When I first started thinking about starting the AWG, I secretly hoped that the locations in which we met would have an impact, such that the meetings become just as much about ‘how do we use this space?’ and ‘how do we use space?’ – as much as the act of sharing food, and practices.
On the train home from Whitstable, I proposed that from the next meeting onwards, we could have just one person present something at each meeting and the time in which this happens is demarcated. So the eating of food and sharing of work is not necessarily happening simultaneously. I also said something along the lines of ‘I’m interested in how the location in which we meet, may affect what we bring and visa versa.’ And there was a brief discussion around the fact that meeting in an outdoor space would have some impact – much of which was actually undeterminable.
This more defined structure seemed to bring a sense of relief between the group, or so I perceived. That there could be a compartmentalisation of activities within our meetings. Somehow our ability to socialise as a group, and the fact that we also connect as artists, creates an interesting boundary to navigate. And the differentiation between what is social, and what is more focused; where we give attention to one another and our practices in a deliberate way, is a distinction we would try making.
