Interim Show - Part 1

The first issue was where were we to exhibit our work. Several locations were discussed - Space at the University, The Old Shoe Factory as well as one of Norwich converted  Churches. I was keen to get a space outside of the university, to get more exposure and allow members of the public to come and view the work as the university is restricted to students and staff. There were issues of timing and who had work ready pre-Christmas and what space was available. The was resistance to The Old Shoe Factory on the basis of size but I tried to argue that you could restrict the space on view and it would also allow space between each person’s work, especially as the work is quite diverse, a smaller space will have an overlapping and create potential clashes and mis-readings. However, the majority wanted to use space within the university. Unfortunately, we could get two of the exhibition spaces next to each other and for a while considered taking three spaces in two buildings, completely unconnected. I did see this as a possibility as our work being so different we could allocate space between us and potentially call the exhibition ‘Together. Apart’. It could have been linked through a campaign of publicity material or coloured tape leading from one space to another, even crossing from St George’s to Guntons.

We had regular meetings to discuss progress, any issues and started to allocate roles accordingly. However, although we couldn’t book more than one space prior to Christmas there was the opportunity to take two adjacent spaces straight after the break. We decided, as a group, to keep the original booking as it would give us an opportunity to try out some of our work at the development stage. This still required all the same work in publicity, website, promotion and curation as for a full exhibition. At this stage we had no name for the show and with everyone’s work being very diverse and no clear common theme running through our practices deciding on a name was proving quite a debate. Scott and I made it clear that any poster to a show needs to convey some very basic information and usually if it is created by the person responsible for the promotion they may just feature one piece of work which becomes the ‘campaignable’ image along with the colour and typographic style to support it. 

Deciding (or not) on a name. 

After a certain amount of debate about the name Scott looked over at the drinks dispenser in the White Room and suggested we use the handwritten note that had been stuck on the front. Namely ‘No Hot Chocolate. Sorry.’ As much as this seemed very random and almost nonsensical it also felt right and a good fit to where we currently were as a group. It was voted on and we decided to move forward in preparing the necessary promotional items.

Designing the publicity poster and the fall out.

My task was to create the posters, Scott and I discussed typefaces and colours using our Graphic Designer experience. I put together a small selection of ideas using and they were presented to the group.

The resounding preferred option was for the first one, so we started to take this forward onto other media and fine tune. Then came the first fall out... Bearing in mind this was only going to be shown in the university by current students and staff. There were questions not only the name but also the colour red. Then others decided to weigh in with suggestions as to how to change the poster and the image and how that could be represented. Comments about using Hot Chocolate and comparing it to the band from the 1980’s, even suggesting that we could be considered racist for not allowing Hot Chocolate! The other issue that was raised was the colour red, as red is part of the Palestine flag and with the current crisis should we be using red. This was all conducted via WhatsApp. Not the platform for discussion and the disagreements spread around the group. I had been given the task of creating the posters, we had agreed a name, the dispute was extremely frustrating and fractious. An online meeting was suggested, a meeting I was not particularly happy to attend as it is very difficult to fully understand everyone’s response. After much internal agonising I decided to join, to listen and then put forward my thinking. I even suggested we don’t have this first week, we shouldn’t commit to it just because we had it booked, if there were fundamental issues, let it go and just have the one show. It seemed we were so intent on pushing ahead even though we were clearly not ready and it still required a great deal of work for a ‘taster’ exhibition.

I created alternative posters to see if the situation could be rescued before we abandoned the initial agreed idea altogether, showing more of the dispenser and changing the colour. 

Then Maisie sent a pic of an exploded mug of hot chocolate she had tried to make that evening. I felt it fitted with current state of affairs and could work with a revised title and a colour selected from the image. This was viewed quite favourably by the majority. It had humour, it showed a fragility, a work in progress and experimentation that has failed.

After more debate and disagreements about the name, poster style and colour we should use it was suggested that a dedicated team work on the poster to mimic a real show that would have been promoted by the gallery or those allocated the role, not by committee. Nothing ever gets decided by committee, apart from compromised ideas. Working with Imogen we refined the title to reflect where the majority of us were at that time, which worked well with the exploded hot chocolate drink. We finally had a poster!

Publicising the show. 

Once the poster had been finalised we could get these run out, which was handled by Catherine and then distributed as posters and flyers around the university. Jane put together a website that meant everyone could have examples of their work and also an amount of text to support their practice. Again, there was a lack of consistency with some just having the title, artist, media on display with the work, with all the other information about their practice and indeed thinking on the website. This was the route I chose as did several others but not everyone, some wanting paragraphs of explanation with their work. I would have preferred a consistent approach of less on show and more backed up either on a website or as a handout. Let the work speak for itself and if you want to find out more offer that as an option.

We also pushed the event through the usual university channels and social media. It might have been just a taster week but we wanted to get as much exposure as possible. 

Curation decisions. 

When it came to what should go where in the space available we discussed, as a group, the best options in quite a confined space and also a space that is a corridor, so will have to allow for the traffic going through, the flow of the corridor, the fact it is quite narrow so it is difficult to stand back and look at any work from a distance and that it also has doors, lockers and limited lighting. 

We wanted there to be a flow to the work, a natural path to follow and work to compliment each other and not clash.

We each discussed what we were intending to show and what sort of size it was so we could make an initial plan and visualise the show. When it came to the hanging we were aware there may be some changes if things weren’t balanced. 

We also felt it would be a good compliment to the exhibition to show snippets of us each making our work and with the title being ‘Process Exhibited’ this idea supported that. The TV was borrowed from Fine Art and positioned at the end of the corridor to create an end to the show. It was also suggested that the film could have been projected onto the lockers that sit at the end of the corridor and thereby incorporate a part of the furniture into the show.

The actual exhibition.

When it came to putting forward any work for the show I knew that the only item I would have fully prepared was my chair - Take A Seat’. From the moment we decided to keep this week as a ‘Taster Show’ I kept it as that. I presented this one piece of work and on the website I hinted at other explorations and works in progress. The chair was a finished piece in its own right, it needs little explanation and everything about it is quite evident. It’s not something of a larger exploration but a statement of my current thinking and a reflection back to my Manifesto from the beginning of the year. All the other work I intended to show in the full exhibition, post Christmas, this I had always scheduled this way as there were still a lot of processes to go through and facilities to book and use. ‘The Flags’ need to be printed, cut, made and hung. The ‘T-Shirts’ to finalise graphics and get printed outside the university and I needed to experiment with different material to make the ‘Thinking Loops’ work as a collection.

Having seen at many exhibitions how shows are curated and identified that many have an introduction to a particular show or part of a collection we were keen to put something together to briefly explain our group and summarise the show. 

We also wanted to keep this quite short but allow viewers to link easily to the website to explore further, should they wish to. The words were written by one member (Hannah), distributed for any comments and then put together by Scott, along with all the descriptors as supplied. The use of a common typeface and clean layout were totally intentional and give the show a very unified feeling.

When it came to the positioning of the chair I was very keen that it was a mixture of an exhibit and just a chair. I did not want to elevate it into something on show by putting it on a platform or sectioning off an area to isolate and identify it as part of the show, as had been suggested with my peers. I wanted it to be quite ambiguous and for anyone seeing it to have to initially consider why a chair is left, almost abandoned, in the corridor and to then take a closer look and refine their reading.

As I couldn’t actually be there for the hanging of this exhibition, due to work commitments, I had to rely on everyone else to install. I knew my chair required minimal installation, it had an agreed space and position. However, I did think the descriptor was too high and detached from the item. This I rectified in Exhibition Pt.2.

Silent Crit.  

As part of the process we all gathered to discuss the exhibition and how we thought it had gone. We were then asked to add comments to each other’s work but silently by writing on Post-It Notes and putting around each piece. We then had to describe the work in just one word. 

The idea that this was constructive criticism and based on the work on show, platitudes were discouraged (although some still appeared..) and it was not to be personal. I believe by everyone almost anonymously commenting it detached the work from the artist in a positive way and the comments could be focussed on the piece on show.

With the comments I received I was pleased that it made people look further, consider the piece and the meaning as well as making people want to actually sit on the chair. The chair was demanding the human contact and interaction. It also seemed to come across as amusing, which is what I wanted, there is a serious side to it but it is done tongue in cheek, as is much of my work. My single words were:

Dangerous

Discomfort

Random

Intriguing

Ambiguous

Sculpture

Contrast

Next. The full exhibition...