1 to 1 with Annabelle Craven

-Social media – Why do I want people to interact with it? – the motive

*To build a portfolio of different reactions *How comfortable are different people with opening up with these disturbed thoughts? – *How far can I push the boundaries of consent? – When am I becoming too invasive? – Consider the fact you have to make sure you aren’t breaking any personal elements to the point of getting into a lot of trouble! *Comparing how different people interact with my work – element of trust, would I get as much of honest reaction if they knew I recording but then how far can push that? *Understanding how other peoples minds work in comparison to mine – is everyone as disturbed as me really?

-Why use an old T.V. to display my work? –

*Seems to resonate with me more, plays on the eerie, disturbed feelings of my sleep paralysis. Feels like I’m stuck in this certain time and place more so and can’t get out of it, I feel a new TV would lose the emphasis of creepy dreamlike world. The multiple wires play on the domestic touch, the grainy, fuzziness of an old box TV gives an effect a new TV wouldn’t – yes you can add these things in the video but when this feeling also comes from the actual TV, i feel like I’m in this illusion world fully, you’re taken to that place on such a more personal level. This could be taken down to personal preference but itsn’t it how it makes me feel, what’s the most important part? If it doesn’t give me the sensation I get from my own health issues, the point of why I’m making the work feels trapped and a bit lost. I also think the sound becomes effected in a different way where it forces the viewer to get closer and it’s things like this I wouldn’t want to be lost, audience interaction is a key part to the success of my work. You need to be able to take the whole video in, what’s the point if you don’t feel engaged enough?

Advertisements

Eddie Martinez

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 14.29.27

With use of line and manipulation of colour, Martinez applies strongly and in vividly contrasting combinations to his paintings and sculptures. His style comes from a deep understanding of painting’s histories, covered through personal experience, popular culture and sport. Martinez’s paintings incorporate harsh brushwork and bold contours through the combination of mediums such as oil, enamel and spray paint, and often include collaged found objects. Interested in how to make large paintings feel like drawings – not look like them, but feel like them.

Martinez talks a lot about resistance and this idea of people allowing themselves to speak out however they please and however they feel suitable. The mess of politics, not big on politics but references the stupidity of it sometimes. Puts everything into his paintings so he doesn’t have to talk about them and he doesn’t want to tell a story. It’s important for you as the viewer to have your own interpretation and understanding of what you think the work is saying, not to be influenced by an abstract about the work and what the artist says it’s about.

‘I just want people to interpret the work how they want’

I recently came across Martinez when looking for further ideas and ways developing my collaged board. I really like the harsh use marks made and exaggerated shapes. With layers and coats emerging, I get this feeling of time and progression in the artists work also. I get a real sense of confidence, it’s almost like he’s fighting back at something he’s interested in – I get this feeling through the harshness of the marks and elongated shapes. I enjoy an artists work which feels confident and a willingness to take a risk. Colour can be a scary thing for me for some reason, I feel it’s easy to take it the wrong way and have the work mean something you aren’t intending. I often feel it becomes too much on the eye and just takes away from the detail but for some reason with Martinez it works, the balance is there. I do prefer the layered, toned down pieces of course but yes my point remains. The gestural marks remind me of my pencil/pen marks where I’m looking at how I let out an expression after listening to my sound recordings, whether after waking or from recording my surroundings in relation. I’m trying not to go off on a tangent here as i do often but yes there is definitely something in Martinez’s work which really resonates with me and I just feel it.

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 14.31.17

Dan Graham: Annabelle Craven (final session)

*Video architectures – doing and using video playbacks

*Cameras – surveillance

*Audience activating just by their presence – live feedback given back straight away

*Time delays – effects on viewer

*Perception – past, future, split attention – How we can re-occupy a situation

*It’s all unrehearsed – present tense

*Bringing past into present – Situation; one person speaks about the others past and the others past and the other brings into the now. One person predicts what the other is about to do, whilst the other predicts something of the others past (needing to know each-other is important).

‘A mirroring between two people’

*Bringing different times into the space of the present

*Human behavior, social interactions – isolated by virtual worlds

‘As waves are the practice of water, so the relationships are the practice of humans’ – practice to succeed, nothings as simple as black and white.

Graham’s critical engagement manifests most alluringly in the glass and mirrored pavilions, these depict instruments of reflection – visual and cognitive – highlight the voyeuristic elements of design in the built world; poised between sculpture and architecture, they glean a sparseness from 1960s Minimalism, reminiscent of Graham’s emergence in New York in the 1960s.

It’s so exciting to me to do just even think of ways of engaging and using the audience in your work, the consent elements that comes alongside this and how they engage with your work and one another. How comfortable are people and how much attention do people give out to your work. Reactions and consequences of the the reactions. Reading into more depth of the importance of public interaction has really opened up my mind to possibilities I hadn’t even anticipated considering. How time delaying can change the whole perspective of your work, listening back,looking back to yourself and the human behavior of this.

Understanding The Mobius Strip: Annabelle Craven (final session

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 13.02.58

= A one sided 3/4 Dimensional shape

*The outside/external represents the information – It’s like a continuous loop; ‘inside, outside, inside outside’.

*Extended consciousness: A mobile device – ways of communication

*a critical outlook – Utopian way of looking

*Instagram – social – open to everyone – Why are you using it? – To imitate, to tool?

*we’ve got to this point of which where everything’s becoming open to everyone – Self processing: Relationships – working out a sort of freeing practice.

I read the mobius strip as a representation of how mechanical and robotic todays society is becoming, it feels like we’re getting to this scary point of just living to reproduce, lose of substance/purity. You influence your own thinking by your own doings, it all becomes slightly disturbing. Our own thoughts are becoming tangled in this web of social media and how we let it affect us.

When I consider elements of consent within my own work, it really got me thinking about how we’re always being watched, whether it’s CCTV or tracked in some shape or form through our social media devices. This then also becomes a tangled situation between privacy and protecting us. Seeing how people answer and react to personal questions around my concept before and after knowing they’re being recorded is a current test i have on the go. I’m still deciphering the concept fully but I find it so intriguing comparing and relating each persons reactions before and after knowing and then seeing how far I can push these consent issues around what I’ve just done. I also find myself in this continuous loop, trying to get my own head around what is and isn’t acceptable.

 

25075286_1554773134610494_1862788051_o copy

Paul Ryan: (Annabelle Craven final session)

Paul Ryan the ‘Documenta’ – ( a five year art event in Germany)

*A practise of freeing and inserting

*Performative element which comes from cybermetix – ideas and theories in-bodied through these

*created diagrams which were called ‘relational circuits’ – role 1: Instigator role 2: Respondent role 3: Mediator, ‘the Three person solution’

Mobia strip

 

We opened our final session with looking into relational circuits, it felt like some sort of way from a group of people to discuss and interact personally with one another. Get your mind working and active to specific topic of conversation. what role best suits you? What kind of character are you mostly? Many questions started ironically circling round my head but it definitely intrigued my interest. this got me thinking about the roles between me and the audience in regards to my work. How much interaction between me and them do I feel is necessary? Discovering the audiences role in contrast with ones work and seeing how much impact these questions have. Reading into this diagram also made me think about my research into consent and how much I can actually get a way with, without sounding sneaky – I see myself a respondent so in this case I really need to consider how i’d go about defending the fact of recording people without their initial consents.

 

Public interactions

As well as recording people’s disturbed thoughts and dreams, I recently started messaging people through social media, seeing if i’d get any responses and If so, how much they’d expose and feel comfortable with sharing. I had a few ignored which was actually quite interesting in itself and then these three stand out responses. My friend Grace Cupper in particular shared a fair amount, I was a little overwhelmed but seeing this contrast between different levels of behaviour and context of what people are happy to expose is something I want to explore further into. This idea of horrible thoughts you put to the back of your mind and try not to think about and then how much different peoples minds work when in comes to the fact of actual exposure. I think asking at-least 20 odd people would be far more interesting though and give so many more ranges in responses. I guess just getting out of own headspace and documenting others issues has kind of broadened my thought process and helped me to consider other ways of connecting with an audience.

Bruce Nauman: Further thoughts and research

Nauman’s video/installations have always influenced my work in particular, ideas around repetition, isolation, eeriness and perhaps feeling uncomfortable to an extent are subjects I’ve tended to focus around and there is this obvious love for wordplay running through much of Nauman’s work, elements of mockery and playing on others weaknesses become apparent. And I guess it was specific’s such as these which then started making me think about the boundaries of how comfortable you are as the audience watching or observing one’s work? How far would you push your limits, in terms of what you’re happy to participate in and feel comfortable doing? Feelings towards obsession and a recurring crude and dense nature feel important in Nauman’s work, I guess you could say some of the video installations in particular, feel ‘jokery’ and slightly silly but at the same time still feel a bit disturbing and messed up?

He related the body to surrounding objects which show the impact of Minimalism’s (an extreme form of abstract art developed in the USA in the 1960’s and typified by artworks composed of simple geometric shapes based on the square and the rectangle) new ideas about the relationship between the viewer and the sculptural object. His occasional attraction to abstraction and sculptural concerns such as gravity also betray these sorts of influencing.

Nauman produced a number of films and videos in which he captured himself performing various repetitive, task-like exercises within the privacy of his studio—from bouncing against a corner of the room to slowly and purposely walking around perimeters. Nauman had withdrawn his own presence, shifting the focus of his work to manipulating the movement and experience of the beholder.

Performance Corridor (1969) marks the pivotal moment of this transition. The work originated as a prop for a solitary, videotaped performance, Walk with Contrapposto (1968), in which Nauman is seen walking up and down a narrow passageway, shifting his hips back and forth with each step in an exaggerated imitation of the conventional pose of classical sculpture. The corridor itself was a makeshift structure: two parallel wall-boards form a 20-inch-wide passage that is blocked at one end; the narrow space could just contain the movement of the artist’s body. For the Whitney Museum in New York’s seminal 1969 show, Anti-Illusion: Procedures/Materials, Nauman transferred this prop to a public exhibition space, where it was left to the individual beholder, deprived of instructions, to decide whether or not to enter the structure and how to move through it.