Daym....entry date passed : fingers crossed for the next one making its way around!
Though this is a continuous event :
*Jen*
Theatre of the Absurd
Finally adding some real work....
Here is a piece I submitted for my second to last assessment of my degree.
A short minimalist performance, that given more time could easily evolve into a 45min/1hour video. Given a simple stage door representing a transition from one act to another, the character drifts between social states; indulging in cliched small talk, pretending to care for being late for work, playing the role of sales assistant, laughing at private jokes, etc. The performance seeks to include every "act" that when performed out of context or in this case in quick succession becomes thoroughly absurd.
Accompanying Text
Theatre of the Absurd – Looped Video (2011)
Humanity must resign itself to the belief that any individual is ever fully “themself”. We all live under an act and an influence that belies our true demeanour. Outward appearance and social interaction demand perpetual permutation of oneself. To not conform in this sense is to be alien.
Routine acts (often determined by context) performed place to place give us clarity and so validate us as human(e). By adhering to expected social etiquettes and principles of conversation we are all (more or less) essentially pretending to feel and to be something that we are not.
In that sense, the world must ultimately be absurd.
Nathan Elliott
Kokekokko
A little something I made for my laptop.
Yan Yan. My favourite snack from Brunei. If you are ever near a Selfridges I do recommend purchasing these tasty and educational snacks.
I certainly didn't realise goat's were lucky.
love Rosie
love Rosie
Moving the Image to places new
Hey all just thought I'd put a shout out to say that I've been up loading short excerpts, documentation or the whole kit and kaboodle of a selection of my moving image art on vimeo. Now that i've been getting them up and viewable. Hopefully be getting new work up there to so watch that space...
http://www.vimeo.com/user5602918
Kit
http://www.vimeo.com/user5602918
Kit
Our ingenuity will be the end of us....
Some interesting writings below! But I'm too tired right now to add to them so I thought it might be nice to break it all up with a picture.. not sure where i'm going with it but it amused me playing around in the studio today,
Don't worry it's not live!
Sam
Don't worry it's not live!
Sam
Writing and visual arts
Recently I've been writing poems. They are absurd and deliberately scan awkwardly, but I'm not sure how/if they fit into a visual art practice. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Here is a little thing what I done jotted down while I gazed over a twilight Glasgow and a highland cow grazed furtively beside me. Its about life and the absurdity of equality and all that hippie nonsense.
GOD’S FINGERPRINT
From up here nothing is as it seems,
Like our colourless daydreams,
Shimmering in and out
Of shadows and light,
In the restless haze
Of a ruminating lout,
And a world awaiting night.
Scale is a hard thing to grasp,
From its constant glissade
Over parades and purlieus,
Like an endless ocean sparkling
With the burgundy hues of dawn
Behind a lurid City sprawling
On the curved horizon.
And its through this blinding liquid,
This glue which ties
To eternal checkmate
The Boreal and the broccoli,
That we wade, each of us alone, irate,
And struggling to see,
Where the beauty lies.
As the eternal balance measures,
All things relate in stance,
But not all pleasures have equal perch,
To strive for such is to strive for death,
So we know, yet still we search
For life’s significance.
And as we searched,
Connections grew and splintered
Branching spontaneously,
Facsimiled anew, though filtered
As you pull back and close in,
To the endless fractal of
By Michael, Aged 21
Here is a little thing what I done jotted down while I gazed over a twilight Glasgow and a highland cow grazed furtively beside me. Its about life and the absurdity of equality and all that hippie nonsense.
GOD’S FINGERPRINT
From up here nothing is as it seems,
Like our colourless daydreams,
Shimmering in and out
Of shadows and light,
In the restless haze
Of a ruminating lout,
And a world awaiting night.
Scale is a hard thing to grasp,
From its constant glissade
Over parades and purlieus,
Like an endless ocean sparkling
With the burgundy hues of dawn
Behind a lurid City sprawling
On the curved horizon.
And its through this blinding liquid,
This glue which ties
To eternal checkmate
The Boreal and the broccoli,
That we wade, each of us alone, irate,
And struggling to see,
Where the beauty lies.
As the eternal balance measures,
All things relate in stance,
But not all pleasures have equal perch,
To strive for such is to strive for death,
So we know, yet still we search
For life’s significance.
And as we searched,
Connections grew and splintered
Branching spontaneously,
Facsimiled anew, though filtered
As you pull back and close in,
To the endless fractal of
By Michael, Aged 21
RE: On Originality... (that old chestnut)
What the world calls originality is only an unaccustomed method of tickling it. (Shirley not another Shaw?)
To think about originality, you must first think about purpose. To understand purpose I thought about life. I always find life offers the finest of metaphors. So run with me here…
Sam proposed, somewhat self-detrimentally, that originality could be a purpose for art. A cutely cynical idea, but if you think of it in terms of a life attitude, to exist merely for the quality of belonging or pertaining to an origin, it becomes patently absurd. I posit that originality is always a by-product of life and art, just as beauty is. It is a sign that something is working well – as the beauty of epiphany, an elegant design, great equations or scientific discovery. In this way, beauty and originality are closely connected, but neither can be a primary objective.
I was interested when Kit said, Art is a maelstrom of heterogeneous multiplicity. Again this metaphor is useful, for the same can send of all contemporary life. The post-modern project (and I call it a project with deliberate venom!) has drowned our taste with epistemic relativism and relentless attempts to create equality. We don’t know what is good anymore, we hold nothing dear and sacred, we have no clear goals, and we have no method of appraising successes. In short, we remain as childish as we can for as long as we can. Hence the fashion for words like, random, synergy, connectivity etc. Post-modernity encourages frivolous behaviour, and the heterogeneous maelstrom creates confusion, absurdity and mis-categorisation. But that’s another topic.
Anyway, the purpose of life is the strive to continue living. Since survival is not an issue anymore (in western society) and procreation is avoided for the most part, what has taken its place? Perhaps exploration and revelation. I see art as a form of inquiry and communication, both valid and necessary, which is closer to science or philosophy than to sport or leisure. But should this exploration be self-indulgent masturbation of the individual, or an altruistic endeavour, where societal issues and human intrigues can be satisfied – like how does biogenesis occur? Why does the atom look so much like the universe? Or how many penises can I draw on this pavement before the cement dries? Originality, beauty and meaning are the penis, vagina and womb of great things. But that’s just, like, my opinion man.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. (Surely Shome Mishtake Einshtein?)
Michael
To think about originality, you must first think about purpose. To understand purpose I thought about life. I always find life offers the finest of metaphors. So run with me here…
Sam proposed, somewhat self-detrimentally, that originality could be a purpose for art. A cutely cynical idea, but if you think of it in terms of a life attitude, to exist merely for the quality of belonging or pertaining to an origin, it becomes patently absurd. I posit that originality is always a by-product of life and art, just as beauty is. It is a sign that something is working well – as the beauty of epiphany, an elegant design, great equations or scientific discovery. In this way, beauty and originality are closely connected, but neither can be a primary objective.
I was interested when Kit said, Art is a maelstrom of heterogeneous multiplicity. Again this metaphor is useful, for the same can send of all contemporary life. The post-modern project (and I call it a project with deliberate venom!) has drowned our taste with epistemic relativism and relentless attempts to create equality. We don’t know what is good anymore, we hold nothing dear and sacred, we have no clear goals, and we have no method of appraising successes. In short, we remain as childish as we can for as long as we can. Hence the fashion for words like, random, synergy, connectivity etc. Post-modernity encourages frivolous behaviour, and the heterogeneous maelstrom creates confusion, absurdity and mis-categorisation. But that’s another topic.
Anyway, the purpose of life is the strive to continue living. Since survival is not an issue anymore (in western society) and procreation is avoided for the most part, what has taken its place? Perhaps exploration and revelation. I see art as a form of inquiry and communication, both valid and necessary, which is closer to science or philosophy than to sport or leisure. But should this exploration be self-indulgent masturbation of the individual, or an altruistic endeavour, where societal issues and human intrigues can be satisfied – like how does biogenesis occur? Why does the atom look so much like the universe? Or how many penises can I draw on this pavement before the cement dries? Originality, beauty and meaning are the penis, vagina and womb of great things. But that’s just, like, my opinion man.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. (Surely Shome Mishtake Einshtein?)
Michael
Re: On Originality
On a completely unoriginal way I to ended up writing to much in the comments section to your question Sam, so here is my comment...
As long as art is made will originality exist? I’m not Shaw ItWill.
When you are in the adolescents of the creating and of the learning of art, originality is immediately pushed to the back of one’s priorities as a means of justifying what has been made as an art work. This is through the contextualisation of what is being made in relation to other pieces of 'art' that have been made by other individuals in a contemporary or historical time. If there is an attempt at originality in ones work, the decisions of what you are doing and why those concepts are embedded within your outcomes are critiqued and understood in terms and associations of other concepts and theories that relate to your own. This is intended to give you a better grounding of those particular interests but also results in the wiping away of the originality of the idea, by making you aware of other individual ideas and interests in that field of interest, making you bow down and reference and relate to them so that it expands and widens the breadth of your concepts, endorsing them as art and as a result making them far more reaching and 'better'. This forever referencing and supposed understanding of theories and outcomes makes your art art. Without those things ticked off how can it be art? That forces the originality of your outcome and subject into the void of oblivion.
Is originality a Modernist mentality? If it is then the need for originality died with Modernism, as it is a progressive term to push forward art to its epitome. Art is a maelstrom of heterogeneous multiplicity. In an attempt by many, to understand it and in its many diverse forms, the critiquing and justification of art through the need to relate it to prior contexts and philosophies results in art becoming homogenised and this homogenisation squeezes out any inkerling of originality.
But is there still a way for originality to be within the circle of art? When originality is confused and conjoined with the individual, originality exists and exists because the individual is that and that alone. The way things are created will be produced through very individual ways even if they relate to something else. But it is also always important to remember that the individual is unique, just like any other individual.
As long as art is made, looked at and spoken about – in its current state (whatever that may be) - originality will eternally exist and be non-existent. What is made and the reasons for its creation will always be individual to that particular maker but those ideas, devices and materials will be placed within a contextual bracket of theory and history (by that maker/creator or by someone else) resulting in it being original and unoriginal.
As long as art is made will originality exist? I am Shaw ItWill.
So what of this piece of text? Is it an attempt at critiquing originality in a way to explain the un-explainable in an original or unoriginal fashion? Where are the references? Oh I’m sure their in there somewhere placed neatly inside, but only those who are in the know will understand what I mean... Or maybe there is none, and then this merely will be left in a corner as a mockery to show you how it is not done and will end up as an embarrassing piece of mumbo jumbo trash talk.
Kit
As long as art is made will originality exist? I’m not Shaw ItWill.
When you are in the adolescents of the creating and of the learning of art, originality is immediately pushed to the back of one’s priorities as a means of justifying what has been made as an art work. This is through the contextualisation of what is being made in relation to other pieces of 'art' that have been made by other individuals in a contemporary or historical time. If there is an attempt at originality in ones work, the decisions of what you are doing and why those concepts are embedded within your outcomes are critiqued and understood in terms and associations of other concepts and theories that relate to your own. This is intended to give you a better grounding of those particular interests but also results in the wiping away of the originality of the idea, by making you aware of other individual ideas and interests in that field of interest, making you bow down and reference and relate to them so that it expands and widens the breadth of your concepts, endorsing them as art and as a result making them far more reaching and 'better'. This forever referencing and supposed understanding of theories and outcomes makes your art art. Without those things ticked off how can it be art? That forces the originality of your outcome and subject into the void of oblivion.
Is originality a Modernist mentality? If it is then the need for originality died with Modernism, as it is a progressive term to push forward art to its epitome. Art is a maelstrom of heterogeneous multiplicity. In an attempt by many, to understand it and in its many diverse forms, the critiquing and justification of art through the need to relate it to prior contexts and philosophies results in art becoming homogenised and this homogenisation squeezes out any inkerling of originality.
But is there still a way for originality to be within the circle of art? When originality is confused and conjoined with the individual, originality exists and exists because the individual is that and that alone. The way things are created will be produced through very individual ways even if they relate to something else. But it is also always important to remember that the individual is unique, just like any other individual.
As long as art is made, looked at and spoken about – in its current state (whatever that may be) - originality will eternally exist and be non-existent. What is made and the reasons for its creation will always be individual to that particular maker but those ideas, devices and materials will be placed within a contextual bracket of theory and history (by that maker/creator or by someone else) resulting in it being original and unoriginal.
As long as art is made will originality exist? I am Shaw ItWill.
So what of this piece of text? Is it an attempt at critiquing originality in a way to explain the un-explainable in an original or unoriginal fashion? Where are the references? Oh I’m sure their in there somewhere placed neatly inside, but only those who are in the know will understand what I mean... Or maybe there is none, and then this merely will be left in a corner as a mockery to show you how it is not done and will end up as an embarrassing piece of mumbo jumbo trash talk.
Kit
Re: On Originality....
This was going to be a comment for Sam's post, but I went way over the character limit. Rather than edit it down, I've posted it here instead.
I watched Exit Through The Gift Shop the other week. The main subject of the documentary is a French guy living in America called Thierry Guetta who upon discovering street art, starts following its main proponents before he himself decides to become a star in the street art world. Somehow he succeeds, through sheer brute force. (Guetta is himself interesting as most of the footage that compromises the film was taken from footage filmed by him obsessively almost every hour of the day for about 10 years using a camcorder... but anyway) In a later part of the film (or possibly a separate YouTube interview with him, I can't remember), he's talking about his artworks and mentions the word "reputation"; due to his strong accent it comes off sounding like "repetition". This eggcorn, a linguistic term that describes two phonetically similar but grammatically different words or terms that have interchangeable meanings, got me thinking lately about the very same things Sam wrote about for this post.
Some other questions I've been asking myself for years - if you explore the very things you have obsessed about since you can first remember, those very things that have defined you no matter how personal or uncomfortable they are to others (and even yourself), and you make work out of it, is it still art or just masturbation? Is the true artist the one who only produces work for himself, who is dedicated to the exploration of his imagination, motives and perversions, even if means an almost complete disregard for everyone else? Even then, are your obsessions great/original enough to be art?
A lot of my interests deal in extremes. Many of my favourite artists either strip their work down to its barest essence, to a pure vision of minimalism - or inversely take things to a maximalist, utter bombastic and over the top level. I'm drawn to obsessive figures who work on something over years and years without help from others; artists that would otherwise be locked up perverts or deviants if they didn't have art educations or connections; artists with problems or delusions brought on by psychological, physical or sexual traumas. Whilst I don't share the same traits as many of these artists, I find them truly inspiring and believe what they do is absolute art. I often think the artist, or at least what they represent, is just as important as the work they make.
Where once an audience would have asked themselves upon seeing a modern/contemporary artwork, "I/my child/my dog could have done that", now they ask "Why didn't I think of that first?". For my favourite artists, a lot of them "got there first" - their niche made them what they are. But they also, for whatever reason, dedicated themselves completely to these niches because that's all they could do. Their niches weren't even consciously thought of as artistic business strategies.
So far the sort of work I've made has been explored by other artists a thousand times over, either through subject or medium. I don't think too highly of what I've made so far - most of it's unfinished, unfocused and just plain unoriginal. I'm okay with admitting that - why do you think they call it an art practice? I do find myself wondering sometimes, is there a new subject I could be exploring? But then before I know it, I'm returning to old habits that I've explored again and again. Maybe I'm focusing my artistic attention on the wrong obsessions.
I guess like you say, I think it's all down to whether what you are obsessed with is original. It would be wonderful to make art using a subject or a personal obsession that hasn't been explored (or rather exhausted) by others, but it isn't likely to happen. But you can still do it regardless.
Art has to be experienced by someone other than its creator to gain a value, whether it's intellectual, emotional or economical. It's usually the curator who gets there first acting as a middle man, before it reaches the public. In our early years of being artists, we have to take on the role of a curator for ourselves to decide what we make, and so we end up asking rather horrible questions like these. Artists really shouldn't have to take such responsibilities.
Long short/rant short - do whatever makes you happy even if it sends you mad, and let someone else worry over whether it fits in with the public's interests. You don't always have to explain your work - leave that to curators, critics, galleries, students, psychologists and historians to do now and in years to come. They'll get it wrong too, just like you would trying to explain the unexplainable (that's what makes truly great art!).
In the meantime, just pull your finger out, stop slacking and get on with making some fucking work.
John
I watched Exit Through The Gift Shop the other week. The main subject of the documentary is a French guy living in America called Thierry Guetta who upon discovering street art, starts following its main proponents before he himself decides to become a star in the street art world. Somehow he succeeds, through sheer brute force. (Guetta is himself interesting as most of the footage that compromises the film was taken from footage filmed by him obsessively almost every hour of the day for about 10 years using a camcorder... but anyway) In a later part of the film (or possibly a separate YouTube interview with him, I can't remember), he's talking about his artworks and mentions the word "reputation"; due to his strong accent it comes off sounding like "repetition". This eggcorn, a linguistic term that describes two phonetically similar but grammatically different words or terms that have interchangeable meanings, got me thinking lately about the very same things Sam wrote about for this post.
Some other questions I've been asking myself for years - if you explore the very things you have obsessed about since you can first remember, those very things that have defined you no matter how personal or uncomfortable they are to others (and even yourself), and you make work out of it, is it still art or just masturbation? Is the true artist the one who only produces work for himself, who is dedicated to the exploration of his imagination, motives and perversions, even if means an almost complete disregard for everyone else? Even then, are your obsessions great/original enough to be art?
A lot of my interests deal in extremes. Many of my favourite artists either strip their work down to its barest essence, to a pure vision of minimalism - or inversely take things to a maximalist, utter bombastic and over the top level. I'm drawn to obsessive figures who work on something over years and years without help from others; artists that would otherwise be locked up perverts or deviants if they didn't have art educations or connections; artists with problems or delusions brought on by psychological, physical or sexual traumas. Whilst I don't share the same traits as many of these artists, I find them truly inspiring and believe what they do is absolute art. I often think the artist, or at least what they represent, is just as important as the work they make.
Where once an audience would have asked themselves upon seeing a modern/contemporary artwork, "I/my child/my dog could have done that", now they ask "Why didn't I think of that first?". For my favourite artists, a lot of them "got there first" - their niche made them what they are. But they also, for whatever reason, dedicated themselves completely to these niches because that's all they could do. Their niches weren't even consciously thought of as artistic business strategies.
So far the sort of work I've made has been explored by other artists a thousand times over, either through subject or medium. I don't think too highly of what I've made so far - most of it's unfinished, unfocused and just plain unoriginal. I'm okay with admitting that - why do you think they call it an art practice? I do find myself wondering sometimes, is there a new subject I could be exploring? But then before I know it, I'm returning to old habits that I've explored again and again. Maybe I'm focusing my artistic attention on the wrong obsessions.
I guess like you say, I think it's all down to whether what you are obsessed with is original. It would be wonderful to make art using a subject or a personal obsession that hasn't been explored (or rather exhausted) by others, but it isn't likely to happen. But you can still do it regardless.
Art has to be experienced by someone other than its creator to gain a value, whether it's intellectual, emotional or economical. It's usually the curator who gets there first acting as a middle man, before it reaches the public. In our early years of being artists, we have to take on the role of a curator for ourselves to decide what we make, and so we end up asking rather horrible questions like these. Artists really shouldn't have to take such responsibilities.
Long short/rant short - do whatever makes you happy even if it sends you mad, and let someone else worry over whether it fits in with the public's interests. You don't always have to explain your work - leave that to curators, critics, galleries, students, psychologists and historians to do now and in years to come. They'll get it wrong too, just like you would trying to explain the unexplainable (that's what makes truly great art!).
In the meantime, just pull your finger out, stop slacking and get on with making some fucking work.
John
 |
| Whitehouse - Cruise (2001) Cover text by Peter Sotos |
On Originality....
As artists we often state that we are interested in this or that theme or phenomenon, often these are very banal and I sometimes wonder how much truth there is in this. How much of this is related to either seeking some post-production intellectual justification for what you have made or, and I think more commonly, trying to mark out a piece of territory that hasn’t been too extensively covered already? Are we truly interested in things that are commonly ignored or are we more honestly interested in making art that has some claim to originality and merely use the former as a means toward this end?
This is just a short extract from something I've been writing, I'm not sure what I think about this really and thought maybe it could spark a bit of debate amongst the collective?
Sam
The Otolith Group in Conversation with Gil Leung
Hey this is part one of an interview with recently Turner prize nominee's The Otolith Group with a Gil Leung... part 2 and 3 can also be read. Due to what they are and how their practice covers a range of areas thought this might be insightful for some or all of the collective. Also its on the Lux site which I know John will be well aware of but not sure about everyone else and its really worth a check out! Enjoy!
http://lux.org.uk/blog/what-form-would-abstraction-take-now-otolith-group-conversation-gil-leung-part-1-3
Kit
http://lux.org.uk/blog/what-form-would-abstraction-take-now-otolith-group-conversation-gil-leung-part-1-3
Kit
Erkan Ozgen
Hey all, Geoff mentioned this artist in an earlier post. Had a look for him and found him on none other then blogspot. Here's his blog and it has a large selection of his films including breath which you can watch on the link below.
http://erkan-ozgen.blogspot.com/2008/04/breath-2008.html
Cheers,
Kit
http://erkan-ozgen.blogspot.com/2008/04/breath-2008.html
Cheers,
Kit
MA Assessment Show
As promised the other day... some proper work
RE:PRODUCTION
MDF & Graphite, 2011
"and we called it fuckin' Excalibur"
Sand, Cement, Paper, Steel, Drill, Bucket & Halogen Work Light, 2011
New work for my MA Fine Art Assessment exhibition, comments more than welcome!
Sam
RE:PRODUCTION
MDF & Graphite, 2011
"and we called it fuckin' Excalibur"
Sand, Cement, Paper, Steel, Drill, Bucket & Halogen Work Light, 2011
New work for my MA Fine Art Assessment exhibition, comments more than welcome!
Sam
19/1/11: Wiki-Wednesday
Alternative title: Short Term Attention Spam, or s.t.a.s.(is)
Already we seem to have reached that temporary lull that always happens when you start a blog, then 3-5 days later run out of things to say or just get bored ... so, in the meantime here's some links of things that have interested me lately (and of course, Wikipedia is always the finest source for information). Perhaps we can make this a regular thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grip_tape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_insult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammellzee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_wall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Note
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_music
and finally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexicon_of_Comicana
John
(feel free to add your own links)
Already we seem to have reached that temporary lull that always happens when you start a blog, then 3-5 days later run out of things to say or just get bored ... so, in the meantime here's some links of things that have interested me lately (and of course, Wikipedia is always the finest source for information). Perhaps we can make this a regular thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grip_tape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_insult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammellzee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_wall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Note
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_music
and finally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexicon_of_Comicana
John
(feel free to add your own links)
a(n indecent?) proposal for ur mum
I've made this and think it would be perfect for ur mum
I think it would be too expensive to post but.... does anyone who can physically get to ur mum fancy making a replica of this rather horrible work if I supply detailed instructions?
Pics of serious work coming later in the week.........
Sam
I think it would be too expensive to post but.... does anyone who can physically get to ur mum fancy making a replica of this rather horrible work if I supply detailed instructions?
Pics of serious work coming later in the week.........
Sam
ur mum gallery
View Larger Map
ur mum gallery is a temporary con art gallery in a broken building in norwood green/wyke
ur mum is open at all times, just let urself in - wear some footwear that u wont mind getting dirty
ur mum will exhibit anything received - artwork will be exhibited for all time until it is damaged, destroyed or stolen - new artworks will be exhibited on top of existing ones
send artwork or proposals to ur_mum_gallery@hotmail.co.uk
posted by ur mum
'Regent Street' 2010
Kit Mead, ‘Regent Street’, 2010, 240cm x 160cm, installation view. Changing Spaces Project, Cambridge.
Exhibited 27th of October 2010 - 19th of November 2010
Posted by Kit Mead
I think this is right....
Marking my first post here's something I made earlier...
Awaking a little too early in the morning, yet in time to expel the contents of my bladder, I stumble back to my slumber with very little desire to be walking the same pathway twice this very day. It’s not that I fear the commode nor want to be on my feet; I simply crave to be beside all that I want for the day.
Me thinks an art piece lies somewhere beneath the covers here. It is more than a matter of the voluptuous nude beside me. It is an unusual want to just be.
Though I know; this is where the sick and the wounded lose time to heal, this is where depressants stay with nothing worth waking for, this is where fatties grow fat, this is where the hippies stay in a stupor for “bed peace”. These all bring negative connotations I think you’d agree (I include hippies as bed peace simply brought noises of photographs and journalists). The bed in its most sufficient and enjoyable form is for sleep and sex. Right?
This desire to be becomes a difference to me. Forever I have lain in bed contemplating what I have of worth to get up for. So what if all I want is within my immediate surroundings? Could I plan a day – a creative day where the bed and my room is the sole contentment? What worth could a single room hold for 24 hours?
Nathan Elliott (...you've splet my name wrong!)
Awaking a little too early in the morning, yet in time to expel the contents of my bladder, I stumble back to my slumber with very little desire to be walking the same pathway twice this very day. It’s not that I fear the commode nor want to be on my feet; I simply crave to be beside all that I want for the day.
Me thinks an art piece lies somewhere beneath the covers here. It is more than a matter of the voluptuous nude beside me. It is an unusual want to just be.
Though I know; this is where the sick and the wounded lose time to heal, this is where depressants stay with nothing worth waking for, this is where fatties grow fat, this is where the hippies stay in a stupor for “bed peace”. These all bring negative connotations I think you’d agree (I include hippies as bed peace simply brought noises of photographs and journalists). The bed in its most sufficient and enjoyable form is for sleep and sex. Right?
This desire to be becomes a difference to me. Forever I have lain in bed contemplating what I have of worth to get up for. So what if all I want is within my immediate surroundings? Could I plan a day – a creative day where the bed and my room is the sole contentment? What worth could a single room hold for 24 hours?
Nathan Elliott (...you've splet my name wrong!)
This Week So Far ...
It's all about dislocation this week, losing things, feeling lost, melancholy as you wander aimlessly
The Land Between Us exhibition at the Whitworth Gallery, Manchester a poetical show cunningly curated amongst the gallery's permanent collection. Highlights include getting lost in Olafur Eliasson artificial wood (The Forked Forest, 1998, ok so I didn't take the photo (we wasn't allowed, I did try my best) you just had to be there) which formed the main entrance. Erkan Ozgen, Breath (2008) video which reminded me of Kit' earlier work (I can't remember the title, but hey check out this groovy pdf from an earlier exhibition) the remains of Nikhil Chopra's performance and Chen Quins stunning piece The Garden (2007). Thought I'd post a few examples of the (amazing) catalog gocheckitoutNOW!
Starting a not so fresh sketch book,
it's almost a pointless exercise, but I always fall for hit, kicking myself in the face. I hate being aware of my own laziness, I have to write these things though otherwise I'll never get started doing anything!
Words I founded, Why Look At Animals? (John Brger) Indeed why at all? ... stuff of legend
And some images on my travels recently, frozen drippage ... the only thing spoiling the beauty is knowing it's filth
(lunch break, this was actually a few weeks back, but what the heck, kudos to the troopers)
Oh ... and one last thing, http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/chinese-government-demolishes-artist-ai-weiweis-shanghai-studio_b11081 ... fuckingcunts
The Land Between Us exhibition at the Whitworth Gallery, Manchester a poetical show cunningly curated amongst the gallery's permanent collection. Highlights include getting lost in Olafur Eliasson artificial wood (The Forked Forest, 1998, ok so I didn't take the photo (we wasn't allowed, I did try my best) you just had to be there) which formed the main entrance. Erkan Ozgen, Breath (2008) video which reminded me of Kit' earlier work (I can't remember the title, but hey check out this groovy pdf from an earlier exhibition) the remains of Nikhil Chopra's performance and Chen Quins stunning piece The Garden (2007). Thought I'd post a few examples of the (amazing) catalog gocheckitoutNOW!
Starting a not so fresh sketch book,
it's almost a pointless exercise, but I always fall for hit, kicking myself in the face. I hate being aware of my own laziness, I have to write these things though otherwise I'll never get started doing anything!
Words I founded, Why Look At Animals? (John Brger) Indeed why at all? ... stuff of legend
And some images on my travels recently, frozen drippage ... the only thing spoiling the beauty is knowing it's filth
(lunch break, this was actually a few weeks back, but what the heck, kudos to the troopers)
Oh ... and one last thing, http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/chinese-government-demolishes-artist-ai-weiweis-shanghai-studio_b11081 ... fuckingcunts
Empty Shops Network information
Here's a good website that has some useful bits of information in regard to using empty spaces for exhibiting art. They were the guys who exhibited at Lowther Arcade after our show. It also has some call outs for opportunities for artists.
http://www.artistsandmakers.com/
http://www.artistsandmakers.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)