In our group session last week, Jonathan pushed us to think in unfamiliar ways, such as following web-links we’d never normally click, considering how other artists might approach our work, and looking at Brian Eno’s ‘Oblique Strategies’ for inspiration.
I felt my A-frame mockup is ready for the interim show, but this session (in addition to my tutorial with Betty) raised a nagging question – is it too simple?
Initially I felt some resistance to that, but it’s the right thing to push on and really interrogate this.
How would other artists present this?
I looked at five artists who deal with participation, data, perception, and reduction:
1. James Turrell creates conditions where perception itself becomes the work. He might say the 60 seconds is the art – everything else is documentation.
2. Tino Sehgal uses no objects, no documentation. Just live encounters. He might argue the survey questionnaire dilutes the intimacy of what happens.
3. Félix González-Torres lets participants take something away. The work disperses into the world rather than accumulating in the gallery. My final survey question “will you try this tomorrow?” comes from this sort of thinking.
4. Christine Sun Kim makes the invisible visible through graphic language. She’d translate participant responses into a visual system rather than displaying the raw forms.
5. Rafael Lozano-Hemmer (Pulse Room) takes invisible biological signals and makes them the environment. Each visitor’s data accumulates and changes the room. My response cards are a lo-fi version of this – but he’d make the data the space, not a display on a board.
The common thread for all five artists is that the experience matters more than the object. So the real question isn’t whether my setup looks too bare – it’s whether it creates the right conditions for something to land.
David Ostrowski – case for reduction?
I went to see David Ostrowski’s exhibition “Test” at The Perimeter on the weekend. His whole practice revolves around reduction – “I strive to trigger the greatest possible emotional affects with the least possible means.” I love that. He doesn’t apologise for the simplicity or over-explain it.
He’s also deliberate about the exhibition space being “the second act” – the placement and context do as much work as the painting itself.
The parallel to ThoughtCounter is that my idea of the A-frame with handwritten response cards is already a minimum. It’s about the participants experience itself. That might be it’s strength. Seeing David’s work gave me some confidence re that.
Oblique Strategies
“Oblique Strategies is a set of published cards created by Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt first published in 1975. Each card contains a phrase or cryptic remark which can be used to break a deadlock or dilemma situation.”
The latex idea!
Despite the case for reduction, I was speaking to Katie after we visited some galleries and shops, reflecting on the day. It led me to exploring the opposite direction (not intentionally) – dressing the A-frame in a sensual material like latex.
Two reasons for this:
- Meeting people where they are at. ie. Using the consumer culture messaging we just experienced (ie. glossy sensual materials), to draw people in through the senses. The surface pulls you outward whereas the actual investigation asks participants to go inward.
- A tantric reference. Subtly highlighting that meditation and spirituality is actually much closer, more intimate, sexual energetically than is often talked about.
The problem with it
I think most people at the show would notice the consumer critique and not notice the tantric layer. It will be invisible unless they already know to look for it.
The main issue is that is uses the public misunderstanding of tantra (that it’s just about sex) to draw people in. And this risks reinforcing the misconception rather than challenging it.
Latex adds an unnecessary layer of seduction to something that’s working precisely because it’s empty – using the senses to ‘sell’ going beyond the senses.
Key learnings & reflections
The latex idea was a useful exercise – it helped me see that the latex was competing with the experience rather than supporting it.
Re-reading my study statement again, the second objective is: “testing how installation spaces and objects can also create conditions for noticing”, and I’m not really testing that yet.
The next step for me is to see what can be done to disrupt the participant experience itself. This could be utilising sound, objects, smell etc. ie. What is the room/environment doing to someone as they participate in the counting experience. And how does it change their experience.