… Continued from last post
..So for a few weeks I didn’t have the mental space or time to actively process the sessions. I quickly realised that I was going need longer than the original timescale I had set myself ( 3 months) to have time to reflect/follow up on research before my second round of meetings. Luckily a-n were really flexible and understanding when I contacted them about this and agreed to extending my schedule until the end of August. Lesson learnt for next project – allocate myself enough time to think!
It is impossible to describe everything of value that was said, or trace any kind of linear path from conversation to progression/action, and I have written about some of the specifics of these sessions in earlier posts, but I can probably summarise key things that came out of the first sessions as the following
– thinking about the reach of my work, and realising that locating my practice exclusively within a DIY context was potentially limiting
– looking at developing a wider context for my practice – eg developing connections with people working in other disciplines, researching beyond art writing and practices, and looking at other potential sources of funding
– looking at a wider potential focus for the family photography project, involving participatory work and knowledge co-production.
Having a breathing space between the first and second round of discussions enabled me to digest, follow up on the above , and prepare with greater focus for the final meetings. A lot happened in this time in terms of developing the above, particularly in developing the family photography project as a potential ACE application.
With each artist I decided to focus on one particular area: with Andy Abbott, discussion of routes to and experiences of Phd’s (this may be a future possibility) with Caroline Hick nailing down the concepts and framework of the family photography project, and Sarah Spanton, feedback and suggestions on the ACE form, particularly on evaluation.
I found the experience of the Re:view sessions to be an interesting and illuminating microcosm of my investigations into the nature of exchange. As such, I’m seeing the process as a part of my research. I found the most valuable sessions were those that were based on equal and open dialogue. Conversation, rather than a bestowal of advice, is what I value and what moves my practice onwards: being able to discuss and explore ideas in an equitable way, in which there is no sense of hierarchy. It is this quality of exchange that is fundamental, for me, to having a useful and valuable experience Seeing and defining the Re:view bursary as a peer-to-peer, rather than a mentoring process, is key. Having these quality, equitable dialogues with Sarah and Caroline have re-animated, strengthened and enriched my connections with both artists and have led to current and future plans to collaborate.
I could say so much more about how the bursary has developed my work – but I’ll be here forever, and also, in I don’t fully know yet. I’m sure the process of reflection and learning generated by my meetings will still be happening months down the line.
Getting a Re:view bursary has more than met my expectations and my aims. Having the opportunity to talk in detail about my work, covering all the areas I specified in my application, means that I’m now much more clear, confident and focussed in my practice and where I want to go with it.
I’ve been galvanised by the process and I’m now pretty much ready for anything. So time to get on with it!
Thank you a-n.
