About
An “approach to making” and the bi-directional relationship between space and methodology.
How does the bi-directional relationship between space and methodology impact an artist’s approach, processes and preparations in which to make?
The what, where, how, when and why’s of “setting up” and preparation, before physically making anything at all, is what I focus on in my practice. Each of my works evidences and comments on the parameters, restrictions and most importantly, the physical space that I inhabit. To generate ideas is crucial but forming a piece of work to be within an exhibition context is secondary. Generally, there is no certainty of ‘what’ the outcome will be, but the work is the approach to making, the ability to identify the methods in which I, and others, use to create a piece that will lead to a response through observation, documentation and conversation. Ultimately, I encourage an element of exchange. This stems from aspirations of becoming a lecturer and the hunger I have to learn, taking full advantage of the deadlines, structures and frameworks that sit naturally both within an institution and my practice.
Setting parameters, rules, restrictions and instructions are examples of methods that both limit and broaden the possible approaches to making. Whether conscious or subconscious, methods influence the making of a work before a thought is conceived. The documentation of these methodologies, whilst a work is organically evolving, is the most important factor within my research; something I am evermore interested in as my practice develops. An example of the foundations that I put in place to approach ‘making’, and the by-products of activity that form, could be appreciated when working in the centre of Plaza Nueva, Granada, on my travel prize residency. For a performance, I knew that my location, position, intended duration, and what I was wearing were all controlled variables. Rules set in order to feel a sense of productivity when “trying to make something”. However, the uncontrollable, external factors that would only be presented to me by chance, for example, public interaction or even the position of the sun, would be documented as the performance unfolds. Sometimes (begrudgingly), these additions would be more interesting than anything I could possibly stage or prepare. It was to my surprise that a group of tourists, would, without saying a word, prove me right and come to pose in front of the camera with me, only to disappear moments later. Baffled by the sense of exchange that the interruption had; it was yet another interpretation of “observation and response”. Artist duo, Fischli and Weiss, taught me that documenting the “unfolding” excites me, but the unfolding only happens when the methods and methodologies of the chosen ‘approach to making’ are set.
Incorporating list making, drawing, sculpture, “workings out”, and film/performance in my practice, I work with multiple disciplines in order to respond appropriately to the ideas that I have. Yet, a consistent thread that continues to run throughout my work is the use of space. Primarily, I have focused on how space can be seen as a method, material, and something in which to collaborate with. The potential of space as a concept is limitless.
Space and methodology have a bi-directional relationship, with the methods used shaped by the original space, and methodology impacting on the evolving space as work develops. I have conducted residencies that have helped me explore the differences, challenges, and enthusiasm that one faces when presented with a new space to create in and collaborate with. Although, this is where I feel my research can expand in a physical form.
I hope to achieve what can be described as an anthology of “workings out” within the making and documentation process, rooted within contemporary art practice.
How does the bi-directional relationship between space and methodology impact an artist’s approach, processes and preparations in which to make?
The what, where, how, when and why’s of “setting up” and preparation, before physically making anything at all, is what I focus on in my practice. Each of my works evidences and comments on the parameters, restrictions and most importantly, the physical space that I inhabit. To generate ideas is crucial but forming a piece of work to be within an exhibition context is secondary. Generally, there is no certainty of ‘what’ the outcome will be, but the work is the approach to making, the ability to identify the methods in which I, and others, use to create a piece that will lead to a response through observation, documentation and conversation. Ultimately, I encourage an element of exchange. This stems from aspirations of becoming a lecturer and the hunger I have to learn, taking full advantage of the deadlines, structures and frameworks that sit naturally both within an institution and my practice.
Setting parameters, rules, restrictions and instructions are examples of methods that both limit and broaden the possible approaches to making. Whether conscious or subconscious, methods influence the making of a work before a thought is conceived. The documentation of these methodologies, whilst a work is organically evolving, is the most important factor within my research; something I am evermore interested in as my practice develops. An example of the foundations that I put in place to approach ‘making’, and the by-products of activity that form, could be appreciated when working in the centre of Plaza Nueva, Granada, on my travel prize residency. For a performance, I knew that my location, position, intended duration, and what I was wearing were all controlled variables. Rules set in order to feel a sense of productivity when “trying to make something”. However, the uncontrollable, external factors that would only be presented to me by chance, for example, public interaction or even the position of the sun, would be documented as the performance unfolds. Sometimes (begrudgingly), these additions would be more interesting than anything I could possibly stage or prepare. It was to my surprise that a group of tourists, would, without saying a word, prove me right and come to pose in front of the camera with me, only to disappear moments later. Baffled by the sense of exchange that the interruption had; it was yet another interpretation of “observation and response”. Artist duo, Fischli and Weiss, taught me that documenting the “unfolding” excites me, but the unfolding only happens when the methods and methodologies of the chosen ‘approach to making’ are set.
Incorporating list making, drawing, sculpture, “workings out”, and film/performance in my practice, I work with multiple disciplines in order to respond appropriately to the ideas that I have. Yet, a consistent thread that continues to run throughout my work is the use of space. Primarily, I have focused on how space can be seen as a method, material, and something in which to collaborate with. The potential of space as a concept is limitless.
Space and methodology have a bi-directional relationship, with the methods used shaped by the original space, and methodology impacting on the evolving space as work develops. I have conducted residencies that have helped me explore the differences, challenges, and enthusiasm that one faces when presented with a new space to create in and collaborate with. Although, this is where I feel my research can expand in a physical form.
I hope to achieve what can be described as an anthology of “workings out” within the making and documentation process, rooted within contemporary art practice.
"To live is to leave traces" - Walter Benjamin