Research Diary
Research diary
The disturbance of one system by another, work unfolding in time with situations.
Claudia Kappenberg
Of the work the artist presented some stood out more than others in terms of strength and significance to the title of the seminar. These were stronger somehow by their presence and relation to the audience and the performance undertaken. The piece which entailed a pillow being held over the canal in Venice , and Extreme Ironing, for me had more to say about the ‘disturbance of systems in space’.
I believe this would mostly fall at the feet of time and space connections, whereby two people are relied upon to undertake the performance. In the case of the pillow piece (TITLE) it relied heavily on a collaboration in that one had to hold each end of the wires to prevent the pillow touching the water, that amount of tension placed between two people requires a strength which is admired by the audience. Nothing really happens in the piece but the ‘happening’ is what increases its own intensity by the viewers act of watching. In these examples of work the audience becomes part of the piece as they notice a lull in an arm, a shake which might lead to a drop. They are captivated by the emptiness of the gesture. This is the case in most performance artists were duration and the audience (non participation) becomes a part of the piece.
24 hour piece ‘Ghost’ by performance artist Kevin Henderson in 1998, attached himself to an overhead wire in a darkened exhibition space at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art, wearing a white ‘chemical’ suit he paced the length of the wire over a period of 24 hours. As a part of the audience the performance became not only about the artist but about the participants viewing it. I say participants because the notion of the piece being durational the audience had to opt whether they would be staying for an hour or 12 or the whole 24. The space was uncomfortable, the floor hard and the smell of flour which was being distributed unpleasant. Primarly nothing in particular happened it was an inconsequential piece in terms of action, but the duration and viewing of the piece was intense. Having stayed the full 24 hours myself the performance duration affected the audience. Their staying was instigating a collaboration with the artist.
Kappenberg mentioned whilst undertaking the ironing piece “extreme ironing” people would ask questions about the acts of the performance, for instance the heat of the iron, the affect this had on the leaf being ironed, why she was undertaking this task, what was the point.
When witnessing great pieces of work made by the artists Abramovic and Ulay in the 1990s the viewer is sucked into the performance. My own experience of watching ‘Rest Energy’ http://youtu.be/3Tz-K4EC8hw
was one were the more intense the performance became the more involved you were as a viewer. In this piece the two artists hold a bow and arrow and lean back to expand the bow already aimed at the heart of abramovic. Throughout the performance the bow and arrow quiver with intensity at the strength it must take to prevent the arrow hitting the artist. In the performance (youtube) you hear their breathing as the audio, in time you find your own breathing starts to match theirs as the build up to the end of the piece when it goes to black. It creates a terrifying experience as the viewer and sometimes too close to watch.
CK talked about the work of Francis Alys, and in particular ‘Sometimes making something leads to nothing, 1997’ http://youtu.be/ZedESyQEnMA. During this piece alys pushes a block of ice through the streets of Mexico gradually the large box of ice which is difficult to maneuver becomes smaller as the ice melts.
Eventually the block becomes a cube which he is able to pass along the streets using his feet. The audience in this case are the by passers who witness the action, no specific audience is present but for alys, it is almost like a ritual task being undertaken, a duty which reflects the work of Kappenberg in her performances using the iron as a household chore, the bread piece being symbolic of domesticity and the performance becomes duty bound. I would also say that this is the case in ‘Ghost’ the piece because of its duration is duty bound. Which is a different element to most performance artists, particularly in the case of Abramovic and Ulay.
Collaboration and Practice, Amy Cunningham and Matthew Cornford.
How do collaborative networks work in small and large groups? AC- groups are formed through natural formation – through college or graduate networks, the collaboration depends on the network getting on. When networks are formed they work in 2 ways – 1 group work formed together around a theme or 2 – there are individuals who work is based around an idea or space.
What is interesting in collaborative artwork is the impact it can have on a space, like the towner gallery regeneration project. With Cornford and Cross the work is more about the action or activity. The red cross idea was a hard action to get off the ground, it took effort and collaboration, communication with teams. I wonder if these two different methods of collaboration then form two very different practices depending on each motive to create and show work.
Does funding affect how well a show is put together – therefore is it easier or more practical to apply for funding as a collaborative team? Is there more reliability in a collaborative project? Or quite the opposite?
The project presented on the red arrows display was an interesting one as in itself it was asking a very forthright institution to take part in creating what could be seen as an anarchist symbol. It took a lot o f investigation and patience to achieve what they did. The funding becomes very tight in this situation, it took three goes to get it right.
There are a number of collaborations which work and have worked for a number of years and are well celebrated but what if one falls by the way side? Does two become one? As the Spice Girls said. The single unit works on so many levels but collaboration can mark a strength through their relationship, through the art work.
Having tried to meet in a two man show based on similar themes I have not been successful. This has been down to a miscommunication and interpretation of each others works, and probably the exciting prospect of doing a joint show somehow supersedes the actuality of it.
Charlie Hooker – Art and Science.
Two research cultures
Collaboration
Interdisciplinary
What is true collaboration?
The Artist Charlie Hooker (CH) introduced his work by asking questions around two research cultures, which are Art and Science, collaboration, interdisciplinary and ‘true’ collaborator.
After speaking about several of CH’s work it was clear his definition of what a collaboration is has changed over the decades he has been working as an artist. The performance based pieces which were introduced from the 70s and 80s were installations which relied on either audience interaction or pre-determined performers taking part in the installation to provide different outcomes.
In later work or rather the progression from sound and art and performer his work moved into a collaboration with science. (I think this sentence is key to the whole lecture outcomes). the interpretations of what this art meant are quite interesting, the language which is used in both research areas are very different and can be misread.
Science = experiment
Art = experiment
Here the use of language in two very different sectors is explored. CH was aiming to debate the language as in a collaboration sense, if joined with scientists the outcomes of conversations can be quite different, what one word means to an artist is completely different to the meaning for the scientist. Language is what ties us together all over the world and miscommunication can lead to the most troubling outcomes. It is important therefore to have an understanding of colloquial meanings and how they might be misinterpreted, as the example CH gave us.
CH raises the question – ‘are all artists collaborators or are all collaborators artists?’ because there is always an element of negotiation, planning and management in both areas and is there a defining line at that point? i.e. through collaboration are you more manager than artist? I think this is interesting in the case of CH’s work because I don’t find that it is a collaboration at all, it is a ‘working with…’ situation, where people have been hired or asked to join in a plight of discovery through art to create an installation or such and it is a partnership in the sense they work for the artist. It is one artists sole idea realized by the cooperation of others.
Newer works of CH seems less about collaboration (if there ever was one) and more about planning and negotiation. For example in the de La Warr pavilion gallery ‘AUDIO ACCOMPANIMENT’2011, is about working with an already existing exhibition (john Cage) and creating work which reflects this – not a collaboration, but surely an echo of what the main themed show is about.
In the final slide CH asks if there ever is such a thing as a ‘true’ collaborator, to which he answered someone (contrary to all over collaboration artists lectures in this series) someone always leads! There is hardly ever such a thing as 50/50 partnership in this respect.
‘Science tells us that if you can’t prove something is wrong, it is probably right’ (CH,2012) im not sure this was set as an empirical statement or an academic question around what is true? In which case we would call upon the great Mr Wittgentein.
The disturbance of one system by another, work unfolding in time with situations.
Claudia Kappenberg
Of the work the artist presented some stood out more than others in terms of strength and significance to the title of the seminar. These were stronger somehow by their presence and relation to the audience and the performance undertaken. The piece which entailed a pillow being held over the canal in Venice , and Extreme Ironing, for me had more to say about the ‘disturbance of systems in space’.
I believe this would mostly fall at the feet of time and space connections, whereby two people are relied upon to undertake the performance. In the case of the pillow piece (TITLE) it relied heavily on a collaboration in that one had to hold each end of the wires to prevent the pillow touching the water, that amount of tension placed between two people requires a strength which is admired by the audience. Nothing really happens in the piece but the ‘happening’ is what increases its own intensity by the viewers act of watching. In these examples of work the audience becomes part of the piece as they notice a lull in an arm, a shake which might lead to a drop. They are captivated by the emptiness of the gesture. This is the case in most performance artists were duration and the audience (non participation) becomes a part of the piece.
24 hour piece ‘Ghost’ by performance artist Kevin Henderson in 1998, attached himself to an overhead wire in a darkened exhibition space at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art, wearing a white ‘chemical’ suit he paced the length of the wire over a period of 24 hours. As a part of the audience the performance became not only about the artist but about the participants viewing it. I say participants because the notion of the piece being durational the audience had to opt whether they would be staying for an hour or 12 or the whole 24. The space was uncomfortable, the floor hard and the smell of flour which was being distributed unpleasant. Primarly nothing in particular happened it was an inconsequential piece in terms of action, but the duration and viewing of the piece was intense. Having stayed the full 24 hours myself the performance duration affected the audience. Their staying was instigating a collaboration with the artist.
Kappenberg mentioned whilst undertaking the ironing piece “extreme ironing” people would ask questions about the acts of the performance, for instance the heat of the iron, the affect this had on the leaf being ironed, why she was undertaking this task, what was the point.
When witnessing great pieces of work made by the artists Abramovic and Ulay in the 1990s the viewer is sucked into the performance. My own experience of watching ‘Rest Energy’ http://youtu.be/3Tz-K4EC8hw
was one were the more intense the performance became the more involved you were as a viewer. In this piece the two artists hold a bow and arrow and lean back to expand the bow already aimed at the heart of abramovic. Throughout the performance the bow and arrow quiver with intensity at the strength it must take to prevent the arrow hitting the artist. In the performance (youtube) you hear their breathing as the audio, in time you find your own breathing starts to match theirs as the build up to the end of the piece when it goes to black. It creates a terrifying experience as the viewer and sometimes too close to watch.
CK talked about the work of Francis Alys, and in particular ‘Sometimes making something leads to nothing, 1997’ http://youtu.be/ZedESyQEnMA. During this piece alys pushes a block of ice through the streets of Mexico gradually the large box of ice which is difficult to maneuver becomes smaller as the ice melts.
Eventually the block becomes a cube which he is able to pass along the streets using his feet. The audience in this case are the by passers who witness the action, no specific audience is present but for alys, it is almost like a ritual task being undertaken, a duty which reflects the work of Kappenberg in her performances using the iron as a household chore, the bread piece being symbolic of domesticity and the performance becomes duty bound. I would also say that this is the case in ‘Ghost’ the piece because of its duration is duty bound. Which is a different element to most performance artists, particularly in the case of Abramovic and Ulay.
Collaboration and Practice, Amy Cunningham and Matthew Cornford.
How do collaborative networks work in small and large groups? AC- groups are formed through natural formation – through college or graduate networks, the collaboration depends on the network getting on. When networks are formed they work in 2 ways – 1 group work formed together around a theme or 2 – there are individuals who work is based around an idea or space.
What is interesting in collaborative artwork is the impact it can have on a space, like the towner gallery regeneration project. With Cornford and Cross the work is more about the action or activity. The red cross idea was a hard action to get off the ground, it took effort and collaboration, communication with teams. I wonder if these two different methods of collaboration then form two very different practices depending on each motive to create and show work.
Does funding affect how well a show is put together – therefore is it easier or more practical to apply for funding as a collaborative team? Is there more reliability in a collaborative project? Or quite the opposite?
The project presented on the red arrows display was an interesting one as in itself it was asking a very forthright institution to take part in creating what could be seen as an anarchist symbol. It took a lot o f investigation and patience to achieve what they did. The funding becomes very tight in this situation, it took three goes to get it right.
There are a number of collaborations which work and have worked for a number of years and are well celebrated but what if one falls by the way side? Does two become one? As the Spice Girls said. The single unit works on so many levels but collaboration can mark a strength through their relationship, through the art work.
Having tried to meet in a two man show based on similar themes I have not been successful. This has been down to a miscommunication and interpretation of each others works, and probably the exciting prospect of doing a joint show somehow supersedes the actuality of it.
Charlie Hooker – Art and Science.
Two research cultures
Collaboration
Interdisciplinary
What is true collaboration?
The Artist Charlie Hooker (CH) introduced his work by asking questions around two research cultures, which are Art and Science, collaboration, interdisciplinary and ‘true’ collaborator.
After speaking about several of CH’s work it was clear his definition of what a collaboration is has changed over the decades he has been working as an artist. The performance based pieces which were introduced from the 70s and 80s were installations which relied on either audience interaction or pre-determined performers taking part in the installation to provide different outcomes.
In later work or rather the progression from sound and art and performer his work moved into a collaboration with science. (I think this sentence is key to the whole lecture outcomes). the interpretations of what this art meant are quite interesting, the language which is used in both research areas are very different and can be misread.
Science = experiment
Art = experiment
Here the use of language in two very different sectors is explored. CH was aiming to debate the language as in a collaboration sense, if joined with scientists the outcomes of conversations can be quite different, what one word means to an artist is completely different to the meaning for the scientist. Language is what ties us together all over the world and miscommunication can lead to the most troubling outcomes. It is important therefore to have an understanding of colloquial meanings and how they might be misinterpreted, as the example CH gave us.
CH raises the question – ‘are all artists collaborators or are all collaborators artists?’ because there is always an element of negotiation, planning and management in both areas and is there a defining line at that point? i.e. through collaboration are you more manager than artist? I think this is interesting in the case of CH’s work because I don’t find that it is a collaboration at all, it is a ‘working with…’ situation, where people have been hired or asked to join in a plight of discovery through art to create an installation or such and it is a partnership in the sense they work for the artist. It is one artists sole idea realized by the cooperation of others.
Newer works of CH seems less about collaboration (if there ever was one) and more about planning and negotiation. For example in the de La Warr pavilion gallery ‘AUDIO ACCOMPANIMENT’2011, is about working with an already existing exhibition (john Cage) and creating work which reflects this – not a collaboration, but surely an echo of what the main themed show is about.
In the final slide CH asks if there ever is such a thing as a ‘true’ collaborator, to which he answered someone (contrary to all over collaboration artists lectures in this series) someone always leads! There is hardly ever such a thing as 50/50 partnership in this respect.
‘Science tells us that if you can’t prove something is wrong, it is probably right’ (CH,2012) im not sure this was set as an empirical statement or an academic question around what is true? In which case we would call upon the great Mr Wittgentein.