Monday, 30 June 2014
Summary paragraph
My time in Antwerp is now over. I think the exchange helps you to notice the working structures or systems in your own institution and culture. Because of this comparison you can become more aware of what you are doing individually, in your art practice and day-to-day life, and its refreshing. I'm glad I had the chance to live in Antwerp for 4 months, It isn't a very touristy city, it feels comparable to Bristol in that sense. It is completely flat and ideal for cycling everywhere! Public transport is extremely convenient and well priced - locally and nationally, with loads of European cities easily accessible. Dutch drinking culture is very different to England, their beers are cheaper, stronger and nicer, and you can try a different beer every time you go out. Antwerp has its own art map and theres plenty of commercial gallerys to go to, as well as a couple of museums, including the MuHKA, and publicly funded spaces including Extra City Kunsthall. Every 3 months there is an art event called Borger, where all art gallerys in Antwerp stay open till midnight or later - its a busy event with lots of new art to be seen for free, and lots of free drinks. In terms of music I prefer whats going on in Bristol opposed to Antwerp's mainly House and Trap music scene, however there are some good places, including a great Jazz bar in the center of Antwerp called De Muze which always has live bands on - the building has 4 open floor storeys which gives it some interesting acoustics and a great atmosphere when its busy on weekends.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
Belgian mosquitoes
http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/binnenland/2014/05/supermug-sluipend-gevaar
Assessment Jury
I had my assessment crit last week, which here they call a 'jury', so I was on trial talking about my artwork!
Steve Van den Bosch who is a tutor on the master course at Sint Lucas was enthusiastic about my work and thinks he would be interested to work with me. He also suggested some other Belgian artists that he has worked with to me.
http://www.vandermieden.com/wp-content//exhibition3.pdf
http://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/christopher-williams/survey/image/page/8/#
http://www.vandermieden.com/artists/other/exhibition-views-2/
http://www.stevevandenbosch.be/
http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/richard_venlet/
Steve Van den Bosch who is a tutor on the master course at Sint Lucas was enthusiastic about my work and thinks he would be interested to work with me. He also suggested some other Belgian artists that he has worked with to me.
http://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/christopher-williams/survey/image/page/8/#
http://www.vandermieden.com/artists/other/exhibition-views-2/
http://www.stevevandenbosch.be/
http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/richard_venlet/
Monday, 19 May 2014
Lack of blogging
Only ten days left of my exchange in Antwerp left now!
Very busy recently with uni work, preparing for assessments and the degree show opening, as well as trying to do as much stuff as possible before I leave my house in Belgium.
The show was curated by Geoffrey de Beer who runs Base-Alpha gallery.
Am i wrong
" Amaai rong " said the French radio DJ on Radio Contact to announce a new song.
" Quoi ?! " Asked his side kick - (read assistant ) .
" A-M I double V O - N - G" he spelled it out.
" Aaaah " said the side kick " Amaai rrrooongue "
The Bachelor 3 exhibition " Am I wrong" is about language, visual language . About how you reinvent a visual language, translate it and provide it with a new form. Creating objects is present in all different disciplines in our school. The objects are almost automatically designed in the belief that they mean something, to somebody else, to an audience.
There is also room in our education for experimentation, the possibility to ask questions. The question "Am I wrong", gives our students the opportunity to take a distance from their work. Questioning yourself, is putting yourself in a fragile position. You dare to ask: " what does my work really mean to an outsider”. The Bachelor3 exhibition, for many students, is the 1st opportunity to deal with this question and start a dialogue with visitors from outside the school.
The public is invited to consider the possibility to misunderstand. With the risk of a mental shift , a " mutation spirituelle", or "productive" misunderstanding.
Very busy recently with uni work, preparing for assessments and the degree show opening, as well as trying to do as much stuff as possible before I leave my house in Belgium.
The show was curated by Geoffrey de Beer who runs Base-Alpha gallery.
Am i wrong
" Amaai rong " said the French radio DJ on Radio Contact to announce a new song.
" Quoi ?! " Asked his side kick - (read assistant ) .
" A-M I double V O - N - G" he spelled it out.
" Aaaah " said the side kick " Amaai rrrooongue "
The Bachelor 3 exhibition " Am I wrong" is about language, visual language . About how you reinvent a visual language, translate it and provide it with a new form. Creating objects is present in all different disciplines in our school. The objects are almost automatically designed in the belief that they mean something, to somebody else, to an audience.
There is also room in our education for experimentation, the possibility to ask questions. The question "Am I wrong", gives our students the opportunity to take a distance from their work. Questioning yourself, is putting yourself in a fragile position. You dare to ask: " what does my work really mean to an outsider”. The Bachelor3 exhibition, for many students, is the 1st opportunity to deal with this question and start a dialogue with visitors from outside the school.
The public is invited to consider the possibility to misunderstand. With the risk of a mental shift , a " mutation spirituelle", or "productive" misunderstanding.
Writting for Extra Muros
A statement that the three of us wrote for the exhibition we curated in March:
Through the collaboration of three artists, all of
which choose a different directionality in their
practice, we made the decision to produce ‘In
Site1’, the blending of three entities, ‘Site’, ‘Sight’
and ‘Cite’. ‘Site’ became the prominent focus
of the three primarily based on the exhibition
consisting of site-specific artwork along with the
collective standpoint of being in a site culturally
different from our own, all of which were in
reference to Extra Muros’ intention to encourage
the presentation of our work within an alterative
context. This theme continued in the aesthetical
and conceptual decision in the promotion of the
exhibition, in the production of three posters, all
of which consisted of three varying designs of the
tripod motif each drawn separately by the artists.
The collaboration came about through aesthetic
similarity in the production of the ‘object’
alongside comparative materiality. Although not
all work corresponded conceptually there were
contextual threads throughout including the
performativity of gender evident between Ecoptic
Entities (2014) and She disintegrated perfectly,
but never reappeared (2014), along side the
comparative manipulation of projection light in Veil
(2014) and Surface Pleasure (2014).
In Site1 was a nocturne event only available to
audiences during the evening of 26th March
(2014). Due to their being no natural light
available during this time, we were presented
with the opportunity to pay specific attention to
the arrangement of the lighting with just as equal
integrity to the space. The exhibition consisted
of various different types of lighting, each chosen
with an alternative purpose. In correspondence
to the exhibitions intention; the joining of three
entities, lights that were each designed for a
specific application, were brought together in
conjunction to the individual artists requirements.
Lighting such as projections, construction lights,
desk lamps and theatrical lighting each divided
the space to create opposing atmospheres within
the site.
When in discussion of the curatorial decisions
with lighting of the exhibition, issues that needed
to be considered included the affect that the
lighting of one work could have on another. It was
evident through experimentation that different
lighting choices could dramatically alter the
ambience of the exhibition through the difference
in their brightness and colour.
Each work in turn was chosen through the
creation of a narrative, a narrative aided by the
graduation of lighting, which subconsciously
designated the audience’s path. The exhibition
commenced from within a dramatic instillation
lit solely by the use of a beamer, chosen for
its immersive qualities situating the audience
immediately within an artwork. It was our
intention that through the immediate captivation
of an audience within a narrative, this would then
lead onto the wider narrative of the exhibition as
a whole, where the other spot lit artworks might
become props or cues towards an overarching
theme. The dim entrance was in contrast to the
final room encountered by the audience, which
focused on the presence rather then the absence
of light. It was important that the conclusion to
exhibition encompassed a collection of each
aspect featured throughout the exhibition as a
whole.
Jed Fielder, Rose Leahy, Stephanie Hardy.
Statement by myself about the works I installed for the exhibition:
The works produced on occasion of the exhibition in site1 existed as a
static constellation of my recent studio practice. It was directly linked to
my immediate thinking process, where I spent the week leading up to the
exhibition creating new site-specific, temporary works in the space. In
relation to the ideas and concepts of the exhibition, I was considering the
space as a direct output for the work. I wanted it to feel like a terminal or a
platform for viewing, that would provoke an examination between seemingly
disparate works. I tried to make the preparation and configuration of my
work for the Extra Muros to be a useful application within my practice,
looking into the different conditions under which the work is created,
formatted, exported and documented, and how this could be considered in
relation to the underlying themes and considerations of my current studio
practice.
The body of work itself was curated in a way that primarily looked at
equivalencies, mainly to do with juxtapositional and metaphorical montage
used in filmography. Throughout the space I was altering the direct
encounters or registration of the work, agitating them in different ways to
create an uneasy and indeterminate environment, where the works are
trying to describe each other, highlighting a superficial gap between how
they were made and what they represent. The status of the works vary, they
inform one another and try to articulate a sensation other than, or equivalent
to, their own. I’m dealing with manipulations of volume and deceptions of
surfaces, exploring the compatibility of different mediums. The encounter of
the work in the exhibition is a paradoxical act, they become props towards
a whole narrative, connecting them as a series: paraphernalia for viewing.
They materialise from nothing, stemming from a digital or superficial realm,
all of which is initially encountered from a circumstance of immaterial
experience.
The physical installation and arrangement of the works was playing with
the dual meanings and connotations of the word ‘site’, I did this in a way
that shifted conventional methods of display. Works were placed on top of
each other or positioned close to one another, others had a forklift pallet
or a plank of wood on wheels for a plinth, some were also lit by over-head
projectors. I considered this to be like a construction ‘site’, where there was
a strong material presence and where objects are movable and temporary.
I applied these ideas to again refer to something with equivalent qualities;
a comparable atmosphere or stage set. The work in the exhibition was
in close proximity to each other, where works would sometimes literally
impinge on each other, encouraging an audience to search for these cues
and similarities.
Jed Fielder
Through the collaboration of three artists, all of
which choose a different directionality in their
practice, we made the decision to produce ‘In
Site1’, the blending of three entities, ‘Site’, ‘Sight’
and ‘Cite’. ‘Site’ became the prominent focus
of the three primarily based on the exhibition
consisting of site-specific artwork along with the
collective standpoint of being in a site culturally
different from our own, all of which were in
reference to Extra Muros’ intention to encourage
the presentation of our work within an alterative
context. This theme continued in the aesthetical
and conceptual decision in the promotion of the
exhibition, in the production of three posters, all
of which consisted of three varying designs of the
tripod motif each drawn separately by the artists.
The collaboration came about through aesthetic
similarity in the production of the ‘object’
alongside comparative materiality. Although not
all work corresponded conceptually there were
contextual threads throughout including the
performativity of gender evident between Ecoptic
Entities (2014) and She disintegrated perfectly,
but never reappeared (2014), along side the
comparative manipulation of projection light in Veil
(2014) and Surface Pleasure (2014).
In Site1 was a nocturne event only available to
audiences during the evening of 26th March
(2014). Due to their being no natural light
available during this time, we were presented
with the opportunity to pay specific attention to
the arrangement of the lighting with just as equal
integrity to the space. The exhibition consisted
of various different types of lighting, each chosen
with an alternative purpose. In correspondence
to the exhibitions intention; the joining of three
entities, lights that were each designed for a
specific application, were brought together in
conjunction to the individual artists requirements.
Lighting such as projections, construction lights,
desk lamps and theatrical lighting each divided
the space to create opposing atmospheres within
the site.
When in discussion of the curatorial decisions
with lighting of the exhibition, issues that needed
to be considered included the affect that the
lighting of one work could have on another. It was
evident through experimentation that different
lighting choices could dramatically alter the
ambience of the exhibition through the difference
in their brightness and colour.
Each work in turn was chosen through the
creation of a narrative, a narrative aided by the
graduation of lighting, which subconsciously
designated the audience’s path. The exhibition
commenced from within a dramatic instillation
lit solely by the use of a beamer, chosen for
its immersive qualities situating the audience
immediately within an artwork. It was our
intention that through the immediate captivation
of an audience within a narrative, this would then
lead onto the wider narrative of the exhibition as
a whole, where the other spot lit artworks might
become props or cues towards an overarching
theme. The dim entrance was in contrast to the
final room encountered by the audience, which
focused on the presence rather then the absence
of light. It was important that the conclusion to
exhibition encompassed a collection of each
aspect featured throughout the exhibition as a
whole.
Jed Fielder, Rose Leahy, Stephanie Hardy.
Statement by myself about the works I installed for the exhibition:
The works produced on occasion of the exhibition in site1 existed as a
static constellation of my recent studio practice. It was directly linked to
my immediate thinking process, where I spent the week leading up to the
exhibition creating new site-specific, temporary works in the space. In
relation to the ideas and concepts of the exhibition, I was considering the
space as a direct output for the work. I wanted it to feel like a terminal or a
platform for viewing, that would provoke an examination between seemingly
disparate works. I tried to make the preparation and configuration of my
work for the Extra Muros to be a useful application within my practice,
looking into the different conditions under which the work is created,
formatted, exported and documented, and how this could be considered in
relation to the underlying themes and considerations of my current studio
practice.
The body of work itself was curated in a way that primarily looked at
equivalencies, mainly to do with juxtapositional and metaphorical montage
used in filmography. Throughout the space I was altering the direct
encounters or registration of the work, agitating them in different ways to
create an uneasy and indeterminate environment, where the works are
trying to describe each other, highlighting a superficial gap between how
they were made and what they represent. The status of the works vary, they
inform one another and try to articulate a sensation other than, or equivalent
to, their own. I’m dealing with manipulations of volume and deceptions of
surfaces, exploring the compatibility of different mediums. The encounter of
the work in the exhibition is a paradoxical act, they become props towards
a whole narrative, connecting them as a series: paraphernalia for viewing.
They materialise from nothing, stemming from a digital or superficial realm,
all of which is initially encountered from a circumstance of immaterial
experience.
The physical installation and arrangement of the works was playing with
the dual meanings and connotations of the word ‘site’, I did this in a way
that shifted conventional methods of display. Works were placed on top of
each other or positioned close to one another, others had a forklift pallet
or a plank of wood on wheels for a plinth, some were also lit by over-head
projectors. I considered this to be like a construction ‘site’, where there was
a strong material presence and where objects are movable and temporary.
I applied these ideas to again refer to something with equivalent qualities;
a comparable atmosphere or stage set. The work in the exhibition was
in close proximity to each other, where works would sometimes literally
impinge on each other, encouraging an audience to search for these cues
and similarities.
Jed Fielder
Sunday, 11 May 2014
Sunday, 6 April 2014
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
Photos from extra muros exhibition preview
 |
Untitled, 2014. Inkjet on paper, masking tape
|
 |
In Site1 installation view
|
Monday, 31 March 2014
Monday, 24 March 2014
Text by Ilja Kleinjans about my work
Het poule-gesprek waarbij vier leerlingen
elkanders werk trachten zo goed mogelijk te begrijpen en bekritiseren en/of
complementeren.
Ik, Ilja Kleinjans schreef een tekst over het
gesprek en werk van Jed.
Jed is presenting, displaying his work on a
mysteriously, seemingly random but interesting way.
By walking through his working space you might
accidentaly notice a work.
Things laying on the floor, or hidden behind
some wooden sticks, might or might not be found.
His work often goes on materials matters
export, transit. (for instance styrofoam) He sometimes litterary getting into
detail with his subject by zooming in on it.
The ‘eye-catch’ art piece was a paper bowl with a photo of his working space, the bowl trying to reflect like a mirror really got everybody’s attention.
The ‘eye-catch’ art piece was a paper bowl with a photo of his working space, the bowl trying to reflect like a mirror really got everybody’s attention.
He is presenting it on the floor as it has
fallen from the sky, the bowl fold out.
He has got some extreme contrasts in his work:
from the hightech research elaborating into something trashy or very momentary
and sensitive.
A possible way of working for him might be to adjust
a streetscene, and then continu too the next; the constant move and travel of
things.
My report of Jan Van de Bosch:
The talk gave an insight into the main considerations and tendencies towards working methods of Jan’s Practice. Works are intended to be contradictory in their immediate subject matter, (or lack of subject matter). Their functionality is reduced to zero and the objects are made redundant. Jan described the equivalence to decorations in his work, considering them to have static and eye catching qualities. Function is lost in favour of visual presentation, and the sculptures and installations are consciously kitsch. The working and installation process becomes circumstantial, embracing disruptions such as the low quality availability of a mobile phone camera, and the intervention of shop window display posters. These works embody a gestural stance in which they claim to have nothing more than their original material value.
https://www.facebook.com/events/279884432177825/
My report of Jan Van de Bosch:
The talk gave an insight into the main considerations and tendencies towards working methods of Jan’s Practice. Works are intended to be contradictory in their immediate subject matter, (or lack of subject matter). Their functionality is reduced to zero and the objects are made redundant. Jan described the equivalence to decorations in his work, considering them to have static and eye catching qualities. Function is lost in favour of visual presentation, and the sculptures and installations are consciously kitsch. The working and installation process becomes circumstantial, embracing disruptions such as the low quality availability of a mobile phone camera, and the intervention of shop window display posters. These works embody a gestural stance in which they claim to have nothing more than their original material value.
https://www.facebook.com/events/279884432177825/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)