WE HAVE MOOOOOOOVED

http://www.goodasdead.org

The Wharf road project

Great space and some excellent stuff here - including this from Phyllida Barlow.

Liverpool Biennial 08

The theme for this biennial, 'MADE UP' has been interpreted very differently by the various curators at the diverse venues in this well organized and comfortably sized art crawl.

The Bluecoat's Bryan Biggs and Sara-Jayne Parsons describe their approach to the theme as 'a dialogue with artists on the subject of imagined futures and the creation of personal and collective utopias'. This seems rather turgid and doesn't do justice to the great selection of bold and silly work in the gallery, amongst the best in the biennial.

By far my favourite exhibition here though is at the Tate Liverpool, whose curator Laurence Sillars selected and curated the show, as opposed to the biennial's selectors who have commissioned much of the other work throughout. His introduction questions 'what is actuality, what is fantasy, and can one exist without the other?' which does indeed make sense when considered alongside much of the work.

Omer Fast's 'Take a Deep Breath' is an absorbing and confusing film split over two screens. We watch the production of a low budget movie playing out a suicide bombing in a falafel shop. The American camera crew form the work’s subjects, and include an actor playing Omer as the director, alongside a group of cruelly clichéd Americans; irritating and ignorant, they rile the actor playing the dying suicide bomber until he quits the production. The film switches fluidly from documentary of the movie being made to the movie itself, then from the protagonist narrating the real story to a love story in the cast canteen: layers are built up and the overall work is fascinating and difficult to grasp.

This film was a star of the biennial, and praised by reviewers, but disappointingly placed alongside a lovely 'drawing room' with work by Charles Avery, Roman Ondak and Rachel Goodyear. These were made to feel irrelevant and peripheral beside the topicality of Omer Fast's subject matter.

Other notable works in the Tate included Guy Ben Ner's film 'Second Nature' and Adam Cvijanovic's large bold and brutish house-painted murals of what looked like apocalyptic science fiction book covers, arranged on a huge cube. Carefully tackled in this show but lacking at FACT and Jesper Just's video at Rapid Paint Shop is the attention paid to engagement in video work. I find much of this self indulgent, presuming that the medium’s association with cinema and tv will cause viewers to stop and pay attention. Perhaps wrongly, I look at video as I would an object; and if it doesn’t inspire interest in the first few seconds it will be forgotten. I doubt that my impatience with it is rare amongst viewers.

The videos at the Tate were based upon manipulated, confused narrative. At FACT, it seemed a huge waste of space dedicating three or four projection areas to massive, slow moving and boring videos. Why not put them on a showreel and keep the rest of the space for an innovative way of presenting video?

Tracey Moffatt's work at the Bluecoat included the video 'Doomed', a montage of apocalyptic scenes from movies cut together to produce a ridiculous and entrancing mega disaster involving aliens, huge waves and explosions set to pumping action movie music. This is accompanied by her 'First Jobs: Self portraits' series of vividly coloured images of factories, corner shops and supermarkets amongst other dull ‘character building’ jobs. Tracey is found grinning in each, reminding me where she started out – what a relief.

Also at the Bluecoat, Sarah Sze's poorly placed rambling installation climbs up alongside the lift shaft. The gallery assistant tells me three times ‘It’s good’ and encourages me to take the stairs to look at it from different angles. I don’t take the stairs and she then raises her voice ‘you’re lazy, take the lift!’ and so I can’t be bothered at all. Sze’s installation looks great in areas, but seen all at once doesn't quite work together. The detail in this work is engrossing; stacks of pebbles and matchsticks arranged in painstaking constructions glued with UHU; I imagine the mess and can sense her immersion in the task but in the detail I lose sight of the whole. The tension between huge and tiny is probably the major success of her work, but this installation is either too big to focus on or too small to be overwhelming.

At the A Foundation, there’s the first outing of annual student comp newcontemporaries. Sachiyo Nishimura’s black and white photos of pylons are satisfying and Andrew Larkin’s floor piece would be great if it hadn’t been given a huge and imposing sign advising for it not be walked on. However I am mystified particularly by the choice of sculptures which seem so attention grabbing and literal; with several body replicas of dodgy looking kids facing into a corner, some weird crossed bodies in a cube baloney, a ridiculous stuffed fox with flourescent lights pierced through it pretentiously titled 'Suspension of Disbelief' and another 'The Unconscious Significance of Hair: Queen', a huge grotesque hair object. These big works were made for their degree shows, where students commonly enter into an aggressive size and wow factor battle: but here they occupy the same space and it is bizarre and doesn’t work well. They all scream for attention and overshadow the better, less imposing works in this show such as paintings by Steve Bishop or Giles Ripley's video 'Pay Attention'.

Mostly this biennial showed me how difficult video can be to get right. All art work in exhibition has the task of engaging the viewer. Videos by Tracey Moffatt, Guy Ben Ner and Omer Fast proved just how entrancing this can be when these basics are applied.

Germaine Greer on Robert Hughes' 'Mona Lisa Curse'

'The Mona Lisa Curse' on Channel 4 on the 21st September was brilliant, timely television, led by wise critic tortoise Robert Hughes. I was later saddened to find that Germaine Greer had managed to publish such an appallingly underhand and patronising piece of writing on it. The Guardian got quite a few letters in response but none of them had quite the deserved venom.

I've been a little unfair in taking these quotes out of context but they nevertheless can be found in Greer's piece and accompanied by her super profile picture at http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/sep/22/1.

'The shelves and cabinets in Pharmacy (1992) were sloppily fitted and poorly finished, but they still sold for £11m.'

'What is touching about Hughes's despair is that he thinks that artists still make things. It's a long time since Hirst actually made an artwork with his own hands.'

(Hirst's) 'undeniable genius consists in getting people to buy them.'

'Damien Hirst is a brand, because the art form of the 21st century is marketing.'

'Hughes still believes that great art can be guaranteed to survive the ravages of time, because of its intrinsic merit.'

'Bob dear, the Sotheby's auction was the work.'

Damien Hirst is a brand, like many dead artists. His most exceptional achievement is that he is commanding obscene prices as a living artist. But this really does have little to do with his work itself, which is so tacky and literal it isn't worth talking about. Despite the immense media frenzy incurred by his recent auction, very little was actually written about his work. Because it's crap.

Money can do many things but it can't make bad art good.

Blockbusters aside...

This symposium at the Tate Modern on 10-11 Oct, 'Landmark Exhibitions: Contemporary Art Shows Since 1968' looks like it'll be interesting. Hans Haacke and Daniel Buren will be shooting the shit amongst other art world giants. Daniel Buren should have something interesting to say under his Session 3 slot, thoughtfully titled 'Not Exhibitions'.

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/eventseducation/symposia/15962.htm

Interview with Thomas Raat

Dutch artist Thomas Raat's work is playful and highly critical, often using established works of art as starting points for his modification and regeneration. In his current exhibition 'MUMU: Malice and Misunderstanding' at SPACE, his thoughtful re-assessment of well known works by Barnett Newman, Mondrian and de Kooning/Rauschenberg reviews these works as symbols of Modernism heavy with years of critical thought bearing upon them.
Here Raat discusses the exhibition and its distinctive feature as having been made on-site and with an implicit expectation of its viewers in the particular viewing space.

Interview with Thomas Raat
11 / 9 / 2008

You said yesterday you were sick of looking at your work.
Well the way this show has been built up is quite different from all the shows I do in general. Being so close to the coming together of the show is quite new to me because I normally I make the work in the studio. I do have the same problems though and it’s kind of the same feeling. I always cover the works up when I leave, as I like the idea that when I am not there they are not exposed. They are only exposed when I need to work on them or when they are in function in a show.

So has your experience of working within the space you are exhibiting been different working in the studio?
Yes definitely - you are constantly aware of the fact that this is the environment in which the work is going to be presented. You really observe the walls and you project how things will look. Of course it helps, and if I was able to have two months to put up every show I would be quite successful.

But in terms of working in the space do you think it influences the way you are working?
It does have an effect, but because I knew I was going to work here, the coming together of the work was different too. I planned it all beforehand and I knew what I was going to do and what I was going to make.

So the exhibition has become the ‘work’?
Yes, which is quite different to the normal use of a studio. Having a studio is a reason to get out of bed, take a train and go to work like going to the office. It’s a room which gives body to my work and gives it a place, which is different from being on the edge of an exhibition. In the studio you can mess about, play around and you can throw things out there and it’s more private. I don’t allow other people in the studio really, but here you can’t say no to people walking through the gallery.

You’ve talked in the past about losing control of the work once it leaves the studio – is this true of your own work?
The work I do is never mine. I don’t consider myself to be part of the work and I don’t think I am emotionally attached to it – the works are not my children! I try to avoid handwriting and personal issues; I operate as an observer.

So would you say that work is about your relationship to art and the making of art?
It’s got two sides. On one hand it’s all based on my concerns, but I’m not dictating. Everything I do already exists in a way and by changing the content and the context in which it operates, it becomes my work. I’m not just interested from a painting perspective, to have an empty canvas and to create a new work. I am much more interested in trying to understand what I already know and how I grew up with art and the rules surrounding art. So what I do in this show is take two opposites like hardcore modernism and try and put it against the outskirts of post-modernism which is the sculpture and the pamphlet. The pamphlet is from an internet site about Neoism.

Have you ever been tempted to commit an art crime like the ones you reference in your work?
No and I want to stress that I am not interested in art crimes or why people commit them. I am more concerned about how people treat the art work afterwards and how it changes. In a poetic sense it loses its virginity and vulnerability. It’s similar to finding out something is a forgery; how the image stays the same but the valuation changes. I am interested in how the people involved and the change of context affects how we look at art.

So it’s about the authenticity of the artwork?
I think that is of huge importance if you decide to make art. I think that the value of art must be in its own reflection. It cannot just be in the physique of it: a good work of art has both content and form going hand in hand. What I said about it being based on an intellectual process doesn’t mean that it can only be verbal. I do believe in the visual and there should be a delicate, well-executed form to give it some life and existence.

Where did the idea of the candles come from?
They are replicas of Barnett Newman sculptures which are completely made out of steel. The idea of the candle itself has a religious connotation but it’s not really about the candle or the effect that it’s giving light. The most important thing is that it is burning down so it’s kind of making fun of his work. I think they are really stupid sculptures that Barnett Newman did, but I really love those base bits so I thought if I redo that as a candle holder, and then burn the other bits down. When you activate the piece by lighting it, you also destroy it so it works as a cycle, since you can refresh the candles. By celebrating it you destroy it. By destroying it you actually celebrate it.

But are you celebrating Barnett Newman’s work or being irreverent?
It’s both, I am not dictating. It would be naive to think that the only existence of the work I do is within my gesture, because there are so many associations. Of course I would love everybody to understand what I am saying but that would be naïve. Especially with working with already recognisable imagery, it would never only be my own story which is being told. If you use candles there are plenty of references and I can say that it’s not about religion and it’s just about them burning down, but you can’t avoid that.

I wished I was celebrating it, I would love to believe in all that. And it’s a really good question but I can’t answer it because I do take the piss by recreating something; its not very nice to twist a Mondrian on his side and he would probably be annoyed. Same goes for these things (refers to ‘Corrections’) it’s just making fun and the large borders around these pieces stress that these are stupid little things. This is a photograph of a Malevich painting which someone attacked, so I tried to restore it and tipp-ex his graffiti back out. But it’s not about restoring it; it’s about the space in between.

The one next to it is a Willem De Kooning drawing which was erased by Rauschenberg, and I have gone over and emphasised the bits that you could still see. The only thing Rauschenberg said about that piece was that it is poetry. So if people asked him ‘what are you trying to do?’ and ‘what does it mean?’ that is all he would say. There are no rules in poetry, and if you call your work poetic you just wash your hands clean.

Do you think it’s important to go to private views?
It’s crazy to say that it’s not! I lived in London for two years around 2006 - 2007 and I made a lot of contacts. I know quite a lot of artists and bumping into people is nice. The few months I've spent here have felt very supportive. It does give you a really comfortable feeling and you operate best if you feel comfortable.

I really liked the working ethos in London. It’s quite different from Amsterdam. If you want to keep your head above the water its hard work. There are so many artists in London and if you choose to be an artist it’s quite a risk and a responsibility towards yourself. One of the results of that is that a lot of people are working a lot harder. I like that because the work just gets better the more you do, like training. I wasn’t born with talent - you have to work at it. I was fascinated by painting from an early age and I painted, read and looked at art and I still do, but I am creatively crippled.

I noticed your particular attention to detail in the set up of the space – do you think these pieces would work in any space? The detail to the lighting and everything feels more like you are setting up a drama stage...
I think that every time you set up a show that works together it’s always a stage, like going to the movies. You stage it and try to make the conditions as good as possible, but it’s all fake. Art doesn’t really exist does it?

But as we just talked about everything being a stage, do you want people to see the work in a particular way?
It would be nice if people understand that you can’t just call anything art. I’ve been taught on several occasions that if you are an artist or you make a living from art, and you create something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s art. Art is only art when it works.

What are you doing after this?
I am going to do a large mural in Belgium in plastic, which will be a really good show as there are a lot of good artists involved in it. There are also a couple of group shows coming up and I will also have to dive in to the studio to make some work for art fairs.

Will you come back to London?
I’ll be around during Frieze, to direct people over here to see the show! And I will probably do a talk maybe if the catalogue happens – we are waiting for funding – then maybe we will launch that with a talk.

BANG! BANG!

Take a dash of Soho sleaze, a few drops of William S Borroughs, one slice of fear & loathing, a large bottle of Gin, add surrealism, humour, wit and nostalgia then stir in a large portion of creativity. Put on 'The Cramps' and whizz the concoction in a blender, drink (on ice dear boy) until inebriated. Stagger home, piss against any wall (must be a dark street in Hackney) and hey presto- you end up with something loosely definable as LE GUN.

Hackney based collective LE GUN are a small group of Illustrators and artists who for the past 4 years have produced an independent narrative illustration publication which provides a common ground for both emerging and established artists, illustrators, writers and poets. In true creative egalitarian spirt LE GUN operate a free and open submissions policy that attracts artwork from as a far field as Korea and Japan.

Distributed world wide LE GUN launched 'annual no 4' last night with an exhibition at the Rochelle School in Shoreditch, titled 'the Family' the show featured the collective’s large scale drawings, forming a physical embodiment of the work found on the pages of 
LE GUN.

(click images for a better view)



These detailed yet crude drawings, some up to 10m in length, are all the more remarkable in that they are collaborative. Featuring an assortment of characters including a man with a crab on his head, the leopard walking heiress Marchesa Casati, the original fat boy actor Joe Cobb, caliper boy and the perennial Le GUN favorite Francis Bacon the Butcher, they ooze a witty, low fi simple touch that Monty Python might have produced if someone had spiked their Gin glasses with Crystal Meth and made them bugger boys in Tangiers. This show could only have originated from the diseased streets of Hackney, it's the acid bastard child protege of a perverted Ralph Steadman in a tutu.



Much of the show is taken up by these large drawings with a number of walls also taken up by salon style hangings of framed prints and drawings from previous editions. However the piece that steals the show has to be the 'art club'- a room one enters through a cardboard door. Once inside you enter a cartoon cardboard 'drawing room'- everything made from cardboard and illustrated. A monochrome, 2D world made real, this is a treat, made even more so by the accessible bar & 1930's,40's, 50's music playing sweetly in the corner. Sit and rest your weary eyes.




It is LE GUN's imaginative sense of fun, style, otherness and all round creative exuberance pervading this show that makes it well worth seeing. LE GUN make a refreshing change from the pretentiousness, seriousness and uninspiring fodder found in some gallery and art settings.



LE GUN 'the family' is on at the Rochelle School, Club Row, Arnold Circus E2 7ES until the 5th September. You can order the latest publication, prints and T-shirts by visiting www.legun.co.uk

Assassinated

Last night i was killed off. Not the sort of thing that happens to you everyday is it? No. well thanks to Facebook i no longer exist as a 'virtual social entity' who, through an 'administrator', deemed me in breach of contract.


According to Facebook i have breached this part of the terms of use.

• Impersonate any person or entity, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent yourself, your age or your affiliation with any person or entity.

On the assumption that this rule is intended to stop the dark malicious intent of Paedophiles/terrorists/fraudsters/monsters etc one would assume that an 'administrator' would be able to differentiate between the above and those who choose to refer to them selves by pseudonym/alias/nickname etc especially when they are promoting creative exchange and have a distinct artistic nature which is expressed through their names, interests and activities. (for future reference I'm none of the malicious intent types..)

What is more disturbing is that it is frowned upon to misrepresent oneself, that Individuals can not lie about their age, preferences, tastes, contact details....where does the logic and rules of self representation begin and end? Where does my right to change, represent myself end?

The virtual world has, from its inception, embraced the donning of metaphorical fancy dress, 'selves', avatars and altar egos. We can be who want to be, find new voice, communicate with people with whom we otherwise would not do so. And as long as no one gets hurt then whats the problem? whats the difference between a stage name and alias?

Who is Ann Artist? I am everybody i have ever met, everyone who has contributed to me. I am nobody and a somebody. I am us and them over there. Identity is not fixed, static or prescribed, it is not something which we can or should legislate or police. To do so is to enter into a dubious ethical and philosophical trajectory.

FaceBook found itself in trouble sometime ago for the Facebook Beacon. Beacon collected data on Facebook users Internet use for Marketing purposes- however without their knowledge. A petition later forced Facebook to reassess the practice. Reading between the lines there is a clear interest in protecting the integrity of the ID of Facebook users and the purity of the data- according to Facebook:-

"We may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship."

In other words selling on your details to other 'responsible' companies for market and commercial (or security?) purposes. (Infact a large proportion of the 'content' you and me put out there doesnt 'belong' to us but thats a nother blog....)

In addition, according to the Facebook privacy agreement:-

"We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile."

Facebook still has my 'ProFILE' locked away behind some firewall on a server in a corporate ivory tower- filed under 'Ann Artist- person unknown/barred from use' (you must request to have your details completely removed). I'm pleased that in my short (but successful) Facebook life i managed to 'give it to the man'. If subverting Identity upsets people and 'the market' that much then lets do more of it! Lets take on Neoist agendas!

Artists have a long tradition of shared identity and have made a valuable contribution to this most creative and culturally subversive act of non conformity - from Marcel Duchamp and Robert Desnos use of Rose Selavy to the 'nom de plume' pan European, bundle of radical individuals and former Watford footballer- Luther Blissett.


Fake identities and personas provide an alternative arena for creative play, they allow us to explore and develop...ask any fancy dress enthusiast.

Facebook, if your collecting information from other sources on me and should some 'administrator' choose to add this blog to my bulging top secret file, then this last sentiment is for you.....

Fuck you- all of you, from all of us

Love and kisses

Ann Artist

Interview with an Artist: Leigh Clarke

12 August 2008

Known for his colourful text based paintings of popular culture and his optimistic Hackney Gazette posters distributed in and around the borough, 'retired' joker and artist Leigh Clarke invites Ann into his studio to talk about his work, Hackney, sharing a studio and an unsolved crime in Norway...

Do you have any central ideas within your practice?
I was inspired by something Anselm Kiefer spoke about in a lecture I saw a few years ago; that he doesn’t make work until he is shocked by something. I look for images and subjects that shock me and activate my imagination to make work.

So talk us through the works you have up in your studio at the moment.
Throughout the 20th century artists have broken down the portrait in reaction to warfare. We are one of the first generation of people who aren’t in direct contact with war, to the point where war is virtual. It is at such a distance now that we almost have no point of reference for it. I am interested in that distance and trying to find a language for it. These new works derive from squashing latex fancy dress masks on a photocopier. I am interested in sourcing more controversial characters like, for example Osama Bin Laden, Princess Diana and Saddam Hussein.

I have always been inspired by print, and recently I was concerned about why. I filter my ideas through a range of different mediums, for example performance and painting. With print I’ve realised I find it attractive because I enjoy squashing things. This coincided with collecting the latex masks and I decided to start making portraits by squashing each mask under the photocopier 100 times and allowing it to randomly spit portraits out.


Comedy has always been an inherent asset in my work and I wanted to make the work performative (Leigh worked for ten years as a stand up comedian). I have appropriated something that is normally used for comedy (the masks) but have taken the comedy out of the work. By taking it through this process I am extracting the laughter and instead exposing the darkness behind it. It also exposes the tyranny and legacy of these characters. It’s the idea of the arse on the photocopier at an office Christmas party where the joke has gone wrong.

Tell us about the stack of Batman Forever videos in your studio.
I have always been fascinated with repetition and the fact that I see this particular video in charity shops all the time. I started collecting them about a year ago and I document where and when I bought each one. I am interested in the word ‘Forever’ in the title. It’s this idea of it being junk that will never biodegrade and is more likely to survive than tigers for example. It’s really a reference to waste and the environment and when I get enough of them I will use them for an installation, although it’s quite a long term project though as I am hoping to get around 500.


Where did the idea for the positive Hackney Gazette posters come from?
I was always shocked by the posters because they use this idea of keeping the community scared in order to keep them consuming; which is a very sinister media trick. You very rarely see a positive message delivered by the Hackney Gazette and I find it very disturbing as most people are just trying to get on with their lives life and enjoy living here. There is a crime rate of course but for me, the posters extract all the positivity that people are trying to build in the community and I think that it is irresponsible of the Hackney Gazette for doing that.

I eventually got so annoyed by their slogans that I decided to do something about it. Over the period of a year I collected the worst posters I could find that said the most negative things. I made a font of all the weathered letters to make up an alphabet. Using that font I created good news out of bad news, so the good news you see is instantaneously uplifting but has actually come from a really dark place. ‘Happy Couple Cuddle in Pub’ for example comes from H=Horror A=Arson P=Paedo etc.


There are the paintings but there are also the posters that I put back into the grills occasionally. It’s not something which I do regularly as I don’t want to be defined by the hackney gazette posters but the response has been amazing.

So the public presentation and social engagement aspects of it are important to you?
Yes they are, and that comes back to my experience as a performer and being interested in having that directness with an audience.

What’s your opinion on graffiti or street art – do you think is should be an imprisonable offence or a valid form of expression?
When I was 14 I was one of the first generations of kids who used the hip-hop style of graffiti. It was new and fresh and in a way it was our punk. It was an exciting time and the whole thing about hip-hop and street culture was about bettering yourself. I learnt how to use colour and form in a way that was more exciting than in school and we used to practice break-dancing, rapping and beat-boxing (which has now evolved into his performance work). I think now, 21 years a lot of it is derivative, completely pointless and with no potency. I question what is being communicated by graffiti now and find a lot of it quite lazy. Too many graffiti artists are backslapping each other and I find that boring as it does nothing other than impress people within a small sub-culture. When a familiar style is taken out of its sub-culture and operates somewhere else, that’s when things get interesting. At least have the intelligence to do something visually engaging with it – if you’re going to put something on the street, it should activate people’s imaginations and inspire change.


Tell us about the show you curated at Nettie Horn.
Well it was a bit back to front as the book came about first and then the show. I really wanted to put all the artists from the book in an exhibition so I presented the book to Nettie Horn and we put a show together. The themes in the show go back to everything I have talked about in terms of scaremongering and gossip through the media and news-casting. I chose a body of artists who use reportage as an influence to generate work. It was a busy time as there was the book, then the show, and then I went off to Norway for a month on a residency and solved a crime.

You solved a crime?
I became a bit obsessed by crime during that time. I went from being in Hackney, to a small island in Norway with a population of 1000 people with no crime. The concept that there was no crime really alarmed me and I had trouble sleeping at night.

One of the first things I saw on the island was the Lakstudio, which is a massive tank of salmon and the biggest tourist attraction there. It had a big sign outside it with a huge picture of a salmon in a tank and a woman looking at it, but someone had painted her face out with boat paint. It turns out it had been like that for four years and no one had ever done anything about it, so I decided to find out who defaced it.

One of the possible suspects was a previous editor of the local newspaper who was a photographer. Apparently his wife had gone out for the day with a biologist from the town that worked for the council and was an amateur photographer. They took photos of each other and the tourist office ended up using one of them. The story goes that the news editor knew about photographic rights, and he was quite possessive about his wife so he went out and defaced it. Or that the woman was so embarrassed about this image that she did it herself. I tracked these people down and they had moved to Bergen. They found out that I was trying to crack the crime but I refused to speak to them, as I wanted to leave it open.

What are your ambitions for your art practice in the future?
As an outcome from the Norwegian residency I am making a film called ‘Danser Med Laks’. I was one of a selection of international artists on this programme and the outcome to our residencies contributes to a publication. I have written a 2000 word story based on the witness reports I collected on the trip. Mine is a comment on the lack of crime in Norway. The text accompanies a film of me re-painting the suspects face back into the sign.


Aside from that the next main body of work will be very large group portraits / photocopies of the latex masks. I want the viewer to become more involved with the process so I am aiming to exhibit them on a glass- fronted gallery. It’s like being in the photocopier looking up at the glass.

In terms of websites, how important do you think it is for artists to have their own?
I think it can be a kiss of death or a really good thing. My advice to any artist – unless you have any knowledge or training of any kind - do not attempt to do it yourself. An artist’s website should be very simple and without frills. It should be about the work and have no distractions. I must say, I was apprehensive at first but it has generated interest and opportunities.

How is the working environment in your studio?
There’s a real range of people here and the comings and goings on this floor is the stuff of legend. The opportunities that have arisen from the open door policy that we have here (in terms of bringing curators, collectors and galleries around the studios) are some of the main reasons why we our careers have moved forward.

Do you tend to socialise with each other?
Yes. We are all very supportive of each other’s practices and enjoy discussing the work outside of the studio. Mark Harris, Bob Matthews (who Leigh shares a studio with) and I did MA Printmaking together at the RCA, so have worked together since 1996 and are able to work and not get in each other’s pockets.

Do you appraise each others work, seek advice or opinions? Or do you leave each other to get on with it?
Both. When we first left college, we were trying to find our feet. At the RCA we were used to group critiques and people analysing our work all the time and we missed that. When you are at college you are in a kind of goldfish bowl and when you leave the way you look at work and making work is different. So when we first left we kept having group critiques. These days I know when I am doing something wrong by the way in which these guys talk about the work, but I also know when I am doing something good. But we don’t force it on each other – it just appears very naturally. We are very respectful of each-others privacy when working.

Leigh’s works 'Ex-girlfriend' and 'Body Double’ are currently on display outside East Oxford Community Centre (between Princes St. & Cowley Road in Oxford) until 31st August 2008.

http://www.leighclarkeworks.com/

1968 an all that

SPACE has been celebrating 40 years of supporting art at its source. Founded by artists Bridget Riley and Peter Sedgley- SPACE was a groundbreaking social experiment within this country and inspired similar models of artistic cooperation throughout the world.

The founding of SPACE changed the way artists and the art world operated and is now recognised as a watershed in British art history, playing a major part in establishing a thriving art scene in the east end which is still going very strong today- though SPACE denies any responsibility for Hoxton (well some one is to blame)

Very much in the spirt of the 60's this amusing footage is well worth taking the time to watch- the interviews with locals about their thoughts on a bunch of bohemian, hippie artists decamping on their east end community is hilarious...it would be interesting to compare current local perceptions of the East London art community, and for that matter, the modern image of the 'artist' with that of the idealistic socially minded 60's generation. Enjoy.



Early SPACE from SPACE on Vimeo.