2 Comments

I just love junk shops, especially the ones that have textiles and clothing. That might seem obvious given the sort of work I do. The other day I found a new one in Cambridge. I had my son with me… otherwise I probably would have spent at least another two hours in there. Ferreting around in other people’s discarded clothing that has been held in suspended animation for decades probably. What I do is look at everything, literally everything, waiting for it to speak to me. I found one thing… it is pinned up on the wall in my studio now, and my husband says it’s freaky.

It’s a really old bra… all cotton, reinforced with circles of stitching around each cup, but the disturbing thing is that each cup has been stuffed with foam. Totally stuffed. At the moment I am unsure whether I want to use the bra with or without this. I can see me stitching text around the concentric circles, but not sure what. Again, the significance of stitch is blurring the line between my collaborative/ joint work with Bo, and my own work. The stitches on this garment are crucial to its form and function. Bo accused me of “overt interference” as if it was a bad thing! But actually, the accusation is a useful one, that has caused me to think about why I do it…

(he often manages this, goading me into some sort of coherence)

…ok…

I could go into any of these junk shops, charity shops and so on, grab a few items, any items, then hang them on a wall, or on a mannequin of some sort. The nature of the item means that they would have resonance with people… some people. They would say “My Dad had a jacket like that” or some such comment. And that would be it.

The point is I don’t just grab the first items on the rack. I select, carefully, I listen, fondle the fabric. I note an emotional response to what I handle.

I could then do the same with these items, just hang them up for people to see. The difference here is that I know what they mean to me, but my viewers have the same reaction as they did before “My Mum had a blouse like that”. All I did, for the same reaction, was waste my time looking more carefully.

By overtly interfering, I hopefully hold a gaze for a little longer, present perhaps a more complex item that requires thought, a question… even if it is “That is a perfectly good tweed jacket, why would you wreck it by cutting holes in it?”

My problem, and the point I am always searching for, is the point of ambiguity. Interference, but interference that says as little as possible, to enable those viewing to see as much as possible.

The significance of the single stitch is to be considered… it really is possible to go one stitch too far, one stitch can throw ambiguity through the window… make everything blatant. The viewer then says “oh yes” and walks on… it hasn’t spoken to him at all, and in fact, has spoken less than if I had just left well alone.


7 Comments

We went to see the Quentin Blake exhibition at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge today. Got there really early (free, but timed ticket entry) before it was too full. It is a small exhibition but full of wonder, for me and my son. He grew up with us reading Roald Dahl and laughing at Blake’s characterful drawings. Seeing the real thing is always better isn’t it? What amazed us was we could almost hear the scritchy-scratchiness of his pens. The drawings were full of gesture and movement and conversation. We amused ourselves (is this a good point to tell you my son is 27, not 7?) by inventing the conversations… between the beaky tour guide and tourists; the women and birds; the women and babies; the birds and dogs. Conversation was everywhere, except, curiously, the drawing of the only two “real” people? Gesture and movement caused us to emulate – I especially loved “Big healthy girls” the large colourful woman with lots of uncontrollable hair struck a chord, and we tried to strike her pose – she was wonderful and I want her on my wall. By the time we came away, the room was filling, with adults and children, all of whom were laughing and doing the same poses and actions we had done.

A really unserious look at art. Made us giggle, put smiles on our faces, brought the sun out. Well done Mr Blake, you clever man!


0 Comments

Ha Ha!

Who am I trying to kid?

I knew it wouldn’t last long!

Elena Thomas only has enough words for one blog? No chance.

Anyway…

I have decided I need some decent photos of my work for my website, I feel my quick snaps are not hitting the right note any more – onwards and upwards and all that!

I met a lovely photographer today. You know the sort of person you arrange a short meeting with about one thing, then end up talking about life, the universe and everything?

My friend Dan Whitehouse recommended his friend Carsten Dieterich (link below), so I went armed with a load of work scrumpled into a big ikea blue carrier bag. We chatted, played, looked at examples, decided we liked similar things, didn’t like similar things (one thing too busy, another too bright, simple is best…)

We found we had a lot in common in terms of how we view our work, earning money, variety, and the staving off of boredom through creativity, insomnia and the useful quiet hours between 11pm and 2am.

I am finding these are common threads lately, in the people whose work I admire, be they musician, artist, photographer.

Problem is, when you discover there are other people up at that hour, you start a conversation online and end up going to bed even later…

*stifled yawn*

Carsten’s website is: http://www.focused-photography.com/

He’s a lovely man, and he does some lovely work, in all sorts of shapes and sizes.

Then, I get back home to discover Ruth Geldard has been delving into my ranty archives and has been talking about the Artists’ Lie…(post 224) Carsten and I touched on this a little too, about how what you do to bring in the money doesn’t have to be connected to the thing you love to do, but how variety helps you to keep all these things going, one income stream supporting another, which supports the thing that sometimes doesn’t create much income at all. Doing all of it, enables all of it. Balance.

Ruth’s blog is: www.a-n.co.uk/p/3134411/

(I wonder if Ruth stays up late too?)


2 Comments

Blog writing is going to get tricky over the next few months, because I won’t know where to write! The work I am making at the moment is solely for the joint project with Bo Jones, so it seems logical to write there, and come back to Threads if I get a bee in my bonnet about something else… So I leave this sign post to “pix” for you:

www.a-n.co.uk/p/2910921/

See you over there for a while…


2 Comments