Looking is making
After my last Re:view meeting it has really made me step back and re-consider what I’m doing with my project. The past few weeks I have been questioning myself and this has really put the breaks on my creativity. For this reason I have not written a recent post, as I wanted to step away and come back when I was ready. Fortunately my natural creative curiosity has come back, phew! I think reflecting on the positives that came from the meeting and a break away has re-invigorated my outlook. I also got a lovely encouraging email from Lowri Evans to keep going with what I’m doing that I really needed to hear from a fellow artist. I have been researching images of cotton spinning wheels used in the home and the cotton growing process. I had found out that the earliest ones where made in India and China. Predominantly women would spin cotton from very simple methods with their hands or by using more elaborate mechanisms. Similar to the process of growing cotton it looks like a magical process.
In the modern world there is something very intriguing about watching people make things by hand. It’s hard to believe that cotton comes from a flower. When I looked at this image of a cotton field it looks as if it is not real, made up of sticks and cosmetic cotton balls. This has got me thinking about how we consume imagery on the Internet and what presumptions we make of what we are looking at. I wonder if the Internet or the world ended, would we be able to grow cotton in Manchester. I think I have been a bit hard on myself with regards to planning, what’s wrong with trying to look ahead? I must also remember that I do a lot of looking on the Internet and making connections between things, is this not a process of making? I need to apply for a performance opportunity to give myself a deadline to work to. It has been suggested to me by Catherine and Lowri to apply for Hazard this year. Hazard is a bi-annual intervention/performance event that takes place in the city centre of Manchester (http://www.wordofwarning.org/current/2014-hazard/). I have taken part in this before in 2012, although I have not shown a work in progress before. However I do feel this could be a really good opportunity to test out my work in a public space framed by the context of an established event.
Re:view Meeting No.2
One step forward, two steps back
I had my second Re:view meeting with Tamsin Drury at Zion Arts last week and it’s taken me a while to filter through what was discussed. It also didn’t really help that I got a little upset during it. In my mind I have had a schedule to work to with having a baby recently and timings of future events. It is also clear that I have mis-understood what R&D means. To apply for this kind of funding I need to be clear on my end goal, and without secured partners on board I was advised that it is unlikely that I would get funded. However how do you get partners on board? Especially if they are in another country. You have got to start somewhere, although now maybe too soon. The tone of the meeting was very different to the previous with Lowri as Tamsin is already familiar with my work. This was not the time to be talking creatively and really on reflection seeing Tamsin should have come later when the concept is more crystallized. The bottom line for promoting a performance is to say what the idea is in one sentance, which I couldn’t do. This made me feel very stupid, and really affected my confidence in the meeting. At that moment it really did feel like this couldn’t have gone any worse. If I want to make my work more performancy I have to be more mindful of what the audience are getting from it.
There was an assumption made that visual artists are only concerned with their vision of their own work. However this is where I feel split between visual art and performance as I do really consider the audience. I may not know all the answers as to what they are getting but I trust that people can come to their own conclusions. Being very open like this is not what a promoter wants to hear, and it seems like there is little room for abstraction. This is why I love intervention performances, and engaging with accidental viewers as this touches people in a way that a staged performance can’t do. From the marketing leaflet Tamsin had thought the image of the ‘manse’ character was historical and I think I confused her with then talking about the second strand idea. She reminded me that people who want to see performance, want to hear stories. If I want to get partners on board I need to try and see as many people as possible, this could start now and after my research trip to Finland. Could I include a workshop alongside the work to broaden the appeal to a venue? To lift the pressure off myself it was suggested to just go and do the research and enjoy it, relax about the outcomes as who knows where it may take me. I found this suggestion both hard to take, then after the meeting a little relieved. I do feel like I have been planning way too much. I just need to start physically researching and making which initiated a visit to the Museum of Science & Industry to have a look at Manchester’s cotton mill paraphernalia.
Other points that were raised:
Funding can sometimes restrict the flow of your work
Working with a new partner can take years to nurture
Start open ended conversations with partners
What existing contacts could I use?
Don’t compromise your practice to suit others
ACE are unlikely to fund small intervention pieces
Could the work be more suited for a specific event such as the Histories Festival?
