p r e d i c t a b l y i r r a t i o n a l

Been to see a few different exhibitions this week including The Vulgar: Fashion Redefined at the Barbican. The intention of the show is to explore the idea of what it means to be vulgar and is almost more about the language surrounding the word than the objects on show. This is reflected in how the objects are written about; even though they are all garments that were, and are, considered ‘vulgar’, the connotations are not necessarily negative. This is actually stated by Judith Clark, the Co-Curator, who said they ‘were thinking about the word ‘vulgar’ and the language around it, specifically how violent, divisive and awful it is’ and adding that they have ‘attempted to be more celebratory of the word, and not allow it to be a pejorative’. So even though it was completely the aim of the show, we fell for it hook, line and sinker; we found ourselves fascinated but the simple notion of the definition of the word, and how it has been manipulated over the years. ‘Vulgar’ means ‘common place’ yet we are conditioned to perceive it as a negative word yet shoes are common place in most parts of the world and we find them rather useful in certain situations.

Another show we visited was the new John Baldessari at Marian Goodman Gallery. It features a current series titled ‘Miró and Life in General’ (which is also the name of the exhibition) and is concerned with a continual theme of Baldessari’s work; painting and its history. Each work in this exhibition features a detail from one specific Miró painting and pairs it with a seemingly out of place, Hollywood film still, which is further paired with words like ‘Reliable’, ‘Necessary’, ‘True’, ‘Unfailing’ etc, which are all synonymous. So ‘Life in General’, is, potentially, not only referring to the film still and the text. It’s difficult not to enjoy Baldessari’s work and there is something in this pairing of disparate elements from art history, popular culture and language, and how it dissembles the rule, and perhaps reassembles it in a new form. However, it was a little disappointing when we hadn’t quite researched as fully as we could have since we’re big fans of Baldessari and the full breadth of his work. Nevertheless, a though-provoking show.

Finally, we took a trip Sadie Coles HQ and browsed the current exhibition titled ‘Room’. Since attending the show we’ve read from some third-party sources that it inherits its name from Virginia Woolf who famously wrote of the importance of having a ‘room of one’s own’, a physical and psychological place women could truly be free to express themselves.’ The significance of this is that it’s an all-female exhibition that explores the way women artists from the late 20th century have looked at the aesthetics and structures of domestic architecture, and the way this affects social constructs – designed to keep women indoors, as much as to provide a place to retreat from the outside world. It is therefore full of oppressive, chamber-like structures yet they also appear fragile and poorly constructed; perhaps this adds to the atmosphere they create.

The ’14 Ways to Get Rich Quick’ show is now over and the people over at Scaffold Gallery did a great job of documenting it (pics below). A bonus is that they liked one of our works enough to keep it in their flat which was very touching!

There’s also been some very fun/motivating discussions with some other students from CSM, who we’ve worked with before, about a collaborative exhibition involving a play. The exhibition is an attempt at posing the question of place and the structure of both the exhibition and the theatre production. When walking into the space, our goal is to instil a feeling of uncertainty into the minds of the audience; ‘have I just walked into a storage room for an upcoming play?’. We’ve got as far as writing the monologue which people will be auditioning with and we’re going to push on with a full proposal later in the week!

m a g i c a l c a m e r a s

We attended a lecture last night by Mark Lewis. The only memory we had of his work was at the 2009 Venice Biennale, and it was a foggy one at that! The work in question was a film where a group of individuals were in the stage before a fight would begin; pushing and shoving each other while shouting and pointing at others. However, this was the conditions of the film the entire way through making them a part of the background. So, we remembered this being a relatively interesting idea but being only 14 at the time we probably hadn’t (and if we had we had since forgotten) the context and thinking that went along with this idea, hence the desire to go to the talk. On a non-art related topic, throughout the entire lecture he seemed like such a lovely and genuine person, an example being when someone’s phone went off about 15 minutes in and instead of glaring at them or just ignoring it he said ‘ah don’t worry it’s happened to me before…I don’t like the ring though, could you maybe change the ring?’ Which was met with a chuckle from the audience, diffusing the embarrassment from the person whose phone ran and potentially allowing the audience an insight into his personality. Returning to the main body of the talk, he began by discussing the notion of eliminating typically ideas of cinema such as characters, narrative, dialogue etc. and instead using the limitations of the physicality of film (this was when he originally began making films in 35mm). Therefore, the structure of these moving images is imposed by the mechanism itself, in this sense he was/is very true to the material he’s employing. Time is a big factor in this, his films would last as long as a 35mm reel of film and in addition to this, regularly his films begin as zoomed in as the camera would possibly go and finish and zoomed out. These editing decisions therefore are taken out of the equation, he doesn’t have to think about them.

Another consideration is regarding sound; all but one of the films he shared were silent and he said that his answer to the question, ‘why silent?’, is ‘why sound?’. Sound has no automatic tie with film just like it has nothing to do with a painting or a sculpture. It should be an added extra in the same fashion that if the barista at Starbucks asks if you want chocolate sprinkles on your Venti, sugar-free, non-fat, vanilla soy, double shot decaf, no foam, extra hot, Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha with light whip and extra syrup you consider whether it’s appropriate as opposed to just saying yes because it’s there. The lack of sound also allows you to look and look without distraction. He spoke at great length about the concept of imagery and making pictures so the lack of sound makes perfect sense. It also comes back to a comment about art establishments; museums are not designed to contain thing that emit sound, so removing the sound is making it an ‘art form’ in their eyes. Finally, he discussed how, in his opinion, it actually has to be a really good film if it’s a silent one because there’s no sound to save you or to carry a potentially weak element. An obvious, but still relevant reference point is John Cage’s work 4'33, more specifically about removing aspects of something in order to really be able to pay attention to it.

One of our favourite films he showed was called ‘The Pitch’, which is all about the idea of extras and how they’re what makes a film real. If one was to make an entire film with no extras it would feel strange and alien. Now, this would not necessarily be a bad thing but if the film is intended to be relatable to the lives we all live then extras are essential. However, on the other side, if one was to remove the main characters from a film it would just be life as most of us experience it on a day to day basis. To contextualise this he told the short story ‘On Exactitude in Science’ by Jorge Luis Borges; in the story, it becomes essential to create a map as big and as detailed as the world itself. Yet due to its impracticality it couldn’t be used so instead they went back to just using the world instead. So, in making this comparison what we think he was saying was that truly depicting everyday life is more interesting than a life size version of it.

To return to his obsession with film as a material, he spoke about it as being something which has equal time in production and consumption. In this sense has a life span, which in turn makes film inherently about death or at least mortality. This is applicable when observing that all his films are (or appear to be) one continuous shot. This is another attempt to reduce the cinematic tropes within his works; cuts create a narrative. It also doesn’t allow a viewer any time to breathe, to recap what’s been happening in the previous section. This links in with his desire for the camera to appear magical yet he doesn’t want the special effects too…‘special effects’. We’ve all seen the crazy stuff they can do in Harry Potter and Star Wars (and it looks amazing) and we believe it that its happening in front of us. But Mark Lewis wants you to want to believe it, like you would with a magic trick, even though in your heart you know it’s not possible.

Finally, a beautiful response to the question ‘Why do you take film the things that you do?’ was ‘because I want to see what they would look like as films’. A line which he credited to the 20th Century street photographer Garry Winogrand, who said the same thing but with ‘films’ being replaced by ‘photographs’. A genuinely exciting talk, with thorough works steeped with intelligent consideration.

i n c o m p l e t e s t o r i e s

We've been ill* 

*words that also apply here are sick, poorly, indisposed, ailing, not (very) well, not oneself, not in good shape, in a bad way, out of sorts, not up to par, under/below par, peaky, liverish, queasy, nauseous, off, off colour, under the weather, not up to snuff, funny, peculiar, crummy, lousy, rough, ropy or grotty.

But we did still manage to stay well during a couple of our exhibitions that occurred the previous week; the isthisit? online show that coincided with the start of the Scaffold Gallery one and 'An Art School' at Tate Modern. We decided to produce works specifically for the online exhibition as opposed to merely submitting photographs of the physical pieces we were going to have in the gallery space. With 'Invent Something' we went over a couple of thoughts around looking for a file on a computer and what happens when one searches for something that doesn't exist; either you get a pop-up notification suggesting what you are looking for is not present in the place you are looking or you're merely faced with an empty screen.

We played around with this but it didn't feel like what we wanted to portray - it needed more presence (even though we didn't want it to be ACTUALLY seen but it needed more of a shadow or echo). We therefore went for a file that is visible but one that appears empty within the thumbnail - this felt more in line with the original idea of a layered reality.

For 'Exploit People' we created a similar sort of time sheet to the physical one but this time we were using Microsoft Excel which only came into existence in 1985, over a decade later than the first use of the bar code in 1974. This time the entire sheet has been filled as opposed to it stopping on the date which the historical event took place. This new document isn't viewed in the same way as the one which has a stronger resemblance to what might have actually happened - this is inherent in the way we act with digital objects, due to them being constantly editable, history is never stuck, it has no need to be paused because it can be rewound over and over again. This time sheet may have been completed but that is only to do with providing all the necessary information for a user to then do with what they please.

Both the works in the How to Get Rich Quick exhibition owe a huge amount to the idea of film props and how objects can be used to tell a story. However, because these props are left to fend for themselves, they tell an incomplete tale, one which can only attempt to be complete by the use of ones imagination. This is a relatively big part of what we're interested in - how can we make something which instills a level of uncertainty into the minds of the people viewing it - definitely a big challenge and we're only claiming to try but we think that it might start with proposing or displaying something that isn't totally 'finished' or only contains half the required information and commands some interaction in order to fill it to an amount that makes it legible to the individual.

a r t d o e s n ' t g r o w n o n t r e e s y o u k n o w

We’ve got all the work for ’14 Ways to Get Rich Quick’ finally sorted! Unfortunately we can’t be there for the install due to having to be present at the Tate opening tomorrow. The work we’ve made for the ‘exploit people’ method of getting rich takes the form of a replication of an old clock-in sheet from the 26th June 1974 fixed to the wall using chewed pieces of Wrigley’s Juicy Fruit chewing gum. The clock-in sheet will be made to look as if it belonged to Marsh’s Supermarket employee Sharon Buchanan who, at 08:01am on 26th June 1974, served a customer by the name of Clyde Dawson who purchased a 10-pack of Wrigley’s Juicy Fruit for $0.67. This was the first purchase ever to involve a product being scanned and registered using a Universal Product Code, UPC, otherwise known as the Barcode.

While the barcode is an extremely beneficial invention it also has many negatives, the image of a barcode is  synonymous with many of these negatives, one of them being the exploitation of cheap labour; one of the considerable aspects of consumerism that are morally wrong. The barcode enabled local supermarkets to become global supermarkets, making hundreds of millions for the people at the top, while the wages for people like Sharon Buchanan only really increased with inflation. The barcode allowed the gap caused by exploitation of labour to increase; the amount the employers make for their company versus the amount they get paid/are valued by the company. Thus fuelling a tiered wage system and creating a hierarchy of class allowing shareholders to profit off their dividends; sitting and collecting as apposed to sitting and scanning.

The title of the work is ‘Woodland’s Bullseye’, named after the incident where inventor, Norman Joseph Woodland, had the idea to create a visual morse code that formed the first barcode. Woodland spent time at his grandparents' home in Miami. While sitting on the beach he ran his fingers through the sand, making dot and dash marks, like the Morse code he had learned when he was a Boy Scout. He realised that it would be possible to encode information using simple lines on paper to signify different numbers. In their first form barcodes took the form of thin and thick lines in concentric circles, much like a bullseye. Prior to having this eureka moment he worked on the Manhattan Project where he was part of the team that worked to develop the atomic bomb, consequently the term ‘Woodland’s Bullseye’ refers to both a military bullseye and Barcodes. The Barcode is now used 5 billion times a day, with the unstoppable rise of consumerism, chain-stores and digital purchase it’s no surprise that it all started with 31-year-old Sharon Buchanan scanning a packet of chewing gum, an impulse buy.

The work for the show at Tate Modern is also complete! The exhibition is titled 'Tate Exchange: An Art School' so we’re setting up a school-photo stand. The viewers are going to be grouped with strangers and photographed by a professional photographer in the style of a photograph taken at school on a 'school photo day'. The viewers will then get to take away a souvenir involving the photo from their interaction with the artwork and with the strangers in the space. There will be a range of souvenirs available, ranging from a keyring which we will print in the space to a 2017 yearbook which will involve images of people from the entire class (all strangers). They will be able to order this and have it posted to them after the class is complete.

The yearbook will involve a fictional school/academy with everything from the school song to a school crest and a word from the fictional headmaster of the institution. This has been influenced by research into distributed networks, especially online where we see individuals signing up/enroling/pledging allegiance to institutions populated by strangers and without a physical location: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram etc. We’ve got props and outfits/school uniforms available as well 'art' objects for the 'students' to pose with; all of which will hopefully encourage people to get involved with the artwork more, and the speed of it will allow more people to experience it.