Visiting Artist Lecture: Laurel Nakadate: March 23, 2011

LAUREL NAKADATE

Questions:
1. I am interested in the process of approaching strangers and inviting them to participate. What is your method?

2. Is it better to tell people what you intend to do with the collection of data or only tell them if they ask?

Response:
I just want to start out by saying that I have never been so inspired by the presence and words of someone in this field before. Every thought, emotion, experience, reflection, idea spoken by Nakadate was such turn on factor to my mind. I feel privileged to have to chance to hear this artist talk about her work in person. Only seeing her work live as photographs and films did not do it justice. It was her experiences and presence, the air she brought with her when sharing the work that made them so powerful. The personal and private connection she has to the work cannot be described. I am in love with what she had to say about meeting strangers in all her work. As I am dealing with working with strangers in my work, it was quite insightful to her how she approached the matter. Some of the things she said were, "meeting someone in the real world, who has no agenda and has the willingness to spend time and create something together is priceless. Mutual contribution. It is an honor to be trusted, open and vulnerable to experience, being chosen, and the thrill that comes with it... telling stories that I wasn't suppose to tell." All those things are so true and I feel so at one with those words. All those things describe my thoughts and emotion that I have for my own work. It is truly eye opening to go out into the world, meet someone for the first time and be invested with their trust, time and exchange of ideas and thoughts. Loneliness harbors in every corner of the world and it is to easy to get lost, but to be chosen and granted the chance to know someone, exchange facts; it is truly priceless. I feel that thrill and high when I interact with my strangers and have them tell me their life stories. Then telling those stories to others, not exploiting but just learning and experiencing vicariously through others.

Another aspect of her work that I definitely relate to is the desire to look and find people who are "virgins" to experiences and free of expectations, but stored with the yearning to experience and be released. Someone questioned why she only chose men who weren't very fit, awkward, old and lonely. Her reasons are completely rational. They render the most genuine reaction and engage with no agenda or expectations. The beautiful of experience of the "first times" can never be recreated. It is free of manipulation. With my current work, I feel that I enjoy coming across those who have never been photographed or approached to be photographed before. It is such a thrill to see their expressions and intriguing, questioning exchange of interaction. They are hesitant to inquire information upon the experience, perhaps fearful that it will taint their own experience. I respect her dedication to her work as well. She said, "Photography keeps us company and protects us. Excessive documentation of life's vulnerability and rawness reveals and preserves our being." It is so true. Especially her Crying Piece of 2010. A "deliberate participation in sadness" did not ruin crying, it allows for less fear of sadness and being alone.

I think something that I would like to try in the future is "walk around in public and wait for them to talk to me, be chosen by strangers." The mutual desires to create a story together and spend time is the epitome of raw human kindness. The last thing she said that stuck with me was this, "It is a danger to think everything you make has to be perfect. Mistakes and accidents are beautiful and nothing could ever be completed without them." Mistakes and accidents must be thought of not as a product or end result, but essential components and steps to perfection. She also said, "the world is amazing. The world is not a perfect set or stage, but if you allow the thought that everything can and will work out; the world is a beautiful place."

*Thank you Nakadate for your charged words that give me more confidence to trust my participants and allow their contribution to create the work and shape it. I will keep this is mind always try my best to refrain from editing and formulating.

I know for sure that order and formulas and mediation of my work have always been my weakness. I have learn to loosen my grip and allow for the work to shape me. I no longer create molds for my work to settle in, but for the work to establish their own expandable perimeters for me to explore within.

alexandre singh: lecture questions and response

Visiting Artist Lecture: Alexandre Singh: November 16, 2010
"Your work is all about language, narrative and evocation. Recently you performed at Renwick in New York, holding a fascinating lecture on dreams and imagination. That night, for a moment, I had the feeling you were like Mercutio telling about Queen Mab... I describe this thought pattern as “tangential logic”. In the systems of collages presented in the Assembly Instructions, as in the performances, I meander through ideas and suppositions that digress quickly from their departure point; sometimes they meet back up with a previously discarded sequence of ideas and flow off in another direction. Sometimes they just run into dead ends. I guess I could also call them academic daydreams." -Luigi Fassi

-These are the three words that Fassi chose to describe Singh's work. I wonder which three I will come up with.
"It’s all part of a plan, and it’s something I’m conscious of not only in my writing but in all the work that I’m making; that each work is a stepping stone to the next work, and to the next, each one more ambitious and more challenging to bring into being." -Fassi

-This is an important excerpt from Fassi because it is important to think of each work as part of something larger, rather than being solely a product of a final state. If one thinks of it as being an important by-product, then taking all the by-product and combining it into a better end product; that is the magic of not knowing what the end result will be. I am learning to embrace this thinking process.

[http://www.moussemagazine.it/articolo.mm?id=471]

I really enjoy the fact that Singh has many of his journals scanned and uploaded for me to see. Fassi seems to be quite accurate with the words he chose to describe Singh's work. What fascinates me is being able to 'turn page after page' and see how Singh's idea flow from thought to thought. I am curious to how he will present this information as a coherent piece of work.

1. How do you go about organizing these pages of thoughts? Or how does your filtering process work to narrow down and focus from all these pages?

2. Do you think it would benefit the viewer to look through these notes before viewing the 'edited' work? Are there any effects on how the work will be perceived or are these pages irrelevant to the final product of your work?

Site for which the journal pages were founded:
[http://www.preromanbritain.com/alex/notes03/large-36.html]

simon tarr: lecture question and response

Visiting Artist Lecture: Simon Tarr: November 9, 2010
"Simon Tarr made his first movie at the age of eight. The strip of film was fashioned from sandwich bags taped together, with spaceships drawn on it. The projector was a shoebox with a lamp in it, the lens was a magnifying glass on the end of a toilet paper tube. The film premiered on the wall of his bedroom, where the film melted after a few seconds.

Since then, Simon Tarr’s films have been screened on every continent (yes, even Antarctica) in hundreds of film festivals. His prior eleven films are available on DVD from Netflix and Amazon, and as digital downloads from QuarkNova.com. He has performed his live VJ shows at conferences, festivals and clubs from Tokyo to New Orleans and everywhere in between."

1. How is done? Is there an equivalent conversion for elements from the music DJ to a video DJ? Is the only difference the visual element?

2. With all the technology and knowledge that you have come up with, why not mix multiple movies instead of using only clips from Nanook of the North?

Three words: spontaneous, bold, indifferent

Tarr's lecture was not as informational as I would have liked it. I only learned of how he did what he did, but his explanation for the drive or what he enjoys about the aesthetic that is present in his work wasn't told. I was more interested in why he portrays the content that he did, in the way he did. I was please to hear of his methods in working, "hunting and gathering", it is certainly a journey working in that way. The outcome and the product is unpredictably and I am learning to work in that way now too for my project. What I wish Tarr had done, was also explain to the audience the reason he chose to incorporate the combination of footage that he did for each of the shorts he showed.

I was not very fond of the sound that accompanied the pieces. The visual elements were too chaotic and ruthless. I understand and enjoy the abstraction, but I feel even in abstraction there is a flow, I did not feel a sense of flow in some of the pieces. The visual imagery for some part was rather eye-sore.

The performance piece with Nanook of the North was probably the strongest piece shown and the most intriguing piece. The technological aspect was absolutely fantastic. I really enjoy the way a movie can be broken down into so many different elements that can then all be control separately and on the fly, the sound, the text, the visual clips, the color, the speed, and repetitions, the scale, the transparency, the transitions, etc. I cannot imagine the numbers of fingers it would take to control all those things simultaneously. It is so exciting to know and see that everything is happening within seconds, controlled right there on the spot. I think with that kind of progression in technology, I felt the pieces performed could be more engaging and more in-tune with the audience. I feel that the psychology of color, sound, and imagery can be played better to fit the audience. If the performer can gauge the audience in what works and what doesn't, it would be more successful. There needs to be an action-and-responds kind of analysis. What seems to perk up the audience should be taken advantage. Certain crowds might enjoy a more tranquil show while others need loud sounds shocking aspects and up beat dynamic visuals to evoke a response. Tarr definitely has thought about that when he talks about whether he should be seen or un-seen during the performance. I feel if he was seen and in a position where he could watch the audience's facial expressions, it would benefit for making a show that causes the most response from the crowd, if people seem bored with an imagery, spice it up and wake them up with something new. I guess the "energy" that he spoke about just was lacking that night. I have no doubt that the energy does exist, just not the other night.

zoe beloff: lecture questions and response

Visiting Artist Lecture: Zoe Beloff: November 2nd, 2010

"Zoe works with a wide range of media including film, stereoscopic projection performance, interactive media, installation and drawing.Her artistic interest lies in finding ways to graphically manifest the unconscious processes of the mind. She considers herself a medium, an interface between the living and the dead, the real and the imaginary. Sometimes she uses archaic apparatuses, sometimes, new analog/digital hybrids. Each project aims to connect the present with the past, to create new visual languages where modern media will once again be invested with the uncanny."

A: Beloff states : "Coney Island still is "the people's playground." As an artist, I think one should welcome the opportunity to make work for a popular audience. It's perfectly in keeping with the democratic spirit of the Coney Island Amateur Psychoanalytical Society itself. I guessed that most people would not have heard of Freud. I teach in the Media Studies department of a four-year college and none of my students have even heard of psychoanalysis. Right from the start, I knew it should be colorful and incorporate sound and motion, so that even small children would have fun."

I am terrible confused. So although you state that it is the people's playground, you go in with an intention to influence them. What better way your ideas and philosophy than to do it at a setting where people are strategically gathered for fun and entertainment. It's feels contradicting in all of this. If it is the people's playground, and you wish to do work for the popular audience, but essentially you are wishing to educate them, in a way somewhat passive-aggressive way. You say it's for the people, etc, but there's still a plan, with an intention, and it's more for you than the people. I don't know how I feel about that.


B: The apple does not fall far from the tree.
I was surprised and not surprised to learn that Beloff's parents were both psychologist. I wonder since Beloff was brought up in such a tight bubble of psychology and analysis, could her work function out side of that bubble? In a sense, the work seems to be too incestuous. Could another element leak in and mingle within that bubble, or would that turn the whole dreamland upside-down?

Three words that define the artist and work: projection, unconscious, theatrical
The strangest feeling came over me after listening to Beloff spoke. The strange feeling came from the fact that I was this physical person sitting in this physical space listening to this physical person talk, believing every work she had said and at the end realizing I had not known where I have been in the last two hours because all of it was unreal, which makes me feel like my unconscious was extra out of it to not realize any of it at all. My unconscious was made present. Beloff spoke about how home movies were products that reveal more truth then what the maker anticipated. In a way, her presentation was like that too. Towards the end, she talked about the different ways she had deliver her presentation and most of the time in a non-academic setting, she does not reveal the back side story to her audience. Perhaps in this presentation, she shattered my illusion. I was so convinced and a puppet to her words, and in the end, I felt I was robbed of my innocence. It was like a joke gone bad. I believe it was very brave of her to use Albert Grass as a vehicle in which she could carry out herself. It was safe to hide behind an alternative self. She said it broke her out of her shyness.
I think that in itself was her most interesting piece. The performance. She documents and believes that mental patients sort of perform for their doctors, there was a theatrical aspect in their hysterical fits. Her presentation was that of a performance. She was so fluid during the performance that no one would have realized or picked up on what was real and what was not. In the end, the revealing of the truth of identity, the flawless fabrication of the two, that made the audience question what was imagination and what was the truth. Her work was effective in doing just that, making people question and wonder. She said, even if it is fictional, it is still based on real things. The work was simply that. Social and historical elements float all around us and they wrap around us and take on these new forms. We are not who we think we are, our unconscious reveals that, although sometimes we are not conscious enough to see it.
I really enjoy the reflexive part of her work. She constructed miniature models of theater and projects virtual people onto it to portray hallucinations. At the same time, here we were sitting in a small theater ourselves watching a woman perform before us too. I cannot help but wonder if Beloff has dissociative identity disorder or realizes that it may appear that way to others. If she did, I think it would be fascinating if she had projected a virtual 3-d image of herself delivering the presentation.

julika rudelius: lecture questions & response

Visiting Artist Lecture: Julika Rudelius: October 5th, 2010

"Julika Rudelius (b. 1968, Cologne) addresses a broad field of complex themes in her videos and photographs, ranging from structures of social power and prejudices to role clichés, identity, and cultural hegemony. Rudelius sees art as a form of social expression, as a communicative tool for drawing attention to seemingly trivial observations of everyday life, revealing at the same time their complex social characteristics."


Question one: "In addition to Rudelius's delicate sense of social dynamics, it is these clear structures that make the sometimes edited, sometimes free dialogues in her works so powerful for the viewer." How do you think the edit of your questions out of these "conversations" effects the audience? You remain unheard, yet your questions are what lead your subject to think and speak of something they did not think to project out vocally.

Question two: "Her photographs document the tension between togetherness and distance most subtly. For these pictures are by no means “documents” in the sense of authentic representations of social reality in the Netherlands. The pictures are faked. And Rudelius has carefully inserted little mistakes into her arrangements... Sometimes the mental clichés block access to the world around us and then we see a person only as a race rather than as an individual." If this is so, then why try so hard to embed "artificial elements in to make a point? Is the act of that, not only embed a little of your mental cliches into it rather than the audience?

Response after lecture:
I believe the most interesting part of the lecture was towards the end, the artist's attempt to re-evaluate her methods and research and answer questions that arose from the audience. Perhaps because of her honesty and genuineness in trying to answer the questions that made her answers more believable. I think the way I felt at the end was what Rudelius wanted me to feel through all her other works too; assessment of truth, curiosity to find it, and where truth tends to show up.

Three words to describe Rudelius & work: curious, human agitation, connectedness
The find the ability to feel disconnected and yet still try and try and try to understand and become whole with other elements surrounding you is inspiring. It is hard to constant want something solid to stand on. And also harder to keep it and feel secure enough to not be constantly worried about it being taken away from you at any moment.

After listening to Rudelius's lecture, something that stands out to me was the things she said towards the end, after watching her work "Forever" and "Politician; Charismatic Leader", was when she spoke of her work being "manipulated". That in this manipulation lies the truth.
Because she "controls" her subject through head pieces, guiding them to answer certain questions and move in a particular fashion, it is contradicting when she originally states that "although I manipulate the films, my subject, and the viewers, I still keep the authentic nature in it". From that I have been able to form this:

:People will not have "truth" be handed to them.
:They deny the thought that "truth" can be a gift to give.
:Non-controlled parts of people are only easy to detect when every thing around them is controlled.
:We desire to have truth, but we refuse it when it is handed and delivered to us.
:So we come up with this way to sort of trick ourselves, we manipulate the "truth", steer it in directions we want it to go, push certain ideas forward, and only then do we begin to reach the outer skirts of "truth". By seeing what is left behind, the honest "slips" or "mistakes"; the truth is revealed. And in these mistakes, we are able to trust ourselves, we feel human again, human enough to admit to mistakes and that is the the sincerest form of truth.

We basically trick ourselves only to later realize that, it was and will always be the only way to get ourselves to where we want to be.

All of Rudelius's work have lead me to that conclusion, and that conclusion is only relevant for the "now", because tomorrow everything will be re-analyzed and re-evaluated again.

P.S: I wish I could have actually seen all her work in its full length. What a let down, they were truly intriguing and engaging. The role flopping back and forth from spectator to participant definitely exist like she wanted.

wafaa bilal: lecture question & response

Visiting Artist Lecture: Wafaa Bilal

"Iraqi born artist Wafaa Bilal has exhibited his art world wide, and traveled and lectured extensively to inform audiences of the situation of the Iraqi people, and the importance of peaceful conflict resolution."

Question one: Having the subject for the majority of your work, be something so political, bold, and harsh, while you are trying to highlight the importance of peaceful conflict resolution, I do understand your methods by portraying brutal, violent performance pieces. Why would you choose to do harm unto your own body, if you understand how painful and unethical it is for people to conflict pain unto each other? Should you not be the one to put a stop to it?

Question two: Does putting yourself in these "conditions", make others see the "lack of peace" in the world? Do you think that by experiencing these conditions in first person, and showing it to the world brings the action into light for world, or is it really for yourself, as an artist, to experience?

Response after Lecture:
The most interesting quote of the lecture was "all art is political art, the refusal to make political work is political art." I felt towards the end, I was able to genuinely connect with Bilal despite our differences in background, life, experiences, beliefs, and everything, but somehow after leaving the lecture, I felt a quite light and open mentally. It felt what he said, was almost as if he read my thoughts. I came in hesitant and reserved thinking I would not really enjoy Bilal would have to say, having previously looked at his work online. The three words that original thought of that described his work was violent, sadistic, angst. However, when I left the three words I had brought with became empathetic, compassionate, and honest.

I felt one of the things he spoke about in all his works was the idea of comfort zone versus conflict zone. The way I had felt originally, being ignorant and hesitant about understanding what he had to give was shifted and soften and changed at the end, after having exchanged a one-way dialogue with him, being spoken to and listening. I was in my comfort zone with not wanting to deal with the issues he so passionately follow. He brought me out of my comfort zone with his work. He brought me into a conflicting zone, his work made me uncomfortable, the intensity, the violent, and startling nature of warfare and blood and death. But then he told stories of his experiences in these work, film clips of his vulnerability, fragile state of mind, and stories of other encounters on the web, for his paintball project, similar to mine. People did not take the time to understand and engage themselves with the things that they fear. I am moved by this and was able to change my heart and listened, listened beyond the words that we was saying, but also feeling his personal pains and experiences. He was able to show me that "the body has its own language." He made me feel that it was possible to take on responsibility of a greater cause, even if you are just one man/woman. I saw this paintball project for something greater then it first appeared to be. He was finally able to deliver me back home, into my comfort zone, but now to contemplate on the big questions in life.

His work is powerful, but it was through what he had to say about the works afterward, that was intense and striking. The physical nature of the work itself, I did not care for. It was his experiences and growth from the work, afterward that I craved for more.