New work in progress.

New pieces in progress dealing with Body Image and Self Esteem

motley nineteen - Group Exhibition Pieces

Sandra

Public Artwork

Initial Etching of the Monument of Light

Rachel Joynts - Freeflow

Francis Faye and Eleanor Lawlor Performance Workshop

'Public' Artworks?

From all of the presentations the one I found most interesting was that of the public artwork. For the most part living in Dublin I am almost always faced with different pieces of public art so it was very interesting to get an insight into how public artworks are proposed and chosen. In writing this I want to look at some points about public artwork as a whole and if possible, explore how much input is actually given to the public

Anytime I see a piece of public art I always wonder who made the decision to put it there in the first place and why. Personally I have always stopped to think if whether the certain area needed a public artwork in the first place or could the money have went to something else that would be more beneficial to the area rather than an eyesore (like that of Ian Ritchie Architects, Spire) or something that’s easily overlooked by the public (for example Rachel Joynts, Freeflow). After all it is meant to be for them.

On researching I came across an interesting article written in 2004 which involved then Arts Officer of Dublin City Council, Jack Gilligan and former of collections in IMMA, Catherine Marshall. The discussion was about how public art work was beginning to be ‘littered’ around Ireland and how to distinguish between an eyesore and a work of genius. In the article Mr Gilligan said: “Public art enriches all our lives… We could end up littering our city and countryside with public art, and then it would lose its impact,” In response to this Ms Marshall stated “the ‘littering’ may have already begun”. She then went on to say that, public artworks “clog up my city…the people who commission public art have a duty to everyone using the space in which it’s located to see that it fits in with both the location and people’s lives”. It is the last point that Ms Marshall makes that I find most interesting.  If the ‘people who commission public art’ have a duty to the public using the space, then why do they not encourage more input from the public as to whether the proposals should be given the go ahead or not?

The main public art piece I want to focus on is the one I mentioned earlier which is the ‘Monument of Light’ or better known as, ‘The Spire’. On completion in 2003, the Spires total construction cost came to a total of €4.6m. The architects said they sought “elegance and dynamic simplicity bridging art and technology” and also the project manager Michael O’Neill said in 2003 “the Spire will pay for itself in five years through tourism”. As it is a public artwork it is meant to be for the public, yet on asking people for opinions on the piece they are a mixed verdict with most siding with a less favorable opinion of it.  Personally I feel it was chosen to try and establish Dublin in the art scene by constructing the tallest piece of public art in the world and not for the public. Another question that arose while researching was that of the maintenance costs of public artwork. The total cost of maintaining and cleaning the Spire since 2003 has been estimated to cost €2.54 million by 2015 which is almost half of what it cost to construct in the first place. It is in a situation like this I feel that public artwork was not necessary at least not on that scale and that the judging panel should have had more public involvement in its selection of proposal.

Lastly in the presentation Mr O’Cuiv was very enthusiastic to encourage the likes of art students (once graduated and established) to apply for a public art scheme. Being an art student I found that this would be a great way to gain experience and if chosen great to get publicity and funding. However on viewing a number of different public artworks I found that more times than not the same artist’s names would keep coming up. After some more research I found another quote from Ms Marshall, head of collections in IMMA, this time in which she said “One problem with public art is that there is a lot of repetition…a certain number of artists being used and re-used” Knowing this point is fairly discouraging as an artist and would in a sense make me turn away from public art. Why go through the trouble of doing the work just to be possibly overlooked for another artist with more public artworks under their belt? Maybe this is the reason Dublin is filled with many of the same overlooked pieces of public artwork.

In conclusion although I find public art works to be of a great importance and great initiative that could be used to bring together people from all walks of life in creating a piece for their city to be proud of and to also, maybe, generate income which could be then in turn put back into the community, I believe that it is a small minority that is given complete power to choose the art in which they feel would best benefit a certain area which includes little or no input from the public that the pieces are meant to be for. If the pubic were given more of a say in what was made then maybe they could have something to be proud of and take more interest in it.

Francis Faye and Eleanor Lawlor

The final presentation was a performance workshop by Irish performance artists Francis Faye and Eleanor Lawlor. Firstly the group started off by doing some exercises to loosen up.  We form a circle and were told to hold hands and when our hand was squeezed we would have to squeeze the other persons opposite hand so that the pulse like motion would flow around the circle like a Mexican wave.

We where then put into pairs, blind folded and guided around the room by our partner by just a touch between the shoulder blades. I found this particular exercise very interesting and at the same calming and almost freeing. It allowed by mind to wander although at the same time I should have been focused on my surroundings. As I hadn’t got to focus on how to travel around the room myself I just had to put my trust into the person guiding me to make sure I was okay but then also the blame would fall onto them if anything went wrong.

 We were then, still in pairs, given a long wooden dowel which we had to balance between our sternums. The objective of this exercise was to make us more relaxed and comfortable so eventually as the rigidness went away we would become braver and try to position the dowels on other parts of our bodies. This exercise allowed us to free ourselves and almost laugh at ourselves showing me that performance wasn’t should a foreign idea when it came to my art practice and it didn’t have to involve such a complicated range of materials to make it happen

Lastly we sent outside to find the first object we could find and bring it back to the seminar room. Then individually we were asked how we could use these pieces to create a final performance piece. This I found rather peculiar because, usually when viewing an object I would never stop to think what the functions of it are beyond what it is originally intended for. For example, my object was a large safety cone. The first and only thing I ever expected from a safety cone was traffic related but by Francis using it as a hat, to amplify his voice and even as a balancing point, he took away my practical thinking and began me thinking about the possibilities objects have beyond what they are made for and how I could push them to their limits.

This workshop greatly benefited and enhanced my overall thinking as an artist. Even if I were to never become a performance artist or use performance in my practice I put to use what I have learned in that even the most mundane object can become more than it is originally intended to be.

Mark Garry

The third presentation was with Irish artist Mark Garry, and was titled ‘Managing contemporary art projects in a number of contexts, as both a curator and artist’.

Firstly he showed a group show he had participated in, in the Hugh Lane gallery called ‘Frequency’. He explained that at this time he was hugely interested in the work created in theminimalist movement and also the idea of biomimicry. A particular piece Garry mentioned was that of his ‘Origami Swan’. He raised the point that on first glance the swan appears to be made and should be paper, however on further inspection the viewer realizes that it is in fact made from stainless steel. It is here that the biomimicry can be seen in reverse and as he explained himself,’ It questions how the use of different materials have been used for the wrong reasons and because of it the world is now fundamentally fucked up’.

The next piece shown was ‘Logic and its associates’, consists of two music boxes placed on two wooden cutouts which represent a human head and the heart. When the music boxes are wound by the viewer they play a pattern of rhythms taken from the average male brain (which represents the human nervous system) and the average male heart (which represents the human heart beat). In a sense the artist is making an attempt at being romantic by pairing the head and heart and using music which can be played in harmony to almost represent love. He then went on to explain the elements involved in making the pieces for this exhibition which included, designing and manufacturing three new sculptural works, consultation, instrument making internship and negotiation of space.

Next he moved on to Public art commissions and that when new roads or public construction are happening, a small percentage of its budget is put towards making artwork for that space. He started by talking about his piece, ‘Sending letters to the sea’. This public work was based in the Fingal area and at the time the artist was interested in Ireland’s Christian status. He then began to look at the connections between music and religion and how it influenced and shaped the various forms of music we hear today. The idea behind the title for the piece was that by sending letters to the sea, it mirrored the way in which faith works. The letters that are sent might be returned but then again might not, just like the faith that can be seen in religions.

The last piece I want to mention is another public artwork titled ‘Wind Harps’.The artist said that when he first viewed the area he thought it was perfect as it was so in the work in he made he didn’t want to take from it. He eventually created wind harps which are activated by nature and within time the harps will once again be concealed by reeds so they will fit back into the surrounding nature.

The presentation was very interesting as it showed public artworks from an artist’s perspective and let arise the questions and answers of how to work in group shows.

Aurelian Froment

The second presentation was by French artist, Aurélien Froment. Based originally in Paris he now lives and works out of Dublin. The first piece mentioned in the presentation was a piece titled ‘A la fin’. This piece was made while he was still an art student. The piece involved the artist positioning himself outside a movie theater and handing out cards printed with different movie endings to people going to view a film. By doing so Froment raises the question that an ending is inevitable however there is still a question of when it will happen and what exactly will happen. This piece stemmed from his time working in a movie theater and greatly reflected on a point he mentioned that I found most interesting which was, “The job that you do as an artist greatly influences the work you do as an artist”. For me this point can be clearly seen throughout work Froment makes and also in the materials he used to make it.

Froment then went on to show ‘Pulmo Marina’. This piece consists of an egg-yolk jellyfish drifting against a stark blue background while all the time a voiceover is played in the background. The video itself has an almost hypnotic quality about it in its use of bright colours, slow trance like movement of the jellyfish and also the relaxing hum of the voiceover as it explains the creature. Froment also explained that the screen on which the short film is being viewed mirrors the way in which the viewer sees the jellyfish in its aquarium state and plays with the idea of the viewer, whose view would ultimately change by viewing the fish in its aquarium state with a group atmosphere as opposed to the private experience they would have by viewing it on a screen.

The last piece I want to mention is a piece titled ‘The Second Gift’. This piece features Friedrich Froebel’s second gift, an educational object, and is filmed while slowly rotating. While the film is rotating there is also narration from Norman Brosterman, a toy collector who researches Froebel’s objects, Tiffeni Goesel a kindergarten teacher, and Scott Bultman, a former toy manufacturer. The film looks at ways of tracing an object, from what it is made to how it is made, from what it refers in the history of forms to what it allows to project. He then showed how he set the piece up for exhibition and I found most intriguing as he explained how he encountered and tried to overcome problems he faced when displaying this particular work. For the display he had a replica of Froebel’s second gift set up on a table to encourage the viewer to interact with the piece, however as it was in a galley context the viewer merely thought that the way the artist had set the piece up was how he had attended to show it and therefore did not know that interaction was meant. To overcome the problem the artist had to organize certain times at which certain people would in a sense ‘perform’ and interact with the piece to show that is what he wanted.

Overall the presentation was very interesting and it raised questions about my own practice but also helped me to understand and answer them at the same time and his point that ‘Everything I make allows me to make something after, so I am not left with a blank page’ is also something I will be taking into my own practice in the future.

Ruairi O'Cuiv

The first presentation we had was from Dublin City Council Public Arts Commissioner, Ruairi O’Cuiv. This presentation in particular I found most helpful to me and my practice and in this I wanted to make note of the particular points. He started by saying that, ‘if your applying for a public artwork commission, don’t just do it for the sake of it, do it because you feel you have something to give to the brief’. I found this point valuable in relation to my own practice as I always find myself doing things just to satisfy the brief, however after hearing this I found that if I took the time to apply myself and make the brief work for me, I could get more out of it and not let if run out of steam so quickly.

The presentation also allowed me to view different ways, I as an artist could work not only for public at commissions but also in my general practice. Some of the examples I found of particular interest were, artists who work with the participation of other artists, artists who involve members of a locality that they are making the work on and lastly the obvious one, artists who work solely on their own. At the moment working as a lone artist is the general norm in the college environment, but by introducing other artists to the work or by involving people with the specific skill sets or knowledge/understanding of a site could also greatly benefit a work.

He also went into detail about how as an artist you would go about completing a brief. To my surprise the main point was to keep it simple. He gave two examples of how keeping things simple and greatly benefit a proposal. The first example being about an artist who successfully got a commission by basically submitting her proposal on a single sheet of paper. Although only on a single sheet of paper, she outlined and summed up her idea simply but effectively. The second, being about a public artwork proposal board for a local community. On the board they had two members of the locality so as to give them more input in the selection of the piece but when the artists were proposing their ideas, their use of art ‘jargon’ lead the two public members of the panel to feel somewhat inferior and uncomfortable. This again is another point I will be putting into use in my own practice as I feel at the moment I tend to ramble on when trying to explain and get an idea across only to find when I finished that I have complicated it too much and left my audience confused and still none the wiser as to what I am trying to do.  By simplifying my ideas or how I explain them, I could make an idea more accessible to the viewer.

This presentation to me was the most beneficial as it allowed me to understand how the public art world works and also lead me to understand simplifying in some cases might be the better option.