It was a very full two months in the between and beyond.
WINTER RESIDENCY 2016
My December posts introduced the ideas and format for my winter residency presentation. Winter residency presentations are for an informed audience, familiar with the trajectory of the work via blog postings. It was my intention to perform a presentation that would provide me with insight on how the spectator responded, verbally as well as physically, to the ideas and work I placed before them. I did not want to provide them the structural conventions that might keep them in their ‘comfort zone’ of response.
The questions I asked myself, based on the structural criteria I established, were, did the presentation produce anticipated or unexpected responses and critical feedback, and provide open questions for the development of the work and research? Was the insight I acquired enlightening relative to the path I am following which will culminate in the thesis? Finally, what specific knowledge did I gain?
Viewed through the lens of scientific research, with the presentation I set up an experiment, placing myself and the work in the role of the ‘control’. The spectators, despite being a population mostly of ‘insiders’, provided the variables. They produced a range of individual questions and responses; yet as a group produced what I would deem to be a general response.
I have uploaded a gallery of photos from the residency here, including thirty-three photos of my presentation. Although the photos are mere glimpses into seconds of the 45 minutes, I found it interesting what the photographers captured in the way of gesture and body language of the individuals and group. The images, in my opinion, correspond to the overall sense I perceived of the presentation’s direction at the moment and in the days following; openness to the format and the appreciation for the opportunity to engage with the work physically, as opposed to viewing it hung or projected on a wall.
From the questions, feedback, and conversations in the days that followed I found there to be a general understanding of my explorations of identity, specifically my own identity relative to the place in which I find myself, Between the Easel and the Wall; the role of writing in my process; intention and chance as a part of my process; my explorations into the formal and material concerns of painting; and how I am exploring the relationship between the work, the artist and the spectator through the performative aspects of painting and painting's existence as object. Questions were raised, yet these questions pointed in the direction of comprehension rather than incomprehension.
During the presentation and immediately following I did not receive the impression that the spectators felt the situation was exceedingly controlled in a way that impinged on their ability to freely respond, however this is likely because I myself was too deeply involved in the presentation at the moment to gauge this. A few days later Andrew Cooks made the point that the presentation, because of the way it was performed, my reading with my back to the spectators, not offering an explanatory statement, could be interpreted as ‘distancing’ or ‘blocking out’ by the viewers, a form of alienation; the invitation to come forward into the space with me, particularly during the Q & A, could be deemed as aggressive or intimidating by some. I do see the point of this understanding. Had I conceived the presentation for a less informed audience, it would have been considerably different.
No explanation was offered during the presentation because I had posted the info on my blog prior. For those who did not have access to the blog post, such as visitors, of which there were a few, my assumption was that the majority of those present were artists, thus have an understanding of feelings and ideas addressed in the texts, as well as experience occupying the space where creativity and identity are formed. The reading-text-presentation, just under 15 minutes, was within the time limits and less than many other presentations; every person has his or her own ability to focus on what is being spoken under any given conditions. Minds will wander, sometimes because they feel alienated by what or how something is being said, sometimes because they need an additional form of engagement, such as a concurrent visual presentation, on which they can focus which is lacking, or for any number of other reasons; my point is, I could have made it easier, yet I chose not to. It is not an easy place or position to be in, that which I was describing, and I wanted this reflected in the presentation.
I agree, it probably was aggressive and intimidating for some to ask people to come forward and join me in the space. Again, it is not an easy or comfortable space to occupy. Any type of Q&A establishes a slightly aggressive situation. Generally someone, usually the person being questioned, is placed in a defensive position. Inviting the questioner to join me in the space challenged the dynamics of this situation. My intention was not to intimidate, but rather to gain more equal footing, to be in balanced dialogue; and to make apparent the uneasiness surrounding the situation by deflecting it. Did this prevent some people from coming forward, asking questions, or providing feedback? I don’t know, perhaps. However I am reminded of another conversation with Andrew Cooks on the reasons people have for asking questions after a presentation or talk. Some ask questions as a genuine inquiry for further knowledge, others ask questions as a means of expressing their own opinions and not seeking an answer, a third group ask questions to talk, be heard, and make their presence known. As the person being questioned it is not my responsibility to know the motivation for the question (although motivation can be interesting and telling of both the question and questioner), it is just to address the question. My point is, those who had questions to ask asked them, those who had feedback to provide provided it, either during the Q & A or at some point in some form afterwards.
Distancing was an intentional device I applied, the aggressiveness I became more aware of in hindsight. This awareness has made me think about how I might alter the presentation should I do a repeat-version for a different audience. It spurred me to ask others more specifically about their perception of the presentation. As I reviewed the photos I saw the potential for this interpretation. The situation could be analogous to being at an exhibition, film, or performance in which you realize this is something that is unappealing, uncomfortable, perhaps ‘too controlling’, then you leave. In this case you’re not really free to leave. Because you lack this freedom the discomfort is amplified. As the presenter, is it my responsibility to create a situation where everyone is comfortable? No. It would be impossible and improbable to make everyone comfortable. It is my responsibility to create a situation that is mutually beneficial and provides knowledge or ‘enlightenment’ to the information I am presenting. One way of doing this is by establishing parameters leading to questions such as: why am I uncomfortable/comfortable or responding in this particular way? I believe this is key to the art I make, therefore by extension to the presentation of and dialogue surrounding that work.
It was a wonderful honor and experience to be selected by my TI colleague Andrea Spaziani, curator of the exhibition SPACEBODIES, to be a part of this first event of the Transart Triennale 2016. [The Gym @ Judson Church on Sunday, January 10, 2016]. Photos can be viewed here.
My intention for the performative drawing, Sonata for Psyche Tattooing, was to approach the images I have been working with the past six months in a considerably different way than I have been doing in the studio. The term “Psyche Tattooing” came from my TI colleague Deborah Carruthers in reference to drawings I have done over prints of some of the Twinning photos. I was curious what would happen by drawing, which for me is generally done in the privacy of my studio, in a more public space...being observed...and doing so upon images that are projected and then disappear. How would the process be altered, what of the identity of the Twinning image remained in the drawing after the projection was gone? This was an opportunity to experiment for me beyond my studio walls, as well as to generate the basis for the next work.
POST-RESIDENCY STUDIO WORK
Returning from the previous year’s winter residency I had difficulty getting back into the flow of the studio. Part of me half expected the post-residency hesitation to re-occur. I am happy to say it did not; I found myself back at the wall the very next day, and it is where I have been l every day since (with one four day exception). I believe this is due to having a clearer sense of direction; also a result of questions and ideas brought forth during residency and afterwards that I was itching to begin addressing in the work. Not to mention those three big drawings from the performance and a new tube of Schmincke Mussini Lasur-Weiss paint!
Although I have been working on three, multi-paneled paintings [and sketchbook] this past month I decided to only post documentation one of the works at this time: Sonata: Allegro (Das Ding Ansicht). I feel this piece is most relevant to the questions I am asking, and to the thesis project as a whole. The images and explanatory text can be found in Gallery Four.
This painting descends directly from the smaller studies and the larger painting Motherboard I presented at winter residency in the formal and material concerns addressed. I feel it goes further in its relationship to the conceptual explorations of my research on the flexibility, fluidity, layered complexity, and general instability of a single, fixed identity; as well as the relationship between liminality these aspects of identity. I intend to complete the remaining two movements of this Sonata in the next few months.. Additionally, I hope to include this first painting, either alone or together with Motherboard, in an exhibition I have been invited to take part in at the University of Rhode Island, Providence Campus in March.
WASHINGTON DC
I attended the CAA annual conference for the first time in Washington DC earlier this month. It was a very informative experience. A brief summary of the sessions and workshops I attended and worked as a room monitor [defrayed costs by providing me with free conference registration]:
Performance as Portraiture art historical research/ research on contemporary artists exploring questions on the shifting nature of identity and ‘otherness’.
The College Studio Practice, Academic Theory and the Tactile Experience: from Margin to Center sponsored by the Education Committee. Three presenters, all drawing/painting tenured faculty, presented their approach to teaching undergraduate foundation and advanced level drawing/painting.
Job Hunt 101: Essential Steps in Securing a Job in the Arts a professional development workshop. Basic review of the realities of the job market, application and interview protocol, and other stuff that’s ‘good to know’.
Advice for Beginning/Inexperienced Instructors a professional development workshop. The practicalities of teaching once you get the job, protocols, etc. How to write a syllabus, treating and expecting students to be grown ups, preserving your life as an artist, etc.
Pink Collars or Pink Shackles? How the Adjunct Teaching Crisis Threatens Women’s Lives and Careers; co-chaired by TI Alum Miriam Schaer and Jean Shinn. It was the clearest, most informed reality check-professional development discussion around. Panel consisted of a sociologist from New Faculty Majority Foundation to provide the general and specific data; a department chair [administration] to provide the perspective of someone who has worn all the shoes; two long time adjuncts who were ready to give it up until they got involved in forming unions at their institutions and how this has (slowly) improved the situation; a group that presented through a video http://bfamfaphd.com; the most helpful portion was a presentation by Karla Stinger-Stein, who shared her approach to finding adjunct jobs. She goes in the opposite direction from the advice given in the professional development workshops. The Q&A that followed was very positive despite the potential for a ‘gripe fest’, it was anything but!
Pigments in a Bind(er), chaired by Sarah Sands from Golden, with additional talks by Richard Frumess founder of R&F Encaustics, and Scott Godfrey (?) from Gamblin on a project this past year testing Cobalt and Ultramarine Blue pigments across different binders.oil/acrylic/casein/encaustic/watercolor/egg tempera… We all got a sample board with chips; and it was a lovely, nerdy painter session.
Artists in Dialogue sponsored by ARTspace; Rick Lowe and LaToya Ruby Frazier followed by Joyce Scott and George Ciscle.
Augmented Reality- Invention/Reinvention sponsored by the New Media Caucus.
The Study of World Art in Washington D.C. sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts.
Copy That: Painted Replicas and Repetitions before the Age of Appropriation chaired by Valerie Hellstein (de Kooning Foundation). I was on the edge of my chair. The presentations were: Copying the Sacredness: A Case Study of the Portrait of Christ by Jan van Eyck; The Demand for Death: Benjamin West and General Wolfe; Rossetti and Replica; and “Who Will Paint New York?” (Again): Georgia O’Keeffe’s City Night. So much on identity…this one deserves some more detailed thought [and writing] from me…eventually.
MFA THESIS WRITING & READING
It’s that time of year, putting the research and the practice into words. The combination of holiday gifts, time in NYC and the trip to the CAA Book & Trade Fair put a lot of additional reading material on my table, as has the conversations that were generated at winter residency. Since returning from Washington DC I reviewed and completed my annotated bibliography, for this stage of the process. It is lengthy, and I am aware that the majority of the sources and information contained within will not be appearing in the upcoming paper, but it is a good feeling to see the information, the notes and quotes, captured for future reference.
As for the writing, the outline I generated prior to my trip to Washington, I know after reviewing my annotated bibliography, requires some re-structuring. This is the task that lays directly ahead of me, along with the introduction.
THE FUTURE AND THE HERE AND NOW
Aside from the plans I have mentioned throughout this post about what lays ahead in the studio, the work in exhibition, the thesis writing, I am also looking ahead to other things.
Claire Barratt and I proposed to do our presentation in Berlin this coming summer in Dialogue. We began discussing this directly after last summer’s residency, continued the discussion more in depth in NYC, and have a Skype session planned on February 17. In addition to presenting our work individually we are considering ways of collaboration as dialogue.
Part of my reasons for attending CAA was to begin familiarizing myself with the discussions along that avenue of the art world, one I’ve pretty much avoided until now. I have also been thinking, and writing, about the direction I want to pursue in the studio and the research post-MFA. These thoughts and glances towards the future are being balanced by the focused stare at the here and now.
A point I have directed my gaze to in the past couple of weeks has been the following remarks Andrew Cooks made in his evaluation of the previous semester:
Most particularly I believe it will now be in your daily practice of painting (since you are first and foremost a painter) that solutions will reveal themselves and I encourage you to sit and do nothing for prolonged periods (and paint of course) as you dwell between wall and easel; to allow the language of painting as it plays out in your hands to guide you; to reveal and assert its participation in this dialogue.
This also brings you to the crux of what you are up to and after: that is, what is the work of the work?
Is the work a proxy identity? A mirror? A simulacrum? A decoy? Any or all of the above? And how do you manage this construction of identity as a convincing and engaging assemblage of image, word, idea and performance?
It is an exciting and simultaneously daunting place to be: between.
As paradoxical as it sounds, I have been making a more conscious effort at doing nothing. This involves more time looking, sitting, listening to what is in that space between the easel and the wall. Doing nothing also involves some playful smearing and mark making, away from the conceptually structures of the research and towards the pleasures of the material.
To the question “what is the work of the work?...Any or all of the above?” I can only answer at this time it is any and all of the above because it is about the flexibility, fluidity, layered complexity, and general instability of a single, fixed identity; as well as the relationship between an indeterminate, liminal space in which identities manifest themselves.
As to how I manage to construct this...I’m working on it. Today I feel much closer than yesterday, and tomorrow I might just be further than ever before.
Yes, it is “an exciting and simultaneously daunting place to be: between.”
