rip it up and start again...

I’ve readdressed the chapter three problem, I’ve deleted many aspects of “the plan” to talk about the work (step by step explanation of individual works). I’ve scrapped it all, and need to think more about how my concepts and ideas work within the context I’ve identified. I know they do, I feel a sense of connection with the works of Hirschhorn and Tyson…I know I am addressing some of the issues they do, but on a shallower level (for now). It’s my need to define my practice, to become comfortable with my arsenal of visual vocabulary…all I have to do, is put that into words, make it sounds like I am convincing, and conclude on it…simple!

Stuck the Herald to the full stop

reflective reflection...reflects.(balls)

Drawing on previous works and reflection on newer works for the dissertation. It feels clunky and a bit trite…it’s quite hard talking about the work…and I think it’s too prescriptive…

Stuck P&J to full stop

chapter 3 staarted (my Practice)

Started on chapter three – my work and practice, in relation to others…and it was all shite. I deleted 2000 words. I can see myself falling into the tarp of describing the work, and not the concepts and ideas that my work addresses. I start to get a bit worried…I know this is my weakness, my inability to speak about the work “ambiguously”, I feel the need to satisfy the lamen in me : “tell us how you made it” (not “why” you made it…) I think that’s the simple difference in my failing. It’s a case of talking about wy I made it…not how.

I stuck the daily mirror to the Full Stop, and started thinking about how the inky hands part of the work could function on its own…I have been formulating ideas about video work, based on “transference” – passing information from one place to another. The ramifications or implications of transfer - perhaps some comparison with disease? Or random acts of kindness…I like the idea of the indiscriminate neutrality of possibility, for good or bad, or “nothing”…

Stuck Daily Mirror to Full Stop

Ganahl reflection

Writing about Rainer Ganahl. One Annoying thing about Ganahl is…his website is down! Just when I need to collate images and texts from him. I’ve had to rely upon third party sources! (which are hard to find!). I fear Ganahl is in the throws of updating his site, for the Venice biennale…must keep checking.

I “completed” chapter two, and started writing conclusions about all the artists (Tyson, Du, Mik, Hirschhorn, Patterson…

Stuck the n*ws of the w*rld to the Full Stop

chapter 2 started

Started Chapter two – artists dealing with information / media criticality
Thomas Hirschhorn & Aernout Mik

Stuck the guardian to the Full Stop

full on writing - dissertation mode

I’ve been writing like a fury on the dissertation, so I’ve not had time to write my thoughts in blog form too…(should I just cut n paste?) Anyway…I’ve completed chapter one. (Identifying areas of interest in media criticism to create artistic activity within my own practice.)

I’m focusing entirely on the dissertation over the next few days, I need to get it finished by Wednesday, so I can show Iain, when he gets back. Hopefully it won’t be too late to change “much”. I have also identified I need to check the content with people, so I’ve ear marked Joan Ingram (fifth business) and Chloe Reith (studious ex student…and Gabi’s sister)

Stuck Daily record to Full Stop

Last crit with Steve Hollingsworth

It’s the last crit with Steve today…I am nervous, but also confident about talking about the work (well, more so than I have been in the past!). We start by looking at the trumpet, I try to refer back to what Jo and Tom had said (mostly disappointment of its obviousness), and Steve concurs. He thinks it is too obvious, too “that’s it”. A visual punch line. After painting it too (which I instantly thought derived form the relevance of the newspaper covers), Steve comments that even the black and red gave it the school kids joke, what’s black and white and re(a)d all over? – to which I completely agree. The tribalism, brutal broadcast and clunkiness of it just turns Steve off from it, but, the more I think about it, the more it’s true. It’s a “fun” work, but nothing more. If the MFA is here to eek out deeper meaning, considered thought and rigorous critical questioning of ideas and observations, this doesn’t do it. The more I think about it, the more I get the feeling that I couldn’t fit into this world…sometimes I get the feeling that I don’t belong, that I am not clever enough to operate at the level that Steve, Jo & Tom do…who knows what time can do. Susie and I have a discussion later, about that very point, what level do we want to operate on? I would be happy to create cutting edge, stimulating and intelligent art – a rigorous form of scientific questioning without the science. I know what is expected of me, but I just don’ think I am deep enough (yet?)…and that’s depressing.

Steve does think I have several interesting works, and he almost gets excited about certain elements (my inky hands from the “full stop” for instance)…but again, It’s my inability to see the potential of “fascinating” work (from Steve’s perspective) to my own simpler, basic excitement from engaging objects – which to him are vacuous and banal. It’s always going to be the struggle, think of the critics, or do it for myself…but, to know that I want to contribute stimulating, new thought through my developing practice. Perhaps doing the masters without a practice was foolish, but it is also flattering to know that I have operated at this level, with my peers (practitioners for 5 – 20 years) and been able to keep up, to contribute and raise awareness and new ideas, within the student context of the course…it is this “extra mile” that the tutors bring, this knowledge of the “outside world” – it’s not good enough to “just get a masters”, it’s that knowledge of taking my ideas and the execution of them, into the “big bad world” of conceptual art, and the delightful critics that inhabit it. Again, this all boils down to conviction and confidence in my own work…which I do have, I do know that it is what I am supposed to do, I make things to question my experience, and awareness of the world. The simplest answer to getting better…is to keep at it. Read more, become sophisticated with the use of language, refuse to describe and prescribe, explore the ambiguous language that is required to explain work, without shutting it down, restricting possible discourse and “out of the box” though the work can (or should) bring.

That was evident, when I showed Steve my “doublePaper” video. I started talking “literally” about its origin, the reaction to fixed phone competition. This in itself limits the scope of the exploration of the work – it can’t be anything else. I make a mental note to myself, when I see Iain next, I will show him this work, (not referring to Steve’s comments) and try and talk about it ambiguously, I will refuse to talk about its origins, I will only talk of the ideas – information, futility, unrealities, competition, repetition and stupidity. I should work on the themes, I should write a paragraph or two on each of the works, and re-assess my “obviousness”. I will send them to Steve (even though he has no obligation to reply (to which he never does anyway!) – but I will specifically ask him for feedback)…see where that takes me.

Anyway – back to the work. “My problem” and “reader” stimulate Steve. I can see that these works (because of their “honest” – or heartfelt roots) strike a chord with people. Steve does see the poetic in the form, and ambiguity. He asks what I am writing, and I say “are you sure you want to know?” (Knowing full well he’ll talk negatively of it!)…so, I show him the page, and he says (predictably) “Oh, that’s shut it down for me” (hence the reason why I would never show the lines next to the video). I pre-empt this reaction, so I feel better for it – knowing the “pitfalls” of shutting down a work, is always a good thing! I did say to Steve, “I knew you’d say that” and we laugh. The wonderful observation (it’s so obvious, once Steve says it), was that he liked the relationship between input and output (the writing and reading). It is this feedback loop which interests Steve so much, the poetry of introspection – why is he reading? What is he reading? What is he thinking when he is reading? Is he writing in reflection to the reading? Is he reading in reflection to the writing? The nakedness of “transmitting” is an interesting point Steve raises, the idea that when I write, I am giving something away of myself, I am exposing my thoughts to paper – whereas the act of reading other people’s words, is an absorption, a way of “clothing” my opinion, forming opinions form others words, is (metaphorically) like dressing my opinions with bought ideas. I like this observation and will explore that further.

The full stop takes a beating too…on seeing it, I don’t think the scale is impressive enough for steve, or the idea has been watered down, it’s turned into a pointless diary, the way I’d talked to Steve about it 3 weeks ago, was an impressive ball of papers – chaotic, massive and oppressive…here, we have a quaint little beachball size of one paper a day (so what). Again, I see his point about the singularity of it – that is, it’s singular “point” to make. It has become a chore, as I get nothing from it now (other than the opportunity to get black hands, to which steve is interested – the poetry of absorbed / transferred information – the idea that information can exist out with a format, but in a diluted, confused and chaotic state – the ink “used” to say something, now it’s “dirt” or something to clean up, remove. This rings true with my want to remove the ink from a paper, and re-use the ink to write my own messages. Perhaps this is the connection between Reading / Writing (video). The paper I read could then be removed of ink, and I re-draw / re-create the paper in my own hand, with the ink from the original, drawn back onto the blank paper…I think there is a lot of mileage in this.

To start thinking about the show, I need to strip out what is detritus, “sketches” as I aptly described some of the objects and works in the room (which Steve picks up on). I think about layouts, and content. The relationship between the possible works. So far, I can “see” that the video works will play a large part in the show. Outside / Inside (back to back /between the wall) will be the reading / writing video works. I like the relationship of “public and private” the work offers, the hall = public space, my room = private, “inner sanctum”. We talk about a sea of newspapers. I had noted that when I have newspapers strewn around, the sense that something is present within this form interests me. Steve talks of a way of linking the amount of papers with censorship, as well as a reduction of the participant (viewer) with my previously explored digital abstraction. The sense that we are all data, we are all information, relating to each other. (again, I need to fine tune the language / way I talk about the work). I think the remaining time at uni (after dissertation) is to create the show (quickly), but then rally work on the reflective / vocabulary. I should practice the “patter”, as this is by far the weakest aspect of me creating “fine art”. I can come up with the ideas, I can execute them technically, but I let it all down by describing it. I kill it by telling people what to think. I might as well be a columnist in the Sun.

It’s sad to think that just as I am starting to understand, and “play” with Steve, our time draws to an end together. I will miss him, for all the hard times and feeling small because of his cutting crits, I certainly have learned a lot from him – his ability to draw the best out of me, is encouraging and helpful.
Despite Steve’s comments on the ball, I feel I must complete what I had started – besides the opportunity to generate the hand / ink shots, I need to complete it for its own integrity -for my integrity. I get a P&J from Gabi, but didn’t stick it to the ball today…a cheat, two tomorrow. (Integrity?!)