Event Write Ups
16th February 2017. The ‘opening’ night, of the last Rotor exhibition at Huddersfield Art Gallery. Open to all, of who would be interested to attend the opening which ran from 5-7pm. The guests were directed to the 2nd floor of the gallery to an open space, a room before to where the art was being showcased. Upon entering this open space which guests could congregate and mingle with each other. They were greeted by a selection of breads and cheeses as well as some specially created Rotor ale with its own label, purposely created for tonight’s proceedings. At around 6 o clock, the guests were asked to make their way to the art work. After everyone was in, the curator Dr Liam Devlin, gave a speech on each artists summary of their projects and which category they fell under. Alex Beldea and Seba Curtis have explored the issues of refugees and immigration. Richard Mulhearn and Richard Higginbottom are dealing with the photographic representation. Finally Sarah Eyre and Lailor Sailor are exploring objectification of the female body. The event is intended for viewers to ask questions and debate about the work, consequently this what the Rotor program was intended to do upon its creation a few years ago
.
The guests were treated then to a 10 minute snippet of a dance group who choreographed their interpretation of the art work installed. Audience members had to be visually aware of the dancers and move with and against them as the dancers moved around the space in front of the images.
The next event to follow is on the 2nd March. That event features Seba Curtis and Alex Beldea who will be giving a talk on their work which participation from a audience who will be encouraged to discuss with the work with the artists. Suffice to say the opening night went down a treat with guests of around 100, of which, mere crumbs were left of the bread and cheese.
2nd March 2017. The first of 3 events that have been organised to feature the artists of the work, to talk about their practice and allow participants to debate as well as give feedback to the artists. This event involved photographers Seba Kurtis and Alex Beldea who have made work around refugees as that topic at the minute is a talking point in the media across the world in recent times. The event was situated in the main gallery in front of both artists work and the proposed seating plan was to have the artists at the front and face the audience. However that plan was altered and the seating arrangements transformed into a circle. This allowed the event to be a more intimate affair and offer more of a flowing debate it felt much like an on going conversation rather than question and answer to the artists. The audience turnout was around a dozen with Dr Devlin opening/ending and chairing the event. Thus the event began with Alex Beldea discussing his work.
Alex Beldea was a student at Huddersfield University whose previous projects focused on refugees in the U.K. Alex is from Romania and his current project ‘Asma’ was to understand the issue better rather than what has been shown with the media. This allowed Alex to meet the people, not see them as stereotyped as refuges, who use to have an ordinary life before the war overseas. He didn’t want to treat them as refuges but people like us. He discussed that the rise of the internet/social media/smart phones allows much more information to be shared onto the web from the refugee’s point of view. An image Alex had, was sent through the messaging app Whatsapp, it contained the voyage of a refugee on a dingy, however as the image was sent, the phone was dropped into the water and lost forever. The image on the phone was no more but survived owing to the powers of technology…
Seba Kurtis is a professional photographer who had to flee his country of Argentina many years ago, thus for a time in his life, he him self was labelled as a refugee. The projects that followed after securing residence in England have featured a theme around refugees and migration. His work is shot with a medium format camera and this work in particular features all portraits of refugees. The portraits were like Alexs work to show the refugees as people and the tactics they use to remain undetected from officials. The refugees place plastic bags over their heads to censor their breath from detections in their bodies. So to do this, Seba used photo-shop to layer the image on top of the portrait so that it looked like the viewer was the refugee with the plastic bag on top of their head. A simple idea but executed with style, as the images look beautiful as they are mounted on the wall and the frames around the image are wooden which just enhances this image in particular.
The issues of immigration are of a delicate matter one might say, as photographing refugees can be a difficult task. As they are seeking to be invisible from the world but with the labels of refugees sticking to them they are unable to do so. With the media trying to document ‘them’ as ‘the other’, ‘these refugees’, it has been difficult to photograph them as Seba began to discuss halfway through the conversation. He told the group of how he use to get hit repeatedly by the refugees early on, but after talking to them one on one as individuals and not as photographing them as a collective bunch of refugees. The use of medium format photography proved to be a good way of bonding with the people as they were interacting with this mammoth of a camera and not seeing it as a tool for documenting them. How are these people portrayed through art, both Alexs and Sebas work, they had to be careful of turning people into the victims. They are seeking asylum from the crisis of war. Asylum in its truest form means a place of safety. So, how much can photography do? Answer. Nothing. Photographs do nothing; it is a people that view the images that do something. What right does the photographer have using this ‘truth machine’? However each individual has their own personal story to tell of their travels to secure residence somewhere and trying to capture the essence of their stories is what both artists have tried to do. The conversation and participation from the audience was prominent throughout with nearly everyone asking questions about the work. One question in particular that stood out was, what were the blockers/barriers in trying to execute the work. The answer was the people themselves as the instinct to remain invisible kicked in. However Seba replied that speaking to the people about football and that half of the time his saviour was Argentinian footballer Lionel Messi.
The event began to end and reflections on Brexit began to creep into conversation with both artists discussing that they are both yet again trying to secure residence again in England, which is unfortunately ironic owing that their work has been focused on refugees, thus if government deem it so, they can reject their permits to live in England. However to not end on a sad note, the event drew to a close as daylight faded, the whisperings of going for a beer began to get louder. Of which most of the group did and Seba and Alex gave the participants a critique of their work, if they had work to show over a couple of steins of beer.
The next event on the 23rd March features Richard Mulhearn and Richard Higgenbottom and their theme of photographic representation. Hopefully it will be as much as a success as this first event.
23rd March 2017. The second of three events for Rotor exhibition, where artists of the work can discuss their practice with an audience. The artists on this afternoon were Richard Higginbottom with his work ‘Cut, Weld’ and Richard Mulhearn with ‘Kerb’. Both photographers have made projects that represent the urban space. Chaired once again by Dr Liam Devlin, there was increase of the audience this time with around 25 participants. The seating arrangements were once again in a circle as this offers the participants to be encouraged to ask questions and debate to the artists. The format of the event was altered slightly with two responders coming in and talking about the work, essentially ‘responding’ directly to the artists. Where as at the first event the artists would talk about the work first and then acquire feedback after. The responders were Dr Sian Bonnell, a lecturer at Manchester School of Art and Adrian Davies of Leeds College of Art.
Dr Sian Bonnell started things off by looking into Richard Higginbottom’s title ‘Cut, Weld’ by analysing and reading it, implies slicing/fixing of the work which gives information on the pictures that would follow. The camera is essentially ‘slicing’ time, extracting a moment then trying to make sense and enjoy as well as consume the image that would be created. Richard’s work was a response to Michelle De Certeau’s writing of ‘Walking in the city’, here he uses the camera to explore the streets of Manchester and photograph the ambiguity/social aspects of his exploration. Dr Bonnell responds to the work by suggesting she is in the position of a detective trying to uncover something within the work. This is accomplished by the use of light/framing of the images themselves and a sense of capture by Higginbottom. However the photographs themselves are closed images, everything is there in the frame, thus the idea of feeling like a detective photographing certain parts of the city is a successful analysis. On to Richard Mulhearn’s work now ‘Kerb’, again Dr Bonnell suggested that the title implies something that runs alongside something else. However the images makes us the audience ask questions of what the camera doing. The work focuses in on humans in the urban space performing ‘ordinary’ routines to themselves of which look unordinary to us, the spectator. The viewers role is much more passive than the previous work with spaces featured are open ended. The camera reveals hidden gestures especially with its subjects performing these unordinary routines.
On to Adrian Davies analysis of the work after a rather detailed response from Dr Barnell. Adrian agreed with what Dr Barnell had to say and responded by giving feedback to the artists by talking about the style of photography they had used rather than the work. He begun by stating that the work was similar to street photography in seeing and reacting to the world. However at times street photography can be seen as an aggressive and intrusive way of photographing and the work by both photographers is neither rather the exploration that one does on the streets is in the brackets of street photography. Of which the world provides endless opportunities to focus on and the ability to find something in the image that reveals itself is key to both works. Thus to be able to represent the city is a hard task for any photographer depending on the subject/context one uses to document this urban space and the social culture are rules we embrace.
Richard Higginbottom is a part time teacher at Huddersfield University and Richard Mulhearn is course leader at the same institute. Thus for their projects they were able to help each other with the edit of the photographs. The edit is the term used for sequencing within the images, seeing which photographs work with/against each other. The process can be a challenge in acquiring a right balance and getting another pair of eyes to help can be quite useful. Both photographers have created a physical/analogue copy of their work, Richard Higginbottom’s in the form of a newspaper and Richard Mulhearn’s in the form of a book. The book/newspaper is to go with the images on the wall and provide a more detailed understanding of the work to the public. Consequently especially with Higginbottom’s photographs, using the newspaper sequence one can take a journey through the city, page by page. The book creates the world on its own and allows the viewer to ask more questions thus to try make sense of the work/city. Using the newspaper format is to test ideas and with the city being this ever-changing environment, the context behind using the newspaper as a platform to test dummy books out, adds another layer to the work. The newspaper print can look/feel diluted compared to a print on the wall pinned up which feels completed yet temporary. The book concept by Richard Mulhearn’s is to create a book every 5 years around this project as it grows. So the next one may have a different colour/style/material/different images and so the book currently in Huddersfield Art Gallery is what the project is now.
After about an hour and half the event begin to draw its conclusion, however with the talk officially ending and the audience were free to leave. This meant that other members could have a chat to the artists and acquire more insight about the work, as sometimes being in a public space such as the circle seated format, can be slightly intimidating to be put on the spot and ask questions about the work of which one then becomes centre stage, so for some, talking to the photographers ‘out of the spotlight’ as it were, was beneficial to gathering extra context about the images.
The next event on the 6th April features Sarah Eyre and Layla Sailor and their theme of clichéd images of female bodies as a way to explore boundaries between objects and bodies.
6th April 2017. The last of the three events featuring the artists and a participating audience. For this event there was only one artist that was Sarah Eyre, Layla Sailor is currently in China where she has been based for a few months now. However she was still available to communicate through Dr Devlin texting her through we chat. The work by both artists were a mixture of photography, collage, a gif being projected on a wall, a video and a physical object. A mix of more to see and consume than the other pieces of work, which were photography and one other video. This event focused on feminism and how the female body is/was being represented. The work displayed during the exhibition is currently unresolved at the minute according to the artists. There was 27 participants altogether, which was a slight increase from the previous event. Again like the previous event there were two responders fetched in by Dr Devlin to critique the work. They were Dr Alison Rowley and Dr Lynne Fathome.
Dr Rowley started proceedings off by stating that she had done a lot of previous research into feminism as part of her studies, so she had quite a fair bit of knowledge on this subject. The Movie image piece of Sarah’s work has a lot of connotations towards it, Auto-erotism, queer reading of the body. The fact that the gif of the projection in the form of parts of the female body and a Kaleidoscope is difficult to represent in still images as well as moving image, so she commended Sarah for that. The fact that nothing stays still during the video was important in the work. The pieces by Sarah reminded Dr Rowley of Martha Rosler who created work after finding a lot of playboy magazines in her apartment so she decided to cut them up and lay them on the floor. These pieces of work by Sarah on the other hand were using this same technique but in the form of digital technologies used. Onto the photography side of Sarah Eyres work, there were 5 photographs that were reminiscent of Sarah’s previous work using wigs, but this time using collages of the female body and wigs. The wigs represent a part of the body that can be taken on/off to the users choosing. The wigs can be a double function that plays on maintaining an attraction whilst identity becomes a play-thing for the spectator and user.
Onto her response of Layla’s work titled Dolores focuses on a plastic sex doll, Layla discovered in China, where the buyer would purchase these dolls in a machine. The blow up plastic doll evokes a sense of touch. The deflation/inflation of the doll in the video is reminiscent of the way the body is used. The work featured used a lot of saturated pink with in both pieces of work actually, pink being the colour of connotations of women normally.
Dr Devlin gave his response to the work, which gave a different perspective of the art, as he is a male responding to how the female body is being represented. On Sarah’s work the ability to play with gifs was a unspecialized form of presentation, a form one may not find within a gallery. Sarah responding to this statement by saying that she was drawn to gifs owing to there throw away nature. They are part of the everyday as we look at them all the time through social media through our phones and not normally a projection in a gallery. The ordinariness of the gif is what attracted Sarah to the work being in that form. She discussed how she would cut and paste up magazines like vogue, re-photograph them with her phone, apply the kaleidoscope format using an app in here phone then finally use after effects to get the video aspect to the work. She further said that it was similar to a toy and didn’t want the eye to settle whilst the viewer was watching the footage. The images are trying to seduce, seducing the viewer perhaps?
Dr Fathome gave her response by stating who actually constructs femininity? The plastic doll in Layla’s work resembles a woman but any women in general. The sign of the female body in its creation is that the skin is actually plastic. The doll surrounds itself in sadness, not just it’s a doll to be used and disposed of but the male using this object. Her response on Sarah’s work was that the gif in its circular movement the viewer was trying to escape, the animation of the gif made the work more interesting than the photography collage/montage. Montage is a means of representation, making up elements deliberately and putting them together.
Dr Devlin contacted Layla and begun to ask her questions about the work on display. He asked her the emotional state of Dolores. She responded by stating that Dolores was devoid of emotion and that she saw Delores as a human as well as a sexual object. Which begs the question was she right to humanize this creation. The name of ‘Dolores’ was brought up if it was the name of the doll in the machine or if Layla gave her the name. The answer was that Layla named the doll the day after she saw it in the machine, thus decided to rescue her from the machine and basically 'free’ her. The original name Dolores had was 'Sexy Human Doll’ consequently it goes back to a point previous of the sadness around the doll and sex without emotion is sad. As well as the fact that it is funny/disturbing that the purchase of the doll is sex and companionship. The doll became Layla’s companion/Savior/Exploited Friend during her purchase.
The next and final event is on the 5th may. During this event will feature an extended version of a dance choreographed by Gerry Turvey. The dance will be a response to the artworks featured in Discursive Documents and is set to conclude Rotor as a whole. Proceedings begin at 5 o'clock…