looking backwards to progress forwards?

tonight it has dawned on me that i have been panicking about the perception i am not evaluating my work enough and it has occured to me that whilst this may in part be true, that the blogging does not exclusively show my process of review and elimination nor all the work undertaken- to date i have 6 A5ish size moleskin notebooks full of notes, sketches, analysis, piles of photograms, folders of photos unpublished on here from across the duration of the course. also, a lot of my evaluation of my work or notes taken from events i go to, or are done on the go, on the bus or tube. i think that the blog is a snapshot, all be it a good one of my development but its not exclusive. should i be submitting these books for assessment? what's the relationship between these and my blog?

i have been thinking back to the 3 performances- doug has said to evaluate and edit my body of experimentation- be reductive. the nunnery was my starting place for my own work this year and i have shown on here how the work developed as photo stories, videos, critical studies references, participant feedback from rehearsals and the notes form various post performance meetings with participants, including jordan mc are in my moleskins and on here.

Am ransacking my moleskins and blog:

Of prime importance from the nunnery (in) visible exchange were these areas;

• story was strong, friendly, funny at times, people related to this loss of innocence

• self was calm, well presented. at times exhaustion was evident though.

• strong sense of intimacy in proximity, tone of voice, being put at ease

• separation of closet from outside world good through use of radio

• ensure my work is a performance and not a mere illustration of barthes work- leave space for the viewer to mull things over, digest, don't overly spell things out

• ensure attention is directed on where you want it at the right time- don't let things compete

• too many endings

• very upbeat and strong sense of togetherness



the EEC (in)visible performance then was pitched as the same, but adapting to site of a post room/kitchen.

I wanted to;

• be more playful in the contrasts- calm, silent, and then telling a story with funny anecdotes

• push the precision, attention to detail, slow down my actions when working non-verbally

• use some stand up comedy ideas about extreme contrasts in mood to draw the viewer in, and dark humour to maybe oppose this- shredder.

• Pace and structure the event better- use of usher

• Get feedback from a range of experienced live artists which I did apart form in the feedback session I managed to direct the talk to documentation- and not the work- doh!

• Shift the active and passive roles between self and participant to encourage co-authorship

• Reconsider the endings in response to site- yes and well received

One person came to both shows and said they felt the new version was tighter, the structure clearer and story less obviously or verbally connected to traces, moments.

Issues arising

• experience starts from the moment arriving outside the door- was too informal on occasions

• usher very efficient- she’s a teacher don’t you know ;) and perhaps over zealous on checking and approving peoples pocket objects- lost the element of surprise- I could have been clearer on this

• black out of space using felt- kept falling down- need to reconsider this technicality

• how much do I work and the participant work?

• Whats in it for the participant- why bother?

• Why do I use photography? Why photograms in particular

• Is it just the darkness of the room which generates the intimacy? Or how am I creating this- becoming more self aware

These last few points I am examining in the cross-MA post grad forum tomorrow, trying out different ways in creating intimacy (daylight, body language more apparent, proximity in bigger space, how I need to re-work my structure etc) and different photo methods. I envisage these experiments will either reinforce for me why I use my previous techniques, or establish new ones and reasons why to emply them; most importantly I hope I will gain an understanding of why I do what I do.

I am putting the space-in-between after this, as although it was between the nunnery and EEC, it was a significantly different performance- working with laura bean, a VLPer from a theatre background, we were experimenting with combining our fine art/theatre backgrounds and, for me, seeing what happens when there is a more theatrical development of the photogram process- away from the non-matrixed ideals- and exploring of persona, narrative, use of 2 performers.

For more on this project see the space-in-between on the left hand side of the blog.

Some notes I made;

• This was a brilliant experience to finish what laura and I started in November- surrendering an item- and now with the hindsight of a greater understanding of performance.

• The exchanges went well after we warmed up on our poor specimens lena and stevie- note- don’t try to run something when the participants don’t come equipped :(

• I found I really enjoyed working with someone else who’s really inspiring- brainstorming together, pushing the work further, questioning its every detail form all angles. Performing together and assigning roles each felt comfortable with

• Time in the space was crucial- we ran out of time to properly run everything before the Saturday event due to seemingly endless props, hanging things, technical stuff- did we need it all? And cost! No one heard the clock ticking sound I spent a long time sorting out.

• We really responded to site exploring real and fictive histories- centering on the meaning of the site as a redundant factory and soon to be contemporary apartments and the actions with the photograms signified this- deconstructing exchanged items rather than constructing them and letting their photogrammed trace disappear, and exchanging the items for a unique, one-off photogram framed in an ikea frame and neatly bubble wrapped

• I loved the shredder- the juxtaposition of very carefully folding each carbon copied proforma and whipping onto the table the shredder, making eye contact before shredding, playing with the non verbal, also use of eye contact when swiping onto the floor the remnant of the deconstructed items to create tension.

• Not sure who we actually were being in the end? People said we could have been more bored, robotic, factory like in form filling? And consider outfits more? Am i interested in being anyone other than myself- not really as my work is anecdotal.

All in all I learnt a lot from the space-in-between project and feel my cat wreath work to be presented tomorrow, and outlined in my posts on it is a playful mix of (in)visible exchange and space in between. I hope to consolidate my knowledge further by discussing the reactions of the viewers to it and learning more about the WHY and RECEPTION of the work I am making.

Description of what happened: Part one: The exchange

A development of the (in)visible exchange project through use of appointments, usher, persona, narrative, recycling and dark humour.

An office within a corner of a derelict factory, 55 Leroy Street, Bermondsey, Saturday 26th April, 2008. The office which had been modified slightly to accommodate becoming a temporary photographic darkroom in low light, was in a dilapidated state, with peeling walls. There was placed in the space a new ikea roller blind as blackout and a stopped clock at 4.58pm. A clock ticking sound was audible.

The office had been identified as a place of exchange, for privacy, interviews. People had been asked to bring an item of soft furnishing or clothing to exchange. They individually entered through knocking on the door, and were invited inside. They sat down and were asked for the item they had brought to exchange. The objects were discussed, such as why the item was unsuitable and had been brought for exchange, and full details recorded on a proforma, then unpicked via a selection of tools, deconstructing rather than the usual construction practice in a factory. Parts were selected carefully by one performer, the rest swept into the remnants pile on the floor, and the kept parts laid onto photographic paper and exposed and developed; they surfaced fleetingly through a photogrammed trace of the object, but the images were not then fixed, as is usual photographic practice. This was intended as a dual narrative with the story of the object momentarily shared. This performance culminated in marking this fact through the ultimate ‘death’ of the image created, leaving it to overdevelop and disappear. The photogram was then dried and framed in an Ikea frame, wrapped in bubble wrap for the participant to take home as their new, exchanged item, as a symbol of the future occupation of the building of contemporary apartments. The discussion then returns to attention to detail on filling in the rest of the proforma, ensuring it it is an exact and agreed record which is signed by all parties. The proforma is folded, as is its carbon copy, very precisely and methodically. The proforma, rather than being filed or copy given to the participant, is then shredded in front of the participant. Two strangers, the performers and the participant, then leave one another taking away with them only their memories of the exchange as the images, attacked by light, continue to dematerialise and will become entirely invisible in their final location, and the written documentation has been shredded and erased.

Description by harriet of the space-in-between project, a collaboration between Harriet Poole and Laura Bean, 55 Leroy Street, Bermondsey, April 2008

Devising PART ONE of the space-in-between show- factory process+participation

ok- so want to get down here the structure of the idea for PART ONE (deconstructing factory processes- laura is working on developing our agreed structure for PART TWO-tea ) to then start rehearsing/walking through....

we know that my (in)visible exchange project at the nunnery formed the starting point but now responding to site, offering me experimentation with same process but different stories, context, objects, and working with another performer- laura, the project has evolved.

so- from my notes;

location- in the office- red light, table, 3 chairs, darkroom stuff, cardboard boxes

3- 5pm. 15 minute appointments. the office, 55 leroy street.

participants must bring a small item of home furnishings or clothing to us to exchange. they must surrender the item.

the idea being they will be exchanging an old history for a new one, exchanging archived material within the office- a site for people to go when they have a query, want advice, bring something back.

rough walk through;
participant knocks on door, hears 'come in' enters room, sits down.
laura and myself are either already working or begin working when person enters on some undecided ' office job.'
we ask them if they have anything to exchange
we talk to them about an item from our archive box donated by a former factory employee
we ask them if they want the archive object
via tools set, one of us deconstructs/ unpicks/ destroys item (needs deciding how with the participants- options matched to reason for surrendering it?), whilst other makes notes on an archive proforma the participants story they then tell us about the item- why they are giving it up?
OPTION ONE
after story ends- archive an agreed part, agree a photogram part- expose, develop
NON- VERBAL- sit and watch the photogram image changing
when image developed- we mount it into frame and pack it away
give out next appointment card/time to come back for PART TWO, and to see full archive back at 5.30

OPTION TWO
whilst story being told, photogram the item (who does this- us/participant) allowing for pauses and gesturing to keep the focus on the image at times and on us at others, fit to purpose and direction of actions, then mount it into frame and pack it away
give out next appointment card/time to come back for PART TWO

all photogramed frames from the room are piling up in the boxes. at the end of the 2 hours, these boxes and the tea items boxes are brought into the tea area for PART TWO.

considerations;

1. are we only photograming the participants broken item OR we could photogram them both on the same paper?
2. make sure its not an illustration of barthes
3. make sure that its not overly spelled out that we are exchanging, sharing an experience, fleeting materiality- save for the participant to still have to work?
4. ensure correct balance between verbal and non-verbal communication
5. equality??
6. the nature of the former factory employee's stories- would be great to make them funny (hyper self?) and explore some of my new stand up ideas :) this would be a marked contrast to the death of the photogram in front of your eyes- nice contrast?
7. this office needs careful consideration as walls are in poor state- Health and safety-ask linda
8. maneuverability around space with 3 people in there
9. temporality v art object- this was a huge area for discussion in (in)visible exchange- people will be given the option to take their exchanged item home- implying the history of the space has evolved by object left behind and the space-in-between history becomes part of some elses' history
10. from our reversed factory processes, we are making a new product- our framed photogram, ready for the PART TWO and a comment on creating a piece of artwork as though to be hung on the wall of the new contemporary appartments- the site moving forward into the future from the past
    

provisional resources for PART ONE;
blackout material for the office- door doesn't close- gaffer, binbags/curtain,draft excluder?
lots of extension cables
black box
office lamp (or use overhead light?)
office table and 3 chairs (or 4?)
darkroom chemicals- get new?
safety lights
cylinders
forensic bags
carbon paper
proformas
stapler, staples
tools
cardboard boxes - how many?
frames x 10 (ikea?)
ready made reject pile of textiles
archive items pre-made
archive box

what are laura and i wearing? factory outfit- tabard?? or normal or jeans, tshirt type clothing?

to discuss all with laura tomorrow

second visit to the space-in-between- second photos

second part of performance- new photos

so...then tried moving the projector to a side space- kind of alcove, where from the last art show 'tea' had been repeatedly written on the wall. laura had idea about having a tea party- when linda came down to see what we were up to (the curator) she said that London tea stores used to be based at this site once- so a great coincidence! this time i was in it so laura could see what it looked like- laura filmed me and the resultant projection-live self walk through and will put on this blog too. when i tried this exercise- packing and then unpacking the table contents- i was looking to be precious about the items- carefully folding the table cloth and doiley etc- like my Nunnery matchbox items, very precisely put down onto the photographic paper. and again another box!

liked the tracing paper- softening the image. we talked about back projections and shadowplay like in Complicite's work, but decided we wanted us to be seen live.possible thoughts about side panels partially obscuring the audience view. possible trials with other surfaces- suspended or held and folded so image projected disappears as object is packed away (emphasising the temporal quality of a projection alongside the imminent departure of the projected self packing to leave) tablecloth, doilies (could be good as has holes in it for image to be partially trapped and partially free to go through)

anyway- drafted a structure today looping a 5 minute performance idea based on live and prerecorded self- laura mentioned possible idea to frame it of domestic rituals.

we have realised how very differently we approach work- being poles apart in our pre- MA backgrounds (me-fine art, laura, theatre) we are meeting well half way! i can't leave the visuals alone trying to see how they can perform with the body and narrative and laura wants to be devising narrative with the body and then think about the visuals!! this show is a good learning experience for us both :)

we are also both hugely interested in process as performance- trying out the deconstruction and reconstruction ideas, photograms process and ideas surrounding sharing a work-in-progress.

more soon...

second visit to the space-in-between- first photos

ok- have roughly mapped out part one to be a deconstruction of items through stories from former factory employees and employing photogram techniques and forensic archiving within the office. (more to follow on this structure and content)

so today centred on the experiments for the second part of our performance- first ideas are to be exploring contrasting the ideas of the 1964 news article found on housing slums and a plea to the council to rebuild,and the future occupation of the building as contemporary appartments.

also now thinking rather than spending the whole show trapped inside the office- now coming out into the space (and widening viewing platform rather than door frame), we will be involving some kind of interactive projection between live and mediated self- in photos here we are experimenting with (laura unfortunately excited about special effects in the first photo -haha! although have to say the time delay was interesting until laura did a mexican wave..arrgh...) prerecorded footage packing up household items to leave whilst simultaneously live self is unpacking having moved in, projecting at different scales to see the visual effect, including at same scale so they overlap. this proved difficult in mirroring exactly the pack/unpack sequence(but in reverse), getting the timings and actions right.
the edges of the image also lost projecting onto window. liked the siting of this like a kind of third window along this wall, but the projection is faint due to backlighting. was important to film and then site the projection of the film, in the same place to ensure matching of scale, angle, back onto the space.

Press release- The Space-in-Between show

so here's the press release for the show laura and i are in on the 26th april.

please do email me to make an appointment for the first part asap-
numbers strictly limited!

Press Release 55 Leroy St: Further Investigations 55 Leroy Street, London SE1 Saturday 26 April 2008, 3 – 6pm, with a live performance at 8pm

Laura Bean & Harriet Poole / Linda Duffy / Dave Miller / Lucy Rimmer / Caroline Smith / Sally Thompson / Senaka Weeraman

55 Leroy St: Further Investigations presents further explorations into the physical traces left by the previous occupants of 55 Leroy St and the associated real and imagined histories. Further Investigations takes place on the afternoon of Saturday 26 April 3-6pm. It is a series of experimental projects presented as work-in-progress. Audience members are invited to participate, to discuss work with the creators and to feedback into the creative process.

Laura Bean and Harriet Poole are working with site-specific performance art to explore the fictive and real histories surrounding the site at 55 Leroy St. They will be deconstructing factory processes whilst simultaneously exploiting photography in a performative manner. Audience members are invited to participate and surrender unwanted home furnishings / clothing to help facilitate the performance and leave new traces of occupation.

3- 5.00 By appointment - please email harrietpoole@gmail.com to arrange.

5 - 5.30 Performance open to all

5.30 - 6 Installation

Linda Duffy explores physical traces left by time and people on the surface of the building and presents a visualisation of the documented history of the building.

Dave Miller is using the space at Leroy Street to experiment with networked collaborative stories. The Leroy Club was a legendary venue in the 1950's comedy circuit, where many famous comedians started out. One of these was Buddy Rivers, who's returned to do this benefit performance to help save the venue. He hasn't done standup for years and fears he's lost his edge, so now uses computer programs and Internet searches to generate his jokes. Join in the show at the Leroy on Saturday 26 April 3-6pm or online at: http://davemiller.org/experiments/buddy_rivers_leroy

Lucy Rimmer creates images capturing the microscopic traces left by time on the windows, floors, walls and ceilings of the space at 55 Leroy St. Experimenting with photographic techniques she takes away the context and scale of the building itself and forces us to look in more detail at the many layers that constitute to the history of the space.

Caroline Smith performs Spank at 8pm.

I tell stories. I remember. I embellish. Sometimes I lie. Spank follows the journeys of two women as they reveal stories from private and public sources set apart by two centuries. It investigates notions of 'faction' and what is filtered out historically within a theme of female trauma and the body. It is deeply personal work, yet also rooted in its cultural context. Spank reacts to the location and has been performed at Tramway in Glasgow (NRLA 2008), Albany Theatre, Antenna Studios, Stephen Lawrence Gallery and Royal Naval College in London. For more info, visit: www.carolinesmithonline.com

Sally Thompson explores a series of interconnecting theories and ideologies that overlay and provide a context for the evolutionary process of change evidenced by the building’s documented histories.

Senaka Weeraman presents a survey of the current condition of the building, capturing its state at this point of transition between industrial past and residential future.

For further information contact Linda Duffy on 07905 408 121 / lm_duffy@yahoo.com

Travel Underground: Elephant & Castle, London Bridge, Tower Hill, Tower Gateway National Rail: Elephant & Castle, London Bridge Bus: 1, 42, 188

55 Leroy St: Further Investigations is a project by The Space In-Between.

The Space In-Between is an umbrella for a series of experimental research and development projects. It aims to facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations that extend artistic practice and provide opportunities for artists and creative individuals to share new work with interested audiences.
For further information contact Linda Duffy on 07905 408 121 / lm_duffy@yahoo.com

AV Social at Late at Tate Britain- 4 April

This video I took from Black Out Arts installation at the Tate Britain interests me as, like in Ceal Floyers' virtual lightswitch displayed with projector and the image, and Anthony mccall the process work and the technology to make it -in the projector, objects, beam of light- all becomes the work. I like these ideas in development of the space-in-between piece- the nature of the technology becoming part of the narrative.

From Black Out Arts website;

"Underlap
North Duveen Gallery (far end) - 6pm-9.30pm
Rod Maclachlan and Jem Noble from Blackout Arts unveil their latest audiovisual installation at the AV Social. Rod's live-camera alchemy transforms his simple, kinetic light installations of dust, chop sticks, mobiles and houseplants into large projections of elegant shadow-play and dramatic abstraction. Jem treats the sounds collected from the installations using light-sensitive theremins, contact and mini-condenser mics. These sounds create an evolving, reactive soundtrack for the shifting forms."

the-space-in-between- first performance planning visit-EVEN MORE photos- of office ceiling

Ceal Floyer- Light Switch- 1992-99, Tate modern collection. The images below reminded me of this artwork- i like it for its visual illusion (Tate website )and witty qualities- appearing before you in the correct siting on a wall is a picture of a functional device that as its virtual is in fact functionless. wit, satire, i think laura and i have agreed we are both interested in this in the project!

the depiction of this image from the Tate website clearly show the device to create the image is part of the work- the technology is not hidden, in fact the projection is given considerably less weighting in studying the image as its so small- when i was prompted to remember this artwork by my photos on this post i did not even remember the projector but the simplicity of the idea of the light switch projected through light, onto a location in reality (the wall) it might exist (although problematic as this is an art gallery where light switches of this domestic one switch kind are not really used)


projecting a feature of the office ceiling- a smoke alarm or speaker i think- back onto the ceiling. these 2 photos make me think about framing- not in through the lens terms like here but in the performance- how much of the image does the audience see, why and how do you ensure that? eg use of door stop limiting how much a door can be opened, peep hole. the bottom image for example has no real functioning item with it- its abstracted- does it lose its context too much for example? my age old (in)visible question...



possible other thoughts- is there anything in the (purposeful) bodily interaction with virtual office features to push the redundant nature of the space (nothing works anymore) or is the image merely within our possible performance to establish a sterotypical context and offer an aesthetic juxtapositon to emphasise the now derelict office?
in working into this project laura's current research ideas of past and present lives i think we will be working with imagery in a way that fittingly contributes to this notion

the-space-in-between- first performance planning visit -more photos

another google found image through typing 'office' (quite like this method of finding images as we have no idea what the space here actually ever looked like through the years) looks quite date, generic, devoid of bodily presence however signs of life- the signage don'ts- the token pieces of pleasing artwork-nice touches. thinking about the content of the image, which parts to use within the site to create meanings/interesting aesthetic

ok so virtual sterotypical office now projected in delapidated, redundant office- bright and colourful, cheery with plant and picture on the wall contrast to the actual dingy, dirty, dusty space



joke action - although this may be the participants means of gaining entry to the performance- and also the issue with the projection is on the door rather than inside


love this image again with the old vent in this stifingly small space and virtual generic artwork. the angle of the projector allowing parts to become dominant and others receding into the wall. we were trying out the moving the projector back so far that the images were life size for consideration of how this might impact on other exhibits in the final event


use of corner and across the window- getting to know the size and layout of room in relation to the scale of projection


again the matching of architectural forms and the non-descript generic artwork blurred further to obscurity through the damp, torn wall paper.

the-space-in-between- first performance planning visit

google found image of textile factory worker (relating to actual history)- issue of being on office door when this activity would have been in the main space



is this site of projection more relevant- onto peeled back traces of deconstructed layers of old surface patterned wallpaper yet the image is an opposing one of textiles production? the way the image now behaves- changes to the projection through surface colour, texture, contour making the projected image in site more fragmented, delapidated, murky and less visible in places, and thus emblematic of a redundant manufacturing activity?


although this is again projecting in the office i like the architectural matching of real vents with virtual window frames, the light cast from the projection defining through shadow the form of the vent, the tear in the wallpaper across the virtual textiles worker's face- how things are breaking up against the rigid lines of machines and repetition of the processes of the industry

site visit- some thoughts-

ok so apart from the fact that 55 leroy street was bloody freezing and nearly lost the circulation in my feet (!) it was a very productive visit in our site investigation, experimenting with both our known histories of the site and inventing fictional ones through moving around the space recording our thoughts. on here are first trials of projected images i had brought with me of offices, factories now cast across the dilapidated surfaces, looking at the interplay of surface and site now affecting the reading of images- not considering the performance body yet as a physical interaction with it (we are devising the performance first) but investigating what the temporal virtual photographic projection offers this space to suggest possible kinds of projections/ interesting locations of projections within the performance. all of the investigations were with multimedia projector merely for convenience in this trial- if the images are nostalgic/bygone era then possible old slide projector that reinforces this? in this small factory space it would be difficult to conceal the technolgical apparatus so making it part of it (old history-old projector, new, fantasy future identity- digital projector??)

the first thing that occurs to me is the odd feeling i have with looking back at these photos i took- composed, constructed images merely as documentation- subjectively framing a trial (to look at surface image qualities) not as an end product i have always been used to creating (although i do like these as images i must not get sidetracked!!!) - this is the first time on the course this has really sunk in how much my relationship to photography has shifted; how its has become a tool to help me devise performance work (to show me what i looked like in the body sculptures of the objects and atmospheres workshop), and also a temporal process within work (photograms, projections, etc)

more photos to follow...

more on ideas for the space-in-between...

ok- so now laura and i have decided to go for it with a short sharp collaboration, very experimental (the nature of the site for everyone wokring on art projects over this month), testing out some of our research ideas and different styles of performance/exhibition and just see what happens. the draft we have submitted for the press release is;

Laura Bean and Harriet Poole are working with site-specifc performance art to explore the fictive and real histories surrounding the site. They will be deconstructing factory processes whilst simultaneously exploiting photography in a performative manner. Audience members are invited to participate and surrender unwanted home furnishings/clothing to help facilitate the performance and leave new traces of occupation.

26th April 2008
3- 5.00 By appointment- please email harrietpoole@gmail.com to arrange.
5-5.30 Performance open to all
5.30-6 Installation

The idea being we can play with the 3 hours event in 3 parts- part one- explore the breakdown of goods produced by light-industry businesses/ home furnishings 'from' future housing occupation, through participatory performance (more non-matrixed),in which we are subverting the norms of manufacturing in generating temporal photograms. part two- devise a performance we are both in (live/mediated?) and watched by the audience, and, part three- create a final installation with experiments with projections.

more to think about- tomorrow we spend the day in the space playing with site, ideas and technology.....yipeee

from the local studies centre- on the-space-in-between....55 Leroy St, Bermondsey

News article on the st, 1964


1976- Annette Display wigs ok, so my trip to the local studies centre in borough wasn't as useful as I had hoped in that small businesses had very little written about them and very few photos existed of the site/street- would need to contact the businesses direct for records although most out of business and impossible to track.... I have a list of the nature of the light industry firms including the following (from Linda Duffy, thanks, from Post Office records );

1893-1900 – Sowle Thomas, wheelwright
1908 – Million Advertising Novelty Co Limited
1912-15 – Simmons W F and Co under-clothing manufacturers
1916-17 – Newey Brothers Ltd hook & eye manufacturers
1928-9 – Barclay, Roberts and Co Ltd trouser press mfrs
1937-39 – Stanley and Woodward Ltd coathanger mfrs
1947-9 – British Novelties (Model Manufacturers) plaster figure mkrs
1970 – nº 51/55 Frederica Display, figure manfrs.
1973-83 – nº 51 Annette Display, Wig Co. Ltd
1983 – No 55 H&M Fashions, ladies’ fashion mfrs
1988 – nº 55 Stacey Ltd. Ladies fashion manfrs.

The ~H& M Fashion may be of interest- is this the current high st retailer? Like the range of businesses listed.

Am also interested in the fact that the article above is talking about reportedly appalling housing conditions on the street with 'dangerous, dilapidated landings,' when this currently dilapidated site at end of April is being demolished and becoming contemporary appartments- there may be material in this.

intial ideas for the-space-in-between

ok, so this is to be a short sharp project given that the site is being redeveloped at end of april. laura came with me to the private view of forensic and originally thought it wasn't for her but now think there's potential material in it for her- maybe in past and present presented simultaneously. we have decided to start from the same stimulus, be in the closet, and see if we end up fusing an idea or just sharing the space with independent ideas.....we'll see. we need to find something then talk to linda the curator of the 26th april show. originally i wanted to literally take the nunnery closet piece here (i went to the private view a week after the nunnery show) but thought i needed to move it on somehow. the non-verbal suggestion by jordan mckenzie is intriguing to me- when he said it i had no idea how to do this or why bother, but the weekend workshop has given me ideas about tableau vivant, visual landscapes, using body and gesture, gaze, the importance of doing nothing, allow people the space to reflect on what's unfolding, the importance of the pause.

having decided to see at the moment what's possible with other people photos and projections, and still being interested in developing a meaningful narrative between traditional photography being killed by digital (or maybe its the other way round like the vinyl versus cd battle)...have decided to start at the local studies library in borough on thursday to i hope find photos and stories as a starting point.

there's something lovely about the title of this space, the space-in-between, its traces, state of disrepair, imminent destruction and new identity. photogramming the relics could be interesting and replacing where the relics were with a photogram trace, left for the builders to discard.

the office itself was suggested to me by dave miller at a crystal palace artists get together; he is doing an interactive installation for the 26th april show alongside caroline smiths spank. i feel i just need to get down here my original intentions which may change post visit to the local studies centre on thursday- what i liked about it was its fantastic sign generating all kinds of notions of unscrupulous deals, the room where people had been hired, fired, confidential confessions, secrets divulged, etc...the mind boggles and what goes on in offices...the secrecy element being the common bond between this space and the closet the the nunnery. in terms of creating a staged darkroom if i was to photogram again- office strip light with a red bulb, office desk for the participant and me the performer to sit across each other from.... with the keepsake box of the developing box being perfect here as it a cash box.

now need to consider the story/photos i find as the starting point and use of projection within this...the many identities the warehouse has had could provide an injection of humour into this piece- novelty items factory, wigs, plaster figures...of course looked at martin parr-esque...

possible show at the-space-in-between, bermondsey part 2

more photos of the space from Forensic show March 08

possible show at the-space-in-between, bermondsey

photos of the closet like office possibly site of show re-examining aspects of closet nunnery piece through responding to the stories/photos of the site- more photos to follow

Forensic show March 08 and the space-in-between

I went to this show which had some fellow Crystal Palace Artists exhibiting in it and also to check out the space for potential for taking my nunnery piece somewhere else during april......this site is a rich resource of material as a starting point in itself, of particular fascination i found the meticulous cataloging of the artefacts and history of the site by linda duffy and the peep holes by stuart mayes-eyes boring into other worlds....

From the press release from Linda Duffy, show curator;

"The Space In-Between is an umbrella for a series of experimental research and development projects. It aims to facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations that extend artistic practice and provide opportunities for artists to share new work with interested audiences.
Forensic is the first ‘The Space In-Between’ project. It takes the space itself as the starting point for an exhibition of installations and interventions. The building at 55 Leroy Street awaits transformation from vacant light-industrial warehouse to contemporary apartments. Structural and cosmetic changes to the interior have created an environment that bares traces of previous occupants. Though specific references are difficult to locate there is documentation of trades including wheelwrights, underwear makers and ‘novelty’ producers registered at the address.

Seven artists were invited to investigate the historical and current condition of the building – the exhibition presents their responses.

Linda Duffy has meticulously collected and catalogued materials found on site. These materials are shown along with drawings that literally trace incidental marks and stains left over time. Duffy examines the relationship between the real and what the imagination imposes, her project challenges the idea of reliable evidence.

Mo Lewis creates work that explores the natural light in the space. The light entering the building changes - from minute to minute and day to day, yet considered over a period of years it remains a kind of constant.

Stuart Mayes’ installation of spy holes opens up the structure of the building. Visitors are invited to peek into usually hidden spaces either side of the room they are in.

Joao Ornelas removes and relocates a segment of the interior fabric. This segment evidences the outcome of human interaction with the building. It is framed to present a snapshot of an event that has occurred.

Dolores Sanchez Calvo relocates a door to a corner of the room where there is no opening. The relocated door addresses the old history of the building as well as the imminent conversion into flats with new spaces and doors.

m p villaseñor creates a visualisation of activities hosted by the space. She directly references the succession of diverse small industries with her choice of materials.

Mandy Williams’ black and white photographic print resembles a strip of wallpaper. Hanging beside the peeling walls the photograph applies archaeological layering to the trades that have occupied the building.

As the building imminently transforms into modern apartments it’s past becomes merely a design element, a backdrop. "
L Duffy, 08