Im finding this very difficult. How do you consider the audience for your work, when you don't have any work?

4.

We went to the Marianne Springer opening the other day. It was really different from the other galleries and openings I've been to since the start of the audiences project. I have some pictures which I'm going to try to upload, and I was also trying to use photoshop to put my own work in the space, but I've realised that I am very terrible at photoshop. so maybe I'll stick to what i know- PAINT! 

Anyway yes, i've uploaded pictures now so thats good! This exhibition was really different from the other, i noticed it was set up in a more commercial way. It was like a shop, and it was clear that selling work was one of the main concerns with the set up. On the desk there was a price list, and it seemed there wasn't much consideration to where the work was placed, and how it might be viewed as a result of that. It seemed as though it was about getting as much work up as possible without looking too crowded on the walls. The audience was completely different to the other two exhibitions, which had attracted mainly a fine art audience. This exhibition had more of a community feel, which made it a lot more friendly, and less intimidating to enter. There were lots of families and children running around. The work itself was illustrations and soft sculptures, i wasn't really used to being able to understand and read works so easily for what it is. I'm used to going into galleries, being confused for a while, and trying to decode and work out what its all about, in here it was quite nice to just look at it and appreciate the work for what it was. I've got to get out of the computer room now- i dont even know what I've written because i haven't read it though... oooooh well 

3.

Perhaps Nothing Perhaps Something

Audience was again limited, everyone there was an art student or tutor etc. No real effort to address anyone not already within the art community, general public etc. I didn't see any flyers for this exhibition except inside the gallery. There was a feeling of awkwardness and superiority within this gallery, I felt I wasn't really allowed to be in there and if I was, I was only to talk about the work and be very serious about the whole thing. It got me thinking about what kind of barriers and rules or restrictions we conform to when we enter a space like this. Making sure we don't touch anything, being very quite and polite, not going crazy with the wine, and only talking about the work and nothing else, and definitely don't look as though you are only there for the free wine, (even if you are?). I liked Rachel Whiteread's casts of negative space underneath chairs, but I wondered whether the artist or the gallery had the most control over how these were displayed. Two invigilators at either end of the casts, were on guard, to stop anyone from touching (or walking through ) them. The feeling of being watched and monitored really made it uncomfortable, and a lot more difficult to engage with the work. I also wondered if this was the artists intention, though probably not, whether it would have been better if the audience was allowed to interact with the piece for example to sit on the stool like casts? 

Also Cornelia Parker's piece, the wire/string was attached to a mental grill/grate on the ceiling, which was not how it was originally meant to be. There were two versions, one in which the wires were attached to little hooks  screwed into the ceiling, and the other where a new ceiling was constructed with holes in it for the wires to come through. The fact it was attached to a metal grid showed that the work was adapted and changed to fit in with the gallery space and fittings. I thought this took away from the work, and made me think that the gallery was more in control of how the work was displayed than the artist. I also thought the shelves used for Sarah Doherty's work weren't very good. They were too blocky and solid, and looked a bit shoddily put together. I noticed on the wall behind on that there was a weird bit of plaster painted over in white, it looked a bit rubbish really, not much attention to detail, they were probably too busy making people feel awkward to fix this. 

2.

RANK- opening

Rory performance piece, accessible to audience outside of the gallery space, passersby, non- art folk! Audience= NOT exclusively art folk. General public.

ART FOLK= Artists, their husbands and wives, Art tutors, Art Students, ex art students, males and females who work in galleries and museums.

It was good to see this performance, and how live art can be presented and be grand and good and not shoddy like when I try to do things like that. 

Although the performance included general public and the community as an audience, (was not limited).- the private view was invitation only (I didn't have one though ...shhhhh) Tom Cookson and Sam Shaw got questioned at the door for their invitations... I didn't notice anyone else that did, I thought this was a bit strange, and didn't really like that. I think the invitation only made it seem exclusive, in a bad way, it limits their audience to only art folk and excludes others. It wasn't accessible. Although it was the private view, and the exhibition was open to the public after, I think that kind of exclusivity discourages people from going to see art. Even though I was there, i felt guilty about it.  One good thing was that the invigilator people didn't follow you round breathing down your neck waiting for you to accidentally go into the wrong room with your drink. yaaaay

I didn't really like the layout and way it had been curated maaaybe. Mixing the old with the new, the research and sort of archive style things putting them together with the art. I don't know maybe this makes the art more accessible? but the not being allowed in enles you know someone didnt't really fit with that. I wondered whether this was meant to be somekind of relational aesthetics style affair going on, but i didn't really get it. I thought it made everything a bit harder to read, like was it meant to be art, or information and statistics... or what? Overload of stuff I think.

1.

I've started to think about the different ways i could look at this brief, and I've decided to focus on art galleries, and exhibition spaces, and how the work presented related to an audience, and what audience art institutions attract. I think the way something is presented (fixtures, presentation and things) can have a really big effect on how it is viewed by an audience. I always find with my own work, that the presentation of a 'final piece' is a bit half-arsed, last minute and a bit bad really, so i'd like to explore this and hopefully make me think about how to present my own work better.