trumpet part 3

I finished pasting the newspapers (broadsheets) onto the trumpet’s interior today, I also created an extension to fit onto the end of the horn (a mouthpiece), which is slightly too big, so I insert it from the inside and jam it into position (the extension is now about 30 cm inside the funnel, but in the final steel structure, I’d ensure that the extension was the same size as the end of the trumpet structure, so I could weld it in place flush. I have also inserted a large blue tube (that Mary supplied), and I played it like a didgeridoo whilst videoing it. When playing the “instrument” I started experimenting with the didg techniques I know – one of which worked particularly well, “talking” down the pipe while droning sounded great. I spoke “read all about it” as the drone carried on, the distortion and illegibility adds to the confusion. When I showed Gabi the video, she said it reminded her of a tribal war cry (I’d been thinking of the “horns of Helms deep” in lord of the rings (http://www.tuckborough.net/fortress.html#Helm's)) – the use of tribal instruments to “rally troops” – to spread a message to a specific set of people, “music” to some, terror and impending conflict to some. It’s the tribal nature of these simple forms (drums might be an option too – created from “newspaper skins”) adds to my feelings of a “base nature” in all these newspapers – gangs of “types” thinking that their paper is “the truth” and defence of their position is paramount to the survival of the doctrine.

Crit with Steve H

I have a crit with Steve Hollingsworth today. He seems to be far more relaxed and positive when dealing with us (the MFA students) now. I start my usual bumbling, nervous chat about my work, without a solid plan to talk about (I thought I did, but when I sit with him, it’s always quite a nervy thing to do)…I talk about the trumpet for a shed, and how I’d like to use these as conduits for discourse between rooms, I’d like to link up the others work, to a central “hub”, so people can listen in to criticisms and comments about work etc – the removed, eavesdropping enabling the participate to question their thoughts on what they have already seen, or are about to see, swayed by opinions from others… I start to talk of collating data from various inputs, and re-interpreting them “from the hub”…All of these ideas based on “truth and trust” – within a technological context, which steve seems interested in, offering suggestions of how and where inputs could come from.

I then show him the ideas in my sketch book I had the day after I last spoke to him, all reactions to news and information (not specifically a critique on technology, but that of media) – This seems to stimulate him far more than the previous conversation, he even drops in that the previous ideas were “limited” and “parochial” (why didn’t he say that before? – again, more evidence he’s promoting, and positive about our directions). I get through about 4 of the pages (there are 10 in total) of my sketches for possible installations – all of which Steve nods and approves. His comments are that I seem to have all the raw materials to start working with, I need to solidify and form these sketches into a reality, so I can them react to them (I couldn’t agree more). He is particularly keen to see the juxtaposition of old Vs new forms of media delivery (newspapers Vs internet). I have talked about the change in scope of how people expect to see news, how people are far more reliant on the web for “up to the minute news”, whereas newspapers have become almost obsolete (in the capacity to tell the news), they have become organs for opinion and advertisement, lifestyle and trivia (the mirror is “the official paper to the big brother house”). Steve picks up on 2 of the works I have shown, the “carcass” inspired (Steve’s crushed car) ball of newspapers: a dead weight of redundant news. He likes the idea of a massive solid ball of “old news”, juxtaposed with my other installation of data projections from up to the minute news sites, onto “ethereal” surfaces (water, smoke etc). I also need to explore the use of raw data, within a programming context – experimentation with live, unknown data would lead to several experiments to which I wouldn’t have a clue what the outcome would be. Problem is, there are no internet connections in my room (I speak to John Welsh later about installing a live port). All in all, Steve is happy with the direction of my work, he just wants to see it solidifying. I talk briefly (and show my few words) for the dissertation, he doesn’t offer much criticism, but does warn me to keep the discourse within a fine art context. He does say “note the historical and philosophical influences, but stick to fine art” – sound advice I thought. A good day with Steve is worth its weight in gold...no, make that platinum. I also give steve a CD comp...see what he thinks of:

beauty pill - mule on the plane
mr bungle - pink cigarette
scorn - sleep when home
techno animal - monophobic
porch - bulbous head
shellac - wingwalker
iain ballamy - julienne
mike patton - insect hororscopes
jamie lidell - game for fools
bjork - innocence
faxed head - bring the dead boy peace
fret - bike
elliot smith - LA
boom bip & doseone - art saved my life
burial - night bus
dead brothers - entre chein et loup
chris clarke - indigo optimus
1 speed bike - the day that mauro ran over el
battles - tras

I started pasting the newspapers I bought the other day onto the trumpet. I have decided to paste the tabloids on the outside of the cone – I’ve been thinking of my position in regards to tabloids Vs “broadsheets”, and I feel that tabloids are loud, brash and far from “my voice”, so they go on the outside of the cone – highly visible and on the other side of where my voice will be broadcast (when talking / speaking through the trumpet). I will paste the broadsheets inside the trumpet (tomorrow).

I have also set up the two video projections of me writing in the nude to show the other MFA students. I have some very flattering comments about the honesty and integrity of the work, Susie and Mary seemed quite moved by my openness and presentation of my feelings. When I look at this work I feel confident about it. This work has come from a reaction to the debilitating criticism that has haunted me for a while now : “It looks like you are trying to make something that looks like art”. I have constantly had this ringing in my ears, whenever I think about “making something”. After several conversations with tutors, I get the feeling they are “expecting me” to create some form of graphics, and use them within a fine art context – that’s fine, I aim to do work like this – the exploration of information conveyance in a graphic format (in news etc)…but there is also a side of me that wants to “make”, that wants to create installations, sculptures and other forms of art that do not include “my graphic skills” – and It is was the simple mistake of me proclaiming that I “am not a practicing artist” (at the start of the year, when I had no confidence to call myself “an artist”) that has given the tutors this idea that I am “fraudulent” if I attempt to create a sculpture: I get the feeling that If I’d proclaimed myself as a sculpture, creating anything that “looks sculptural” would have been less critically scrutinised with the knowledge that “this is what he does, therefore it must be art” – and not “oh, it looks like he’s trying to make art”. Needless to say, I needed to get my head out of my arse, and just start making things, ensure that the forms I create inform my language, my artistic vocabulary. It is my responsibility to add credibility to the work – and to do this, I need to “just create” – once something exists, I can then discount or accept this (“create to critique”). I will embrace everything I do as “my artistic practice” and will refuse to stick to someone else’s preconception of what they expect from me. From my inaction and fear of creating work – I have created a strong and powerful reaction. I have noted that this work is “audience specific”, in that it is a direct response to (what I feel) is unfair (or badly put) criticism to my developing practice.

Edinburgh Trip - MFA's / BA Hons

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

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.

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).

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.

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.