FINALLY, SUCCESS.
Following my previous advice, I would like to assure you that I am dressed for success (fluroescent ‘you can’t miss me’ trousers + fluffy housewife slippers)
and am mentioning this only in that these VITAL nuggats of information come to you via well worn and proven writings from other successful women. Firstly, the wonderful Bobby Baker, whose book Bobby Baker: redeeming features of daily life, I have been closely identifying with, where in the description of her works, she lists, first and formost, what sort of shoes she is wearing.
Secondly I mention this as I have to admit, that I am an ineffectual follower (out of desperation) of FLYLADY (look her up) whose core tenet of successful home management urges devotees to ‘get dressed to lace up shoes’ as an empowerment tool.
This is all apropos of nothing – just wanted you to know I AM PREPARED FOR SUCCESS TO COME AND GET ME.
So anyway, last night I presented ‘papers’ at the EMVAN symposium ‘What is Success?’ at Nottingham Contemporary.
This was in the form of my SUPERHERO GADGET (Round of Applause). This was the debut outing of this work and many things arose from it’s showing.
1. Size matters. I was struck, as never before, that size is above all else, relative to place. My work which consists of a metre wide circle of mild steel (just about liftable) with 9 lecterns emerging from the base, looks huge when in my studio & home. In my car it takes over. In Nottingham Contemporary with lots of people milling around it, it looked small.
2. Repetition is power. To accompany the installation, whilst people were coming in, the film that shows the books in action was played on a large screen, this continued as background to the first two speakers. In total it was shown for about 20 minutes. Being only of 25 seconds in duration this had a very interesting effect of turning into a virtual ‘rictous grin’ of appreciation. An effect I think I rather like.
3. Instruction ambiguity is paradoxical. I don’t in general like to impose instructions to my work. It is more an offer, or invitation to which the audience/viewer can accept, if they realise it exists, and wish to interact, or it can completely be misundestood if they don’t, and therefore they miss a very large part of the work. I suspect lots of art works in this way and (I now feel terrible) that I have been as guilty as anyone of overlooking an awful lot of time, consideration and thought in a dismissing glance. In karmic consequence, you get what you pay for. But is there really a ‘doing it right’ way to interact? Who am I to say even as the creator of the work? There is so much value in getting it wrong.
So much to consider – but should I change myself or the work as a result of these revelations? Does it really matter? As Martin Creed has so eloquently asked: ‘What is the Point?’ – success can only be judged by the perciever.
So, in conclusion, was my work, in this context and location, a SUCCESS or as Lisa Le Feuvre would prefer, a FAILURE?
as ever, answers on a postcard…
