I’m beginning to realise the scale of the back log of things that I mean to do. However, rather than going on about that which has no existential form of which we might discuss the nature of the undone, here are some images and words relating to real events.
After arriving in England late last year (2010) I paused in London briefly and participated in a experimental sound art noise ensemble that was organised by the London based Austrian artist Thomas Eisele (false name supplanted to hide identity).
So we all sat and improvised that day.
Later in the week Charlie Hope and Jamie Hamilton exhibited “The Black Balloon” under the Blackfriars Bridge on St Paul’s Walk. This piece used three projectors displaying three different bird’s eye views of London. Each of these screens could be seen separately through windows that were set in the wall. An electro-acoustic sound-piece accompanied the work, making use of the partition wall façade, that separates St Paul’s walk from the installation space under the overpass, and induction speakers to create a sound that resonated straight into any passer by. The installation was kitted with sensors that activated the light and sound show whenever a pedestrian came into the vicinity of the installation.
As well as providing audiences with alternative perspectives and vistas, this piece of work seemed to very much about passing moments in time. As members of the public pass this piece of work they are provided with the choice to stop, to watch, to listen, and to think. Of course this means interrupting a rhythm, it means breaking a stride, or it means considering public spending or seeing how long it takes to put everything in its place: I.e. how fast can I lose the illusion?
In regards to what this piece really meant, one felt as though it meant very little, instead it seems the joy was in the making, in the discovering what happens next. In this context then the work was not about saying anything more profound than, “you can take a little time out and you can live a little”. But this is a difficult ethic, and it is an ethic, to portray without either offending the morals of another or putting forward an unrealistic ideal. Where is the line drawn and how does the artwork effectively speak its mind? Whether this artwork had a mind to speak is another question entirely, however, as was insinuated before, I felt as though the work had nothing clear to articulate to an audience. On the other hand, the intentions of the gallery, to use a space that was otherwise not being used for the purposes of exhibiting, was perhaps the most fully realised concept of the day.
Of course then there is a discourse about what it means to live a little.
Details regarding the work can be found at the following sources:
And then, completely unrelated, I hear about this: