Laboratory

A conversation between Kathleen Soriano, Director of Exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and Steven Eastwood.

KS: Have you given up your own studio for the duration of Laboratory?

SE:  I go there to collect post, but otherwise this has been my functional studio space. I instantly felt able to work here, even during the installation phase of Laboratory. Compared to the other artists I think it’s easier for a film maker to uproot and relocate quite quickly – as long as I’ve got my ability to edit and research nothing really changes.

The process of film making is about research and development, and then you execute those ideas quite late on in the process. Everything you see here at the moment is just research.

I suppose I have a methodology that I’ve been working with for a while, which involves looking for existing events or contexts where things are already happening, and then I bring to bear on those contexts ideas that I’m already working with. I don’t come in with a documentary ‘arm’, I come in and try and do something that’s based on events that are already taking place.

For Laboratory, I proposed to use the locality of Jerwood Space as part of my work but there were some research lines that weren’t fruitful; for example, the osteopath wasn’t able to contribute as he was restrained by complicated ethics committees, which is an issue I run up against quite often.

KS: Do you think there is something about film making that means you have to think faster and is more about cutting stuff away – so it allows you the freedom to make lots of different things?

SE: I think that depends on the project you’re working on. The typical film making process involves shooting lots of material – much more than you need – so you get coverage and then have choices. For this project I’m working in a different way, accepting the specific limitations. I’m going to mimic the round structure of a boxing fight, which is ten 3-minute durations.

KS: I love the spectacle of boxing. It’s almost like a stage play, it’s not the violence but the drama of the fight.

SE: That’s the difference between amateur and professional boxers. Amateur boxing is much more about scoring points but professional boxers have very established personas they work with, which they adopt in the ring. But this ‘celebrity status’ aspect can be frustrating as they are trained athletes but depend on marketing and managing professionals to network and get fights. So they can easily miss opportunities if they are badly managed. 

KS: That doesn’t sound so far away from the relationship between artist and dealer – that problem of how you attain value. 

SE: No, that’s absolutely right. There are only 11 professional women boxers in this country, so they often have to travel quite far afield to find an opponent of a suitable weight.

KS: So you’ve discovered all this since you started here?

SE: I’m on a very steep learning curve! I’ve previously made some drift-based films where I had no specific content in mind. So I had this locality and discourse, which was to do with injury and trauma. So I was using this discourse to notice things. So naturally I sought out boxing rings in the area and found The British School of Osteopathy. Before starting this project I didn’t have any knowledge or big feelings about boxing and certainly had no knowledge about women’s boxing. Rooneys Gym has been very open and accepting and the owner likes the way I approach working with people.

For a couple of days, I got caught on the tidal wave of Angel; her compelling character and public persona. I can’t stand the television-style standard documentary centred on one compelling character, usually an eccentric, and follows them around – showing them warts and all. I don’t approach moving image in that way but Angel is somebody that offers all those things – providing lots of rich material. But it’s not about her and it doesn’t relate to the discourse that I find interesting.

KS: Your work is interesting in that it requires you to get out and about. How many hours do you spend here in the gallery?

SE: I spend about a third of each day here, and I’m outside the rest of the day. I come back here to re-group and watch what I’ve recorded. The whole room has become a thinking space. I’ve tended to put up short sequences to see what they’re doing.

KS:  Do you think you’re not encountering as many visitors as the other artists are here, and are therefore free from the constant judgement and assessment of the public?

SE: I’m also protected a bit as it’s a darkened space at the end of the building and is somehow less public. But because my work is about engaging with people I don’t know I really like it when people do come into the space and I often ask them if they have any questions; it doesn’t really interrupt my flow of work. In fact I see it as a vital part of my process. I sometimes need to be protected from the indulgence of my own ideas; the more you talk the more you refine your thoughts and ideas come.

KS:  Do you think the work you have created is different to what you could have created in your own studio?

SE: Yes, definitely and I hope that I can take some of this experience back to my studio. Film makers can be studio based and I do tend to do a lot of writing; my ideas are largely academic and text based – sometimes to the detriment of the work.

KS: Do you feel a sense of responsibility being in this gallery space, as an artist whose practice is very different from the other artists, to have an educative element to what you do – a need to explain?

SE: No, I’ve not felt that at all. 

KS:  Has the Angel interlude been a distraction or is it just part of your ‘drift’?

SE: I think I’m in the middle of answering that question. Two days ago I felt overloaded and I couldn’t see where this project was going, but I keep coming back to my formal structure, which saves me from getting caught up.

I’m trying to find ways of approaching Angel and Marianne as subjects, without depicting them directly; without interviewing them or presenting a narrated back-story. One format is the song; factual subjects don’t tend to sing about their lives. The other is the osteopathy relationship; osteopaths use a number of different ways of talking to and physically manipulating their clients in an attempt to understand them. Another format is the trainer-fighter relationship; the off-camera voice which is constantly calling out directions. These three formal elements stop me from getting too caught up in the personas.

KS:   Did you have an end-product in mind when you came in?

SE: I thought I would make a series of vignettes, starting points, for a film that would be made at a later date. I thought it would be much more open and not specific to one context, so I’ve changed my ideas.  I’ve identified a structure for 10 short films, some of which might not work.

KS:  It’s interesting that you all seem to have identified an end-product; even though Laboratory is supposed to be about process.

SE: I think we all see this as something that is borne of this particular context. The sense of camaraderie, support, direct contact with the curator – this is a unique moment in time that can’t easily be continued outside of this context. This is also why I think we have to remain playful with the concept of what a laboratory is. A real laboratory is so different to this; a fixed period of research, economic considerations, and certainly not being watched publicly.

I also think there’s a sense of wanting to produce a significant piece of work in the Jerwood Space, to maximize this opportunity. I had more anxiety about three weeks before the show and because of the nature of the show I didn’t want to do too much preparatory work before the it began, but I feel quite loose now. I don’t think I’d ever have allowed myself to write a torch song, which I wrote with the help of Peter (Wilkinson) who works at the Jerwood.

KS:  It seems that this looseness allows a freedom.

SW:  They are under no pressure from us at Jerwood to produce final work but the artists have been talking to each other about what they are planning to do before the show ends. 

SE: Something we touched on in our ‘crit’ we had last week was criticism and the notion of criticism.  What is the relationship between criticism and Laboratory? As an artist you decide whether things are ready for criticism, whereas here you are inviting criticism when it’s still in development. I’m hoping there’ll be a phase of criticism in the next week, to help me refine ideas – I enjoy the process of rigorous questioning.

A conversation between Kathleen Soriano, Director of Exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and Jock Mooney.

KS: You’re creating an installation in the space, is that something you always planned to do?

JM: The trestles are from a past work and they are being formed into a music video. It is now becoming more of a landscape piece. Not being happy with the sculpture just staying static, experimentation became key to changing its layout. It was part of a plan, but the only problem was that it bore resemblance to a past work; it could be made to look ‘nice’. But I think I just wanted to have a piece of work that I didn’t have full control over. I admire Mia’s work in that very few marks are used to make a final piece and she has the confidence to hold back. I have a problem of not knowing when work is finished and being able to walk away. The confidence to make work and be happy with the result has become easier in this space. The element of distraction is key to creating quick works, either with music or talking to someone on the phone; doodles can become works but can never be created while under full concentration.

KS: It’s interesting that you’re questioning what you produce and what your work is in this gallery. 

JM: I usually work from home in a spare room. Some works just end up being framed to protect them. In this space it’s more open to be able to explore finished works.

KS: Have a lot of people talked to you while working?

JM: Some people are quite timid as you would expect, and it’s nice to see people working themselves up to come over and talk. It’s what’s so enjoyable about working in a public gallery. Using bright colours the work tends to engage a broad range of people. 

KS: Do you feel a sense of constant judging by the public?

JM: Definitely. There are a couple of drawings that I did while feeling quite frustrated over the small scale drawings. After 45 minutes I produced a tree on a large roll of paper that was embarrassing enough to be scrunched up and thrown away. After some discussion with Sarah [Williams] later the tree was brought back as part of showing the public all the work – whether or not it is deemed good. It can feel like that the public are cheated if the artist constantly vets his own work especially in this type of exhibition.

KS: What about performance, do you feel as if you have crossed a line? 

JM: I’ve done more controlled performances in the past. The raised floor could be deemed as a stage, and pouring the paint over models in a dramatic fashion when some music is playing could be interpreted as a performance piece. The experience has been surreal overall.

KS: Do you think the actual physical gallery space has changed your work?

JM: It’s nice to have so much space and its good to develop work in what is a nice white cube gallery. It changes the perspective and allows room for more experimentation. It’s interesting from a commercial aspect and the release from having that obligation, which may potentially compromise my creativity. 

KS: Do you feel a sense of peer pressure? 

JM: Yes, I did initially feel the pressure to have finished work on display, but now I’ve completely relaxed into it.

KS: Have you found the questioning helpful? 

JM: Talking to someone else about my work has definitely helped me liven-up and let go of self-questioning – freeing me up to make new work.