My practice, today.

My Practice, Today.

Having finished the seminar program i feel that the moment has come to look back on what has been said and relate this to my own practice. Coming in to the course i had what i would call an embryonic practice, but throughout the course i have grown to appreciate certain elements within other disciplines that I feel benefit my methodology. Early on in the first semester i decided to involve these in my work, and because of this i currently find myself with an interdisciplinary practice, existing in the space between spaces. Without a doubt the single largest contribution to my own work from the seminars has been my introduction to contemporary curatorial practice, perhaps because this is the more design oriented section of the seminar program or perhaps because it offers you're work such greater potential to leave a lasting impression. Design has the ability to reach a lot of people, but by and large these people exist as a closed community who mostly view and asses an object on its material properties, aesthetics are about beauty, and function is about practical use. My current work has a message that is for everyone to consider and in order to reach a broader audience I have effectively been forced to supplement my practice with that of the Art world in an effort to reach this these people and i feel curatorial practice helps me achieve this.

“To me doing artwork is using art as a tool to confront with the world”

- Thomas Hirschhorn

Moving into this new territory was at first a timid affair, but through time and conversations with people like Geoff Mann, Tom O'sullivan and Joanne Tatham i began to feel more comfortable in what i was doing – it was as if they had afforded my approach a certain credibility.

Seeing how artists like Thomas Hirschhorn and Christophe Buchel create installations of such scale and grandeur that take you on a sojourn into the unreal has opened my eyes as to how i can be displaying my work, rather than handing it over to some stranger to place in a space according to how they feel it works, i prefer to take control here as well, ensuring that the integrity of the work in kept intact. Before as a design student i had displayed my work at New Designers and 100% Design London but it is with no small measure of regret that i look back on the relatively simplistic and shallow way in which either i or someone else chose to display my work. I see the product of my practice now not simply as an object i have created, but as the space and context it is presented in (or as part of), creating an installation with each element contributing to a common goal is now my concern. Knowing that this has been where my practice has being going for quite some time i have been approaching the seminars from an angle which will help me to become a diligent curator.

From my recent experience of the Glasgow international festival of visual arts I have seen work that has been inspirational but i have also seen work which has disappointed me because of the way in which it has been presented, most importantly, i have become acutely aware of the importance of knowing what, and what to not include in a specific space. As your allotted space can all too quickly reach a point of saturation with your work (which you have endeavoured so exhaustingly to produce, and you understandably want to show the world) is choking the spectator, this is a point where, once reached and surpassed, can often mean that the entire affair is suffering and that the impact and significance of meaning of the work has become so convoluted that it is lost entirely.

“I always think energy yes, quality no”

– Thomas hirschhorn

–

I believe this can clearly be seen in the case of David Shrigely's recent expo in the Kelvingrove art gallery. Firstly, the work is sound - in fact i am a big fan of his work, but it was located in a space which detracted from the elegance and dignity of the work, the corner in which it was situated was poorly lit, and in close proximity to a main door and reception area meaning that the enduring memory i have of the work is of throngs of some rather unscrupulous school children making such a noise that finding that state of mind in which you are able to fully appreciate such a work was impossible. When you compare the Shrigley show to that of Buchel's at the tramway it seems to me that the Buchel show works purely because of its scale - for instance one of my criticisms of the Shrigley exhibit was that too much was crammed into too small a space, where as the richness of material on display in the Buchel show had quite the opposite effect - it seemed like you were entering another world. Shrigley himself has said in a recent interview in 'the Scotsman' that “There are 42 objects so I've got a lot to play with and can afford to make mistakes” is this the right attitude to have when curating your work? Shouldn't Shrigley be taking it more seriously considering that there are thousands of other artists who would love to have the chance to exhibit in such a well known and frequented space? later in the same interview he admits “I've just got to fill the space available” - but does he? one of the most important things i have gained from the seminar program has been the understanding of the need to consider the environment your work will be shown in, and to me it seems as though Shrigley simply has not done that. I believe that Shrigley has been seduced by an opportunity to have his work shown in an entirely different way and to a wholly different cliental, from his past work which for example has seen him shooting mock identity cards out of a canon in a nightclub we can see that he is open to showing work in different ways but in this case i believe that the compromise has cost him too much.

So from my experience it appears to me that you must have a space that is adequately free of external distractions (creating a conducive atmosphere) and a area large enough to achieve a 'critical mass' if you are trying to pull off something similar to what Buchel or Hirschhorn have done, but for a space as small as that afforded to Shrigley's work in Kelvingrove, the real challenge is to avoid over populating the space and ensuring you do not - to continue the nuclear analogy - go 'supercritical' whereby the meaning or message of the work is effectively destroyed by the very work itself.

Having moved from my under-grad in product design to the masters at Gray's School of Art my own practice has evolved beyond designing a product to 'fix' a situation, instead i have developed my approach to facilitate the creation of objects which bring with them their own rhetoric. Coming from this design background, i have been trained to constantly consider the user when creating whatever it is i may be in engaged in creating, it is because of this that i believe my work has an edge of practicality to it, this quality can be toyed with to the degree where a products function becomes a mockery of itself. A throne for instance – an object of such decadent luxury - can be portrayed as an uncomfortable penance, creating a nonsensical rendition of an instantly recognisable object which causes the consumer - the viewer - to think, to re-evaluate the subject matter and hopefully emerge from the experience with a better understanding of the issues at hand. Works like this carry with them their own narrative, a mute statement that emerges from the finished article simply by being in its presence - this is what i find very appealing. Whilst participating in the seminar delivered by Geoff Mann i found some of these ideals to be present within his work, where some of his more avant-garde studies into motion do not maintain any pretence of practicality - they certainly carry with them a narrative. During his seminar Mann also raised the interesting issue of entitling yourself and your practice, to him the idea of practising any one art, craft or design discipline is now defunct, according to Mann we can all benefit from referring to our formal training in a past tense for example as an ex-designer or ex-painter. To me, this makes a certain amount of sense - to the point where we are all given so much more freedom to explore our creativity, but the idea of distancing myself from a discipline which i have grown to love, and have worked hard to gain a qualification in seems rather counter-productive. The advantage offered by being able to sample other disciplines and bring the more desirable aspects of those practices into your own should not be under estimated, and in my opinion should be encouraged, we can all improve after all - and no institutional barrier should stop us from doing so.

Seeing all these methodologies which are, realistically, quite alien to what i have been exposed to before has allowed me to consider them in a way relative to what is effectively an outsider's perspective. For instance, during the seminars on the uncanny i was forced to think about how the uncanny is present in product design, where elements and ideologies from the artistic or psychological world combine with that of consumer driven design, and what impact that has had on work being produced by the design community. When moving into new territory it is interesting to note how someone can often become more dependent on what they already know as they are active outside of their comfort zone, for instance when Meret Oppenheim created her fur lined teacup she was capitalising on an object already present within the vernacular of our homes - the teacup - but she was also incorporating something radical, one of the fundamental elements of the uncanny, to solicit an emotional response from the user - the "unheimlich", or 'unhomely-ness' - although not a designer she was setting a precedent simply by choosing to use such a 'designed' item. The term 'unheimlich' is of great interest to me as a large part of design is concerned solely with creating objects which 'fit' within our home's landscape, which are unchallenging and comfortable for us as consumers to invest in. For someone to then create an object such as a fur-lined teacup, which flaunts these ideals and is in essence an anti-product, is very provocative and was at the time a genuine cultural innovation. In fact, this object is so highly emotionally charged - to the point where it is almost confrontational - that its function has moved from the practical to the abstract.

As product designers, we are aware that we are not in fact selling the product - we are selling the user experience, what makes work like Oppenhiem's teacup so innovative is that the experience of using something as mundane as a teacup has moved from being one that was physical, to being one that is metaphysical.

“It isn't particularly beautiful, and its certainly not useful,

but what a story it tells”

- Donald Norman

In doing so the role of the product in our society is elevated - to use Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' as a point of reference, the product ceases existing in our consciousness as a mere facilitator of a physiological or safety need and has been elevated to fill a role more akin to self actualisation. Undergoing this paradigm shift has meant that these products are no longer disposable utensils, and have become less of a commodity and more of a memento. Knowing that i do not simply want to create culturally worthless items it is good to see that others have broken ground in this regard. At times, finding these new ways of looking at deign has not been so straight forward, but it can definitely open many doors in terms of where one would choose to take their practice. This consideration of other disciplines is what i believe can give me an edge to my work, and in fact i now picture myself straddling the separate approaches of product design, curatorial practice and relational art practice.

Something else i have come across is the use of the term rhetoric when describing an object. To me it implies that an object has an embedded set of ephemeral qualities that coalesce to provide us with an argument. Andrea Branzi has postulated that one can embed meaning in an object, in his 'domestic animals' project he creates a series of works which further discourse and serve as part of an argument for design scholars. As someone who is involved in public planning and architecture his role is not only to see to the everyday running of such affairs but to challenge them as well, one of the ways in which Branzi has done this is to create these interventions. Branzi, however, is not alone; the work Jurgen Bey has produced since the turn of the century is almost solely concerned with conveying some sort of message - this message or rhetoric varies from project to project but each and every piece of work he creates is an argument for some kind of social agenda.

Where Bey creates a social commentary, people like Max Lamb and Tom Price create interesting celebrations of what contemporary design can be. Out go the 'robin hood' intentions for a better society and in come designed objects which shift the focus from societal change solely to the act of making, allowing the finished object its own unique kind of rhetoric brought about by the indicative nature of its aesthetics, where the act of its creation is immediately evident in its form.

In conclusion, i feel that overall the seminar program has been informative and enjoyable, and that despite the lack of any true design oriented sessions, i have found my practice has been expanded by learning about the approach taken by other parts of the creative industries. Furthermore, i would say that the most important seminars to me where the ones pertaining to curatorial practice and relational art practice, which i feel have armed me with a better understanding of how to present my work and allowing me the opportunity to create more effective art or designed objects.

seminar 19 - tyrebagger forest

'Art Centre' might be a bit of a misnomer when describing the site of Tyrebagger forest, but hidden within the shadowy boughs are works by internationally recognised artists who were commissioned by the forestry commission, who were seeking to produce an attraction to a green area that was in close proximity to aberdeen city. These works range in their intent and meaning but most aim to create a locus of some sort - a place where you concentrate on your environment. Some directly mirror the environment where as other merely reference it.

Meanwhile you have works like 'Birked Scar' by Donald Urquart which uses planted birch trees and burnt heather as its only medium meaning that it is hidden in the vernacular of the environment - currently the work is technically still production as the trees were planted around a perfect square of burnt heather which will over time "become bleached white" alongside the trees whose trunks will similarly grow to become white creating a pristine white space so commonly associated with modern art galleries.

Conversely the piece 'Modern Nature' by Matthew Dalziel and Louise Scullion utilizes modern technology and materials as its name may suggest. Standing tall in a small copse are a set of mock satellite dishes "like a clump of futuristic trees" their inbuilt solar panels provide energy (in a manner deliberately close to photosynthesis) for partly subterranean speakers which provide us with the auditory stimulus of a bird now locally extinct - the capercaillie. According to the artists, this serves to "alert our attention to sound in the landscape" and whilst this may indeed be the case, to me it serves as a catalyst to the recognition of the impact of man on the natural environment. So the area is rich in some diverse sculpture which is so effective because it capitalizes on its environment, whilst a separate work may be based upon the artists' own internal convictions, each sculpture is activated by its environment, a precedent re-iterated by the controversy surrounding Richard Serra's 1981 artwork 'Tilted Arc' in which Serra stated that Tilted Arc is site specific - similarly, in the case of tyrebagger, the work would not function outside of the forest. If the sculpture was placed within a white space the work would loose its resonance and such an act would effectively destroy it.

seminar 18 - glasgow international art festival

This seminar took place (unlike any of the other seminars) in a number of different venues each of which focused on a particular persons work - the glasgow art festival being what it is, we were able to experience several exhibits during the session, amongst others were a look at some of Joseph Beuys' work in the huntarian museum and art gallery, David Shrigley's exhibit in the Kelvingrove art gallery and various works in the Tramway visual arts gallery including another rendition of '24 hour psycho' by douglas gordon.

The one overwhelming feeling which the shrigley and beuys exhibitions gave me - was one of dissapointment - the former suffering from being situated in the kelvingrove art gallery's darkest corner, not to mention the roughshod nature of the way in which the work was placed (the space could of done with being twice the size of what it was). Due to this lack of structure the average viewer is left baffled by the apparent lack of narrative and is in fact bludgeoned with what are seemingly irrelevant objects that do not support each other, from both an

ideological perspective or a practical one these are the prices that we pay when choosing to exhibit in this manner. In short, i believe this would be an incredibly disappointing experience for someone who knew nothing about the work before hand, but this show does however raise the question: 'does this show exclude the public or does it in fact encourage them to investigate further into the artists work? And why would the latter be desirable?' From first hand experience, i can say that when you take the time to research something it can prove to be highly rewarding on a self affirming level ... is this what we are doing as creators of such art today?

The joseph beuys show also suffered from a chronic lack of cohesion - with the work showcased as stand alone pieces reflecting beuys' practice throughout his career, we are shown a glimpse of what the artist was trying to do but it does not even begin to scratch the surface of what his ethos was. in contrast to the shrigley exhibit - the huntarian provided ample space which was sparsely populated by the samplings of beuys' work which included fat in cardboard boxes and a chair festooned with fat as its cushion and a small amount of his 1000+ drawings which he created throughout his career, once again i could not help but feel that they had bitten off more than they could chew with this show as the significance of the work was lost in the execution of its presentation. perhaps i am being too critical, but to me these two shows seemed

very 'safe' to me - it was as though the curators were simply going through the motions, there was nothing innovative or creative in the way the shows were put together, and as a result the work's impact was diluted to the point where it was not worth my time.

After this the class visited the tramway gallery, where we were treated to a wholly different experience. entering the building you are struck by the spacious and lofty reception area - another noted contrast to the previous two venues - where you are almost suffocated by design of the space - here the room is well lit, spacious and pleasent. firstly we chose to visit the work of Christoph Buchel - 'last man out turn off lights', a surreal jaunt through a narrative that is as haunting as it is invigorating, Buchel does not simply place objects, he invites you to participate in the work, creating a carnival like atmosphere of muted excitement and exploration. to me this offers scope to a work far greater than positioning it within a vitrine and proclaiming it art, by participating in a work you are afforded the ability to engage with not just what is on front of you, but the founding principles that brought the work into being. you actuate the work, and in true democratic fashion you contribute to the experience as a whole - and at some point you gain a measure of ownership over the work, which is what makes this particular variety of relational art unique and powerful. were it not for Britain's religious devotion to so called health and safety participants would have been able to engage with the work to the extent in which the artist intended (something which i gather caused no small amount of frustration to buchel) which was for the participant to be able to actively search through drawers, investigate closed documents and generally allow our inquisitive nature to take us wherever we may want to go.

seminar 17 - the uncanny in art

Today we were treated to another lecture delivered by Alexadra Kokoli in which she discussed the historical relevance of 'the uncanny'. as part of our historical grounding Kokoli discussed at length the contextualization of the term by Sigmund Freud in the 1919 essay 'The Uncanny', where he made the first inroads into defining what was meant by the term. Realizing its potential significance, Freud took the risk of stepping out of his area of expertise in an attempt to show what it could offer to the world of psychology. In loose terms, the meaning of uncanny can be defined as an unsettling event or object which is at the same time familiar in some way, indeed it was well put by Kokoli that the meanings drawn from the origin of the term - the Germanic word 'unheimliche' - are so ambiguous, that its connotations are in fact comparable to its exact opposite and antithesis 'heimlich'. The phrase unheimliche in its literal translation means unhomely - which is to me a very astute term which itself creates a feeling of unease within oneself so in a sense the term is indicative of its meaning once you understand its origins. so where does this fit into art and/or design? with Art, you have people like mike kelly (who has devoted an entire exhibition to the uncanny) who have explored the term in our visual culture through the use of mixed media, employing metaphor and subtext to identify the uncanny in our daily lives, from this work - it would appear that the uncanny is a set of universal fears (which, according to Freud it certainly is). Although kelly's exhibition was exceedingly literal - to the point where it was almost moronic in its conceptualization - it did at least have that uncomfortable and unusual feel to it, as we stare at a figurative piece which has been formed from ground beef - like an elephant leg kebab seen in some less reputable establishments - we are filled with a realisation of what we are, that we are in some sense merely pieces of meat; a notion which many find particularly challenging because of their spiritual beliefs. Mladen Dolar - a Slovenian philosopher - once quipped that the uncanny is a "by-product of enlightenment" and that it was "haunted" By the specter of the supernatural - a lost idealism from a defunct era - but one which still endures today and contributes greatly to the nature of the uncanny.

further works of art of note are the sculptures of Hans Bellmer,specifically 'dolls' which have their own gravitas of anxiety brought about by their unequivocally female amorphous forms which are for the most part a reserve of fetishist ideals - the body being the absolute focus of his work. this work defies the common person's understanding of form and throws one's mind into dissonance - the forms are appealing, but for the life of you you cannot immediately determine why. This is mirrored by the work of Jake and Dinos Chapman who for their 'sex' exhibition created what most would call 'indecent' sculptures of children that share the un-natural aura of Bellmer's 'doll' sculptures but which achieve an entirely different sensation - one of overpowering disgust in my case when I saw it at the saatchi gallery in 2003, but at the same time i could not help but find myself enthralled by the seemingly tasteless pieces dotted around the gallery.

In the recent cinematic release of Shutter Island directed Martin Scorsese we are exposed to the unfolding of the uncanny before our very eyes, as a viewer you are thrust into a world of confused realities and confusion where you are never quite sure if what you are watching is the narrative from our point of view or from the main characters - portrayed by an excellent Leonardo diCaprio whose skittish demeanor constructs for us a sense of genuine unease. In a similar vein, the recent emergence of the 'torture porn genre' from cinema in the last decade can be said to be a microcosm in the universe of the uncanny - with sickeningly brutal and horrific scenes - these 'films' draw huge crowds of people who come to see mutilation, but mutilation that is afforded a sense of credibility by the way it is packaged and marketed - people take one look at the trailer for the film, or a poster on a bus stop and think "Well this has been approved by countless people who 'know' about films, so this must be ok right? This must be a healthy thing ? ... I can enjoy this cant I?" to these people for a start i would say that these people who vetted the film don't necessarily know about film but they definitely know about their target consumer.

the next week we were asked to deliver a short presentation based on the uncanny in our separate disciplines or work which we thought involved the uncanny. coming from a design background it was difficult to find examples of work which was as unsettling as what you may find in the fine arts pursuits of sculpture or painting, but that is not to say the uncanny never presents itself in design. for instance the role of critical design is to provoke thought and discourse, and this is often brought about by challenging our enshrined ideas of what an object should be from here, it is easy to see why a designed object may have an uncanny feel to it.

Furthermore i would say that whilst the uncanny does definitely exist within design, it is in an infinitely more subtle form. As design is always concerned with the user - the object produced will always have that grounding in practicality, it will always appear to have an application, often what causes such unease when observing a piece is that mockery of the proposed object's function.

With the recent success of cult design brand Droog and the rise of dutch avant-garde we have seen a large increase in the number of works being produced by the design community with an uncanny feel to them, i believe this success can largely be attributed to our societies current appetite for products which carry with them a narrative of some sort, indeed it seems that now a chair cannot simply be a chair - it must also sate a psychological need by offering us some kind of social or self affirmation. The Atelierdorp collective residing in Eindhoven have produced objects with an almost tangible uncanniness to them, the works 0f Nacho Carbonell in particular play on our conceptions of function.

seminar 16 - hahn and zimmerman

The Hahn and Zimmerman seminar focused on an analytical approach to graphic design. their take on how to approach, analyze and show raw data allows the outcome to be as informative as possible, in doing this they have created a practice which specializes in data mining but is free from the conventional trappings associated with such a tedious activity.

During the seminar we were asked to take part in a workshop to inform us as to how to go about such a process, we were given newspapers and asked to apply a filter of some sort to their content, the aim being that we can then see the important content - or the content we, as creators of the intervention want you to see. These filters can be anything - a common example would be the deletion or the actual removal of material through the use of a craft knife, by doing so you remove all cases of distracting content meaning that you are immediately drawn to your chosen focus.

Aesthetically speaking, the end result offers you an intriguing composition which can only contribute to our assimilation of the information and ultimately makes the experience more enjoyable. despite the fact that the visualization of information is a hugely important activity in today's fast paced consumer society - where more often than not, if we are not bludgeoned over the head with what we want we will simply be washed away in a current of apathy and loose interest - this approach seems to be restricted to academia - perhaps because the outcome of this practice is too intimidating or uncomfortable for the common consumer. whilst it is of no concern to 'outsiders', this technique for displaying raw facts and statistics can be highly valuable to the members of academia who take part in lectures, seminars as well as to professionals who regularly make sales pitches. Hans Rosling - a noted anthropologist and doctor currently operating from the Karolinska institute typifies this approach in his work, previously using data gathered from national bodies and the united nations to illustrate how in the case of his 2007 TEDtalk on poverty, that our conception of word finance is skewed by our ignorance - Rosling uses raw facts and statistical evidence to construct a compelling argument about so called 'third-world countries'.

seminar 15 - the curator in all of us

today we were encouraged to think about where curatorial practice fits in to our creative practice. to me curating something is about collecting material objects in a manner which makes sense. this 'sense' is the ephemeral, intangible information which is associated with these objects, and is unique in the respect that when an object is intentionally placed with another that shares or contributes to this 'sense' that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is something which i have sought to achieve with my current work, in the bringing together of objects which have no direct pre-existing associations with the subject matter but which when viewed as a whole art work, take on a significance of meaning. in order for the piece to have maximum impact the objects chosen obviously have to be as concise as possible, meaning that the selection process has to be exceptionally rigorous, i find that this process has many similarities to that of a design methodology where you are involved in a relatively strict structure.

seminar 14 - Geoff Mann

The fourth seminar dealt with the categorization of the creative industries, asking the question: Do we have to be labeled a practitioner within a certain discipline? The man putting forward this issue for debate is Geoff Mann - and he is ... well ... one of the group of creative practitioners who simply defy definition in the traditional sense. Neither here nor there, Mann straddles the paradigms of art and design, and continually challenges the tenets of both. His work consists of explorations into the everyday, but is far from mundane, his portfolio includes several different areas of investigation - with a fundamental theme running throughout. This theme is the exploration of form - specifically the "materialization of the intangible" - and that form's implications, in doing this Mann creates a narrative to be explored and absorbed by the viewer. This alone is nothing new - people have been doing this since the modern art revolution of the 1960's - what makes this case different is the way in which he is doing it.

Mann is an individual who does not let anything get in the way of creativity, by his own admission he can suffer from extreme disinterest once something he is working on progresses past a certain point, because of this, he exploits modern technology to realize or sketch ideas but shirks the production of the work itself - preferring to delegate that task to the people who have dedicated themselves to the perfection of their separate craft - claiming that "creativity is sacrificed when you pursue perfect craftsmanship". having both come from a design background i can certainly understand his detachment to the production of his work, as we are taught to consider production on a mass scale which is impossible when doing it yourself. this is contrary to the way a painter would work for example and is representative of the differences between the two disciplines of art and design. however, being a designer who is also creating works with a narrative, and which carry with them a critical commentary of their subject matter i can certainly sympathise with the need to distance yourself from the term 'designer' it has caused quite a large amount of confusion to others in my case already as people struggle to grasp where i am contextually. Mann talks about how we place too much value in terms such as 'painter' or 'product designer' and that if we were to consider ourselves as "ex-product designers" we would be afforded far more creative freedom.

seminar 13 - relational art practice

The third seminar of the semester was delivered by Tom O'Sullivan and Joanne Tathum, during which they brought us along on a journey of understanding through contemporary relational art practice. they began by placing the meaning of those words - 'contemporary relational art practice' - in context. To do this they examined three contemporary artists: Cathy Wilkes, Iza Genzkin and Franz West, and the impact they had on the art world as well as framing the entire discussion with a piece of writing by Jan Verwoert.

During the preparation for the seminar - we were all given the piece of writing in which Verwoerth discusses the merits of relational aesthetics, as well as the potential contribution these aesthetics have to make to socially engaged and motivated art - i read through the paper, then i read it again, and then again - in places i continually had to re-read the same text over and over again in an attempt to get my head around exactly what it was that Verwoert was trying to imply through a shroud of jargon and abstract extrapolation. In many ways it is this attitude which provides the biggest stumbling block to widespread acceptance of relational art by the public - besides the superficial acceptance which comes from the section of the public who are easily led, and are all too willing to venerate work purely because it is in a gallery or museum. More often than not outsiders will continually denounce modern art as worthless, and whilst it may at times seem indulgent or elitist on the part of the establishment, this does not mean that we should pander to such unqualified critics that make up the more militant portion of the Art viewing public, so it came as quite a surprise when the subtext of Verwoert's essay was testifying that this art practice had become too safe, and in fact old hat. in the case of Cathy Wilkes - who's practice centers around domestic issues pertaining specifically to the tension between man and women in today's society - we are shown allegories of the human form alongside objects frequently seen throughout the home, these objects may at first seem like a mess, but after some further contemplation it becomes clear that the artist has in fact built internal relationships between these items through careful and tasteful composition of the scene presented. wether or not your enjoyment of the work is compromised by your particular tastes, one cannot help but respect the craftsmanship in evidence in Wilkes' work, even if you do not subscribe to the belief that this constitutes Art, in fact it could be said that the assembling of such a scene is an art form in itself, meaning that the obligatory question "is it Art?" has become somewhat redundant.

seminar 12 - creative review

this seminar saw us looking into how a creative individual should review their own work. This can be done in any number of different ways, but each method should share the common goal of having the process feed back into your practice. This allows you to bring your work together as a whole, to consolidate your portfolio and to assure one's self as to where it is that you, as a creative individual are going with your work.

Furthermore, due to the importance of producing an artists statement to be presented with your work, the act of reviewing, or re-evaluating your work from an outside perspective becomes crucial as the people viewing your work don't have the same insight into your own work as you do. I personally find that when you are ready to take this step back from what you have produced and write about it in a manner which other people will understand and respond to, means that the piece is as close to completion as it ever will be. in my practice this allows me to gain a certain amount of closure, meaning that i can move onto the next project without continually moving back to past work. additionally, this offers you the chance to take the first delve into what one piece is about, preventing the ideals of said work from being usurped by critics and contemporaries. This last point is exceptionally important to myself as i have witnessed first hand the artistic communities propensity for reading too much into certain elements of a piece which are simply not that important, shifting the ideological placement of the work to somewhere you never intended it to be.

Seminar 11 - The Art of The Interview

Our first seminar in the second semester dealt with interviews in the art world. Often misunderstood or viewed with outright disdain by so called 'insiders', interviews may be prone to sycophantic fluff - comfortable filler for some magazine or other media - but if executed correctly, they can yield invaluable insight into the work of an artist or creative individual, and their methodology.

Though an interview was originally intended to be used as a journalistic device - where two individuals converse for the benefit of a newspaper's readers, in recent decades however, the interview has undergone a paradigm shift. From a lowly narrative device it has progressed through the echelons of accepted information gathering techniques to become a recognized and dependable method of extracting valuable information from a subject.

Furthermore, if employed as a research method they can provide first hand information that is directly relevant to what you are working on - there is no data mining, no need to go the exhausting lengths required in surveys or questionnaires. instead you are able to evaluate what is being said by the subject/subjects on the fly - encouraging improvisation by the interviewer and therefore provoking them to think of relevant questions which may have previously been overlooked.

It seems to me that the most prevalent incarnation of the interview is the televised debate - chat shows, true sport for the masses make up the vast majority of such (im)material purely because of their incessant propensity to achieve prime time billing - perhaps down to mindset of the people who have nothing to do at 10 am on a weekday - although i feel thats a matter far beyond the remit of this lowly reflective statement. Close behind is the gutter press with publication such as 'the sun' and 'heat' magazine sitting on their thrones as the king and queen of societies easily led; then comes the special interest magazines - heres where you can find diamonds in the rough - if you're prepared to look - with film magazine empire's pint of milk a short, versatile and easy going favorite of mine - although it can be said that this particular example smacks of hypocrisy - i simply cannot ignore the insight into the mind of someone offered by their estimation of the cost of something so mundane as a pint of milk.

From its inception the interview has always drawn an audience - no matter how small (even the interviewer is an audience in the truest sense of the word). I believe it is this 'audience' which has proved the chagrin of many a critic, regardless of the medium - written, audio or visual - pressure is always applied by this audience, and in many cases this can lead to the sacrifice of a certain amount of journalistic integrity on the part of the publisher in order to gain the favor of highly critical readers in a marketplace saturated by the promise of a mass media spectacle in the form of the hottest gossip - put simply: an interview with someone they want to hear from.

What's even more crippling is that if the subject did not like the outcome of an interview - they may not want to come back - and choose one of your competitors instead. All this in a world where brand loyalty is being eroded by the constant encroachment of high cash-figure marketing schemes, one could be forgiven for thinking - what's the point in maintaining my integrity?

(Incidentally the price of a pint of milk was 49 pence at time of writing)