i m i t a t e t o i n n o v a t e

For the final seminar of the year there were two presentations regarding films that the class believed related to subjects discussed in the sessions. We conducted one of these presentations; the film ‘No Fun’ by Eva and Franco Mattes was our film of choice. We began by introducing their practice and talking a little about their other works. ‘No Fun’ is a recording of an online performance where the artists have simulated a suicide on chat roulette. Chat Roulette is a website which instantly connects random strangers via live streaming the intention is supposedly so that people can converse with people they wouldn’t otherwise be able to converse with. So Eva and Franco Mattes have produced something unpredicted by the author of the website but there is a history of online suicides; the first live suicide in a multimedia chat forum was reported in 2003. More recently, in 2007 a 42-year-old hung himself, broadcasting his suicide on Paltalk. One year later, a 19-year-old committed suicide on justin.tv by taking an overdose. And on YouTube there are numerous videos documenting the exposition of faked suicides, dead bodies and murders in video chats. Franco Mattes is quoted as saying ‘since we live online, then we should get used to die online’. This work not only copy and pastes an aspect of society into a work but brings in this notion of reality and fantasy; it locates itself in this grey zone in which they essentially intertwine, up until a point where they become almost indistinguishable. This refusal of a unified concept of reality is primarily to do with the medium in which it is presented. The idea that this could be real only came to us when presenting the film to people who hadn’t previously been exposed to it. It exposes reality itself as a constant formation process, ultimately revealing it as an object of fiction. A further point of interest would be this double life it has; firstly it exists as a live performance and secondly as a video documenting that performance in order to show the audience reactions to a new audience that did not witness the performance firsthand. The piece is a performance of spectatorship in which everyone equally participates - viewers can see self on screen and, consequently become spectators of themselves. The other presentation was about a performance by Rebecca Horn where she blindly cut chunks out of her hair until it was about her ears. It reminded us of Yoko Ono’s cut piece; putting oneself in a position of power via the medium of scissors, either wielded by the artist or the audience. On this occasion the scissors appeared fairly blunt to convey a loss of control, this is mirrored by the hands never being shown in the film; this prompts the question of whether those are her hands after all. This did not seem to be something that troubled her, this lack of control; it was intentional. By intentionally losing control, she is in control. She has turned her body into an object and consequently is critiquing just that; how the body is regularly turned into an object. One final fairly obvious observation is that editing (a film) is about cutting. The camera is crucial; the audiences’ vision is controlled through a process of cutting things up.

Chisenhale Gallery had an event involving a new work by Leah Clements that builds on her research into empathy and intimacy. She’s looking into the scientific phenomena of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy and quantum entanglement. Takotsubo cardiomyopathy or 'broken heart syndrome' is a medical condition in which intense emotional or physical stress – most commonly bereavement – can lead to rapid and severe heart muscle weakness, causing the heart’s left ventricle to change shape. Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs at molecular level, where two spatially separate particles form a special connection and act and react in unison. For this piece, Clements is in conversation with two specialists who met for the first time to discuss potential correlations between these two very different subjects. During the event, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy and quantum entanglement are spoken of as manifestations of the inexplicable or the incomplete, located within scientific enquiry. Both present situations in which the self-other boundary becomes physically blurred: when two individual particles act as one, or when the emotional experience of losing someone close to you is manifested physically. These two fields of research have no scientific connection, but sit beside one another in this specially convened discussion. At the beginning it was an interesting thought that perhaps none of what was being said was real; the terminology being discussed was so vague yet intense that we had no prior knowledge to anything being said. However, as the piece progressed it became less likely that this was the case.

The Administration of Fear is a lengthy interview involving Paul Viriliio and Bertrand Richard. The main idea is this "propaganda of progress," the inception of new technologies, provide unexpected vectors for fear in the way that they manufacture frenzy and stupor. The administration of fear also means that states are tempted to create policies for the orchestration and management of fear. Globalization has progressively eaten away at the traditional prerogatives of states (most notably of the welfare state), and states have to convince citizens that they can ensure their physical safety. It complimented the concepts brought up in the T.V series Utopia and Mr Robot; people or organisations that are seen as indisputable are either just as clueless as the rest of us or intentionally deceiving us for personal gain.

Some new performances are also in the process of being realised. The first of which is one where we discus our key moments in our artistic. It is in the form of a presentation where the slides are various pieces of art or images of actions conducted within films. Beginning with some of Andy’s drawing from Toy Story, we would speak about the works or scenes as if they were from our own lives, inserting ourselves into the narratives of the film. We were thinking about that horribly clichéd question (most notably promoted in Oscar Wilde’s essay ‘The Decay of Lying’) of whether life imitates art or art imitates life. Wilde believed that life imitated art far more than art imitated life; this is anti-mimesis position, which is opposed to Aristotelian mimesis. What is found in life and nature is not what is really there, but is what artists have taught people to look for, through art. Wilde’s example of this is although there has been fog for centuries, one notices the beauty and wonder of the fog because ‘poets and painters have taught the loveliness of such effects… They did not exist till Art had invented them’. Film is an ambiguous device since it’s associated with both transmitting factual but also fictional information. However they both share characteristics; for example, Star Wars isn’t something which happens in ‘real life’ but the characters within it still require food and water, like us. And this can be far less extreme; a huge proportion of films don’t deviate from life, as we know it at all yet they are still considered works of fiction. This is the inspiration for the piece – we exist and the work exists as a full imitation of film. Art imitating art.  The next piece, which is in progress, begins with Tracey Emin’s ‘My Bed’; there was an article on Facebook about its reappearance in the Tate this summer and someone had commented on it saying ‘How is this art?’. We made a screenshot of this image and planned to produce a work using it – using someone saying ‘how is this art?’ as art itself. A light bulb moment occurred when we decided to print the comment onto a duvet and acquire a bed on which to put it, hence referencing the origin. ‘My Bed’ forms part of the contemporary art scene that angers members of the public most and therefore is a fairly notorious. Hopefully it also acts as a catalyst for anyone and everyone to question why things are art and how that definition came to be. Another work which is only in its very early stages is a performance where we would call someone who has previously seen it and ask them to describe it with the audience able to ask questions about it. We also considered prerecording the audio so that we could have a dialogue with ourselves, although if this were how the piece manifested itself there would be little room for audience participation. It ties into a further performance where the audience are asked what they thought of a performance that hasn’t happened; a sort of debrief. Elements or strips of information of what they hadn’t seen would shine through; ‘what did you think of the bit when I did a handstand? Did it work with the rest of the piece?’

a l l a r e w e l c o m e

The last week has been pretty busy – three shows (2D/4D, XD/3D open studios and Big Space V) plus a submission of our 500 word artist statements for this terms unit.  This has meant a lot of reflection upon our own practice and the work we have produced this term which has changed significantly since last year (for the better, we believe). We have been focused upon making our work accessible for everyone, with the hope of dissolving the distance between art world and real world, a barrier that is highlighted in the film ‘Anything I Can Do Is Not Art Because I'm Not An Artist’ (2015). The vlogger’s frustration towards the arts both illustrates a common misunderstanding and highlights a barrier that exists between the true nature of art and it is representation within popular culture. The eight vloggers sampled all voice similar opinions; by editing these together in a manner in which a narrative is able to flow we highlight a collective frustration that has formed on both sides of the coin.

Attempting to create work that is non-alienating is obviously a fairly tricky task, especially while the trying to occupy the work within serious thought (which, in general, has some sort of bias). We have found that humour can be a good icebreaker, opening the viewer up to the idea that what they’re watching will at first be fun, but then eventually, be interesting. This is a step towards the inclusive attitude of the work that we are striving for. We don’t expect everyone to like the work but we are strong advocates that everyone should enjoy the process of viewing art, regardless of educational or cultural background. Recently we have really tried to make a step through the door of all-inclusivity, although we are aware that perhaps the only work that can be all-inclusive for absolutely everyone is work that relates directly to the human. One is able to place themselves within those types of spaces, removing pre-positions, comparing the <self> to the <object> with the main point of reference being the human body. Although educational, and cultural factors (along with many others) still affect ones feelings towards a piece of art there is an underlying notion that as a human you are collectively experiencing the same thing.

In a previous blog post we mentioned the 2D/4D open studios and Big Space V where we exhibited the vlogger video and the sim paintings. These were both successfully presented and it was great to see the work slide from small laptop videos and jpegs, out of the screen and onto the floor or wall; a familiar, yet satisfying experience. The XD/3D open studios however, contained something that was very unfamiliar for the both of us – we were performing a new piece: 'Remember that time?' (2015). It was a strange but rewarding experience where we were able to feel a direct feedback from the viewer – an interesting aspect of performance art that we were yet to consider before. The performance itself was formed around the concept of sharing memories; have the value of memories been diluted with the ability to share video, audio or photographic memories on forms of social media? Does the universal availability of such content render it part of the public sphere? ie. Are new memories all a shared experience?

In response to these questions we wrote a piece surrounding home movies. As the piece starts we explain that we each picked about 4 films that we will show to each other alternately. The choice of film is dependent on a vague description (essentially YouTube tags) of the previous film – little does the audience know that these films have been sourced from the internet and the narrative constructed around them is mostly improvised lies. As the performance starts we are sitting in front of a laptop (with a projection of the screen behind us) swapping false stories and memories. Over the course of roughly eight minutes the lies we are telling get more and more unbelievable, the narratives created between us, the videos and (now) the audience crumble as truth is revealed. The videos we show end up so distorted from the truth that by the end of the performance Sid is saying that he is an American schoolgirl winning a spelling bee and Jim pulls out one of Sid’s videos and claims it to be his memory. 

To physicalize this digital degradation of factuality, the projection of the laptop behind us is in fact an eight-minute screen recording that we have been miming the mouse movements to. Mirroring the revealed fiction of the home movies, we purposely begin to mime the mouse gestures inaccurately; this is initially very subtle – leaning back while the mouse moves. However it becomes increasing clear that something is abnormal – we are not in total control of the laptop in front of us. At one point Jim leaves his position and fetches a drink from the other side of the room while the computer screen is still active and moving, to the audience this acts as concrete proof that the projection is pre-recorded. The reality that they believed at the beginning of the performance has been dismantled.

The last video shown is the same as the first – actual footage of Sid losing a skipping race when he is 6 – Jim digs it out of the files on the computer and claims to be the child that wins the race (without referencing that it is Sid at the back of the race, :’( crying ). It is then that we break from the conversation-based nature of the performance and speak directly to the audience in a moment of semi-formal reflection. In reference to the performance we say that it is odd that we don’t actually remember any of the moments of the videos, we only really recall the memory of watching the videos. With an endless amount of space to store this content we have opportunity to posses not only an infinite memory but also a shared memory. The performance concludes by asking various questions surrounding the topic of shared memory content within an age of social fluidity. Does the accessibility of our published memories dilute the sentimental value of them? In a post-productive period of -edit>share- how can we be sure that we’re not being lied to? (#nofilter) But most importantly, does it even matter?

Having never performed at an event like this before there were obviously going to be some things that we hadn’t considered, the main one being sound. The gallery space was fairly noisy because it was the opening night of the show, as a consequence of this we had to use a microphone, of which there was only one. Passing the baton of speech between us made the conversation aspect of the work seem fairly unnatural, so it developed – on the spot – into a casual presentation. We feel that some of the spontaneity of the exchange of videos was lost here. Regardless of these issues the performance ran smoothly and was ultimately a success. The whole process was a rewarding one that taught us some valuable lessons about performance, in particular: structure, duration and environment.

We also had a fantastic opportunity to restage ‘Opportunity Cost’ at 12ø Collective’s exhibition ‘Trading Places 1.0’.  ‘Trading Places 1.0’, curated by Joshua Parker, explores possibilities of how emerging art practices could survive the continuous austerity measures present in today’s society. The exhibition aimed to act as a “projection of an impending landscape, when art follows business models, corporate strategies or corporate aesthetics to sustain and fund art practices”. ‘Opportunity Cost’ is a durational performance piece involving an investor whom (visible to the audience) sits at a desk within the space. Using 'IQ Option' the investor actively moves money around within the online stock market with the aim of making as much profit as possible within the time period; the process (research of stocks and moving the money around) can be viewed through a monitor on the desk mapping the route of investment. This piece was first shown at ‘because the internet’ (2015) and with a few tweaks we were excited to re-stage it for ‘Trading Places 1.0’ (2015). The opening night had great attendance and seemed to be enjoyed by all, especially those who ended up at the pub afterwards!