Sunday, 22 February 2015
Talking back
I was privileged to have my work Columbarium reviewed by Sarah Bennett, Ivan Jordan and Josie Sutcliffe as part of the the Phonic FM Culture & Review Show on 5 February. Reviewers look harder, listen harder and think harder, so what they have to say (or not) has particular weight. I found it incredibly illuminating.
Thursday, 29 January 2015
Talking therapy
 |
| Talking at the Last Wednesday Series - 28 January 2015. Photo: Mary Pearson |
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
Columbarium (all that remains)
 |
Columbarium
(all that remains)
| 2015 | Bones,
laser sintered nylon, archive footage
|
Installation about bird flight made for Gallery 333, Exeter Phoenix. Showing 12 January to 7 March 2015. Drawing
on early cinematography and 21st century
technology such as bird-borne GPS, Columbarium questions
the limits of objective knowledge.
http://www.exeterphoenix.org.uk/events/gabrielle-hoad/
http://www.exeterphoenix.org.uk/events/gabrielle-hoad/
Monday, 15 December 2014
Mapping resources
 |
| Exeter visual art resources - 2014 (first draft) |
People talked a lot about what we've lost and what we lack, but I'm amazed, when I think about it, by what we have. I was also really heartened by the voices that called for artists to be confident and ambitious. Like them, I'm all for generating ideas and trusting that resources will follow.
Monday, 8 December 2014
Critical friends ─ hard to find, harder still to keep
A Kaleider lunchtime talk by theatre writer Belinda Dillon last Friday offered a new opportunity to consider the whys and hows of creating a critical culture within Exeter's arts community.
Having written about theatre for a number of years, Belinda has been working with Kaleider to reflect more deeply on the role of 'the critic' in the local arts ecology. For her, Theatre Bristol's Writers in Residence Scheme is something of a beacon as it invites a diverse range of people to respond to performance work, often in very creative ways. Curated/edited by two paid writers (Richard Aslan and Tom Wainwright), the focus is on positive and supportive interviews, interactions, reviews, comments. It also positions critical writing as an interesting creative practice in its own right.
In the discussion that followed, it was clear that theatre-makers are as keen for peer critique as visual artists, though some feel this is better offered in a 'safe' or confidential context than via publication. At the same time there's a hunger for official recognition from what are frequently referred to as 'star reviewers', but less enthusiasm for a blogger-type free-for-all. As someone pointed out, in live performance you don't need a critic to tell you if a performance worked for an audience: there's instant feedback in the form of laughter or applause.
A key issue is: if we want professional critics, who's going to pay them? Star reviewers don't pop up fully formed out of nowhere ─ someone has to train and develop them. That means sustained opportunities for writers to develop their skills and knowledge (not just occasional bursaries and short courses).
A common solution seems to be 'embedding', where writers are paid by an arts organisation ─ either directly or indirectly ─ to play the role of critic, commentator and sometimes mentor. This can work well, but can blunt the writer's critical faculties if the relationship gets too cosy. It can also result in 'critical writing' being used as a marketing tool. In other words, objectivity is compromised. Is a writer short of paid work really going to bite the hand that feeds? And what does that mean for honest debate and the quality control it promotes?
There was also talk of a 'shared community of interest' that dissolves the barriers between professional critics, peers and audience members. It's a great idea but it's likely to end up muddied by personal loyalties (or even hostilities). Don't we also want to hear from independent observers, who can try to be at least a little bit objective?
I speak as an arts practitioner who has largely suspended her critical writing practice, partly because the trickle of money it once generated dried up completely, and partly because navigating the murky waters of marketing writing versus critical writing was getting way too complicated. And that's before you even consider the problem of building trust with fellow practitioners while keeping critical integrity intact...
I've written on this topic before, back in 2010. See more here:
http://gabriellehoad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/is-there-right-way-to-write-about-art.html
http://gabriellehoad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/good-and-bad-art.html
Having written about theatre for a number of years, Belinda has been working with Kaleider to reflect more deeply on the role of 'the critic' in the local arts ecology. For her, Theatre Bristol's Writers in Residence Scheme is something of a beacon as it invites a diverse range of people to respond to performance work, often in very creative ways. Curated/edited by two paid writers (Richard Aslan and Tom Wainwright), the focus is on positive and supportive interviews, interactions, reviews, comments. It also positions critical writing as an interesting creative practice in its own right.
In the discussion that followed, it was clear that theatre-makers are as keen for peer critique as visual artists, though some feel this is better offered in a 'safe' or confidential context than via publication. At the same time there's a hunger for official recognition from what are frequently referred to as 'star reviewers', but less enthusiasm for a blogger-type free-for-all. As someone pointed out, in live performance you don't need a critic to tell you if a performance worked for an audience: there's instant feedback in the form of laughter or applause.
A key issue is: if we want professional critics, who's going to pay them? Star reviewers don't pop up fully formed out of nowhere ─ someone has to train and develop them. That means sustained opportunities for writers to develop their skills and knowledge (not just occasional bursaries and short courses).
A common solution seems to be 'embedding', where writers are paid by an arts organisation ─ either directly or indirectly ─ to play the role of critic, commentator and sometimes mentor. This can work well, but can blunt the writer's critical faculties if the relationship gets too cosy. It can also result in 'critical writing' being used as a marketing tool. In other words, objectivity is compromised. Is a writer short of paid work really going to bite the hand that feeds? And what does that mean for honest debate and the quality control it promotes?
There was also talk of a 'shared community of interest' that dissolves the barriers between professional critics, peers and audience members. It's a great idea but it's likely to end up muddied by personal loyalties (or even hostilities). Don't we also want to hear from independent observers, who can try to be at least a little bit objective?
I speak as an arts practitioner who has largely suspended her critical writing practice, partly because the trickle of money it once generated dried up completely, and partly because navigating the murky waters of marketing writing versus critical writing was getting way too complicated. And that's before you even consider the problem of building trust with fellow practitioners while keeping critical integrity intact...
I've written on this topic before, back in 2010. See more here:
http://gabriellehoad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/is-there-right-way-to-write-about-art.html
http://gabriellehoad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/good-and-bad-art.html
Saturday, 6 December 2014
Columbarium
Presented in the museum-like setting of Gallery 333's glass cabinet, the objects reference humankind's ongoing investigations of bird flight – through dissection, through the use of cameras and through the application of 21st century surveillance technology such as birdborne GPS.
Derived from the Roman word for a pigeon house, a columbarium is a compartmentalised structure for the storage of mortal remains.
Columbarium arises from an Arts Council funded research and development project 2013-14 to map and model bird flight. Bird flight data was provided by Dr Steven Portugal of the Royal Veterinary College, London. Frames showing bird flight are extracted from footage of Pigeon En Vol (1891-92) by EtienneJules Marey and Georges Demenÿ.
http://www.exeterphoenix.org.uk/events/gabrielle-hoad/
Friday, 3 October 2014
Lost
 |
| Lost (Two pigeons, 153 seconds) | 2014 | Digital print |
Part of my research project, Solid Air, this image was made from data collected by two homing pigeons. They were carrying specialised data-loggers to track their altitude, longtitude and altitude five times per second. After release, they were supposed to follow the rest of the flock home to the Royal Veterinary College, but seem to have decided to take a detour.
During the 153 seconds depicted here, they flutter about a bit before making a characteristic orienting loop together. However, moments after they flew off in separate directions (both were later safely retrieved). I'm intrigued by the coincidence that, during its period of truancy, one of them ended up flying over a street where I lived many years ago.
During the 153 seconds depicted here, they flutter about a bit before making a characteristic orienting loop together. However, moments after they flew off in separate directions (both were later safely retrieved). I'm intrigued by the coincidence that, during its period of truancy, one of them ended up flying over a street where I lived many years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)