We attended at lecture by Matthew David Smith which was wholly disappointing. We’re always a little apprehensive when artists describe their practice as “intuitive” and this talk definitely confirmed our trepidation. He also said he had some issues with writing an artist statement, something we are also unsure about due to it being slightly reductive but his point was slightly different. He said he felt like it was is counter intuitive and that his work is too complex which felt quite arrogant. Other frustrating points were that he was ‘turned off’ when art makes sense or when it’s demystified. He also expressed an interest in not wanting to be totally in control of work. This was even more annoying when we said it was ‘hard to remember what I was thinking’. PROBABLY BECAUSE THERE WASN’T ANY THOUGHT PROCESS AT ALL DUE TO THE “INTUITIVE” NATURE OF IT. Everything he was saying was just a continual stream of evidence of thoughtlessness and to top it all off he finished with saying he wants people to not get anything out of his work. Achieved.
We had a truly uplifting discussion with regards to the degree show. Unfortunately, we had become sceptical with how it was going to happen. We’ll spare the details but in order to counter our cynicism we had decided to act as if it was just another exhibition as opposed to something more major. However, our tutors hosted a discussion about the idea of ‘anti-shows’ and how we might like to respond to the notion of the degree show, something which we realised was very relative to the way we work. We really enjoy working in a site-specific nature, creating work for a precise location by considering the features and theme of the place in question. This was highly inspiring and gave us so much more faith in the process.
After that we’ve decided to have a proper think about what we’re going to construct for the show! Since we’re two people we’re going to be submitting two ideas, both of which were born out of a considering our dissertation subjects and the pre-existing elements of the degree show and university in general. These included a variety of subjects from booze to welcome desk to sponsored awards. We then put all 22 of these into 4 categories; gallery archetypes, sponsorship, event and institutional bubble. The biggest crossovers were between sponsorship and event and then gallery archetypes and institutional bubble so we concluded that we would consider one work to each of these topics. However, these would be secondary to our initial thoughts about how a narrative might be constructed and then read by an audience, we just thought it was appropriate to consider the environment…just something to keep in mind.
We want to expand our notions of storytelling into objects and props, thinking back to implied narrative and the potential of objects to create presence out of absence. Therefore, our first idea was to consider how to communicate the effects of corporate patronage on the arts in a way that related back to storytelling. We decided that we wanted to make a work that deals with the expectations and realities that are by products of the interdependence between the arts and private philanthropy; an interdependence that’s catalysed by austerity politics and puts the critical freedom of art institutions in jeopardy. The work itself centres on a fictional cartoon character that has been created for the promotion of the degree show. Similar to the manner in which Olympic mascots are used to promote a form of global unity over/via sport, we hope to use depictions of this character over the next few months to promote the degree show, hopefully as part of the official promo.
We want to use the images of these characters at the front entrance, as a face that greets people alongside the welcome desk. These images will be in the form of character cut-outs with face holes for a photo opportunity (similar to the ones you may find on a pier), as well as digitally printed vinyl characters stuck on the glass on the library lifts, facing outwards. If there are welcome packs/maps handed out at the entrance we would like to include key rings featuring the mascot characters with these. All of these components will be made to look as slick and professional as possible, as if the characters are actual patrons for the degree show.
Inside the degree show, versions of the mascot will be wandering around, distributed throughout the building. They will not be exact copies of the mascot at the entrance, but slightly differing versions, prototypes of the final character. (eg. A version of the mascot with ears, a version with different colour skin, a larger version, etc.) The performers inside the mascot outfits will be asked to perform certain tasks, while wearing and carrying certain parts of their outfit. (eg. Mascot 1 may be asked to walk around and look at the art wearing the comically large shoes, Mascot 2 may be asked to sit on a bench and eat their lunch while wearing their full outfit without the head, Mascot 3 may be asked to appear to be waiting for a friend wearing their regular clothes but with the mascot head on, and the rest of the outfit hung over their shoulder, etc.) A rota will be drawn up for the performers, detailing how they should be acting and where they should be at a certain time, this can be communicated to organisers if needed, the work will be active every-day and the performers will rotate in shifts, with plenty of time off (not in the outfit performing).
The next idea was about levels of fiction within the institution; the various methods of constructing a narrative and how it’s consequently conveyed to an audience. This comes in the form of creating experiences that have an uncanny impression; common activities such as watching a YouTube video or being exposed to an advert are reconstructed using a similar visual language but with some unfamiliar additions. When on display, the geographical location of the work partially dictates the content to add an element of site specificity, which in turn contributes to the overall building of the story.
The piece itself is a series of information stands (2 main stands in the street positioned near the north lifts and south entrance, and then 6 secondary stands on each subsequent floor). The purpose of the stands will be to distribute information and additional content about fictional events and artworks situated on the 4th floor of the Granary Building, the sculpture garden and the basement. It would also be ideal to gain permission to replace the building map panel inside the lifts, to add a basement and 4th floor, however none of the existing information would be edited, the only additions/alterations would be with regards to the fictional floors. This would assist with the narrative being woven into the fabric of the University; expanding the potential of the University walls and encouraging the activation of the audience’s imaginations.
The main stands would be backlit and made using a MDF and timber to construct the frame, with an acrylic front and back with vinyl prints attached to both sides. The print would be made up of a map (the graphics and information of which would be consistent to the existing Granary Building map but with the additions of a 4th floor and basement, all other details would remain exactly the same), pamphlets that would be changed each day to reflect the events occurring that day (which fold out to show the same map on the stand), and a free-standing mesh bucket on a stand full of fake key fobs which people are encouraged to take for free. The pamphlets will contain bios of fictional artists/art professionals, their previous works/projects and interviews. There would also events listed on Eventbrite which people could find online and access more information about these talks, discussions and artworks. The secondary stands wouldn’t be backlit and would only feature the map and would be smaller but would direct visitors to the ground floor stand if they desired the additional items.
We went to Bob Bicknell-Knight’s show at Anka Kutleys as part of Cacotopia 02 which was great! Such a professional looking show with some excellent work that we hadn’t seen previous to this. All the work contributed to the underlying theme of artificial intelligence, consumer capitalist culture and other internet based activities.
We also went to the private view of Eddie Peake's show at White Cube which was absolutely packed! Almost impossible to get in but the environment was actually quite enjoyable; the idea that you would have DJs in another specially constructed room, visible behind a window, broadcasting an online radio show during the exhibition seemed quite exciting. However, the rest of the work in the show was, as usual with his work, not quite to our taste. It seemed very egotistical, especially when we’re told that the artist ‘plays’ himself, both offering up and dismantling the narrative of artistic self-worth, fictional protagonist and ‘real’ self…
