Reflection upon Gallery visits:
After visiting only a few exhibitions that are currently showing in London, I have noticed that there is a trend between the public and private in the art world, due to gentrification. I have also noticed the exploitation of the voice and our bodies to create art piece is a common contemporary art form. Another trend established is the prejudice involved in certain galleries. For example, at the Welcome Collection, a surprisingly public gallery with a lot of associations and connections with The British Museum, has a vast amount of new and contemporary works. I found these more engaging than most public galleries such as ‘The Photographer’s Gallery’. I appreciate that vast range of works and the attention to detail of every work in their installment. I am not discontent with the works but rather Art’s relationship with the capital. When reading certain reviews there has been a large negativity about the work being ‘hit and miss’, highlighting how the art worlds and galleries seem to act like the slaves to please the Captial with works they deem ‘acceptable’. The more negative and lower rated galleries made in such reviews are often the ones which I found most engaging and exciting. For example, I found the Welcome Collection more engaging than the Deutsche-Borse Photographer’s competition, even though they are all equally valuable , strong, engaging and important. But in the reviews, at the Photographer’s Gallery it had a higher rating than the Welcome Collections exhibit (Photographers rated 3 out of 5 stars, whilst The Welcome Collection was rated 2 out of 5 stars).
I appreciate that vast range of works and the attention to detail of every work in their installment. I am not discontent with the works but rather Art’s relationship with the capital. When reading certain reviews there has been a large negativity about the work being ‘hit and miss’, highlighting how the art worlds and galleries seem to act like the slaves to please the Captial with works they deem ‘acceptable’. The more negative and lower rated galleries made in such reviews are often the ones which I found most engaging and exciting. For example, I found the Welcome Collection more engaging than the Deutsche-Borse Photographer’s competition, even though they are all equally valuable , strong, engaging and important. But in the reviews, at the Photographer’s Gallery it had a higher rating than the Welcome Collections exhibit (Photographers rated 3 out of 5 stars, whilst The Welcome Collection was rated 2 out of 5 stars).
The more negative and lower rated galleries made in such reviews are often the ones which I found most engaging and exciting. For example, I found the Welcome Collection more engaging than the Deutsche-Borse Photographer’s competition, even though they are all equally valuable , strong, engaging and important. But in the reviews, at the Photographer’s Gallery it had a higher rating than the Welcome Collections exhibit (Photographers rated 3 out of 5 stars, whilst The Welcome Collection was rated 2 out of 5 stars).
Reflection.
The conclusive outcome of the presentation is a certain element of prejudice. For example, the people who we made the vote (the audience) begun to notice certain attributes of the artist’s background which gained more importance in the result than their works. For example, people suggested they begun to think the woman should win because she is the only female, others avoided to vote for the person they thought had the best works because they were a heterosexual, middle-class white male. These thought processes were a result of the competition which took away the value of the works. It highlights people’s social-economic constructs they have when interpreting artwork. Thus, resulting in a prejudice dynamic in the art world, and divides between public and private galleries relationship with the capital.
The Welcome Collection: ‘This is a Voice’ exhibit.
Reflection.
In saying this, I feel as though the Raven Row is one of the few galleries which does not require to be relied upon the acceptance of the public eye, as it is a private gallery. ALternativley, the gallery is owned and run by Alex Sainsbury’s, so has only had the luxury of being established due to the commercial success of our consumerist western society. This could also be argued to benefit the company ‘Sainsbury’s’ as well. This is because, the artists exhibiting, and the publicity gained for his involvement in the art world benefits Alex and the Sainsbury’s family and company. In saying this, Raven Row is a much-appreciated asset to the London art world, and something I wish was more common.
Raven Row – Woody Vasulka and Stiena
London Art Scene.
One gallery which I believe is an exception to the rule of being a public gallery which conforms the spectators ‘acceptance’ of art is the Carol Fletcher Gallery. For example, The previous exhibit ‘Neoliberal Lulz: Constant Dullart, Femke Herregraven, Emilie Bout and Maxime Marion, and Jennifer Lyn Marone, doesn’t place in sync with the location. For example, The exhibition beforehand seemed very controversial to its location, Oxford street where the works questioned and belittled the ridiculousness of cooperation and our consumeristic lifestyle in a western world.
For example, Jenifer Lyn Morone created a body of works where she managed to scientifically develop a perfume using her hair particles, then made this into an art form. Her art which sincerely questions and explores the dynamics of mass consumerist society and cooperations, developed into a cooperation itself, where people invested money into the artworks. As a result, she has become a CEO of her own cooperation, ‘DOME (Database Of ME).
In terms of how each work is curated in terms of their location, however, individual works have been thoroughly refined and curated in a way which benefits the context of the works. For example, at the Welcome collection, the video installation of a man screaming in the distance on a hill, from the top of his lungs as long as possible, was placed in a corner of the room. This was next to Emma Smith’s ‘Language School’. This installment has benefitted the context of the video and the spectators experience of the work. For example, the speakers and small scale this was shown, further distances and distorts the performance. This was one work which influenced my endurance site responsive performance piece, as it tests the bodies capability and limits.
https://vimeo.com/156412507?from=outro-embe
EXHIBITIONS:
The trend which I have managed to pinpoint currently undergoing, involves; the voice, public and private sector, art and the capital, psychedelia, and memory. However, there may be much more ongoing of which I am unaware of, as these are the key themes which have resonated with my particular practice.
White Chapel Gallery.
Unfortunately, I had missed the exhibit ‘Electronic Superhighway’. However, I had managed to visit an exhibit in the gallery, which was an installation of an artist movement in the 1990’s. What I found interesting about this was one of the names in this collaboration, was Hillary’s. This reinforces my awareness that I am studying art, and therefore would have a more engrossed and developed knowledge which is still learning. With this outlook, I’m aware I address and interpret the work differently in comparison to a general public.
I also saw Hillary’s work ‘Colin#1’ video installation played on a loop at the Whitworth gallery in Manchester. Although this exhibit was not in London, it does provide an external knowledge about what is trending in the art world outside of the capital. The footage consisted of a man, who moved scraps of rubbish in an undefined location around the space. A lot of labour which was involved and productive motion involved juxtaposed with the unproductivity that the work had resulted in. This reminds me of Romy’s group in the Light Show, as people had moved things like they would in a mass production surrounding, however, this resulted in no real productivity.
Welcome Collection: ‘This is a Voice’:
After entering the gallery space, we were introduced into a corridor, which had been converted into an anechoic chamber. This was paired with a video on a loop consisting of an animation created by Anna Barham, callled ‘Liquid Consonant’, 2012, the room was made to accompany the sound of this piece. Along the corridor consisted of other sound piece which had been created exploring the dynamics of the human voice.
In the next room or the first room (as the first 3 have been referred to as ‘cases/introductions’) several screens had been installed at different heights, levels, and distances, The artist involved 14 participants in filming themselves whistling in everyday settings. I am still bemused by the voyeuristic element of this piece, as each screen had changed to different people and the tweet had changed for every person. Also hearing the whistle in relation to every other whistle was fascinating. I’m still in question as to what was so fascinating. Whether it’s the element of a participatory performance art piece, which had been choreographed and executed so well. Or the oddity of watching people in everyday settings who hold such character in their mannerisms and appearance were whistling like birds.
Marcus Coates’ Dawn Chorus. Image by Michael Bowles, courtesy of Wellcome Images
Credit: Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images
In the following room, It was full of masses of work which explores a wide range of elements concerning the voice, over a wide period of time. From a snippet of ‘The Wizard of Oz’, Laura Marling ‘O’ Superman’, to more recent works of Emma Smith, where she has recreated an entirely new language.
Emma Smith, 5HZ (Language School), 2015–16 (Centre)
When entering the space, the pieces which I acknowledged first which was directed by the curation and installment of the works was Artist Mikhail Karikis who sculpts sounds with his voice. The video installation consisted of his exploration and pronunciations of words to highlight the tangibility of our voice. On the opposing side of this wall, consisted of 3 refined and aesthetically pleasing images capturing the extremeness that our facial muscles develops coinciding with our voice.
https://embed.theguardian.com/embed/video/stage/video/2014/feb/03/samuel-beckett-not-i-lisa-dwan
Behind this video installation, is the installation of a white clear room isolating the spectator from the sound pollution created from other works. This piece is Emma Smith’s ZHZ ‘Language School’ work. It consists of guides and instructions facilitated through wireless headphones and spreadsheets to enable the spectator to learn a new language of which she has created. However, through my experience of this work as impressive and possibly underrated it has become, it does require a mass amount of time and commitment to experience the works thoroughly. I believe that this is a great shame, as I worry that in the setting the spectators (such as myself) felt repressed to speak even though talking was required for learning the work. This repression may be due to the demand that all the works require for the spectator to act as a listener, not a speaker.
Artist Mikhail Karikis sculpts sounds with his voice. Courtesy the artist and Welcome Collection.
Raven Row Gallery:
In this exhibition, there was a series of individual and collaborative works created by Steina (born in Rejavik 1940 ) and Woody Valsulka (born in byna, 1937).The works shown usually involves machinery, cathode-ray televisions to digital computer systems and the signal produced as an artistic medium. The most intriguing works in this exhibit that I found relevant was the installation ‘Machine Vision’ (1978-2016) is an electro-optical piece which is constructed through mirrors and spinning camera recording the room of which it is installed. These mirrors in the footage that the camera is taking are also rotating as well as the camera, and the 6 outputs are streamed through the 6 screens which surround this installation. I am particularly fond of this piece as it passively interacts with the audience, and forces them to become the work, in a similar way to my works. The element of live presence through technology is something which resonates with my ‘now’ works particularly well.
The two pieces exhibited on the first floor of the Raven Row Building ‘Noisefeilds’ (1974) and ‘Sound size’ (1974) were particiularly pleassurable to watch. The flickering of the lights which I have also intergrated into certain live pieces were invovled, there was also an element of time and relationship withGuy Sherwin and Lynn Loo’s ‘Cycles’ (1972/2003)
(Cycles)
Steina’s ‘Machine Vision’ piece in this exhibit was most engaging for me out of all the works, not only does it explore the potentials of technology but the filming directly relates to my works, which exploit the potential of a projector. But the installation of my work allows the spectator to interact and directly become the work. I have also done this in my own practice when creating an installation. For example, the installation of multi-store memory models through the use of projectors, wax, and live film directly introduces the audience’s feet into the work. When entering the space they become part of the works too. My current installation of ‘This is it, now’ also encourages people to step through the cone of light, causing their feet and shape to imprint the image being produced. I intend to explore the different outcomes and ways the footage can be curated and presented, One way in which I can install the works is in a similar way to the 6 monitors on plinths placed in several corners and sides. However, I am unsure as to whether I would play them all at the same time, or individually – I believe the works would work best playing at the same time but intend to investigate this further next term and over the summer.
As a trend in the contemporary art world currently, matters of the voice and using the body as a form of expression and articulation is a prominent one. In the Raven Row exhibition, the violin piece involves the performance of singing through a process in technology. This performance is also something of the past, which is being shown, distorted and distanced in the same way my performance has in my work. Steina’s violin pieced, involves the miming of the song ‘Let it be’ by the Beatles. This element of miming as well as the other layers involve in this footage unintentionally addresses and explores people’s configuration between an image and sound. i have also noticed my practice does this too, as I have been made aware the sound which people have listened too whilst in the room at different points, has altered their interpretation of the works.
( unfortunately the sound in this video has been muted due to copyright purposes.)
TUTORIAL:
For my tutorial preparations, I decided to re-install and exhibit the works which I had shown last time and in the domestic setting of my kitchen, but in a way which responded to the sticky notes, I had collected. I had done this is a way which meant that a mirror was placed where the spectator viewed the work and isolated from the projection. This considered and continued with the discussion of criticising oneself when criticising another’s work. Another suggestion was to place the projection into a box. I had installed this in the same room from the original installment and placed the sound on speakers in order to respond to these suggestions. Below is the result:
In conclusion, that advice I was given in concerning this piece was to financially invest into professionalising the look and curation of my work as it seemed messy. A suggestion was to buy or make a removable shelf which would hold the projectors, and allow the works to become more clerical without having to place them on the floor. This was suggested as this has not prevented my work and practice from excelling in the past. For example not investing in a foot loop when looping the sound of my voice in my ‘now’ work resulted in many technical failures which prevented the successful development of this. Another advice I felt was useful in this tutorial, was to look at exhibitions and gain more knowledge of the contemporary art world now, as well as themes and trends ongoing throughout the exhibits. In terms of logistics, I intend to complete a thorough refinement into my conceptual thinking and practice during ‘Studio as a Machine’, after completing a week’s workshops developing my performance involved in my practice. I also intend to refine and re-establish what t is this process I’m exploring is doing, as I don’t feel as though the statement ‘Exhausting a Projector’ is accurate anymore. The feedback from my tutorial wasn’t very enthusiastic when involving sticky notes asking for people’es responses upon the work, as this loses its credibility and confidence – something which I have established I need professionalism in my work.
PRESENTATION:
During this presentation, we were allocated into groups (ours of 5) and assigned a gallery exhibition
‘Things to Come’ Graham Ellard and Stephen Johnstone
Above is a link to the 16mm film digitalised, obviously this subtracts the main uniqueness of the experience to watch such a film as there is no longer any sound of the machine, or subtle fading in the image, the projection and relationship of the light is not as strong, altering the nostalgia of the medium in which it is shown. However, the idea of changing people’s perspective in seeing these tiny mundane everyday objects as something else to represent a utopia from that period of our present, a brighter future after the war.
This particular seminar was prominent to me was the discussion involved with the nostalgia and appreciation for different technology and the ubiquity that has been lost with 16mm film. However, it is such films and works from this time, such as Anthony Mccall’s ‘Describing a Cone’ which has to lead me to produce the work I have established now. The film and use of this projector were part of an avant-garde era, and the film above is produced by an avant-garde artist. Just because the same technology and medium are no longer used doesn’t mean that avant-garde is dead. However, the era may be over but a new one has arisen. Claiming that such works which use projectors to create a film, like many art films now, is not part of an era similar to avant-garde it is a bias and close-minded opinion to not see the potential that could be made from using digital projectors.
Feedback :
I have read the feedback and notes that I gathered from this exhibit, with the majority being positive, I have had a lot of constructive advice and conversations in order to help me push my practice further. With this I have come to the following conclusions:
- In establishing as to how the mirrors act in relationship to the cone of light, I have concluded that the mirrors refract the light and the image. The majority of the light and image is transferred and refracted to another surface, but part of it is lost causing it be distorted.
- I also intend to continue this experimentation by placing the reaction into a box, explore with broken mirrors to manipulate the light. I intend to continue to experiment with addressing and interacting with the spectator in my work. However, this has brought to question if they’re art too, as they influence the works perception and dynamic in a way which is unique to everyone. Some spectator seemed troubled by some of the questions I had tried to address in this curation, as they’ve asked ‘ Am I voyeuristic for watching them? but I have too, I’m viewing that artwork.’ This suggests that the acknowledgement of them watching the work can be unsettling as a prospect that isn’t established commonly with works of art. They are the work, the voyeur, creator, their critic as a spectator is also a critic of themselves.
- Several suggestions were made to establish and elaborate on the process more, as this is more important to the work than the resulting image, which can be distorted, altered and changed through several means but it is the process through the making of the image which is key. As a result of this, I would like to establish the image as being just as engaging to the viewer’s perspective and intend to do this my manipulating the image through boxes, mirrors and processing of the image. An influence which uses mirrors in a similar way who was suggested was Yayoi Kusama.
- I would like to exhaust the actual image being produced through the curation of it too, and in a way which interacts with the viewer. It is also suggested to show the original image when exhibiting work, and perhaps a time-lapse of the process too.
- Artists I should nd would like to investigate more into are Georges Parent’s book ” Exhausting a place in Paris’ and Steve Riech Taxi sound pieces.
EXHAUST
A Fine Art student at Central St Martin’s, Roisin Sullivan, investigates time, memory, process, psychology and philosophy in her practice. This is complimented by her contextual crafting of materials, installations and sculpture to examine the issue of interest. Sullivan’s work is curated in order to interact with space and the spectator. Roisin Sullivan explores specific subject matters and investigation, recent works have involved performance, her own interaction with space as well as the spectators. Sullivan believes that the medium, aesthetics, and presentation are not always crucial to the process and thinking behind the work. However, it is something which alters the way in which her work is perceived. For this reason, her work is rarely defined into one method of working.
Her recent piece exhibited here, ‘Exhaust’ is part of an on-going process involving exhausting certain elements, in this instance, she is exhausting a projector. This is Influenced by her previous work ‘Now’ where she explored the philosophy of time and exhausted it in a series of sound pieces and performances consisted of her saying the word ‘Now’ every second. This was an attempt to capture the present, an inescapable concept and idea; making the impossible possible.
This was influenced and still is under the influence of Alvin Lucier’s’ ‘I am Sitting n a Room’ in 1931. This particular piece and involvement with projections are under the influence of Anthony Mccall’s ‘Line Describing a Cone’, as it attempts to alter the ‘cone’ of which the light of the projector has made, assisted by the use of mirrors. This is also in reference to Stuart Brisley’ DRAWN (2–5 Mar 2016) exhibit at the DRAF Gallery, where he introduced the audience facing a mirror and reflection of themselves. In the curation of this piece, the mirror attempts to alter the light and image, as well as forcing the spectator to watch themselves watch the work. This lay with spectatorship is something in which Sullivan’s installation attempts to explore. The context and footage are produced from filming the intersection of the cone of light produced by the projector; this produces a variety of artificial colours introduced from The Colour Theory. The magnet, Cyan, yellow, and blue colours produced from this film were projected. Sullivan then filmed the projection of this and projected the film produced as a result, only to film it again and project in the same way. She had done this several times in attempt of exhausting a projector, altering the cone of light and manipulating the conventions involved with spectatorship in a gallery space.
In terms of discussing and exploring these questions, I intended to ‘exhibit’ the piece in Archway and invite people and see their feedback. Coincidentally, a neighbouring flat in my halls, was curating an exhibit of people’s work who were willing to participate, as a result I exhibited the work in my kitchen. The idea behind her exhibit was to establish a statement concerning the prices of studios and gallery spaces in London, by exhibiting people’s work in her flat. The description was connected to the work and sticky notes were provided in order to invite people’s feedback about my practice. This was an influence from the curation and installation of the Deusche-Borse prize at The Photographer’s Gallery, where they invited the public to place who they believed were the best nominee to win as part the competition.
Continuing practice:
After attending my tutorial I explained my work from the last term, and how that has got me to where I currently stand with my work. The work I had presented consisted of the film of me exhausting a projector and reflected that into a tight space to cohere towards this concept. I also used the mirrors to alter and capture the cone of light, something that is elemental to Anthony Mccall’s work. In this discussion, it became relevant that research is more important and crucial to developing my ideas to work, especially in the first term than I realised and I shouldn’t discourage and disregard the opportunity to gain as much knowledge and research as possible, even if this knowledge isn’t used and taken into account until years later. As a result of this, I am going to convert all the notes from exhibitions and form them into a booklet which I aim to bring with me everywhere in the case that this opportunity arises. In terms of the work I had produced and shown ideas such as refining and making the work more professional and exhibitory propped up, as well as experimenting with other materials that could reflect the light of the projector in the same way such as, CD’s, and bigger mirrors.
Although the work has strong aesthetic to it I have also been questioning what the mirrors do to the image and to the light. Does it really capture the cone of light, or does it merely obstructs it? The light has changed in terms of it’s direction and the image in obscured but it is not captured, nor is the light. As a result of this I also intend to project the reflection made by the mirrors into boxes in order to see the implication that this has on the spectator. However I can already assume this may not necessarily by capturing it ones again as the spectator can see the image, which means they can see the light. This is based on the colour theory; with light, comes image. I therefore would also like to investigate whether the role of the spectator is crucial with the work, or could I project this image to somewhere or in a containment that is not accessible to the viewer. And if I do achieve this, does this mean that just because it can’t be seen doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as well as exploring with the ambiguity that the spectator has no knowledge of it’s existence. It’s only evidence is my explanation. This discussion reminds me of the 7 minutes film ‘Lemon’ by Hollis Frampton. Which it’s simplicity and minimalism also explores this philosophical discussion about knowledge and existence of a work without the evidence provided by light.
Ideas:
In the process of my exploration of time I begun to explore the constraints and parameters of a projector. After watching ‘Line Describing a Cone’ in it’s original concealment by Anthony Mccall, it has been establish that the rays of light that light produced from a projector is a escaping a space physicalised by light and sight but does not hold the physicality of an object; it is inconceivable. After filming within the ‘cone’ in which the projector shows, I attempted to grasp the inconceivable in hopes to contain, alter and document it. In this approach I have filmed the artificial colours produced from the emitting light. By entering and breaking the space created by the cone, I managed to document this experience digitally, creating the film shown below and in my previous post. However, my personal experience of breaking the shape constructed by the light, is documented differently digitally, not only for the fact that my experiences in a performance can be documented and recorded accurately for another spectator to experience the piece identical but in the aesthetics of the film, as the light had been fragmented and segregated into pixelated colours; without the emission of light it was a sequence of colours.
With this documentation of the light, I have projected this film of a projection and filmed this. I have filmed this in order to projector the film produced from the original projection, despite the same image being displayed in a poorer quality there is an overlap in the size and parameter of each screen of each film. Despite it not being obvious this 8 minute film, has taken 34 minutes to produce, however I intend for there to be more and the time will result in it being around 180 minutes of footage exhausted and compact into one 8 minute moving image. Here are the results so far:
In attempt of containing or capturing the cone described by the light, I obstructed it with the use of a mirror causing the alteration the light. This is simultaneously changing the light’s relationship in the space, the obscurity of the space, and playing with the role of the spectator and spectatorship within the piece. It also raises to discussion as to whether entering the space you become part of the piece. Although there is an exhaustion and context involved through the projection it is being presented in a different space. The space of which it is being presented in becomes a fundamentality of an ever changing sculpture. The 2D image of a 3D context is presented in a different 3D space. When the spectator is involved and entering the space they themselves become a crucial element of the work, the piece is also a performance. This performance messes with the idea of spectatorship, the 3D interaction with the space/ sculptural aspect investigates the lights relationship within the space, whilst the footage provides a contextual interaction and presentation of a different space which distanced from the spectator.
The footage which has been shown in the photographs above consists of a whole days worth of filming of a tube station, London Bridge on Guy’s Hospital exit. This was the footage which was used for the original exhausting of projector. The footage itself has a contextual relation to an outside space and was originally made for time lapse of 24 hours introducing peoples relationship with different spaces on public transport and settings. I wanted to explore individual anomalies as well as trying to investigate people’s reliance upon the tube, something very obstructive and new to my daily routine when moving to London. However, the result of watching this fast pace interrupts the footage, and I believe that it’s normal paced footage is more intriguing to watch. Even though they both and equally precious qualities the normal pace fragmented footage of the day is more obscure and allows the spectator to just enjoy the voyeurism of the piece. There is also the misguided and questionable context that the work could be live as this is not defined.
My aspirations for where I push my work involving exhausting of a space and categorising the light of projector, in influence of Alvin Luciers’ and Anthony Mccalls’ piece. I aim to project two images of the same image (one of the day footage and one of exhausting this exact film) and alter the interaction and relationship investigated in the space. Here is a diagram of how I plan for this to be set:
inspiration for the contrast of lighting and immersive experience could have a similar alignment to this. However i will experiment with this as I feel exhausting and positioning the projectors into a corner, not only exhausts the image, the light but the space too.
The Light Show:
Post-event:
Here is a summary of the notes made from the group critique made above:
Discussing the impact that having 5 separate events broken up by 10 minute intervals had on the experience of the audience. Organising this in this way and not leading the attention by the light in similar way to group 5 could be viewed as a lost opportunity however due to preparing this for 49 students would have proven difficult. However the intervals did allow the audience to be introduced into a different space each time, despite the location being the same. Throughout the intervals members of the audience had disappeared, a way that we could have kept their attention would be by using live footage showing a delay of what had just seen with in the space. However, this was suggested several times by members of the group it was not taken into action.
In the critique it was identified by the tutors that watching the run-through in comparison to the real thing not only alters your spectatorship but allows you to have a comparison and more exposure to more information, causing you to alter your critique among the work. This critique and way of introducing the work to people in the same way people watch theatres set up etc. and how this filtration can alter the perspective of an audience in a unique way. This could also convey and express an element of live performance within the work, which would have been fitting to the theatrical set-up and location (as the room is priority for Central St Martin’s drama department) and relate to Robert Morris’s practice in 1968. However, this brings to question about the how a piece of work can be ‘finished’ in an event like this, what ways of using lighting etc. can this be done if the audience is always there? Even if a finalised thing was to be achieved with the audience there, the experience of such an event is continuous with the audiences presence – there will never be an achieved ending if the audience is always there. For example, in group 1 there was an ambiguity about when it finished and when the queue for the interval began. In this process, one member of the group left the room and spoke to someone – even though this was not classified as was the work I still feel as though it was because the audience was still present and exposed to this as an element of the work.
Another element discussed was the role of spectatorship, for example in group 2 (my group) audience became part of the work through the curation and use of spotlights however, their role was still to be a spectator. However this participation of the audience can change the understanding of the work. Whether the audience is part of it could be argued reliant on their interaction with the work and participation. Although, as said before with the audience being there they are still a crucial element of the work as it has been said artwork is not finished until it has ben shown. This is the same with the established idea that an idea or investigation to a piece of work, is only ever a piece of work when it has been made. Another example was in the 3rd group, Romy had ticking wooden object throughout their piece but she sat with the audience. She said she felt unsatisfied with the minimality of her contribution, despite the audience seeing her action and sound a crucial element to the piece. However, she seemed unattached and unestablished due to the fact that she had joined the audience, rising to question as to whether the audience also became a part of the work or if she became part of the audience. The role of spectatorship became an interesting element when Amal was filming the whole event: she is facilitating the role of a spectator and documenting it, however the live action of her filming became performance in itself and could be argued that she placed a continuity between all of the works together.
Each artist created modes of space which were unique, practical and clever however now planning is also just as nice and impulsive in a different way; it’s more exciting not knowing the result until it is finished and in my opinion is the way the great artworks are made. There was also a feeling of surrealism in the fact we had 3 months of preparation and nothing notably happened in the creation of the work until the last 2 weeks. This however was challenging for some members of the group who had already prepared their work at the beginning of the 3 months and trying to compromise her preparation and introduction of her work with everybody else’s. The element of sound and light made pieces of work conclusive as some sounds were consistent and encompassing, creating distinct realities between the works. The end result of the can can be relative to the idea of running along and picturing a work, but not knowing the result and it’s resolution until it’s made.
Event
Wednesday (afternoon)
The Light Show has been segregated into 5 different groups with 10-minute intervals between each group. In these interval times, the audience were directed outside the room in individual ways organised by each group after their designated time slots. The event itself lasted for around 2 hours and 20 minutes. Between the intervals, each group had a chance to set up their work and choreograph the appropriate lighting which was set up on Tuesday.
The first group presented consisted of several ‘ads’ for each character which related their individual practice i.e. Ava’s work explores the dangers of herself in relation to her work space, which was then made into compensation campaign. The piece consisted of a sound piece of each person voice (pre-recorded), whilst they placed themselves in a theatrical set up acting/.performing for the individual characters relating to their practice. By the end of the event everyone except the two people behind the table were in bags, after each person had explained there story. In keeping with their advertising theme, Melanie’s work exploring the use associations with the word ‘exotic’ in relation to her identity was constructed in an advertisement also. As part of this the table consisted of several bottles with labelling of ‘exotic’ and two people dressing and undressing into these clothes, which were then collaborated with Meri’s sound piece which was where the piece started.
Group 2, we decided to create a group performance and collaborate with a simplistic task instead of curating our individual practice in a gallery space setting, as we wanted to exploit the opportunity of a collaboration. Our original idea was in keeping with the first two months of preparation. It involved the layout of each individuals work in every corner of the room being highlighted using the lighting. We also had one persons work which involved the white room and dark room being brothers, where they spoke to the audience as part of narrating each individual work. However, throughout the course of the holidays we had lost a 3rd of the group due to reasons of dropping out etc. As a result, the idea of creating a group performance became more encouraged and ideal as well as exploiting the opportunity of a collaboration. In our performance we approached this without a heavily built in concept as we believed that the work creates it’s own ideas and interpretations after it’s installation. However, everyone’s interpretation of the piece may be different to such a minimalistic piece. My individual concept is to attempt to break, challenge and play with the social convention to not look at someone when eating. I challenge this etiquette by using the light to restrict and focus upon people’s chewing when eating an apple. The light act as a border between the audience and the action, whilst the sound of the chewing is isolated and enhanced by the instruction for the audience to be silent.
Group 3
After the next interval, the audience were asked to leave and then re-enter again, where they were introduced to the space being lit by yellow and blue lights and had a centrepiece of a cherry picker the (metal mechanism used for placing things on ceilings and up to extreme heights). The blue and yellow lights were inspired by the visit at The British Museum, in particular Turner’s use of cool and warm colours in order to distance and focus on his paintings. Whilst some members of the group switched on and off the lights, others moved items from one place to the other of the room. Throughout the piece, a wooden pole made a tapping noise controlled by Romy, which was consistent noise associated with the construction of a workplace. However, the production-line functionality of people’s actions, and the mise-en-scene of the space results in no real or substantial product of result. The piece stopped in alignment to when the wooden mechanism broke. This ‘technical failure’ (as it was not planned by the group) aligned to the efforts and work put into the piece without impacting any real resolution; Working everything and everyone until breaking point. This reminds me of working class criteria jobs, where the people are made to work until breaking point with no real product of resolution shown except placing money into someone else’s pocket.
Group 4
This group had involved the audience entering a darkened room with a projection placed upon ‘unwanted’ or ‘rubbish’ objects painted in brown and cluttered in the back end of the space. 3 members of the groups sat in a triangle on the floor coming up to the space, un-interactive to the audience and each other whilst holding a speaker each. A ambient sound piece became a crucial element to the piece, it’s experience and interpretation. As the duration of one piece of the sound continued it seemed to be drawing nearer and nearer to an end,however I felt a shift in my and the spectators reaction to being a voyeurer. As both a performative, visual and immersive experience I felt that this piece was very sublime and mesmeric. Halfway through the piece, several messages had popped up on the laptop in which the visuals were being projected, one of these were sent from another member of the group for improvised comedic reaction. In reflection of this piece i felt that this was unique and could be an element in which the artists could explore for future works, perhaps interacting the audience with the piece via messaging on purpose?
For example, sitting just in the entrance to the grounds of Winchester Cathedral is Luminous Motion. This six-metre column of mirror stainless steel, with 500 fibre-optic lights was created for the Winchester Light Art Project and installed in of November 2002.
Group 5
The last group consisted of a space with segments of every individuals practice, refined and lit up, as the duration progress so did the work. For example, one piece placed in the corner of the space was lit up with a spot light which showed a ticking mechanism; with each tick the light switched on and then off. Also in the space consisted a projection of a bird in an egg, whilst in the centre of the space there was a huge duvet lit up. When lit, two member of the group cut the duvet open and ripped bits of the cotton apart. These bits of cotton were then mounted on top of a similar shaped sculpture by other members of the group later on. These bits of duvet were then given to individuals in the audience to do the same thing, whilst everybody watched. Other works placed in the space included hollow egg shells, which were originally aligned on a stall, had been picked up with care, placed on the floor and then stamped on. This was done with all the eggs. When entering the space, someone also held half of an egg shell in each hand whilst inviting people in the space – this automatically gave the sense of abstraction and quirkiness the work had been made to be. The last thing which was shown and introduced to the space was a camera, placed in a spotlit whilst everyone intently focused on the image being shown on the camera. The feel and interpretation of this space seemed to be illusive, ethereal and almost dream-like event and series of work and space constructed and lead by the light.
Group 2 (my group)
Wednesday – rehearsal:
Tuesday:
Pre-event:
Above is a plan for the light shows spacing in our group (1 out of 5), after people who were designated for certain roles (such as, timing, lighting, space design and sound) were to collaborate with the other 5 groups involved in the light show in order to prioritise and organise a set plan for this event.
In February when informed about the Light Show event we were introduced to the white laboratory, where the event would take place in Kings Cross for the first and only time before the event. However, only about half of the people who are taking part in this event had been present causing the people who were present to take responsibility in explaining the functions of the space.
During this visit we were introduced to Steve the technician of this space which showed the capability of different theatrical lighting, including strobe lighting and the functions to control this. We were also shown the functions and capacity of available speakers and acknowledged fire exits, risks in the space for risk assessments and the presence of a built-in projector.After this the group began to segregate themselves into 5 groups, as this is the logistics for the space and designated everyone with a specific roles: Space Design, Sound, Lighting, time management, risk assessment, advertising/promotion etc.
Here are the logistic organisation that was made with in the last 2 weeks of the 3 month preparation.
British Museum Visit:
A few weeks after we were initially told about the Light Show and visited the White Laboratory where the event would take place, we were given an arranged meeting with the British Museum. We were shown several selected paintings and pieces which integrates and experiments with light, such as Henry Moore’s, Turners use of distancing our perspectives via colour, the first optical drawing, Leonardo Di Vinci’s and other ranges of prestigious artists.
roisincsullivan.wordpress.com 