Questions from Steve

After my brief meeting with Steve Messam he sent me a series of questions. These focused on clarifying my ideas for my work, setting myself goals for where I want my work to head, and asking who my work is for?

For clarifying ideas I settled on dividing my output into strands or specific modes of working, which I could use when applying for, or instigating, a project. These strands might be (in some kind of order of ‘not knowing what you’re going to get’ to ‘knowing exactly what you’re going to get’):
1. Public realm installations: Location-specific, developed through research and engagement, using materials sourced locally.
2. Gallery-based (in the broadest sense) installations: Location-specific, developed through research and engagement, using materials sourced locally, responding to exhibition theme when reqiured.
3. Statue Platforms: Location-specific platform uniquely designed to allow the public to stand eye to eye with the statue.
4. Nests: Participatory structure created from found and donated objects bound together with continuous line of rope. Can be gallery- and public space-based.

For direction I want to do something bigger. Not necessarily permanent (I feel that my works are about certain times as well as places), I don’t want to rule out permanent work, but definitely something with a decent life-span. I feel that I’m heading in a more socio-political direction: the works are about the places they are in and more often than not it is about the impact that an event has had upon a location. This is something that I want to get my teeth into. It is not about choosing sides, more about revealing the sides and perspectives and making them more accessible and allowing people to express their thoughts about a place.

Who my work is for is trickier. I want my audience to be everyone that visits the location the work is in. The idea behind the socio-political responsive works is that they address more than one perspective of a location; for instance, they look at both sides of an argument (an example being ‘Survivalist’ in Northampton Bus Station - it looked at the desire to both save and demolish the Station and satisfied both parties). It shouldn’t matter whether or not the audience has prior knowledge about the location, if the work does its job it will tell the story on some level, but primarily it is for those that know the area, know a bit about its history or even only faintly familiar with it. The work is about taking little or part-known histories and making them centre-stage.

On another level I make my work for me. Being an artist is an incredibly selfish profession and no matter how much you may deny it you make your work for you - to please some internal desire to make your ideas real, and you are imposing this vision upon others and saying ‘look at what I’ve done’. I don’t want to pretend that I am performing some great beneficial act with my own satisfaction a secondary goal. I do think that art does have a benefit to society but I don’t think that’s the only reason for doing it. I feel I have a responsibility to make things that people will enjoy, that will cause them to think about where they are and what is happening there. I want to create an experience for people. What makes me feel like I have succeeded is when a visitor feels like they have discovered something; they’ve stepped up onto the platform and found the planted square above the car park, they’ve stepped though the hole in the wall and found the hidden room at the end of the corridor. My ideal audience has an inquisitive mind and doesn’t mind doing a little bit of work themselves in order to fully experience the work.

Work with Steve continues…

Posted by Rich
Mentoring,