Give it to us straight…

We had a bumper 52 attendees for the ‘Laboratory’ discussion event on Monday evening, with the complimentary wine vanishing at an impressively fast rate (it was a hot, thirst-inducing evening after all). It felt like many interesting issues were raised in the conversations between me, the artists, Emily from The Partners (the design agency for ‘Laboratory’) and the audience.

The evening event provided a perfect opportunity to canvas the views of visitors to ‘Laboratory’ and address their questions. Some of the questions were specifically aimed at the artists: for example Steven was asked if, as well as filming boxers, he has ever thought of going into the ring himself? The answer is yes and he will be soon!

Some of the questions were aimed at the artists as a group: one person asked how the artists felt about working while a blog is documenting your every move – not just the work you are happy with at the end, but everything you make and do? Mia replied that she sometimes felt that the practice of being an artist was being fetishised – with every pot of paint being photographed – but the public nature of the show has been a useful exercise for her, encouraging her to worry less about the reaction of others.

Steven then voiced his approval that the documentation of the artists’ work is being done by a group of people (myself as the resident writer, the photographers Magnus and Paul, and The Partners) who are engaging creatively with the show, so we weren’t just producing a bland, clinical report. I mentioned that the process of blogging has encouraged me to write in a freer style and be less obsessive about my work – there will inevitably be times when I feel that the text I’ve posted the previous day isn’t as elegantly written, elegantly expressed or elegantly thought out as it could have been. (For example I’ve just realised that, in the third paragraph, ‘canvas’ sounds like a truly horrendous/wonderful* art world pun… *delete as you prefer…)

Sarah has also stated that there is a marked difference between her curatorial work in the past, in which everything can be minutely planned before the start and changes can be made away from public eyes, and ‘Laboratory’, in which everything is re-evaluated every day and changes of mind are very much on show.

The audience also posed a number of questions about how the show has been presented: one attendee asked why, since it is obvious that all of the artists are working in quite a few different media during the show, the exhibition literature labels them as ‘painter’, ’sculptor’ and ‘film maker’? I replied that this is a good example of how things have changed during the show: the initial idea was to have three artists that are generally known for working in three different media, but as the show has developed it has become more and more apparent that these labels are redundant.

This development also reflects a primary characteristic of the show, which is the wish to continue blurring boundaries of categorisation: are there any discrete works on show or only room-sized installations?; are the artists creating objects or staging a performance? ‘Laboratory’ demonstrates, I think, that an artwork can be a sculpture, part of a performance and in an installation, all at the same time. You don’t have to choose only one category for your work (if you want to choose a category at all of course). At this point Steven chipped in with the thought (in reference to a song he is making in collaboration with the boxer Angel) that he is now a singer-songwriter….