I think because of the nature of both of our work I feel it would benefit from being in a space that has quite a dynamic layout, either structurally or naturally. Both our work is about environment, either the way that people respond to the environment around them or using interventions in a particular environment to create an opening-out of context, so it would be great if it was in a space where we would have something to really grab a hold of and respond to.
Our work being mostly structural it might stand out well if it was placed contrast against a more organic habitat. In your case think that this juxtaposition might lend itself well in emphasising the question of how people feel when they confront a space? While some of my work may be focused on utilizing natural light so because of this it might also work well outdoors.
Access is definitely something to take into consideration, as you said I think it would be interesting if it allows viewers to explore areas where they may not have had a reason to venture to before. Therefore it may be exciting for those who are willing to seek out independent work somewhere interesting off the beaten track. We would have to be careful it is not too hard to reach or easy to miss as we would not want to exclude anyone from the experience of viewing the work. I like the thought that, if the work was exhibited outdoors or somewhere unexpected it might encourage others to create work in any given environ, that anywhere can be used as an exhibition space - there need not be any bounds to spontaneous creative exploration.
I can imagine the work emerging from the undergrowth in somewhere that has perhaps been reclaimed by nature, I think this might give them an ethereal quality. We spoke about the works being ephemeral in nature and I think this might add to that idea?
I also like the idea that if it were left outside where it is open to the elements or others engaging with the work in some way, whether through making the work deliberately interactive or simple by giving viewers the freedom to touch and explore the work, that the process involved in creating the work would not stop when we install it. It would continue on but without us playing a further part in it. As art not simply denoting experience but experiential in itself beyond the act of the viewers or artists' experiece but as part of it's environment and broader context.
Because making art is an experiential process, I think that is part of what makes it interesting is imagining someone spending time and thought on something because they care about it and want to share it with others, as we are doing now. Carrie from The Mutual Collective, who are facilitating the project, mentioned that work in galleries often seemingly appears as if from nowhere and seems to disappear in much the same way. The experience of the viewer is important, but more important I think is the value imbued in sharing the work, and think it is much more natural to view it as a longer experiential process. Leaving the work to continue to develop would emphasise this point so that the process becomes part of the exhibit in itself.
I think working outdoors or in an architecturally dynamic space might create obsitcles that would ecourage us to change our working process, bending them to our environment in more challenging ways while creating our collaborative pieces of work, leading to unexpected and exciting outcomes?
Do you find that working in and responding to spaces has had an unexpected role in the development of you work as a whole, maybe leading you in directions you hadn't previously considered?
Jen
Our work being mostly structural it might stand out well if it was placed contrast against a more organic habitat. In your case think that this juxtaposition might lend itself well in emphasising the question of how people feel when they confront a space? While some of my work may be focused on utilizing natural light so because of this it might also work well outdoors.
Access is definitely something to take into consideration, as you said I think it would be interesting if it allows viewers to explore areas where they may not have had a reason to venture to before. Therefore it may be exciting for those who are willing to seek out independent work somewhere interesting off the beaten track. We would have to be careful it is not too hard to reach or easy to miss as we would not want to exclude anyone from the experience of viewing the work. I like the thought that, if the work was exhibited outdoors or somewhere unexpected it might encourage others to create work in any given environ, that anywhere can be used as an exhibition space - there need not be any bounds to spontaneous creative exploration.
I can imagine the work emerging from the undergrowth in somewhere that has perhaps been reclaimed by nature, I think this might give them an ethereal quality. We spoke about the works being ephemeral in nature and I think this might add to that idea?
I also like the idea that if it were left outside where it is open to the elements or others engaging with the work in some way, whether through making the work deliberately interactive or simple by giving viewers the freedom to touch and explore the work, that the process involved in creating the work would not stop when we install it. It would continue on but without us playing a further part in it. As art not simply denoting experience but experiential in itself beyond the act of the viewers or artists' experiece but as part of it's environment and broader context.
Because making art is an experiential process, I think that is part of what makes it interesting is imagining someone spending time and thought on something because they care about it and want to share it with others, as we are doing now. Carrie from The Mutual Collective, who are facilitating the project, mentioned that work in galleries often seemingly appears as if from nowhere and seems to disappear in much the same way. The experience of the viewer is important, but more important I think is the value imbued in sharing the work, and think it is much more natural to view it as a longer experiential process. Leaving the work to continue to develop would emphasise this point so that the process becomes part of the exhibit in itself.
I think working outdoors or in an architecturally dynamic space might create obsitcles that would ecourage us to change our working process, bending them to our environment in more challenging ways while creating our collaborative pieces of work, leading to unexpected and exciting outcomes?
Do you find that working in and responding to spaces has had an unexpected role in the development of you work as a whole, maybe leading you in directions you hadn't previously considered?
Jen
RSS Feed