For my video project, I recorded myself making simplistic but expressive movements, documenting the process of using obscure materials for the purpose of ‘painting’ in this performative way. While considering how I could make this work more elaborate, two things came to mind.

First of all, I could physically make my workspace bigger, so as to free up my movements. The surface of my piece may cover the wall space of a room so that I would have to work harder to reach up to certain areas in order to create marks: I will be able to be more unapologetic about my movements.

Second of all, I could make this work participatory. This would open up my project, in that you would be able to almost compare the personalities of the ‘performers’: some will be more confident with their movements compared to others, for example. This will unlock the potential of play, which could be an interesting attribute. I named my film ‘play’ for the purpose of suggesting this idea, and to watch others engage and have fun with the activity would suggest this further.

Finally, I could experiment with VR in order to capture everything that is happening at once. This would enhance the energetic vibe by allowing more than one thing to happen at once while still capturing it. The act of watching the video will become part of the performance: it would be far more immersive, allowing you to move around in order to take in the entire environment.

The given lectures have been impactful to my own knowledge on art movements and periods. However, I have learnt that this is a weak area of mine: I struggle to maintain an interest in art history despite its importance, and this is because I strive to push away from traditional techniques in my practice. I need to be more open to the ways in which having a basic knowledge regarding art history could positively impact my work. I will be able to contrast with the work of renowned artists: I don’t have to necessarily relate to artists in order to find artist research useful.

This is why I enjoyed the tasks that had the most creative potential. Specifically, I liked tasks 6 and 8 due to the fact that there was a personal element that meant I could incorporate my own interests. I enjoyed the first task because I was able to analyse my own work: the opportunity to explain my work is something I value. Through this, I have come to recognise that I’m driven by my personal interests.

From receiving these tasks with a short amount of time to complete them, I have learnt that I should better distribute my time between this module and my studio practice. I recognise that I could dedicate more time to my blog posts each week. Although I am satisfied with my submissions overall, I could have fed the knowledge learnt from this module back into my studio practice more effectively, had I ensured that I completed each post promptly.

Process, performative, gestural, fluid, energetic, interactive, spontaneous, rebellious, playful, documentative

My practice has evolved within the past few months and is moving towards performance-based work. Movement is an important aspect of my work, mainly due to the fact that I want to celebrate process as opposed to the idea of an outcome. I believe artists put too much emphasis on the importance of outcomes, and should focus more on how art is made in the first place. Therefore, documentation is also a big part of my work: without documentation, I wouldn’t be able to show the initial process.

The way I channel movement is energetic, fluid and gestural. I utilize performance to make marks, and this is evident within the film I created for the artist film project (as shown in the screenshot attached). Dramatic movements and gestures are important to emphasise concepts of a celebration of process. I find my work almost rebellious because as mentioned above, I’m not invested in notions of outcome: I want my work to be spontaneous as a way of rebelling against the confines of how we view art. Furthermore, I have attempted to be rebellious in my material choice, to move further away from traditional mediums. Using paint and paintbrushes in a ‘traditional’ way is something that I believe is outdated: instead, I have been looking into using materials such as carpet stain remover, roll-on deodorant and clingfilm. These mundane materials are not only obscure, but the fact that there isn’t a ‘set’ way to use them allows for playful, authentic experimentation. 

Marina Abramovic doesn’t explicitly label herself a feminist artist. However, aspects of her work arguably speak of feminist ideas and notions, especially in the context of the time period in which her earlier performances took place. Rhythm 0, 1974 suggests how Abramovic was readily giving her physical self over to the public, and the violence and abuse that the performance escalated into perhaps shows society’s lack of respect for women. It’s interesting to think about how conducting the same experiment with a man in Abramovic’s place could have worked out: would the public respect a male performer more?

Contextually, this performance happened during the period of Second Wave Feminism, and so it’s interesting to consider how Abramovic may have been influenced by the movement when coming up with this idea. Certainly, Abramovic would have attracted a much different reaction had she attempted this performance in a time where feminism progressing. It’s without saying that this performance was controversial, but Abramovic’s gender would have definitely been an alarming factor had this been done pre-feminism, for example.

Bibliography:

CUJAH. (2017). Reading Marina Abramović’s Performance Art as a Feminist Act. [online] Available at: http://cujah.org/past-volumes/volume-vi/essay-8-volume-6/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2017]

I have utilised a holiday photograph that belonged to strangers for the purpose of this task. I think what interests me the most about this form of appropriation is how personal photographs of this vein are. This personal aspect is something that I can appreciate, and yet not fully understand as I don’t have any connections to the original image myself. I see my perception of the value of these photograph to be distorted, and so I wanted to distort the original image as much as possible while still maintaining the original image itself. As I’m interested in process, it made sense to me to document the distortion process, creating a series of images that documents  this. 

This use of other people’s photographs was very much inspired by the work of Richard Prince, in which he exhibited strangers Instagram posts without their permission. This task allowed me to explore notions regarding how we define art in relation to ownership of material, which was thought-provoking. I believe questions regarding appropriation hold diverse, subjective answers. Nevertheless, the conversation of appropriation is a very important one that artists should continue to consider.

The first text, Leo Steinberg (b.1920) from Other Criteria, explores Rauschenberg’s work in depth, recognising the ways in which Rauschenberg challenges the classic ‘head-to-toe correspondence with human posture’: that is, he experimented with the composition of his work, to the extent that it would disrupt the viewer’s ability to relate visually. Steinberg recognises how most artists revolve their work around a horizontal positioning due to the way humans observe: the audience of artwork expects to be able to visually relate. The way in which Steinberg concludes this piece of text by bringing in the overarching idea of change suggests his recognition of Rauschenberg’s innovation: he challenged the norm of composition.

The second extract, From the Yale Lecture by Richard Serra discusses site-specific sculpture, and the contrast this has with non-site specific sculpture. Serra believes site-specific sculpture forms a relationship between the environment and the sculpture itself: they are ‘inseparable’. Serra suggests that if sculptures are created in a studio space and then taken to another location to then be adjusted accordingly, the initial context of the work has been tampered with. Serra is essentially challenging the norm of creating work within a studio space.

This idea of challenging norms is what connects the two texts together. Both Rauschenberg and Serra reject certain elements of practice that would ordinarily be considered ‘fundamental’ to the work ethic of an artist.

Bibliography:

Art in Theory 1900-1990 : An Anthology of Changing Ideas. (1992). Blackwell Publishers, pp.948-953 1124-1127.

When given the task of reinventing a mode of practice, I immediately thought of Jackson Pollock’s processes, and the expressive way that he creates his paintings. His process is something I hold a particular interest in, due to the performative, gestural aspect that his paintings hold. Although Pollock’s pieces are very much about the outcome, I wanted to focus on Pollock’s mode of practice by paying more attention to the actual process, and celebrate the gestural movements that this process possesses.

Personally, I am very interested in both performance art and the concept of process, which is why I consider Pollock to be an interesting artist to explore for this task. Looking at photographs of Pollock creating his paintings is what inspired me the most to develop his working process, and so I feel it would be interesting to perhaps create a piece of video art which documents the gestures and movements people make when trying to adopt his working process. This could perhaps become a participatory activity, and it would probably be more effective if I kept my true intentions of focusing on their actual movements rather than the outcomes covert, so as to ensure the footage I gather is as authentic as possible in regards to the individuals mimicking the process. This would allow me to not only reinvent Pollock’s process, but document and celebrate it as well.

Recently I visited an exhibition titled ‘HOLD’ in Petersfield Museum, put together by 6plus2 Art Collective. The six artists share an interest in responding to their surroundings. Contextually, Petersfield Museum is situated in an old police station, containing authentic police cells. Because of this, Brayshaw, Tett, Boardley, Buchanan, Pollen and Jacobs decided to base their work around notions of incarceration, each having their own space to explore what this means to them individually. Brayshaw explored the depths of emotion regarding incarceration:

      ‘I was struck by feelings of anger and desire for escape and I have tried to portray that transition through those emotions’ (6plus2 Art Collective, 2017).

Pollen allowed her surroundings to influence her work in a different way, looking at DNA and the process of gathering evidence:

     ‘This body of work focuses on the minute details of fingerprints, their intricate form and unique characteristics’ (6plus2 Art Collective, 2017).

Reading the artist statements was very insightful to me as the audience, but I think looking at the work of one artist in relation to another spoke for itself. It was clear that the artists were responding to the site due to the way in which the environment complemented the work, and talking to some of the artists made me realise that the audience wouldn’t get the same impression if the same work had been exhibited in a gallery space. Intentions were communicated clearly due to the location, and the experience was immersive as a result. The shift of perspective through each artist made me realise how diverse exploration of a singular word/location can be, and by coming to realise that the environment can play a huge role in how work is communicated will influence my artistic choices in the future regarding how my own work is installed.

Robyn Jacobs work was valuable to see ‘in the flesh’ as it contained elements of immersive participation. Forensic gloves were provided, and Jacobs invited you to leaf through her work as though it was potential evidence for a case. The dimly lit cell with work displayed in folders and scattered around the walls gave an investigative impression that wouldn’t have been picked up at all if you were to simply observe Jacobs’ work through photographs. However, it’s imperative that all the work exhibited at ‘HOLD’ was seen ‘in the flesh’, due to the fundamental influence of the environment: in a gallery situation, the work wouldn’t have had the same effect due to the context of the work.

6plus2 Art Collective (2017). ARTIST STATEMENT. HOLD.

With the focal point of Nikki S. Lee’s photograph Part (14), 2002 being the face, the woman initially appears to have a blank expression: she appears unfazed.

It seems the woman is in the company of a man. The masculine gesture of placing an arm around the shoulder of the woman suggests gender: it’s a dominant gesture that could be described as caring, or perhaps synonymous of ownership: personal space is something that appears non-existent. Regardless, this gesture speaks volumes about the relationship the pair share: they may be romantically involved. If the pair are not in any kind of compassionate relationship, perhaps there are economic or sexual ties. The man may be using his higher status as a male in a patriarchal society by claiming this woman through this forward gesture.

On closer inspection, the woman appears to be tense. Perhaps it’s the invasion of personal space; the gesture may be unsolicited; she may feel powerless. Should we assume that the pair are romantically involved, perhaps there are unresolved issues within the relationship. The woman’s positioning indicates this, suggesting deliberate detachment. The gesture suggests that the man is unaware of any issues, or overlooks them. Either way, it’s important to note that Nikki S. Lee has made the decision to only include the woman’s profile in the photograph. Nikki S. Lee may want to expose how women can be affected by the actions of men, which may explain why the man’s expression is not important.

I chose to consume the book ‘Rebecca Horn: Bodylandscapes’ (2005). This book is comprised of a collection of Horn’s work, as well as essays regarding Horn’s practice. A dialogue between Horn and Joachim Sartorius is also included, allowing the reader a more personal insight into Horn’s practice.

The interview between Horn and Sartorius is thorough, with Sartorius asking questions that showcases his own extensive expertise regarding Horn’s career, as well as his opinions on what Horn’s work portrays. In turn, this allows Horn to provide personal insight into her work. Horn is able to bounce off of Sartorius’ ideas, which is what makes this interview appear to be conversational. This interview paired with Horn’s documentative sketches allows the reader to observe her processes and development: something which looking at a final outcome alone will not provide. Therefore, this book feels somewhat intimate, and the way in which Horn discusses tender connections to her work encompasses this feeling:

   ‘To talk about love is like a wind that I shield off with a fan. It stubbornly seeks its own course and quite uncontrollably attacks me. I wrote the texts accompanying the Paradise Widow at a time of severe emotional strain’ (Horn, R. page 190)

Horn is confirming how her personal experiences have an impact on the work she produces, and this is why such a thorough interview is important: the reader could not grasp such concepts behind her work without such honest vulnerability.

Bibliography:

Horn, R. and Zweite, A. (2005). Bodylandscapes. London: South Bank Centre