The Crit of our exhibition ' Could you please describe the work ' went very well. Many people asked us lots questions, as well as shared their personal feeling about our works. Here, as a cooperator of this exhibition, I also try to response some issues which were mentioned in the Crit from my perspective.
1: It seemed that all the exhibition was fulled of doubts. Many people came to the space, they felt confused about what exactly happened before about the works: a lot of posters hanging on the wall, showing some descriptions about something like ' six persons standing on the tables ', along with some portrait photographs. Yes, it's truth, if you haven't been to Andrew Gannon's exhibition in Edinburgh Sculpture Workshop on 10th Oct. before, you wouldn't know what's the posters were talking about. Andrew's work in ESW was a performance art, which was six people standing on the table for one hour. At the same time, Kimberly took photos for the visitors and participants, and ask everyone to describe the works. All the posters in our exhibition shown the answers from participants and visitors, and all the portrait photographs were took by Kimberly. So if a person haven't seen the work in ESW before, their feeling could be totally different from the one who participated or visited that performance. What's more, there's a poster said seven people standing on the table which was mis-counted could confused visitors more.
2: Many people said that lots of the posters shown the answers started with ' Um...' or ' Ah....', which looks quite funny and hilarious. Yes, it's truth that many answerers felt difficult to response the question - ' could you please describe the work '. It might be easier to express their feeling about Andrews's work than describe it. And many of the responders had a hesitation before their answering.
3: Some students doubted that which works on show in the exhibition were belong to which artist. To some extent, you could look the photographs as Kimberly's work and look the posters as Andrew's work. While personally, the question of whosever work is not worth to discussed. All the works in the exhibition are belong to two artists, and Andrew's personal exhibition in ESW could be looked as a kind of preparation for our exhibition in C02. Kimberly took photos for the visitors and participants in Andrew's personal exhibition, and all the elements from the answers in the posters were come from Andrew's performance work. Thus, Kimberly's photographies and Andew's performance work were interweaved together, showing together on our exhibition. On the other hand, I understand the exhibition eliminated the distinction between audiences and participants. By answering the question I asked, all of the audiences and participants in ESW were the participants in the posters and photographies of our exhibition in C02. What's more, all the audiences in C02 could also be understood as the a kind of participants as I gave our exhibition the name of ' Could you please describe the work?'. All the visitors were involved into this question and their identities were also transferred when their started thinking about our exhibition in the crit or opening.
1: It seemed that all the exhibition was fulled of doubts. Many people came to the space, they felt confused about what exactly happened before about the works: a lot of posters hanging on the wall, showing some descriptions about something like ' six persons standing on the tables ', along with some portrait photographs. Yes, it's truth, if you haven't been to Andrew Gannon's exhibition in Edinburgh Sculpture Workshop on 10th Oct. before, you wouldn't know what's the posters were talking about. Andrew's work in ESW was a performance art, which was six people standing on the table for one hour. At the same time, Kimberly took photos for the visitors and participants, and ask everyone to describe the works. All the posters in our exhibition shown the answers from participants and visitors, and all the portrait photographs were took by Kimberly. So if a person haven't seen the work in ESW before, their feeling could be totally different from the one who participated or visited that performance. What's more, there's a poster said seven people standing on the table which was mis-counted could confused visitors more.
2: Many people said that lots of the posters shown the answers started with ' Um...' or ' Ah....', which looks quite funny and hilarious. Yes, it's truth that many answerers felt difficult to response the question - ' could you please describe the work '. It might be easier to express their feeling about Andrews's work than describe it. And many of the responders had a hesitation before their answering.
3: Some students doubted that which works on show in the exhibition were belong to which artist. To some extent, you could look the photographs as Kimberly's work and look the posters as Andrew's work. While personally, the question of whosever work is not worth to discussed. All the works in the exhibition are belong to two artists, and Andrew's personal exhibition in ESW could be looked as a kind of preparation for our exhibition in C02. Kimberly took photos for the visitors and participants in Andrew's personal exhibition, and all the elements from the answers in the posters were come from Andrew's performance work. Thus, Kimberly's photographies and Andew's performance work were interweaved together, showing together on our exhibition. On the other hand, I understand the exhibition eliminated the distinction between audiences and participants. By answering the question I asked, all of the audiences and participants in ESW were the participants in the posters and photographies of our exhibition in C02. What's more, all the audiences in C02 could also be understood as the a kind of participants as I gave our exhibition the name of ' Could you please describe the work?'. All the visitors were involved into this question and their identities were also transferred when their started thinking about our exhibition in the crit or opening.