I've started looking at compiling my "imaginary show" based on squares...I've read that Quadrum means "Square" or "frame" in Greek...very handy!
I've been reading today of many foundations to suprematism (Malevitch) and de stijl (mondrian). I've been learning of the influences of the Russian constructivists (Malevitch, Khlebnikov, Kruchenikh, Rozanova), from Ferdinand de Saussure and his ideas on language as "Signs" to Heinrich Wölfflin's ideas on painterly vs linear.
After finishing the "art since 1900" book (when I say "finish", I mean flipping through every page to find art that is based on squares, and reading those pages) I have compiled a great list of selected works, I skateboard up to the shops to have a good solid focused think on what I am doing, and I realise that a show based only on "art with squares" is missing the point (well, in respect to my work). I need to curate a show that includes any use of squares, that is, the everyday, mathematics, architecture, computer games etc.
Chloe comes round to say goodbye (she's heading off to Europe again, to travel, and experience the world...) So I run my ideas past her. She points out that "good curation is simplicity", that is; A simple approach to a subject can not fail. She also talks of hard nosed editing (or "selection"). Each item in a show must convey something important to the subject matter, or context of the show. I can't "just" have a room filled with paintings, sculptures and architectural models, if I want this "show" to be something more than "just" an art exhibition. I feel I could run into the trap of making an "educatory" experience, not a bad thing in itself, but I would like to curate something that still had artistic merit, but also does open a world of high art and everyday "culture" to people.
I love the idea of the square as a basic building block, a construct for modern life. There is something infinitely elegant about the square, its simplicity, its functionality and rationality when combination is required. There is also something cold and impenetrable about the square, "unnatural" if you will (although the simple Sodium Chloride or Pyrite crystal would disagree!). It is a futuristic shape, something inorganic, which fascinates and yet scares us. The Pixel is a perfect exemplar of this situation, the future of communication, binary flickers of true and false, on and off creating language that is conveyed via an array of square pixels on computer screens and digital projections, be that written or visual, even sound is represented to us as a flow of flickering pixels when we turn on iTunes or Windows Media Player...
anyway, enough of all this chat...I need to write an essay, in the form of a welcoming text to an imaginary show called "Quadrum" - and an imaginary review (by me) of said show...am I biting off more than I can chew? You never know till you try. Failure is a good learning process, you can only learn from your mistakes, and this is the lesson we are being taught in the Masters, it's not always about things going right, experience in life is based on good and bad experiences, and knowing what is good, and what is bad can only lead to a fuller knowledge and educated stance in this world.
listening to : various - 1993-1999 Mainstreet Records : godflesh - streetcleaner
Monday, 30 April 2007
Sunday, 29 April 2007
starting the 1500 word essay
It's not as bad as I thought...most of these blogs are around 1000 words!
I've got my "hook", to compile a show I'd like to see, based on the idea of Squares.
I am going to compile artists, obtuse artists and generally try to create a show that works on many literal and lateral influences of squares (maths, angles, area, borders, surface).I am going to write a review, advert, interview and synopsis for an imaginary show, where my "you and I" work is alongside Mondrian, Malevitch, Long, Innes...I've recently bought: Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism and Postmodernism. I can kill many birds with one stone (one "essay"), where I can contextualise my work based on the art history I read, I can creatively write a review, in a third person stylee, I can use my Graphic design skills to creatively layout the writing, I can show my understanding of many of the seminars we had, mostly based on Stewart Macdonald's "Curating" seminar.
If It comes off, I think it'll look pretty good...and hopefully read well...that's the main idea!
we also had Susie Beaslie staying over night, and we did discuss modern art, and I find it increasingly interesting that I defend all forms of modern art, I know I've changed my view, or started to understand more, the reasons for conceptual art, the need to push boundareies, in this day and age of "the quest for new". Painting, Sculpture, printmaking, "traditional" forms of art have all got a place int he art world (tell that to the snobs!), but I know that artists are trying to continue Lewitt and Duchamp's dream of a conceptual form of art, where Ideas are the tools and materials to give concepts form...hard to understand if you don't see the value in thinking Vs a "nicely made object", but sure;y it is ideas that are the most important thing in an uneducated and blinkered society?
listening to : Golden - golden : tortoise - lazarus taxon box set
I've got my "hook", to compile a show I'd like to see, based on the idea of Squares.
I am going to compile artists, obtuse artists and generally try to create a show that works on many literal and lateral influences of squares (maths, angles, area, borders, surface).I am going to write a review, advert, interview and synopsis for an imaginary show, where my "you and I" work is alongside Mondrian, Malevitch, Long, Innes...I've recently bought: Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism and Postmodernism. I can kill many birds with one stone (one "essay"), where I can contextualise my work based on the art history I read, I can creatively write a review, in a third person stylee, I can use my Graphic design skills to creatively layout the writing, I can show my understanding of many of the seminars we had, mostly based on Stewart Macdonald's "Curating" seminar.
If It comes off, I think it'll look pretty good...and hopefully read well...that's the main idea!
we also had Susie Beaslie staying over night, and we did discuss modern art, and I find it increasingly interesting that I defend all forms of modern art, I know I've changed my view, or started to understand more, the reasons for conceptual art, the need to push boundareies, in this day and age of "the quest for new". Painting, Sculpture, printmaking, "traditional" forms of art have all got a place int he art world (tell that to the snobs!), but I know that artists are trying to continue Lewitt and Duchamp's dream of a conceptual form of art, where Ideas are the tools and materials to give concepts form...hard to understand if you don't see the value in thinking Vs a "nicely made object", but sure;y it is ideas that are the most important thing in an uneducated and blinkered society?
listening to : Golden - golden : tortoise - lazarus taxon box set
Thursday, 26 April 2007
Edinburgh trip – many, many galleries…
Today, we head to Edinburgh, for an art feast…A guided tour by Steve Hollingsworth to the more contemporary art galleries in our capital city. The Embassy, Talbot Rice, Stills, Edinburgh Printmakers Studio, Dogger Fisher and the National Portrait Gallery. We are treated to an array of contemporary installation, drawing, painting, sculpture, photography, print and video. It’s an interesting mix of settings, from a house, to a museum, from prestigious frontages, to hard to find back streets – the day is filled with a dizzying variety of art and culture. I was highly entertained by the fact that most of these “places of art” are open to an elite few, well, open to all…but who in the “general public” is willing to enter a house with a metal machine clattering two antlers together? It’s interesting that such a simple, stripped down space could convey such unwelcoming vibes. You have to know of these places, and have a mission to go there, I get the feeling that you wouldn’t “just walk in” if passing. It’s certainly a point I took away from today – the sheer audacity and elitism of these spaces. Dogger fisher, for example, has a bell you have to ring, like an expensive boutique…unwelcoming to most, “exclusive” and “justified” for the few. A recent article in the frieze magazine gave such an insight. A gallery with what looked like a door, but no handle and a buzzer…Buzzing the buzzer gave you exclusive access to a poe faced, droll gallery worker, explaining that the “handle” is at the bottom of the door, like some fucked up Terry Gilliam skit, to enter hell. The writer recalls much buzzer pressing and confused / disdained conversation, only to eventually find the door handle to find it locked, as the Gallery was closed…what fun these “powerful” snobs have over the public…is it any wonder “art” (or “modern art”) gets a drubbing? What’s wrong with wanting people to see work, be they plebs or YBA’s? I’d liken it to walking into a scary pub, it’s not nice feeling ill at ease, just because of a place, you don’t belong here…so what are you doing here? The Rusty Cutlass or Embassy, the choice is yours. This said, good art is about confrontation, so placing work in a space that seems to not welcome you, might just be part and parcel to the whole experience, being on edge might open up the senses, just the tonic for “looking at art”…Not all galleries felt like this today, but at the other end of the spectrum, cosy, safe, old, obvious…much like the art that inhabited it too. Like all things in life, “you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. So I can understand why such elitist places exist. It’s about confidence; confidence to know you will have a sufficient audience (to create / keep a contemporary Scottish art scene at the cutting edge), confidence to know that you can get funding for projects, confidence to know that your gallery is a necessary part of life – no matter how small the audience. I keep asking myself the question through the day…”Would I show here?” (If I were asked). On the whole, I said yes every time…I am educating myself to understand that these places are important to my life as an artist, I do want to be shown in our capital city and central belt, but I also would feel comfortable showing work in a field in Finzien.
The shows we saw were certainly varied, and I’d have to spend an age writing about them all, to do them justice – so I won’t review them all, but I will write about what I felt were the most interesting points of the day.
Brandon Vickerd – When all our heroes turn to ghosts (Embassy)
In a ground floor flat, we’re treated to a view of two bike-like machines rutting, on and off. It looks impressive, we dutifully walk round it, when it whirrs into action, jazz timings clicking off antlers, rhythm of life…or is it? We’re told (in the very prescriptive / descriptive a4 sheet we’re given) that the machine is an exploration of the randomness from mechanical absolutes. The idea that a pure, constant, known cycle can result in non-repeating, non-cyclic patterns, if an element from nature is interspersed with the machine…I like this Idea, it’s something I’ve been looking at in my own works, how repetition can actually cause variance…it all depends on your level of perception and attention to detail. The antlers, each time the machine heaves into life, do set a different pace, beat and pattern, I’d likened it to some minimal German techno (Thomas Brinkman for example), where it is the detail that makes the difference, not some brash 4/4 rock anthem, or cheesy verse chorus verse chart piddle…which is interesting, as some of the references in Vickerd’s work is of rock / heavy metal lyrics, but extracted (taken out of context). Is this minimalisation of overly theatrical lyrics of death, Satanism and ritual a furthering of the idea of variance in detail? A pentagram covers a map, 5 lyrics next to the map, are we to make a story of each line of verse, to each location of the points in the star? It is interesting that I am the only one in the group to notice that the lines are indeed rock lyrics (Metallica’s “ONE” for example), and I then read that Vickerd’s work aims to look into the bridge between high and low brown cultures…ho ho, I have a head start in the group, I’ve got low brow rock music ahoy in my collection! I can look intelligent, by knowing of unintelligent, teenage angst music…(is that a good thing?) The most striking part of the show (3 rooms) is a large ghostly (based on comic themes of ghosts, “a human shape with a sheet over it”) made of metal, standing 6feet 6 inches towering, and leaning in, as if to fly off at the drop of a hat. Its presence in the room is rather unsettling…The “sell” on the A4 page is certainly interesting, in that we (and I used the word here already) see the sculpture as a “ghost”. The writing states that we accept on a worldly level that a figure draped in a sheet “looks like a ghost”, when we don’t know what ghosts “look like” at all, a very Scooby doo, childhood story vision of what a ghost is…perhaps this is why we feel this way, childhood fears kept for life…like our apparent inbuilt need to recoil from spiders, our marvel at fireworks. I like the sense of humour that dusts the show; the statement on the A4 is smattered with humour, “…unlikely that it [the ghost] would chose to take the form of a hovering bed sheet”. Steve dislikes the rutting sculpture (“ghosts and champions of entropy”), he talks about entropy being, “near collapse” and that the sculpture is solid and hardly likely to fall apart…I always thought that entropy was about the loss of energy, about stillness, balance and equality, an eternal state of nothing, no winner, no loser…it’s amazing what language can throw up, intricate and semantic, definitions, even eloquently conveyed, are still open to interpretation, all bringing me back to my interests, what is truth? How can interpretation be a good or bad thing?
Alex Pollard: Black Marks (Talbot Rice gallery)
Representing Scotland in the Venice Biennale in 2005, this is Alex’s first major show since then. As of many artists I see today, I am unaware of most of them, till now, so I have no basis of judgement from the past, a refreshing “new look” at the work, help or hindrance, it’s of no concern, it’s all about personal experience, perception and reaction (based on history of the artists work, or not…) We’re confronted with a huge, open white space, a grand room indeed, filled with disparate works, large brass “coins” in the centre of the room, they resemble Rebbeca Horn's sculptures, crudly made, thickly applied clay, converted to brass castings, giant wiggly lines (on closer inspection, are pencils) stuck to the wall, along side make up mirrors, false eyelashes, lipsticks, smudges of graphite (the pens comically placed as if they’ve drawn them, whereas we know it was the artists hand that smudged the marks around), lines drawn, almost cartoon like indicating tension, one imagines that the release of this would send the pencil flying across the wall, all comical – linking to the clowning theme, the wiggling line might represent a clown on a unicycle, wobbling his way across a bare circus stage? All that was missing was a bucket of torn paper, too obvious! 5 “portraits” of various clowns are made from broken, exploded pencils at the far end of the show. I can pick out crying clown, mad clown, scary clown, bowie clown…lovely works, how these seem to be the manifestation or condensate of the previous “fun” work on the wall, a seriousness derived from destruction of materials (construction from deconstruction). The show continues upstairs with some rather disturbing, realistic paintings of clown / big top icons, distorted in an almost photoshop-esque way (ripple effect anyone?). It’s as if the show has been pulling focus, refining into a twisted reality, a nightmarish end to what started out as a fun ride. Pay your penny, end up in hell; perhaps those large coins should cover our eyes as we take the ferry across the river Styx. From playful to morbid, it’s certainly an interesting, varied show. I’d noticed that the poster has Alex Pollard as a clown, donning black and white makeup, was this a documented performance? It makes me feel like I am still only seeing a portion of the theme here, it’s tantalising that one poster, with one image, can make you want more from a show.
The other shows were beautiful, ugly, confusing, simple, interesting and banal. The whole day for me, was really seeing Edinburgh from a contemporary art point of view, I’d never been to these galleries before, Dogger fisher, Embassy, Talbot rice etc…but, every time I am down there from now on in, I will make a point of going into these places, I will speak to the owners, I will persist in belonging to this scene. All it takes is time and a will, I have the will, and the time, so why not?
We end the day by saying goodbye to the train-goers, and head for a coffee, to avoid rush-hour. I advise the girls (Susie, Mary & Amy) that we should visit the bookshop : analogue. We inadvertently stumble into the beginnings of a private showing, run by Spin, champagne, Contacts and a bloody good end to a lovely day..well, including the magic drive back up the road, and sublime fish and chips from the bervie...realities luxuries, lovely jubbly. (did I just type that ?)...
Listening to : shellac - acton park : amon tobid - supermodefied
The shows we saw were certainly varied, and I’d have to spend an age writing about them all, to do them justice – so I won’t review them all, but I will write about what I felt were the most interesting points of the day.
Brandon Vickerd – When all our heroes turn to ghosts (Embassy)
In a ground floor flat, we’re treated to a view of two bike-like machines rutting, on and off. It looks impressive, we dutifully walk round it, when it whirrs into action, jazz timings clicking off antlers, rhythm of life…or is it? We’re told (in the very prescriptive / descriptive a4 sheet we’re given) that the machine is an exploration of the randomness from mechanical absolutes. The idea that a pure, constant, known cycle can result in non-repeating, non-cyclic patterns, if an element from nature is interspersed with the machine…I like this Idea, it’s something I’ve been looking at in my own works, how repetition can actually cause variance…it all depends on your level of perception and attention to detail. The antlers, each time the machine heaves into life, do set a different pace, beat and pattern, I’d likened it to some minimal German techno (Thomas Brinkman for example), where it is the detail that makes the difference, not some brash 4/4 rock anthem, or cheesy verse chorus verse chart piddle…which is interesting, as some of the references in Vickerd’s work is of rock / heavy metal lyrics, but extracted (taken out of context). Is this minimalisation of overly theatrical lyrics of death, Satanism and ritual a furthering of the idea of variance in detail? A pentagram covers a map, 5 lyrics next to the map, are we to make a story of each line of verse, to each location of the points in the star? It is interesting that I am the only one in the group to notice that the lines are indeed rock lyrics (Metallica’s “ONE” for example), and I then read that Vickerd’s work aims to look into the bridge between high and low brown cultures…ho ho, I have a head start in the group, I’ve got low brow rock music ahoy in my collection! I can look intelligent, by knowing of unintelligent, teenage angst music…(is that a good thing?) The most striking part of the show (3 rooms) is a large ghostly (based on comic themes of ghosts, “a human shape with a sheet over it”) made of metal, standing 6feet 6 inches towering, and leaning in, as if to fly off at the drop of a hat. Its presence in the room is rather unsettling…The “sell” on the A4 page is certainly interesting, in that we (and I used the word here already) see the sculpture as a “ghost”. The writing states that we accept on a worldly level that a figure draped in a sheet “looks like a ghost”, when we don’t know what ghosts “look like” at all, a very Scooby doo, childhood story vision of what a ghost is…perhaps this is why we feel this way, childhood fears kept for life…like our apparent inbuilt need to recoil from spiders, our marvel at fireworks. I like the sense of humour that dusts the show; the statement on the A4 is smattered with humour, “…unlikely that it [the ghost] would chose to take the form of a hovering bed sheet”. Steve dislikes the rutting sculpture (“ghosts and champions of entropy”), he talks about entropy being, “near collapse” and that the sculpture is solid and hardly likely to fall apart…I always thought that entropy was about the loss of energy, about stillness, balance and equality, an eternal state of nothing, no winner, no loser…it’s amazing what language can throw up, intricate and semantic, definitions, even eloquently conveyed, are still open to interpretation, all bringing me back to my interests, what is truth? How can interpretation be a good or bad thing?Alex Pollard: Black Marks (Talbot Rice gallery)
Representing Scotland in the Venice Biennale in 2005, this is Alex’s first major show since then. As of many artists I see today, I am unaware of most of them, till now, so I have no basis of judgement from the past, a refreshing “new look” at the work, help or hindrance, it’s of no concern, it’s all about personal experience, perception and reaction (based on history of the artists work, or not…) We’re confronted with a huge, open white space, a grand room indeed, filled with disparate works, large brass “coins” in the centre of the room, they resemble Rebbeca Horn's sculptures, crudly made, thickly applied clay, converted to brass castings, giant wiggly lines (on closer inspection, are pencils) stuck to the wall, along side make up mirrors, false eyelashes, lipsticks, smudges of graphite (the pens comically placed as if they’ve drawn them, whereas we know it was the artists hand that smudged the marks around), lines drawn, almost cartoon like indicating tension, one imagines that the release of this would send the pencil flying across the wall, all comical – linking to the clowning theme, the wiggling line might represent a clown on a unicycle, wobbling his way across a bare circus stage? All that was missing was a bucket of torn paper, too obvious! 5 “portraits” of various clowns are made from broken, exploded pencils at the far end of the show. I can pick out crying clown, mad clown, scary clown, bowie clown…lovely works, how these seem to be the manifestation or condensate of the previous “fun” work on the wall, a seriousness derived from destruction of materials (construction from deconstruction). The show continues upstairs with some rather disturbing, realistic paintings of clown / big top icons, distorted in an almost photoshop-esque way (ripple effect anyone?). It’s as if the show has been pulling focus, refining into a twisted reality, a nightmarish end to what started out as a fun ride. Pay your penny, end up in hell; perhaps those large coins should cover our eyes as we take the ferry across the river Styx. From playful to morbid, it’s certainly an interesting, varied show. I’d noticed that the poster has Alex Pollard as a clown, donning black and white makeup, was this a documented performance? It makes me feel like I am still only seeing a portion of the theme here, it’s tantalising that one poster, with one image, can make you want more from a show.The other shows were beautiful, ugly, confusing, simple, interesting and banal. The whole day for me, was really seeing Edinburgh from a contemporary art point of view, I’d never been to these galleries before, Dogger fisher, Embassy, Talbot rice etc…but, every time I am down there from now on in, I will make a point of going into these places, I will speak to the owners, I will persist in belonging to this scene. All it takes is time and a will, I have the will, and the time, so why not?
We end the day by saying goodbye to the train-goers, and head for a coffee, to avoid rush-hour. I advise the girls (Susie, Mary & Amy) that we should visit the bookshop : analogue. We inadvertently stumble into the beginnings of a private showing, run by Spin, champagne, Contacts and a bloody good end to a lovely day..well, including the magic drive back up the road, and sublime fish and chips from the bervie...realities luxuries, lovely jubbly. (did I just type that ?)...
Listening to : shellac - acton park : amon tobid - supermodefied
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Joanne & Tom end of semester crit
Today I have (writing this before the event, for a change!) a final crit with Joanne Tatham & Tom O'Sullivan. My mission from last time was to "get to grips with my language" (based around my work).
I've been looking at podcasts, reading books etc (as you know)...and I think it's starting to sink in...
I keep forgetting to note an artist I'd found recently, who uses natural inputs to generate technological outputs : Keny Marshall's Apophenia (on youtube) certainly looks like the lo-fi mad scientist "made in a shed" ensemble that I could certainly feel comfortable talking about... I am just about to head out the door...but I'll be back to write about Keny's work, and how my crit went...
----
well, today went really well...I showed Jo and Tom my shed model, and they liked the concept, but were a bit worried i was just "dotting around", making art with no collective concept, or understanding of one work leading to another...I disagreed. I think that the Hearing Aid for a Shed is on the same tack as the "you and I" work (MfA project space). It doesn't involve computers (yet?) but it does carry my theme of nature "vs" technology... I understand their point that the work didn't "directly" lead out from my last work, but I think if that is the only way of making art, it's restrictive, in a sense that one thing HAS to lead from another, but as Sol LeWitt said "Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order". I do have a feeling (a knowledge) that all my work MUST be related, as it comes from me. I do have a core ethos to idea generation, and that is to explore the (a) relationship between natural and technological, with the human element as a conduit or interface for both. So, having that knowledge and confidence to say, "it is related, perhaps you can't see it" is a leap forward for me. I do know what I am talking about, I do understand my position in relation to my work, context and within the art world. The "full picture" of my context is not apparent as such, but would it ever be? If any position is "complete", what would be the point in continuing making art? Would I desperately have to find a new avenue of research? I think there is much mileage in a wide concept as human "interaction and relationship with an environment"...I certainly have the tools to take any situation forward. I am building my visual and written language day by day, my position can only get stronger.
I had several invaluable advisory points from Jo and Tom:
When showing my work at the end of semester two (4 weeks away, I was informed) is that I should be absolutely honest with my criticality, that is, tell the assessor / tutors what exactly I thought went well, what didn't go well, what Ideas had merit, and what ideas did not. Jo had said perfectly "not all Ideas can be as good as each other".
Criticality is key to success, and progression. When assessing a space, or a potential site for an installation / sculpture, understand the parameters of the work. The work must evolve (in the mind, or in reality), e.g. when talking about the "trumpet", Jo talked of criticality with materials (of which I have invested much time thinking about what it will be made of). They also talked of the understanding (criticality) of budget. If the budget restricts the scale of the project, so be it. I might end up with a perfect, silver ear trumpet on a plinth, if that's where the work takes me; the idea is not to compromise the idea, but to evolve it for the best "outcome".
I did explain that when I see a possible work, forming in my mind's eye, I have a "gut instinct" to go with it, and "bash it out" on paper, in writing, as a model etc, and almost felt that this was "cheating". But, they disregard, interestingly they agreed with a stance of initial reaction being moved forward. It's comforting to hear that, knowing that an "in" to making, can start with a simple "reaction" to place, space or concept derived form another work - or other artist. It's all about confidence...100%
We discuss the larger issues about being an "artist" after my crit on the work I've done and am working on...It's an interesting discussion about money, lifestyle, choices and "reality". I'd explained my position about taking time out of a well paid job, how this course, time at uni, having poppy etc has made me evaluate what is important in my life, it's nothing to do with "being the master of your own destiny" (being your own boss etc), it's about leaving something behind, for future generations. I want to be as creative as I possibly can, I want to make things that people appreciate, or make people think, I want to produce work of merit, of "importance"...and it's finding that level, or where I can make work that might lead me to larger audiences, or even just like minded audiences that can then further my understandings and position, from dialogue and discourse...I want my life to be interesting, and not a 9-5 of inconsequential bread and butter work. We did discuss the need for work (or the fact that you can't escape "it") to make work that is a compromise of your "purist vision". Collaboration, in the best sense, is all about ideas sharing, idea evolution and "compromise" (without the "dirty" connotation)...Tom Waits is a brilliant collaborator, he relishes the fact that someone else can move his ideas to another plane, knowing that it was his original seed that made the progress possible...
Tom closes with a good piece of advice, in that someone who approaches art with a "solid view" of what it is to be one, and how they are going to live that life, will run aground, where as someone with a flexible and elastic approach to working, will survive. I agree, and I do feel flexible, I do understand that my future as an artist isn't going to be an easy ride, but with hard work, dedication and an understanding that I (we, Gabi and I) need to compromise, but not ditch integrity is essential.
All good stuff, and a far more positive crit, from J&T, and myself. Confidence to steer and disagree is easy, if you know your position in art.
Sol Lewitt's sentences on Conceptual art
Richard Serra's list of verbs
Listening to : asva - futurists against the world : Liars - They Threw Us All In A Trench & Stuck A Monument On Top
I've been looking at podcasts, reading books etc (as you know)...and I think it's starting to sink in...
I keep forgetting to note an artist I'd found recently, who uses natural inputs to generate technological outputs : Keny Marshall's Apophenia (on youtube) certainly looks like the lo-fi mad scientist "made in a shed" ensemble that I could certainly feel comfortable talking about... I am just about to head out the door...but I'll be back to write about Keny's work, and how my crit went...
----
well, today went really well...I showed Jo and Tom my shed model, and they liked the concept, but were a bit worried i was just "dotting around", making art with no collective concept, or understanding of one work leading to another...I disagreed. I think that the Hearing Aid for a Shed is on the same tack as the "you and I" work (MfA project space). It doesn't involve computers (yet?) but it does carry my theme of nature "vs" technology... I understand their point that the work didn't "directly" lead out from my last work, but I think if that is the only way of making art, it's restrictive, in a sense that one thing HAS to lead from another, but as Sol LeWitt said "Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order". I do have a feeling (a knowledge) that all my work MUST be related, as it comes from me. I do have a core ethos to idea generation, and that is to explore the (a) relationship between natural and technological, with the human element as a conduit or interface for both. So, having that knowledge and confidence to say, "it is related, perhaps you can't see it" is a leap forward for me. I do know what I am talking about, I do understand my position in relation to my work, context and within the art world. The "full picture" of my context is not apparent as such, but would it ever be? If any position is "complete", what would be the point in continuing making art? Would I desperately have to find a new avenue of research? I think there is much mileage in a wide concept as human "interaction and relationship with an environment"...I certainly have the tools to take any situation forward. I am building my visual and written language day by day, my position can only get stronger.I had several invaluable advisory points from Jo and Tom:
When showing my work at the end of semester two (4 weeks away, I was informed) is that I should be absolutely honest with my criticality, that is, tell the assessor / tutors what exactly I thought went well, what didn't go well, what Ideas had merit, and what ideas did not. Jo had said perfectly "not all Ideas can be as good as each other".
Criticality is key to success, and progression. When assessing a space, or a potential site for an installation / sculpture, understand the parameters of the work. The work must evolve (in the mind, or in reality), e.g. when talking about the "trumpet", Jo talked of criticality with materials (of which I have invested much time thinking about what it will be made of). They also talked of the understanding (criticality) of budget. If the budget restricts the scale of the project, so be it. I might end up with a perfect, silver ear trumpet on a plinth, if that's where the work takes me; the idea is not to compromise the idea, but to evolve it for the best "outcome".
I did explain that when I see a possible work, forming in my mind's eye, I have a "gut instinct" to go with it, and "bash it out" on paper, in writing, as a model etc, and almost felt that this was "cheating". But, they disregard, interestingly they agreed with a stance of initial reaction being moved forward. It's comforting to hear that, knowing that an "in" to making, can start with a simple "reaction" to place, space or concept derived form another work - or other artist. It's all about confidence...100%
We discuss the larger issues about being an "artist" after my crit on the work I've done and am working on...It's an interesting discussion about money, lifestyle, choices and "reality". I'd explained my position about taking time out of a well paid job, how this course, time at uni, having poppy etc has made me evaluate what is important in my life, it's nothing to do with "being the master of your own destiny" (being your own boss etc), it's about leaving something behind, for future generations. I want to be as creative as I possibly can, I want to make things that people appreciate, or make people think, I want to produce work of merit, of "importance"...and it's finding that level, or where I can make work that might lead me to larger audiences, or even just like minded audiences that can then further my understandings and position, from dialogue and discourse...I want my life to be interesting, and not a 9-5 of inconsequential bread and butter work. We did discuss the need for work (or the fact that you can't escape "it") to make work that is a compromise of your "purist vision". Collaboration, in the best sense, is all about ideas sharing, idea evolution and "compromise" (without the "dirty" connotation)...Tom Waits is a brilliant collaborator, he relishes the fact that someone else can move his ideas to another plane, knowing that it was his original seed that made the progress possible...
Tom closes with a good piece of advice, in that someone who approaches art with a "solid view" of what it is to be one, and how they are going to live that life, will run aground, where as someone with a flexible and elastic approach to working, will survive. I agree, and I do feel flexible, I do understand that my future as an artist isn't going to be an easy ride, but with hard work, dedication and an understanding that I (we, Gabi and I) need to compromise, but not ditch integrity is essential.
All good stuff, and a far more positive crit, from J&T, and myself. Confidence to steer and disagree is easy, if you know your position in art.
Sol Lewitt's sentences on Conceptual art
Richard Serra's list of verbs
Listening to : asva - futurists against the world : Liars - They Threw Us All In A Trench & Stuck A Monument On Top
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
Aberdeen film festival
I went to the Aberdeen Film Festival last night, and it was certainly an interesting night...it had all the trappings of a great "small scene happening", energy, vibrancy, local chat about projects, ideas and films, a great wee social circle (of which I felt on the outside, I don't know any of the film makers, bar Mark van Hugten, last years winner of "best film" (and audience award))..but needless to say, I felt a part of the night.
The films varied in "quality". Most (if not all) were badly acted, it's amazing to see how a bad actor, or someone who has never truly acted, can detract from a story. It's interesting to see low budget projects that each have a weakness but still have redeeming qualities about them. All brilliant in that all the people involved actually got off their backsides and went out and "just did it"...as I've parped on : you have to create to critique!
the Down sides of the films were, naivety, bad scripts, bad acting, bad lighting, bad sound, bad editing, bad shots, gross characterisations, trying too hard, trying to be clever...when presented with low budget film, you have to expect a low fi vibe, some often have that as a saving grace, you can forgive the film and think of it as charming, some were so poor that you couldn't forgive them. I treated the bad ones as thinking that someone said "I can make a film"...(like someone saying they are an artist because "they dabble" (make shit watercolours).
The good side of the films were, energy, ideas, good use of the camera (shots), editing, humour and a celebration of "locality". It was interesting to note that the best films of the night were the funny ones. I just didn't think that the "serious" actors cut the mustard, in believability.
My favourite film was "invisible City", for its inventiveness (a city full of invisible people), excellent camera work, great visual (or non, as the case may be) jokes of invisible people In compromising situations. I think the reason I liked it, was because it didn't have bad actors, messing up the dialogue. There were vocal actors in it (voice over), but they carried off the script with aplomb. all in all an excellent short film. "One trick pony" was one of the comments I heard on the night, true, but a bloody good trick for a cheap as chips pony!
I'd like to think that in a few years time, we'd hear of at least one of these local film makers, making it "big", the next Danny Boyle...one could hope.
listening to : oneida - happy new year : kyuss - and the circus leaves town : Paul miller (aka Dj Spooky) - interviews on cut up / mix ideologies
The films varied in "quality". Most (if not all) were badly acted, it's amazing to see how a bad actor, or someone who has never truly acted, can detract from a story. It's interesting to see low budget projects that each have a weakness but still have redeeming qualities about them. All brilliant in that all the people involved actually got off their backsides and went out and "just did it"...as I've parped on : you have to create to critique!
the Down sides of the films were, naivety, bad scripts, bad acting, bad lighting, bad sound, bad editing, bad shots, gross characterisations, trying too hard, trying to be clever...when presented with low budget film, you have to expect a low fi vibe, some often have that as a saving grace, you can forgive the film and think of it as charming, some were so poor that you couldn't forgive them. I treated the bad ones as thinking that someone said "I can make a film"...(like someone saying they are an artist because "they dabble" (make shit watercolours).
The good side of the films were, energy, ideas, good use of the camera (shots), editing, humour and a celebration of "locality". It was interesting to note that the best films of the night were the funny ones. I just didn't think that the "serious" actors cut the mustard, in believability.
My favourite film was "invisible City", for its inventiveness (a city full of invisible people), excellent camera work, great visual (or non, as the case may be) jokes of invisible people In compromising situations. I think the reason I liked it, was because it didn't have bad actors, messing up the dialogue. There were vocal actors in it (voice over), but they carried off the script with aplomb. all in all an excellent short film. "One trick pony" was one of the comments I heard on the night, true, but a bloody good trick for a cheap as chips pony!
I'd like to think that in a few years time, we'd hear of at least one of these local film makers, making it "big", the next Danny Boyle...one could hope.
listening to : oneida - happy new year : kyuss - and the circus leaves town : Paul miller (aka Dj Spooky) - interviews on cut up / mix ideologies
Monday, 23 April 2007
Iain "end of semester 2" tutorial
We're drawing to the end of semester two, and Iain has asked us all to come in for a chat, to see where we are, have come from, and think we are going...All of a sudden I got nervous...what have I done? what am I doing? where am I going? (I do have all the answers, it's just I need confidence to say what they are, without fear of being told they are too simple, or wrong)
Iain is great at getting the best out of me, he's constructive, interested and helpful. He is also critical, in a friendly way! His invaluable advice today was that I do need to understand why (or where) my art is made. What is it that I want to show, discuss, say...why should I have squares generated from a web cam feed, why should I hide the technology behind traditional art materials...what is that all about? - I do know, and as Jo and Tom had said, during my crit with them in front of the "you and I" show - "You need to find your language"...Think about what the work is about, what issues am I raising, what comments am I making, and here's the tricky part, to explain that, with out being descriptive (physically) or prescriptive, and not leaving the work to explain its self, or leave the mystery (the "game") open for people to engage and see what they will. Context, isn't about "who else made something like this?" or "where are the ideas rooted, arrived from art movements / practitioners" it's all about understanding why this work should have been realised, what the work is about (conceptually) and my feelings round the work(s).
Iain is slightly worried that I am concentrating too much on trying to "catch up" with my art history (contextualisation)...I show him my stack of fat books, and he's in agreement that "it's a good idea to do it" but is worried that it's detracting from my actual "practice" but I do tell him I am working on a few projects (Actual making things, as well as generating ideas / concepts). He's happy that I am taking the reading on board, when he can see I am also "slugging away" at making my own art. It's the funny thing about making / creating "art", I was asked by Iain, "I need to know that your ideas generation will be self sustaining", and as I'd said to Gabi and Susie, it's hard to explain that "he day the ideas dry up, is the day I die" (sounds pompous and overly confident), but I do honestly feel that every day I am alive, I see the potential to represent my experience through a creative output, be it design, painting, sculpture, installation, programing, writing...talking! I do in an academic sense, need to prove this. You can't give an answer "trust me" here!
On the whole, my biggest weakness is that I am still too literal in my talking of my work (and others). I need to think more "outside the box" to take in bigger themes, wider (no-specific) ideas. I can't think of everything, but I can start to delve a little deeper into the concepts behind a work...unlike Roy Walker, it's not "say what you see"...it's "say what you feel".
It's hard to know where to draw the line, I need to talk about themes and issues, but I also need to stop "tying it down". I still need to know myself why I make art, it can't be "just because it looks nice / interesting"...first and foremost, an artwork needs to exist because it says something, it holds a distorted mirror up to a subject pertaining to life experience. It's hard to know whether a concept must come first, and then a realisation through ideas (sol lewitt : The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the concept.). I do have strong ideas, but do I have strong concepts? what is the drive for my work? I need to answer these questions before the end of semester 2...two weeks away.
Listening to : swans - filth : miles davis - bitches brew
Iain is great at getting the best out of me, he's constructive, interested and helpful. He is also critical, in a friendly way! His invaluable advice today was that I do need to understand why (or where) my art is made. What is it that I want to show, discuss, say...why should I have squares generated from a web cam feed, why should I hide the technology behind traditional art materials...what is that all about? - I do know, and as Jo and Tom had said, during my crit with them in front of the "you and I" show - "You need to find your language"...Think about what the work is about, what issues am I raising, what comments am I making, and here's the tricky part, to explain that, with out being descriptive (physically) or prescriptive, and not leaving the work to explain its self, or leave the mystery (the "game") open for people to engage and see what they will. Context, isn't about "who else made something like this?" or "where are the ideas rooted, arrived from art movements / practitioners" it's all about understanding why this work should have been realised, what the work is about (conceptually) and my feelings round the work(s).
Iain is slightly worried that I am concentrating too much on trying to "catch up" with my art history (contextualisation)...I show him my stack of fat books, and he's in agreement that "it's a good idea to do it" but is worried that it's detracting from my actual "practice" but I do tell him I am working on a few projects (Actual making things, as well as generating ideas / concepts). He's happy that I am taking the reading on board, when he can see I am also "slugging away" at making my own art. It's the funny thing about making / creating "art", I was asked by Iain, "I need to know that your ideas generation will be self sustaining", and as I'd said to Gabi and Susie, it's hard to explain that "he day the ideas dry up, is the day I die" (sounds pompous and overly confident), but I do honestly feel that every day I am alive, I see the potential to represent my experience through a creative output, be it design, painting, sculpture, installation, programing, writing...talking! I do in an academic sense, need to prove this. You can't give an answer "trust me" here!
On the whole, my biggest weakness is that I am still too literal in my talking of my work (and others). I need to think more "outside the box" to take in bigger themes, wider (no-specific) ideas. I can't think of everything, but I can start to delve a little deeper into the concepts behind a work...unlike Roy Walker, it's not "say what you see"...it's "say what you feel".
It's hard to know where to draw the line, I need to talk about themes and issues, but I also need to stop "tying it down". I still need to know myself why I make art, it can't be "just because it looks nice / interesting"...first and foremost, an artwork needs to exist because it says something, it holds a distorted mirror up to a subject pertaining to life experience. It's hard to know whether a concept must come first, and then a realisation through ideas (sol lewitt : The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the concept.). I do have strong ideas, but do I have strong concepts? what is the drive for my work? I need to answer these questions before the end of semester 2...two weeks away.
Listening to : swans - filth : miles davis - bitches brew
Thursday, 19 April 2007
literal YES
Hearing-aid for a Shed [Bad Science]
I head in to Gray’s for 10 am to meet Steve, to talk about my latest developments. I am confident to start talking about the “breath of fresh air” project I am working on for Jane Frazer’s NEOS show. When Steve arrives, I talk of the outline or theme for Jane’s show “breath of fresh air”. It’s about something different for NEOS, it’s about new artists in the NE, trying different work. As I’ve said before in this blog, when I went for the site visit, I saw a perfect opportunity in the shed, the point that “wild” meets “civilised” where wind meets building. That point is perfect for reflection of contact with nature, communication between outside and inside. I show Steve my drawing of the Funnel, and he immediately starts to talk positively of it, and the ideas that might be threaded through it. He asks of my concepts, and I bumble out the patter I’ve been practicing, communication, channelling, controlling and condensing…He picks up on the hearing / communication part of the idea, I’d also likened the “trumpet” to old hearing aids, gramophone speakers, even the early “sound mirrors” the UK used against the Germans from 1916 – 1944. He busily types this into the internet, with an artist in mind: Tacita Dean, she’d used the sound mirrors in her work, but also researched that these devices were actually no where near “accurate” enough for spying, the “signal” generated from them was garbled, indecipherable and practically useless, and this is where she’d coined the phrase “Bad science” (where unfit scientific endeavour (in its nature useless for its unresolved conclusions) is perfect for artistic inspection and research). It’s the “ghost in the machine” that art tries to use, one lesson I have learned over the year so far, is that I am not here to answer questions through art, but ASK questions. I still have to fight the urge to become rational, to conclude, to satisfy and put a full stop to questions I raise with my art. It should be my mantra : “ask questions, not answer”.
We talk of communication, of listening, again, a form of translation. The whole Idea of a funnel, a directing vehicle, a focusing point, can convey sounds from “outside” to “inside” (and vice versa, if not on uneven footing). I equate the scale of each “opening” relatively to its environment, “outside” = vast, “inside” = small. I’d also like to think that the possibility of speaking, shouting, playing through the cone, is to broadcast the human input back into the wilderness, fighting against the wind channelling through the funnel, a futile gesture, unmatched by the relentless input of the wind. The idea of conflict, but also of bias (futile) communication sits well with some of my previous works (“I don’t have a dream”, “war poem translations” and “you and I (webcam project).).
Steve brings to the discussion, the idea of sheds being a stereotypical place for British inventors, crackpots trying to make the next perpetual motion machine, the next space shuttle that runs on carrot juice (again, bad Science). It’s the romantic notion of “crazy machines”, pointlessly being made to fulfil little of no purpose, it’s again perfect for art to hijack these experiments and turn them into questions, turn them into experiments for art.
The idea of the interior of the shed has possibilities too, I could house several objects / sculptures that could be changed and manipulated by the incoming wind, if I end the funnel with a hose, controllable by the “user”, visible displays of the wind force, even audible traces of the wind can be conveyed, futile control over nature. I talk of turning the analogue, natural input of the wind, into a digital signal, through circuitry, wind speed measurements etc. A flow of data, for no purpose. It’s visualising the constant. We are surrounded by inputs, data and information, are our brains capable of processing everything we experience? I read in the New Scientist that the eyes and brain dupe, generalise and lie to avoid overloading...it’s fascinating to know that we lie to ourselves daily to save ourselves from sensory overload.
Steve also talks of researching speakers, interiors and sound dampening. We talk of the materials that “could “make the trumpet. I am still stuck on metal, it’s durability, an elemental stand to nature. If it were made of “flimsy” ply, I’d imagine this work woul stand for about a year. We talk of Anish Kapoor’s massive funnel in Tate modern, a few years back, the idea that these structures are mechanical (so to speak) representations of the inner ear…perhaps “skinned” rings (rubber, cloth waterproofed?) might be worth investigating, but, my gut instinct is to try and aim for metal.
So, I need to (again) contextualise my reasons, ideas and direction. Steve, amazing as ever, springs names out of the air like rabbits from a magicians hat. I have a list to look at, and try and understand their positions, to make mine more solid:
Janet Cardiff
Dalziel & Scullion
Lucy Lippard (conceptual art writer)
Tacita Dean
UBU.com (fantastic resource “youTube of conceptual art” (Shangri-La!))
So much to do, and so little time. It is quality, not quantity though…but finding out the secret, the “nub” of what’s missing, isn’t as easy as just being told “you need to find context” or “you need to find your language”. I have a language, I can express what it is I want to do, why I want to do it, but it’s not intellectual enough, considered enough for Steve, and Jo & Tom. (I’ll find that out next week!)
I head in to Gray’s for 10 am to meet Steve, to talk about my latest developments. I am confident to start talking about the “breath of fresh air” project I am working on for Jane Frazer’s NEOS show. When Steve arrives, I talk of the outline or theme for Jane’s show “breath of fresh air”. It’s about something different for NEOS, it’s about new artists in the NE, trying different work. As I’ve said before in this blog, when I went for the site visit, I saw a perfect opportunity in the shed, the point that “wild” meets “civilised” where wind meets building. That point is perfect for reflection of contact with nature, communication between outside and inside. I show Steve my drawing of the Funnel, and he immediately starts to talk positively of it, and the ideas that might be threaded through it. He asks of my concepts, and I bumble out the patter I’ve been practicing, communication, channelling, controlling and condensing…He picks up on the hearing / communication part of the idea, I’d also likened the “trumpet” to old hearing aids, gramophone speakers, even the early “sound mirrors” the UK used against the Germans from 1916 – 1944. He busily types this into the internet, with an artist in mind: Tacita Dean, she’d used the sound mirrors in her work, but also researched that these devices were actually no where near “accurate” enough for spying, the “signal” generated from them was garbled, indecipherable and practically useless, and this is where she’d coined the phrase “Bad science” (where unfit scientific endeavour (in its nature useless for its unresolved conclusions) is perfect for artistic inspection and research). It’s the “ghost in the machine” that art tries to use, one lesson I have learned over the year so far, is that I am not here to answer questions through art, but ASK questions. I still have to fight the urge to become rational, to conclude, to satisfy and put a full stop to questions I raise with my art. It should be my mantra : “ask questions, not answer”.
We talk of communication, of listening, again, a form of translation. The whole Idea of a funnel, a directing vehicle, a focusing point, can convey sounds from “outside” to “inside” (and vice versa, if not on uneven footing). I equate the scale of each “opening” relatively to its environment, “outside” = vast, “inside” = small. I’d also like to think that the possibility of speaking, shouting, playing through the cone, is to broadcast the human input back into the wilderness, fighting against the wind channelling through the funnel, a futile gesture, unmatched by the relentless input of the wind. The idea of conflict, but also of bias (futile) communication sits well with some of my previous works (“I don’t have a dream”, “war poem translations” and “you and I (webcam project).).
Steve brings to the discussion, the idea of sheds being a stereotypical place for British inventors, crackpots trying to make the next perpetual motion machine, the next space shuttle that runs on carrot juice (again, bad Science). It’s the romantic notion of “crazy machines”, pointlessly being made to fulfil little of no purpose, it’s again perfect for art to hijack these experiments and turn them into questions, turn them into experiments for art.
The idea of the interior of the shed has possibilities too, I could house several objects / sculptures that could be changed and manipulated by the incoming wind, if I end the funnel with a hose, controllable by the “user”, visible displays of the wind force, even audible traces of the wind can be conveyed, futile control over nature. I talk of turning the analogue, natural input of the wind, into a digital signal, through circuitry, wind speed measurements etc. A flow of data, for no purpose. It’s visualising the constant. We are surrounded by inputs, data and information, are our brains capable of processing everything we experience? I read in the New Scientist that the eyes and brain dupe, generalise and lie to avoid overloading...it’s fascinating to know that we lie to ourselves daily to save ourselves from sensory overload.
Steve also talks of researching speakers, interiors and sound dampening. We talk of the materials that “could “make the trumpet. I am still stuck on metal, it’s durability, an elemental stand to nature. If it were made of “flimsy” ply, I’d imagine this work woul stand for about a year. We talk of Anish Kapoor’s massive funnel in Tate modern, a few years back, the idea that these structures are mechanical (so to speak) representations of the inner ear…perhaps “skinned” rings (rubber, cloth waterproofed?) might be worth investigating, but, my gut instinct is to try and aim for metal.
So, I need to (again) contextualise my reasons, ideas and direction. Steve, amazing as ever, springs names out of the air like rabbits from a magicians hat. I have a list to look at, and try and understand their positions, to make mine more solid:
Janet Cardiff
Dalziel & Scullion
Lucy Lippard (conceptual art writer)
Tacita Dean
UBU.com (fantastic resource “youTube of conceptual art” (Shangri-La!))
So much to do, and so little time. It is quality, not quantity though…but finding out the secret, the “nub” of what’s missing, isn’t as easy as just being told “you need to find context” or “you need to find your language”. I have a language, I can express what it is I want to do, why I want to do it, but it’s not intellectual enough, considered enough for Steve, and Jo & Tom. (I’ll find that out next week!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
