Difference between revisions of "Roaming Discussion: 1916"

From Critical Practice Chelsea
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 7: Line 7:
 
'''In attendance:''' Neil Cummings, Kristen Lovelock, Scott Schwager, Maria Chritaforatou and Me
 
'''In attendance:''' Neil Cummings, Kristen Lovelock, Scott Schwager, Maria Chritaforatou and Me
  
*This "informal critique" was not structured like the classic "the artist doesn't talk" variety. (As, for instance, in [[''Show Not Tell'']])
+
*This "informal critique" was not structured like the classic "the artist doesn't talk" variety. (As, for instance, in [[Show Not Tell Seminar Series]].)
 
*Recurrent theme - what it means to focus on one's "subject" - for example, Kristen's concern with co-habitation - should she or shouldn't she move in with her boyfriend? That's the focus. The references to surrealism and holidays confused this focus - They may well have been a focus in their own right - they just weren't the artist's main focus in this artwork; nor were they working in the service of her focus...
 
*Recurrent theme - what it means to focus on one's "subject" - for example, Kristen's concern with co-habitation - should she or shouldn't she move in with her boyfriend? That's the focus. The references to surrealism and holidays confused this focus - They may well have been a focus in their own right - they just weren't the artist's main focus in this artwork; nor were they working in the service of her focus...
 
*Lots of discussion around the frame of the gallery and the power of that frame - there's a tendency to:  
 
*Lots of discussion around the frame of the gallery and the power of that frame - there's a tendency to:  

Revision as of 14:40, 20 March 2010

Roaming Discussion of 1916 with Neil Cummings
March 18, 2010 - Triangle Space, Chelsea College of Art and Design
In attendance: Neil Cummings, Kristen Lovelock, Scott Schwager, Maria Chritaforatou and Me

  • This "informal critique" was not structured like the classic "the artist doesn't talk" variety. (As, for instance, in Show Not Tell Seminar Series.)
  • Recurrent theme - what it means to focus on one's "subject" - for example, Kristen's concern with co-habitation - should she or shouldn't she move in with her boyfriend? That's the focus. The references to surrealism and holidays confused this focus - They may well have been a focus in their own right - they just weren't the artist's main focus in this artwork; nor were they working in the service of her focus...
  • Lots of discussion around the frame of the gallery and the power of that frame - there's a tendency to:
  1. Make stuff that looks like art - for example, how the bathroom paintings were hung - they went from being in a shelf (in a real bathroom) to being in a gallery
  2. To indulge in creative installation - the artist forgets to become installer - or the installer plays at being an artist - the result: the hang is aestheticized in non-essential ways.
  3. To insufficiently consider the power of the gallery - Maria's painting should have either been bigger or smaller - as it was, its domestic scale wasn't working...
  • Scott's seesaw is provocative - fun and absurd...For Scott: interested in the balance of power. But as Neil observed, this seesaw was weighted in the middle - the balance issue wasn't literalized in the artwork. And yet, I know that I, for one, felt self-conscious my own body when riding the seesaw - I looked for people who where about my size to ride with...
  • Conversing while riding this seesaw...(playful) physical activity allowed/encouraged a different kind of engagement. Embodied approach...

Return to Walks
Return to Marsha Bradfield's Research Hub
Visit Marsha's bio page

Return to artists, researchers, academics and others
Return to Main Page

Kristen Lovelock Should I Move in with Him.jpg

Kristen Lovelock - part of Should I move in with him