The summer has given me time to think about the best way forward to avoid some of the feedback from my assessment. Clarifying how I want to work and the drivers behind my practice a has a benefit in the inward focusing of what I am seeking to say and how I want to present these thoughts. I am hoping this course allows for the use of a device to represent not only the encounter, but a representation of discourse – be that verbally or in the perception of the encounter (the meeting of two things) – it also indicates the authorship of the audience, their relationship with and their participation in the project. Which are key players in defining how my practice works and addresses the context of the space created between listening and hearing.
The idea of the pages of book alludes to the narrative it contains, a narrative that relates to conversational dialogue. But is also an allegory for the idea that nuance, subjectivity, and perceptions are triggered by our own experiences as they relate to us and that these perceptions are layered in our own experiences.. This creates the possibility of altered meaning.
Aspects of this relate to the idea of conversations which have taken place. I used wastage off cuts from the woodworking shop. In a way the designers creating their marquette’s are authors of my work., ironically I use what they didn’t say to say what I want to say. I rather like this aspect.
Artists Amalia Pica (eaves Dropping – 2011) , Anish Kapoor (at the Phitzherbert this summer) , Ciara Phillips (We the people are the work – 2017) , Katie Schwabb and Olafur Elliason. Each of these artists have influenced how I think of the audience as seminal in authorship of the piece. In each the influence and act of authorship is different but seminal to the sense of the piece.
There is an element of my approach which wants to actively involve an audience. To encourage a proactive dialogue with the pieces of work. On the left Tavistock College year 7’s launched their Haiku to determine the structure of the written piece in Disassembly ii. This part of the work links to a diological practice as the act of participation determined the outcome but did not,of itself, create the work; participation of the audience created its own dislodge specific to the event. Centrally is the fist audience encounter with the matrix for printing. I wanted to see how they would build patterns. And finally The Third Man’s Unreliable Narrator – based on Aristotle’s theory that If I think of a man – you will think of another and – so on. This alluded to multiplicity and how self bias redirects subjective encounters. The printed canvasses where installed as a collective in the manner of a flock of pigeons. They represented the carrying of messages in a space and the canvasses also acted as a block and reflection – demonstrating the random ebb and flow of conversation and the possibilities for change.
Whilst The Third man fulfilled much of the aesthetic and function I was looking for there was one element which troubled me. The density and hardness of the final elements.
This next piece will I hope have a lighter, less solid face to it. I would like to think that I can take advantage of things which played well in the pieces; like light and shadow, reflection and the participatory element all of which which lent themselves to the concept of the occupation of a space by a conversation.
The balloon here (something which happened over the holiday) and a visit to Aushwitz both had a fundamental effect on how I see this project moving forwards. There is less that I want to challenge, less that I want to focus on and more that I want to develop in terms of using my framework to address resituating the negative connotation of the difference in listening and hearing and the positives Between You and Me