my friends and colleagues, as well as an "open invitation" on a local music discussion forum. In one day, I've had about a 90% positive response from my email list, 19 people from the "open invitation" have contacted me, saying they would be interested.
The invited email went like this:
Hello!
As you probably know, I am in the final stretches of my MFA course, and I have to complete a dissertation (also known as the "special study"). I have chosen to look at the perception of truth, fact and how it is conveyed to an audience...this is where I need your help.
I am about to create a small questionnaire - asking about your perceptions of what truth "means", what truth "is" and how you can trust information, how information is conveyed, how bias, factual or emotive is information (in the context of news for example). I am also interested in your perception of the scope of "truth", how close to personal experience does your understanding of "truth" lie? etc....
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in completing a questionnaire? if so, I will send it when I have finalised it. (Within the next week June 11th - 18th).
I hope you can help, I value your input and help (why else would I be writing to you?!)
thanks!
Phil.
I am quite excited by the positive response. It is great to know that providing people with some intellectual stimulation, on a subject that I am sure most people have an opinion on has been successful.
Now all I have to do is write a questionnaire...which is actually harder than I'd originally thought. I have started to jot ideas down, but they all seem far to open, or vague at the moment. I have looked at a few websites in search of help on "writing a good questionnaire", but I recognise that most of the sites are considering that the questionnaires are for market research, or "quantifiable", scientific reasons...and I am looking for opinions and reasoning, not "marks out of ten on what you think honesty is".
This will make my dissection of "answers" impossible to compare / contrast...but, I don't think I can make a data set / representation out of opinions...perhaps I can (or pretend to)...a confusing work of art, based on "apparent fact"...
I need to get writing the questions, I've "promised" I’ll have it ready for "early next week"
The invited email went like this:
Hello!
As you probably know, I am in the final stretches of my MFA course, and I have to complete a dissertation (also known as the "special study"). I have chosen to look at the perception of truth, fact and how it is conveyed to an audience...this is where I need your help.
I am about to create a small questionnaire - asking about your perceptions of what truth "means", what truth "is" and how you can trust information, how information is conveyed, how bias, factual or emotive is information (in the context of news for example). I am also interested in your perception of the scope of "truth", how close to personal experience does your understanding of "truth" lie? etc....
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in completing a questionnaire? if so, I will send it when I have finalised it. (Within the next week June 11th - 18th).
I hope you can help, I value your input and help (why else would I be writing to you?!)
thanks!
Phil.
I am quite excited by the positive response. It is great to know that providing people with some intellectual stimulation, on a subject that I am sure most people have an opinion on has been successful.
Now all I have to do is write a questionnaire...which is actually harder than I'd originally thought. I have started to jot ideas down, but they all seem far to open, or vague at the moment. I have looked at a few websites in search of help on "writing a good questionnaire", but I recognise that most of the sites are considering that the questionnaires are for market research, or "quantifiable", scientific reasons...and I am looking for opinions and reasoning, not "marks out of ten on what you think honesty is".
This will make my dissection of "answers" impossible to compare / contrast...but, I don't think I can make a data set / representation out of opinions...perhaps I can (or pretend to)...a confusing work of art, based on "apparent fact"...
I need to get writing the questions, I've "promised" I’ll have it ready for "early next week"
MFA starts...HERE
Today is the start of my MFA…PROPERLY.
I need to start generating research. I decide to create a questionnaire that will probe people’s perception of “truth”, how it is they obtain and filtrate information, where sources matter, where context and scope matter…
Firstly I decide to write to a few people to ask if they would be willing to participate in a questionnaire…and out of 15 email, I instantly get 9 back. Which makes me think that I am onto a winner, I then start to cast my net further – emailing more people, I specifically think of demographics, I start to target my “audience” with ideas of nationality, religious and political opinions…I in no way want to direct outcomes (I have no idea what the responses will be anyway), but I do know that I want all bases covered.
I also start to open the possibility of “unknown parameters” within the responses, by requesting participants from a local web forum www.aberdeen-music.com, where I have a great response from an initial post by many “anonymous” people – I have no control over my trust in these people who are eager to be a part of my research. I am starting to see a possible angle of research, where “known” and “unknown” participants potentially have the freedom to lie when filling in the questionnaire. I do not want to pre-empt the outcomes, but I have a suspicion that my “anonymous” group (people who do not know me, nor I them) can potentially respond with complete fabricated lies – and I would have no basis to disbelieve them, as I have never met or been a part of their lives – whereas the “known” participants, I have some semblance of knowledge of their lives, and ideologies...giving me some frame of reference to doubt or accept what it is they tell me.
The questionnaire needs to be considered and written, to create the right conditions for the participants to convey to me, what it is that they understand and perceive, when thinking of “truth”, “honesty” etc.
I aim to ask questions in several areas of personal, public, community, national and international ramifications of information dissemination and presentation. I need to be aware of brevity, a questionnaire that is too long, will turn people off from filling it in! If the questionnaire is not “deep” enough, I will have no qualitative information to base my research on!
I am also toying with a section of the questionnaire which will be collated anonymously – I would like to obtain deeply personal information from the participants and let them know that specific questions will NEVER be associated with the respondent – giving them the freedom to be absolutely honest with their answers (sexual, legal, desires etc). These statements might form a striking body of work, exploring human truths, honest wants and needs…
I go to bed after collating several lists of agreed participants – my brain is spinning. I can not get to sleep and spend 4 hours thinking about potential avenues of discourse, research and possibilities…I think about how the dissertation can be presented (alphabetically, graduating from black and white to white and black, lists of titles to which I would respond in paragraphs to…) I think about the MfA show (sculptures and installations that might appear from my research, the use of anonymous “online personas” as badges, invite lists of participants, how these participants could become part of the work “on the night”, directive posters, signs and information…) I think of the expansion of my “hearing aid for a shed” work (using this to convey confession through the trust of given anonymity) I think of diagrams that explain the physical and psychological systems in place, when using the “installation”, I think of a name for the emerging imagined work “This machine will change lives” which I morph and change into “This mechanism can change lives” by arguing with myself the semantics of the choice of words. Machine and mechanism I mull over for a long time – it will not be a “machine” (a mouth piece, a tube and a speaker, situated in a far off room – a confessor and an audience) this will be a ‘mechanism’ – an opportunity for systems and processes to come to life through a physical and mental application of action. The physical process is for the “confession” to be spoken into a mouthpiece, which travels down a tube to a room where it is broadcast to an audience (“unknown” to the confessor). The mental mechanisms are far more complex, the necessity of the “confessor” to muster the courage to speak a confession (or “truth”) into the mouthpiece, the choice to tell a truth or a lie, to believe they are safe in being anonymous when confessing, the “audience” believing that what they hear is true, false, fiction fact, do they “care” are they affected (emotionally) by what they hear? The opportunity to set up partnerships to “spy” on who is confessing (reporting / communicating between people, organising “spy and listener”) – trust dynamics…so many parameters and possibilities that could arise from two cones and a tube…and a little instruction from me. The argument to change “will” to “can” was simple, “will” implies that the mechanism of confession has an absolute function, that the confessor’s life MUST change, because of their actions, the listeners life MUST change because of what they hear - where as “can” offers possibility, not absolutes – an essential in art, if we EXPECT things to happen, then why do it? If we already “know” the outcome, there must be no point in proceeding with a course of action.
I think I drift off at around 4 am…and I still don’t think I remembered all I thought of last night…no unseen scribbling or whispered annotation would have been able to capture my blunderbuss of thought last night, so one can only hope that the mechanism of remembering is actually a filtration too – evicting the mundane or forgettable ideas out – survival of the fittest…ideas.
I need to start generating research. I decide to create a questionnaire that will probe people’s perception of “truth”, how it is they obtain and filtrate information, where sources matter, where context and scope matter…
Firstly I decide to write to a few people to ask if they would be willing to participate in a questionnaire…and out of 15 email, I instantly get 9 back. Which makes me think that I am onto a winner, I then start to cast my net further – emailing more people, I specifically think of demographics, I start to target my “audience” with ideas of nationality, religious and political opinions…I in no way want to direct outcomes (I have no idea what the responses will be anyway), but I do know that I want all bases covered.
I also start to open the possibility of “unknown parameters” within the responses, by requesting participants from a local web forum www.aberdeen-music.com, where I have a great response from an initial post by many “anonymous” people – I have no control over my trust in these people who are eager to be a part of my research. I am starting to see a possible angle of research, where “known” and “unknown” participants potentially have the freedom to lie when filling in the questionnaire. I do not want to pre-empt the outcomes, but I have a suspicion that my “anonymous” group (people who do not know me, nor I them) can potentially respond with complete fabricated lies – and I would have no basis to disbelieve them, as I have never met or been a part of their lives – whereas the “known” participants, I have some semblance of knowledge of their lives, and ideologies...giving me some frame of reference to doubt or accept what it is they tell me.
The questionnaire needs to be considered and written, to create the right conditions for the participants to convey to me, what it is that they understand and perceive, when thinking of “truth”, “honesty” etc.
I aim to ask questions in several areas of personal, public, community, national and international ramifications of information dissemination and presentation. I need to be aware of brevity, a questionnaire that is too long, will turn people off from filling it in! If the questionnaire is not “deep” enough, I will have no qualitative information to base my research on!
I am also toying with a section of the questionnaire which will be collated anonymously – I would like to obtain deeply personal information from the participants and let them know that specific questions will NEVER be associated with the respondent – giving them the freedom to be absolutely honest with their answers (sexual, legal, desires etc). These statements might form a striking body of work, exploring human truths, honest wants and needs…
I go to bed after collating several lists of agreed participants – my brain is spinning. I can not get to sleep and spend 4 hours thinking about potential avenues of discourse, research and possibilities…I think about how the dissertation can be presented (alphabetically, graduating from black and white to white and black, lists of titles to which I would respond in paragraphs to…) I think about the MfA show (sculptures and installations that might appear from my research, the use of anonymous “online personas” as badges, invite lists of participants, how these participants could become part of the work “on the night”, directive posters, signs and information…) I think of the expansion of my “hearing aid for a shed” work (using this to convey confession through the trust of given anonymity) I think of diagrams that explain the physical and psychological systems in place, when using the “installation”, I think of a name for the emerging imagined work “This machine will change lives” which I morph and change into “This mechanism can change lives” by arguing with myself the semantics of the choice of words. Machine and mechanism I mull over for a long time – it will not be a “machine” (a mouth piece, a tube and a speaker, situated in a far off room – a confessor and an audience) this will be a ‘mechanism’ – an opportunity for systems and processes to come to life through a physical and mental application of action. The physical process is for the “confession” to be spoken into a mouthpiece, which travels down a tube to a room where it is broadcast to an audience (“unknown” to the confessor). The mental mechanisms are far more complex, the necessity of the “confessor” to muster the courage to speak a confession (or “truth”) into the mouthpiece, the choice to tell a truth or a lie, to believe they are safe in being anonymous when confessing, the “audience” believing that what they hear is true, false, fiction fact, do they “care” are they affected (emotionally) by what they hear? The opportunity to set up partnerships to “spy” on who is confessing (reporting / communicating between people, organising “spy and listener”) – trust dynamics…so many parameters and possibilities that could arise from two cones and a tube…and a little instruction from me. The argument to change “will” to “can” was simple, “will” implies that the mechanism of confession has an absolute function, that the confessor’s life MUST change, because of their actions, the listeners life MUST change because of what they hear - where as “can” offers possibility, not absolutes – an essential in art, if we EXPECT things to happen, then why do it? If we already “know” the outcome, there must be no point in proceeding with a course of action.
I think I drift off at around 4 am…and I still don’t think I remembered all I thought of last night…no unseen scribbling or whispered annotation would have been able to capture my blunderbuss of thought last night, so one can only hope that the mechanism of remembering is actually a filtration too – evicting the mundane or forgettable ideas out – survival of the fittest…ideas.
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Special Study evolution
Since talking to Iain about my change in scope, I have started to think more about the use of technology, information and intended use by people of these ideas and methodologies… Iain and I looked at several examples of information presentation in an art context.
Iain asks me several important questions about the formation of my research and creation of artworks. What is it I wish to produce? (Experiential works – to create feelings or ideas based around my perceptions of information interface? Explanatory works – instructional works to convey my position and understanding. A subtle difference but an important difference. I would like to think I could present the two forms of work, but bear in mind that I must distinguish the difference. I feel that I could produce works that will create situations that make people question their perceptions of how information is presented to them via media and mediums. I also know I want to inform and instruct (without being prescriptive) through written work my understanding of what truth means, how information can inform, confuse, polarise and change people’s perception of the world.
I come home and start to document my thought process – a diary as a flow diagram, to see if I can create a visual representation of how my ideas arise and change. I realise the magnitude of trying to map a thought process – this could be a work in itself. It’s amazing to see how thoughts do change, morph and evolve over a matter of seconds. I see leaps from one subject to another. Where do the stimuli come from, in order to make one thing turn into the other? Experience, education, memory and association all contribute to the evolution of imagination – mentally turning objects over in the mind within context, out with context and juxtaposing known “givens” to create new “realities” (if just in imagination). I have a large mountain to climb, but I feel confident I know what I am doing now.
Iain asks me several important questions about the formation of my research and creation of artworks. What is it I wish to produce? (Experiential works – to create feelings or ideas based around my perceptions of information interface? Explanatory works – instructional works to convey my position and understanding. A subtle difference but an important difference. I would like to think I could present the two forms of work, but bear in mind that I must distinguish the difference. I feel that I could produce works that will create situations that make people question their perceptions of how information is presented to them via media and mediums. I also know I want to inform and instruct (without being prescriptive) through written work my understanding of what truth means, how information can inform, confuse, polarise and change people’s perception of the world.
I come home and start to document my thought process – a diary as a flow diagram, to see if I can create a visual representation of how my ideas arise and change. I realise the magnitude of trying to map a thought process – this could be a work in itself. It’s amazing to see how thoughts do change, morph and evolve over a matter of seconds. I see leaps from one subject to another. Where do the stimuli come from, in order to make one thing turn into the other? Experience, education, memory and association all contribute to the evolution of imagination – mentally turning objects over in the mind within context, out with context and juxtaposing known “givens” to create new “realities” (if just in imagination). I have a large mountain to climb, but I feel confident I know what I am doing now.
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Proforma discussion
Today we assemble and discuss the coming months of our MfA course – semester 3. We are given timetables and discuss what happens when, how things will happen and problems that may arise, that we need to address now (Like the use / rental of technology / access to the technicians etc).
We also present our proforma for special study, to the whole group. When I start to read mine, it morphs and changes as I think about it…I was quite shocked to hear me omit most of the “crux” of what I had written, the exploration of natural experience through technology, and vice versa…I start to talk about the exploration of “truth and trust” within the context of information presentation (media, directive information etc). Steve Hollingsworth jumps upon the use of the word “truth”, and has a real problem, as we all know there is no “absolute truth”, but how can I use words to describe that which I seek to explore to be “right or wrong”. I know my approach to the special study is to explore the perception of “truth”, “trust”, “honesty” and the feelings that arise from these very words. They exist, people use them, so it is fair to use these words when exploring and presenting the potential ramifications of them.
Because of my sudden change in scope of the area of research, I arrange a meeting with Iain to discuss a more accurate proposal of the special study. I discuss the new angle of exploration, about information presentation to inform people, about the use of such information ethically, constructively, directionally and honestly. Again, all the words I use to describe the areas of research will themselves be looked at individually, to try and accurately pin down what they “actually” mean, and why they should or should not be used when talking about information.
listening to : clutch - blast tyrant : sepultura - arise
We also present our proforma for special study, to the whole group. When I start to read mine, it morphs and changes as I think about it…I was quite shocked to hear me omit most of the “crux” of what I had written, the exploration of natural experience through technology, and vice versa…I start to talk about the exploration of “truth and trust” within the context of information presentation (media, directive information etc). Steve Hollingsworth jumps upon the use of the word “truth”, and has a real problem, as we all know there is no “absolute truth”, but how can I use words to describe that which I seek to explore to be “right or wrong”. I know my approach to the special study is to explore the perception of “truth”, “trust”, “honesty” and the feelings that arise from these very words. They exist, people use them, so it is fair to use these words when exploring and presenting the potential ramifications of them.
Because of my sudden change in scope of the area of research, I arrange a meeting with Iain to discuss a more accurate proposal of the special study. I discuss the new angle of exploration, about information presentation to inform people, about the use of such information ethically, constructively, directionally and honestly. Again, all the words I use to describe the areas of research will themselves be looked at individually, to try and accurately pin down what they “actually” mean, and why they should or should not be used when talking about information.
listening to : clutch - blast tyrant : sepultura - arise
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
