I went to see the retrospective of Gillian Wearing’s work at the Whitechapel Gallery, not knowing much about her work. I had pre conceptions however, revolving around something I had heard in a discussion to do with her filing a law suite over somebody allegedly copying her work Signs That Say What You Want Them To Say and Not Signs That Say What Someone Else Wants To Say (1992- 93) and using the written signs in a similar way. I felt negative about this as I was thinking of how these tools had already been used in theatre practices for many years by practitioners such as Bertolt Brecht. Because of this I was a little apprehensive about going to see the work.

Wearing’s work can be considered as being ‘socially engaged’, meaning that the work takes the notion of people and their experiences as its form. This theme can be seen in all of the works that appear in the exhibition. As such, the work can be considered participatory, which is a medium that is becoming ever more popular within contemporary arts practices. This is because, as Claire Bishop explains, “it re-humanizes a society rendered numb and fragmented by the repressive instrumentality of capitalist production.” (Bishop, C. 2011, p) Wearing’s work conforms to this notion as it seeks to empower the individual who is appearing within the work.

Confess all On Video. Don’t Worry, You Will Be In Disguise. Intrigued? Call Gillian (1994) is a series of videos in which people confess to something traumatic that has happened to them. They do so whilst wearing masks to cover their faces, meaning that they are able to speak freely without fear of being identified. The work focuses on the idea of authorship, as with a lot of Wearing’s work as she is using other people to author her work in some way. What happens here though is that she is allowing the people who are confessing something the chance to do so by offering them a chance to create a new character to author what they are saying. As John Slyce comments in relation to the work and Foucault’s essay ‘What Is an Author?’ “…Focault offers a notion of fiction released from the authorial hold of its producer. Such a text, no longer constrained by the regulatory figure of an author, is free to develop in what he calls the ‘anonymity of a murmur’. (Slyce, J. 1999, p74) As the work becomes authorless in some way we are able to connect to the people who are confessing as we can only see traces of ourselves, or of others that we know. Their anonymity allows us to reflect and consider what we would confess if we were in that position. This is further perpetuated in the exhibition as the work is contained within booths, which you are invited to enter, these booths that are not too dissimilar to those that you may find in catholic churches force us to be intermit with the films.

This notion of Authoring is continual throughout Wearing’s work, she plays with identity in Self Portrait (2000) as she dresses herself up as different members of her family, all of which who make up her ‘self’ and help to form who she is. Wearing’s work draws a lot of similarities with the documentary, as it seeks to bring out the ‘truth’ or the reality of a situation. The work reminds us that there is no such thing as a perfect life and that everyone has difficulties in life. It shows us what everyday life in Britain is like. This is demonstrated in 2 into 1(1997) which is a video if a Mother and her two Sons. The video is a document of a conversation where a Mother has been talking about her children and vice-versa, in the video however the words are lip -synced the other way around, (so the children are talking about themselves in their Mothers voice). The work is comical in some ways as we are hearing them talking about themselves but from the viewpoint of the other. This reflects further the notion of the self and the other that is dominant in all of Wearing’s work. It also demonstrates the point about authorship and the documentary style of her work. And also highlights what she says as ‘The voice estranged’, which is her idea that “nothing is more alienating, to anyone unaccustomed to it, than hearing one’s own voice played back on a tape recorder.” (Wearing, J. 2002, p27) meaning that it doesn’t actually matter who says your story as long as it is said, what matters is not who is speaking but what is being spoken.

The work often draws on the otherwise overlooked aspects of society and the way in which we live and pin points these things to be normal aspect of daily life, this is seen in I Love You (1999) where a woman returns home from an evening out with her friend and her husband. The video shows the friend and husband trying to get the drunk into the house, but who is screaming ‘I Love You’ and refusing to cooperate with the people trying to get her inside. Although the work is showing some kind of reality within society, it did make me question as to what extent Wearing is exploiting these people and using the things they would otherwise not want to remember in order to create art. This was also true for the piece Bully, although in this there was a feeling of reconciliation for the participant as they were able to over come in someway or to at least face something that has affected their life in some way. I think that this piece was different to I Love You in that sense as it did just not show somebody behaving badly. Whilst sat in the viewing area for Bully, I found it interesting to see that there was a man sat near to us who was crying, presumably because he had similar experiences to that which is shown in the work and was therefore forced to engaged with it on a personal level.

My preconceptions of Wearing’s work have been changed after going to see this exhibition. On reflection I can see how the piece Signs That Say What You Want Them To Say and Not Signs That Say What Someone Else Wants To Say (1992- 93) was actually very powerful and gave people the opportunity to actually say what they wanted to say. I also now recognise that this is also an autobiographical work from the artist, as it is a means for her to express something that she wanted to say. It is important to note that although the idea of authorship is blurred in a lot of Wearing’s work, I feel as though she does not relinquish responsibility. “Wearing established a formal parallelism between the photographs and their contents – as if to say that the photographs stand in the same relation to herself as the signs do to the people who wrote them, that the people she approached somehow gave her the words she lacked” (Schwabsky, B. 2002, p28) Although this puts the artist and the participants on the same level, and does not privilege one above the other. It also reinforces the notion that participation can never be free from exploitation, however this work does appear as though both parties are getting potentially equal things out of the work. This is of course all on a romantic level, as Wearing has mad a lot of money out of these, works and the participants presumably made nothing. Not to say that is a bad thing, as they are free to say what they like, as they are not doing it in order to gain fame, respect or wealth.  

Wearing’s work relates to my own practice as it demonstrates a foregrounding or otherwise over looked aspects of everyday life. I want to begin create work that is private, and only becomes explicit through documentation and to include participants that are not aware that they are participating in order to create a greater impact and a more natural response to the work. As Wearing’s work is often about engaging with members of society who are other wise thought of as living on the outside, it is important that these people are not exploited. I really like the way that her work also uses techniques borrowed from the documentary.   

Uninvited Guests: Make Better Please, 1 May 2012

The start of the performance was interesting, we sat round in small groups drinking tea and reading the days newspapers. We were then asked to pick an article that made us angry, and write it down on a piece of tissue like paper. Which we then placed inside a metal box. We were then asked to discuss the articles, which we then would take back and discuss with the whole group. After the discussion had taken place, the two performers then became some of the people that were mentioned in the articles. We were able to ask them questions. 

After this had happened, the performance turned a bit strange and I got a little lost, I think that the intension was that we felt like the male charcter (wearing a large phallus made from newspaper) was our opportunity to let our problems from the day out onto this man and this in some way would help us to make sense of the non sense that is printed in the newspapers everyday. Towards the end of the performance we were given masks to wear with the names of famous people on the back of them and what they were famous for. We were then invited to go up to the person sat at the piano one by one and then wisper the names of our people to him. 

The performance ended with us being lead outside where the titles of our headlines we had selected and wrote down earlier were read out and burned one by one to in some way, "make better please". I think that overall the performance was a little disjointed. It felt like it was in two or three different parts all put together to try and create one whole. For me the most sucessful parts were the ones where we were able to sit round and engage with one another. I felt as if this performance may have been better had the participants been more active, however, on reflection it should be the resposibility of the performers to make sure that the performance continues to progress and that the participants did not take responsibilities for a down fall. 

Although I did think that the ideas behind the work were really good I'm not sure if it achieved what it set out to. The publication for the work read: "we willt think the unthinkable, we wills ay what you fear to utter, we will suck up the sin and spin it... to make a better sense, for you" and I'm not sure if the work did any of those things for me, however I do think that it was a good experience of how participation can make us feel as though we are responsible for something that is lacking something else, it highlighted for me how these works can be manipulative. But there was some really nice and effective moments within the work, none the less. 

On Wednesday of last week we decided to go out and do a permanent breakfast. We wanted to explore the notion of performing in a 'public' space and how we could interact with an accidental audience. We were wanting to do this in Trafalger Square, but when we arrived there we were unable to do so as there was a big sporting event going on which took up basically the whole square. So because of this we had to move locations. We decided to go and do it on southbank. 

When we arrived there it took us a while to get people to come and join us for a conversation, however we did manager to get a few people to join us. (Most of whom were young artist types), I think that the experience was good as it showed us that it was actually fairly easy to get people to interact with you when performing in everyday situations. We learnt a lot of things though, we discovered what we could of done differently to get a better experience. 

By the time that we got to soutbank was around 11am, so by that time everybody had already had their breakfast. But this was not our fault, although we should of checked if there was anything going on at trafalger square on this date. There was also a couple of things that we could of done differently to do with our set-up, mainly if we would of had a table and chairs this would of been much better I think, although this would of been impossible as we did not have any means of transport other than tube and bus. 

I think that if we would of had more people involved with the breakfast from the start and there was already a good converstation going on then this would of been good as it would of drawn more attention to it and would of made people want to be involved more. Also the weather meant that people did not want to sit down and talk. Although the conversations we did have with people were very interesting, and actually fairly political, so I suppose that this was a political act in some way. Which I don't really think we had thought about before now. 

On Sunday evening / early Monday morning I took part in a collaboration that Youngshin had set up with her dancer friend in New York, the premises of the work was that we would walk around the streets of London and that her friend, Yangy would react to the directions that we took on the street. We wanted to use a map of New York and follow that, in an attempt to create chance actions through the streets however, Kath forgot the map, so we could not do this. 

Instead we decided to just try and walk and be as random as possible to which direction which we took. I think that this worked well although we were a bit too selective about the direction that we took. We began a rehearsal at around 12pm, and walked for about 10 minutes and we then waited until around 1 am to complete the performance.

We had a lot of trouble with the skype connection and our original plan to use a peek hole projector did not work as we were unable to use it with skype as it is only compatible with video files. I think that the project was a good experience and we got some really good feedback off Yangy who was performing on stage as we moved through the streets, they liked the footage of the moving cars and buses and that of us when we were talking and laughing. I think that it could of worked better, obviously without the technical problems and if we had been more structured. 

Also because we waited around for quite a long time between the rehearsal and the actual performance it meant that we got cold and really tired and lost memento a little bit. However, over all it was a really good experience and I think that it would be good to do the work again but with the maps - leasson learnt = DO NOT leave Kath in charge of bringing the maps ! 

(download)

Click here to download:

collaboration-with-nyu-walking-dancing-performance-dJgzjBtoEkyHdHtpImtd.zip (141 KB)

This week I also decided that I would send messages to people, unannounced. The idea was that it would get people to think about their morning journey, or their journey for the day. I had no intention for people to reply or anything like that, it was interesting that some people have replied though, and others not. I chose not to respond to the messages, to give instructions when people asked what the messages were. Below are the messages that I sent i started sending them on Tuesday and finished today (Saturday). 

Message 1 (Tuesday) 

Today is the start. Think about your journey this morning, where are you going? what do you usually see on your way there? Have you done this journey before? 

Message 2 (Wednesday) 

Forget everything you are doing. Imagine you are somewhere you have always wanted to be. How did you get there?

Message 3 (Thursday) 

If the whole world was accesable within one hour, where would you go today? Think about the people you would meet. What would you tell them ? 

Message 4 (Friday) 

Tonight the weekend starts, if you knew everybody you met today, and treated them as if they were your drinking companions Imagine how different your day would be ? Talk to someone you never thought you would. Tell them something. 

Message 5 (Saturday) 

Today is the end. but the day goes on. Go out and spend the evening getting lost, talk to s stranger everytime you think you know where you're going. Ask them for directions to somewhere you already know the way to and then do the opposite. Get lost and enjoy the rest of your weekend. 

Lab 2: 

I want to progress this idea for my second lab and I think that I am going to use picture messages alongside text to creat a performance, however I will be doing a micro version in order to test out the technology (iPhone) and then to also see if the performance format works better in a group or as individuals. 

This week, I spoke to my friend who is an Architecture student living in Sydney about doing a project with me, and she agreed. the initial idea is that she will send me footage or images that best represent a place in Sydney, i will then use the images/footage in some way and try to find a way to map these places out within the city of London. 

I have set up a blog to document the process and hopefully it will evolve into something worth while that is engaging with communities here in London and there in Sydney, I am interested in how the idea of a place that has only been established in my mind through media can be baught somewhere else, I am interested in the effect that this then would have on the space in London does that then become Sydney for the period of time that I say it is ? 

This is the link to the blog (yet to be used): 

http://bringsydneytolondon.wordpress.com/

I found this article in The Evening Standard, and found it really interesting in relationship to non-place and refugees and how these people are being taking somewhere because of an ideal they have in regards to a 'non-place', that which they have only heard about but have never visited, however once they arrive the reality is much different. Although this is slightly different as the country they are coming from (Romania) is part of Europe they are still being exploited in a way they did not desire. 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/crime/marble-arch-the-new-crime-ghetto-hom...

This is a really interesting idea, and I think that I want to go there and try and create some kind of intervention in order to create awareness or subvert the attitudes of the people that witness this, or those who fall vicitim to the crimes. 

Last week we did our interim show at ]performance s p a c e[ in Hackney Wick. Overall I think that the show worked out well and we got some really good feedback off the people who ran the space, who, in the previous years show had to give a lot of support and guidance. We did not require any (apart from technical questions to do with the space) on top of this they also commented that our work was of a higher standard. I agree that the work overall was of a good standard although I do think that some pieces worked better than others. Although I am not going to go into detail about other people’s work here I will focus upon my own.

My performance was more successful than I thought it was going to be. Before I started to do the performance walks with people I was worried that there was not going to be enough action that happens and that people would not think that I was doing anything at all. However I found that this ‘non-performing’ and the ‘nothingness’ to be the most successful thing of all. I think that the action that took place was relevant to the space that it took place in.

The transient space that my performance took place in was neither seen as home or the destination that people were aiming to get to. The space was free of gatekeepers and signs, once the travellers had left the bus or exited the overground station and had ‘tapped out’ with their oyster card this in between space of nothingness was the very space I was wanting to examine. I think that just my presence there as somebody marked as a performer (signified through what I was wearing) was also enough to change the root and experience of this non-place even when accidental audience did not engage with me fully.

One of the key aspects of this project was the idea of not being anywhere at all we are neither at home or at our destination. This was important for me to explore as I think that this is how non-places are created and as a result of this the idea of carrying a bag is really important as it relates to the home. As stated by Joanne ‘Bob’ Whalley and Lee Miller in their essay, Away From Home; “[a]s we travel, in the space between hand and luggage, the binary of here/there, home/away is unsettled. By carrying a bag, we resist the totality of the journey” (2007, p67) this was a significant aspect for me, to offer to carry people’s bag for them. However, as suspected most people said it was fine and they would carry there own bag (probably in order to keep hold of their idea of home and their personal belongs that root them back there).

I think that the journey may have worked better when done on a one on one bases, this is because I mainly gave people a sound recording to listen to as we walked through the street that turned out to be really successful. I think that the performance was probably more open when performed as a group as there was more of a dynamic and community and in one case one member of the group decided that they should all shut their eyes and I describe to them what I could see. It was interesting how in this case the participants decided on the direction of the performance where as by using the sound recording when it was the one on one performance it was more controlled. I think that it was good that I had a range of different performance options in order to use on different groups and people depending on the dynamic of the group. In order to develop this idea I think that I would have got more people’s ideas of a perfect journey and maybe incorporated what the things that people had said to me throughout the performance in order to give a bigger range of performances.

One thing that I did find difficult about this performance was the fact that in some points of the day there was not really many people about to perform with. So I think that when it is performed again I will have to think more carefully about how I get people to participate. I think that the location that we chose to work in meant that there was often not many people around at all. Although as I stated before the fact that I was present there also changed the way the place was seen in some way as people saw my presence as something extra – ordinary. The feedback I have received from the performance was that it was successful and made people consider about how they function when travelling through such transient places. 

On Saturday I went to the Haywood gallery to see the current Jeremy Deller exhibition which is a huge retrospective of his work. The first thing I noticed about the exhibition was the way that it had been curated, although it was mainly archival documentation of actions that have already taken place there had been a consideration to how these documents were presented for an audience witnessing them now, after the event had already took place. I felt as if the artist had thought about how the work would be viewed within the gallery and there had been decisions made as to how this would be shown and it felt as if viewing the documents was like performing and giving them a new life in some way, for example when you entre into the exhibition you walk into a re-created bedroom from the 90's which had the artworks displayed within. This experience made the audience feel as thought hey were being fully engaged with. This notion continued through out the gallery, seen later on with the cafe which served free cups of tea. I found this useful as it helped me to consider how ephemarl actions could be documented and shown in a n interesting way that continues to engage an audience.

Open bedroom - This was the opening point to the exhibition, we walk straight into a re-created bedroom filled with 90's pop culture. There are posters on the walls about taking drugs and there is a video of a police chase of somebody who believe is joy riding as there is a poster next to the bed that states 'I love joy riding'. Enter the room does feel as though we are being taken back in time. The room houses a cornucopia of different documents, there are cupboards inside which are full of photographs and other things, next to the room there is also a  fake bathroom, which displays work in the same way. 

Beyond the white walls - this piece was a slide show of different images taken from projects that happened within the public demain. they took place in locations such as nightlubs, student common rooms and gardens. My favourite piece was Risk Assesment where he recruited members of the public and got them to perform interventions in the public field, some of these took on the form of photographs and video to be shown inside the gallery, However I find the idea of performances happening and leaving no trace behind them. I also really liked the work that he did on the underground. He worked with the art on the underground project, where he created text for the workers there who for some of them used the words in anouncements to the public. He also created posters which hung in the walls of the tube lines.  

Valerie's snack bar - the way that this piece of work was exhibited was by re-creating the cafe within the space, there was free tea on offer to the audience. Whilst sat at the cafe there is a video playing of the project as it took place, it was a march through the city of Manchester, it comprised of a procession through the city and was open to all to take part. there was people who worked for the big issue and many other things to take part in the action. it was a celebration of everything Manchester. 

http://www.theartsdesk.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/mast_image_landscap...

The Battle of Orgreave - This was a re-enactment of a riot which took place as part of the minors strike. It is shown as a film of the event and then there is other subsiquent interviews with people who were part of it. it shows the audience what it was like to be there at the time and the reasons why they were wanting to re-act the violance which had taken place before. it was clear that the people in the film were not fully over what they had gone through in the 1980's. 

It is what it is - This piece turned the gallery into an open place for discusion. the original work was a touring piece that saw an american and an iraqi person travel around and have a discusion with people.