We
have been asked a set of questions to enable discussion at Tuesdays meeting – some
answers before discussing it with Naomi.
How have you pushed,
expanded or challenged your practice through collaboration?
Throughout
my practice I have developed a set of rules, a framework or paradigm to support,
guide and enable me to make work. This activity is sometimes conscious as a creative
exercise and sometimes subconsciously through the familiarity of making. This project
enabled the opportunity to break a large number of the rules I have created; examples
being the act of cutting and joining of individual elements towards the development
of new structures, working with a range of materials new to me encouraging new
areas of problem solving and working in new media in the form of moving image.
Observing
how others make work and having access to ways of thinking which is new to me has
been liberating and has infused in me a renewed interest in creating physical
work from a place of making tools for thinking.
Do you feel you have
fully tested and trialled your original idea that you set out to work towards
collaboratively?
This
has been very successful – providing a ‘creative jolt’ both through and away
from my practice. We set out to move towards and occupy a place of not knowing.
This was supported by all and underpinned our time together. If something looked or felt familiar we moved away
from it. This resulted in creating models and structures unfamiliar to me.
One
deviation from our plan was that we said we would initially work separately for
a period, developing our own entry points to the subject and then we would come
together to collaborate but we naturally found ourselves working collectively from
day one. This felt more appropriate and made sense in terms of the practical
issues of location, our other commitments and the timescale of the project.
Can you prove this through
outcomes and evidence or what looks new and different?
Yes
– the work I have made set out to be process led, (quick, cheap and unfinished)
so that ideas were at the fore of the investigative project. This way of being manifests
itself in over 180 individual models (some consisting of up to 100 components).
The project has enabled me to finally work creatively with a number of new
processes and mediums I have trying to work with for some time; laser cutting
and film making and to confirm my interest in the activity of creative thinking
as an end in itself.
What is your residency’s
impact or ‘success’?
I
set out to be changed and have been. Through the project strategy we set up - of
making, responding, reflecting, sharing I now have a huge body of starting
points or thinking tools for new bodies of work that can be taken into a wide
range of situations from education and health to architecture and design. I
have made links with like minded people outside my sphere who I will defiantly work
with at a later date.
Looking ahead- what do
you or would you still like to do?
To
see the impact of my presence. The timescale did not allow me to see how my
thinking or the objects I have made fully impacts on The Centre for Robotics
Research. There was a large element of sharing and exposure within the project
but it would of being nice to be able to track an experience into a practical
outcome – changing/saving the world through folding paper.
The
‘teaching by osmosis’ I witnesses was intoxicating and very different to my engagement
with graduate and post graduate students within art institutions and something
I shall try out but it would be interesting to be part of a PhD students lab
team, supporting and working with a long term goal, providing an open ended
sounding board for their research and in turn their thinking enriches our
practices.
I
feel that the work we have undertaken within the project needs to be made
visible, both the objects themselves the process and our testimony. The
dissemination of activity is the key to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment