I am actually so happy that I went to this artist talk, initially I was finding it hard to understand the concept of Craven’s work but once she got more in-depth to these ideas of perception and so on, I was hooked.
There were a number of things that were touched up on which I was interested in. This idea of ‘consent’. She had an exhibition in Berlin where she asked to have wires connected from inside to outiside for her live broadcasting piece. She spoke about how they denied her for safety reasons with the wires but what fascinated me more so, was the fact they decided to keep a blind eye to the fact there was live broadcasting involved. Craven explained that there was notice before entering of the fact you’d be part of the work in such an invasive way from entering the exhibition. She also mentioned how she’s even considered doing that, which plays even further into this consent issue. I think people not knowing with give such a different effect but you’re then playing into the hands of the law. We have cctv cameras everywhere watching us but it’s interesting in this what I’d say ‘safe environment’ needs these precautions. And but then questions were raised of why should we as ‘artists’ get special rights? and what actually is an artist? So many questions become a ‘thing’ once you open up consent issues but it all becomes so interesting in terms of how peoples minds work and genuinally these days in society.
Craven also spoke about the different devices she uses and this interest towards compression. How the objects you use to make the work become just as interesting and importent to the process and overall outcome of ones work. She had a car compressed as part of the exhibition with her recorded device lay on top, this from what I gathered was the car she used on one of her projects where she had a broadcast/recording in Bristol of a particular area I can’t recall of. Using blue lighting and underneath orange, she was interested to see how the effects reacted and differed from oneanother. With using the blue light, she earlier learnt in her studies that this is used to keep us awake on our everyday devices such as computer and the orange to make us more drozzy (used more in the evenings). She finds it interesting on how they both impact and counteract one another, our perception can become altered without us even knowing. And this idea of compressing, keeps everything tied together and you see the whole picture she feels more so when all aspects of the work is together. Nothings fully clear, we’re essentially altered by what we’re being shown. Craven mentioned how she often borrows her devices and she is intruiged by the fact of this itself, how personal does this make the work? How important is this and how much needs to be shown?
After signing up for a tutorial, I was excited to see what Craven thought of my work and how much information she could give me. She mentioned the artist ‘Nan Goldin’ – who I’ve heard of but just never really looked thoroughly into. I mentioned my latest work where I’m questioning ‘trust’ (still based from my sleep) but how personal it’s becoming, I guess more of an investigation. Am I enjoying how sexual my ‘dream’s’ are becoming? questioning sexuality? feeling sexually assaulted? Telling myself I’m enjoying it or am I actually enjoying it? Craven said she found this extremely interesting as a topic this then led onto considering the initial devices I’m working with to express the work and how important they are? Goldin looks at sexual depandency – self portraiture…. obviously a good person to investigate. And Peter Hujar was mentioned, highly emotional yet stripped of excess, Hujar’s photographs are always beautiful, although rarely in a conventional way. Beautiful but still have this uncomfortable edge in my opinion, something slightly off about them which actually draws me in more so. This idea of playing with conflicting factors, as I am testing with currently.
Broudcasting, looking at viewer reaction to me sleeping, how comfortable or uncormfatable would this make me and what kind of responces would I get?
Algirdas Seskus – How is your work portrayed collectively as much as individually? His photographs are indistinct, blurred, messy compositions; toneless, soft, reduced images with unexciting content. Considering the how when one is taking the photo has just as much importance if not more rather than the aftermath of it. He’s not so bothered with depth of the photo but what it brings initially, ‘when the very act of photography becomes an object of art’.
Jo Spence – How invisible are we in this world and to one another? Creating vulnerability – exposure.
Scale/ different ways of presenting – what has significance?