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.