Specification : a0.08
11 July to 10 August 2014
Yvonne Rainer tested the boundary between ordinary behaviour and art, Catherine Wood; Exhibition Text.
Dallow (2003, p. 60) writes that an individual creative practice is itself as much a product of the broader social and cultural, generative (transdisciplinary) schemes it emerges from, as it is (in)formed by the field of practice and academic discipline it is dependent upon.
Dallow, P. (2003). Representing creativeness: practice- based approaches to research in creative arts. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(1/2), 49
Day 08
13th July 2016
A reductive performance of a task.
How can connections be formed between diverse unknown collaborators? What are the qualities or states required? Confidence, energy, creativity, openness, acceptance, trust. What are the perceptual requirements? Posture, timing, gesture, control, response, synchronisation.
Location
Unresolved Gallery
Formerly occupied by E.C. until 20.00 ,12.07.16 to be occupied by S.C. from 11.00, 13.07.16; (a brief window of possibilities)
Procedure
|
Matter |
Method |
Materials |
||
|
Entering new creative spaces. A first attempt to activate, collaborate and make a performative piece that is content specific and contributes to a research methodology.
|
Start 10.02 Silent Questions Duration 14:17 The initiator passes one sheet to a Participant. The Participant silently reads the text. For questions 1 to 23 in response to what is on the paper the Participant then passes the paper to another Participant. In response to questions 24-75 there are a number of interventions and responses that could be instigated by the participant; for example drawing, using the paper as a prop, folding, extending and adding to the text etc. |
Contained indoor space 2.85m x xxm 75 x A4 white 80gsm photocopy paper sheets of questions, 43 with introductory statements or quotations (12 point, Calibri). 4 Participants: Alice Gale Feeney Katherine Fishman Emily Stollery Michael Whitby 1 initiator |
||
|
Testing Site |
||||
|
reductive piece, limitations of physical space and Participants. The camera is located in the wrong position resulting in Katharine barely being in frame. The performativity and related elements of movement are lost; the pre-imagined intention was my absence or liminal visibility perhaps through mere hand gestures. A very supportive core group who have taught and assisted in the outcome of this initial work. I am disappointed that I appear and dominate the visual piece, this was far from the intention. There is a requirement to consider my physical positioning in relation to the other participants and manage this so I am out of frame. It would be beneficial to restage this work with the same Participants within the same space. Development of the performance with a larger group of participants in a larger space would allow for expansion of gestures, moments and responses and most importantly sounds? A subterranean concrete space – such as a car park may evoke stillness and encourage meditative behaviours. As the parameters of the piece are established these coordinates can then be reframed within a range of timescales and locations. Furthermore extending the questions to instigate conversations about teaching and learning and this generate additional data is required. How can this be achieved? Give the questions to the Participants for a week/month so they can consider and reflect around these. What is the vision? What are the new associations? What are the forms utilised to realise this vision? How can we take risks within the constraints? Lengthen or break down and play with constituent parts. Allow for change of direction in work. Transfer of information. |
||||
|
Using the Lodge as a process for fine art pedagogic research. To stand in unfamiliar territory through creative enquiry, to assemble thoughts, to cultivate and test ideas as replenishment. To encounter and reconnect with objects and materials that contain anecdotes and detours that veer in different directions but have a thread of themes. To situate where I am from. To use the Lodge as a space of interactions. To consider the development towards – combination of materials to make combination of materials to make meaning exploring the hierarchies and tensions between an expansive practice. Make a small-scale assemblage each day; visual language moving through and from formal to a dematerialised language and back. Found, constructed and made objects. Emphasis on a process not a skill with a pedagogical research model running simultaneously. Elements of the wild? Embark on a process to generate ideas. Exchange ideas in the future as a visual essay. How can this experience be expanded? Ask questions. Maintain a log. |
||||
|
Notes from 15.07.16 Open plan studio space Subtle conversations Interconnectedness Tutors still learning Absence of stuff in the studio space Pulling out threads in SL from inside SL Evidence of Community A refuge |
It doesn’t matter Going out on a limb What it means to be making work Immediacy Ethnographic study Risk taking Rehearsal Textile Lodge / Graphics Lodge Mid-pointness Developing formats |
Spreading and folding Somatic architecture Dissecting Form/Forms? Fractions, pauses, repetitions Explore and search for words Can there be a plurality of agencies? |
||
Â
11.20 Discussion with Alice around the possibilities of forming a Phd Research Group. Need to catch Martin tomorrow and elicit his interest in faciliting an exchange network
12.05 Discussed with Christine the methodology and progress in applying NVivo [qualitative data analysis software for researchers using text rich data].