The making of these objects has been particular and complicated. There words and responses are with me constantly as I make. There is a responsibility to them for the right object, the right material. Therefore the naming is a part of a given brief that I have to fulfill. Whilst I have made objects for individuals and for collections this particular event is contained within the relationship and narrative of this group of people. The dialogue that we have had now belongs to the group. They now the landscape of the research but equally the reactions that they have had already at SCVA and at Tate, each time the actions and confidence has grown so that the material discussions have enabled their response to become more critically clear and more emotional. The actions of my making have been pressured by my awareness of them. Some spoke very similarly about their experiences of the learning encounter but they are so different in their position in the group, their voice, feelings and actions that the objects I am making at time overlap and then split again. I am overly conscious of the objects and keep imagining the boxes they are sent in being opened and what that first encounter is. This event is already primed, they know something is coming and therefore the expectations are growing as I email and ask for their addresses. One of the group emailed me and said [I wonder what you have made for me....it is odd’ she said’ because it is sort of how you see me, how you have read the situation and what I have said’. “I am so interested to see what it is , it is sort of me’.
Lloyds object is difficult I am pulled in different directions towards his comments and towards his materials. The materials are of flux between here and there. Most of the group have indicated the state of flux within a learning experience, as I would expect but Lloyds actual material suggestion are specific and particular. I resist the literal representation of his responses, so not to dish up a meal he already knows. This reconfiguring of information is guided by them and for them as if I mimic them materially. I cannot rest on what I know and have to shift assumptions, it will never just do when it is for another. Is there a vanity in looking for yourself in gift made for you? Do we look for ourselves to see ourselves more clearly to learn more about who we are –how we come across. These objects have to be bespoke, they need to feel right rather than liked. They need to perform straight away as soon as they are seen. Their arrival is more than a posted parcel, it is a manifestation arriving. Thoughts made solid, experiences and potential all wrapped up. So, my criteria for success is complicated. I am stuck with the objects now until Lloyds is complete as I wrestle with the materials around me and sources new ones until the fit is found. I made something today, it felt right in my hands, a certain weight but it isn’t his object it says something different. It is linked to my writing about exchange and transplant, this object is of body and so the feeling I have of it in my hands is mine not Lloyds. In a conversation with me he said when we met at Tate. ‘when we work with you it’s about thinking’, we went on to discuss the ideas of thinking and learning and the interplay between the thought and the application of the thinking through learning. I am thinking about Lloyds object, over thinking so thoughts disappear and slow. Maybe his object will be difficult for him too, when I reach its fit I will need to think about what that struggle was for my learning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kimberley FosterKimberley's practice as an artist is pedagogical, it doesn’t just reference learning, it plays with, embodies and encourages learning at its core. The objects consider ideas of collaboration and authorship, discussions about touch and encounter, and bring into active consideration issues of learning within social and participatory practices. Archives
October 2018
Categories |