I have lots to think about after yesterdays crit, it was more help than hindrance which is what I was hoping for. I'm not going to blog all my thoughts about how well I thought the work went etc, partly because I'm still mulling it over and partly because I doubt anybody would want to read it, but I do feel i should write about a comment I made that seems to have shocked some of my peer group. This shock has in turn shocked me as I didn't think it was that shocking... and I can only imagine it's because I didn't explain myself properly.
To add a little context... Some one had commented that they felt that Simone's work had been over shadowed during the time that my work was happening and therefore the project was an unsuccessful collaboration. I first addressed this by pointing out that we had presented the project as a double bill and I was aware that my work was likely to pull focus while the performance was happening and that this was one reason that the performance ended before the crit began. After all, most project spaces I have attended this year only open when the crit begins so in this way Simone's work had the second half of the double bill to be the centre of attention. Whether people agree with me or not is still to be assessed...
I then questioned the idea of the show being a successful collaboration; I believe I asked what was wrong with two people putting work in a space and may the best man win? or words to that effect. I referred to a Lawrence Weiner comment (listen to his 20 questions here) about participating in group shows in order to prove that he was right and everybody else is wrong. This comment seems to need some clarifying as I don't feel that it is that shocking a position.
First of all this doesn't mean sabotaging the efforts of every other artist in order that you win... I don't think this position goes against the ideas of generosity and community that I've been talking about all year. Making art comes out of a dissatisfaction with the way things are... at least this is the way I understand it... If art is about finding/striving for alternatives surely the alternative one must strive for is the best one? If you are content with what is already there surely you have nothing to add to the discourse that is art. If you are striving for the best alternative and are happy to show your work you must have some faith that you are right, or at least and probably more realistically on the right road.
This is obviously not a black and white issue and I'm not sure that I'm clarifying much at all... may the best man win is a funny term to use... not the wrong term but it does suggest a ruthlessness that isn't necessarily the point... Everybody will have had that feeling at some point in their lives when they see a work that stops them in their tracks and they think I wish I'd made that. This is surely an encounter with a work that has challenged whether you are right or not.
I really was thrilled to work with Simone in the project space and I'm quite pleased with what we did. I didn't go into this project with any other intention than to do the best we could with the work we had and I hope Simone was happy with this too... My comment I think had more to do with challenging the notion that these projects have to be happy little collaborations, hopefully I haven't forged a reputation as a cold hearted ruthless mother fucker out for whatever he can get... It's all still about generosity and love... and I'm right about that...
Does this make sense? I'm still a bit hung over... As always I'm up for a chat about it...
No comments:
Post a Comment