Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Friday, 16 July 2010
Next meeting/what next?
So what is happening with the Lab with no Name?
Do we have a meeting fixed up or did one happen earlier in July?
Or should we say we're having a break for the summer and re-convene in September?
Please respond and lets not let this slip away - it's too good for that.
Lucy x
Do we have a meeting fixed up or did one happen earlier in July?
Or should we say we're having a break for the summer and re-convene in September?
Please respond and lets not let this slip away - it's too good for that.
Lucy x
Monday, 5 July 2010
Artist Parents
As quite a few members of The Lab are parents, or soon to be (congrats) I thought it might be interesting to share this blog, being written by an artist I know from Norwich. He and his wife have a collaborative practice (known as Townley & Bradley) and they are currently doing a residency in Denmark with their children (5 and 22 months). See the Golden Threads Blog
Monday, 14 June 2010
text by 16 Beaver Group
Below is the full extract we read at the last Lab. It is 16 Beaver Group’s contribution to Curating and the Educational Turn. Paul O’Neill & Mick Wilson (Eds.) De Appel/Open Editions, Amsterdam/London, 2010, pp240-241. The full text is a series of letters between 16 Beaver Group and someone called Nina who sees them at a symposium and is then unsatisfied by the amount of background material she can find about them… so she writes and they write back and she writes again, and the bit below is from 16 Beaver group’s 5th letter to her:
I put the ‘group could be this and that’ bit Lucy mentioned in bold, and i'll see if there's someone we can invite
“When several of us first started reading texts together and inviting people to share their research and questions, there was no need to call it a school, an artwork, an artists collective or anything in particular. It seemed that this act of naming would only throw people into a situation of identifying themselves as students/teachers, administrators/directors, artists/non-artists, spectators/lecturers, participant/audience, insider/outsider, invited/uninvited, etc. A name might have given it a certain legibility and sensibility, for people to more quickly identify it or categorise it within a series of gestures, problematisations, discourses, institutions, etc., possibly giving it a certain degree of immediate efficacy. But, for our purposes, it seemed that such an act would also risk delimiting what it could be or become for each participant. Schools and educational programmes are terminal. And the date of termination is often not of our choosing. One is a student then one becomes a “professional” or maybe a “teacher” or maybe unemployable. We wanted none of those titles. We cared for none of those ascriptions, descriptions or conscriptions.
[We skipped this next paragraph but here it is]
We knew that there were things that we could learn from each other across generations, across “disciplines”. In fact, I personally felt a need to collectively discover ways of breaking both disciplinary constraints – constraints that were keeping experiences and research, which could have practical or useful implications, too easily confined in a rarefied, untouchable or unreachable place. These are the same constraints which effectively deny individuals the opportunity to see connections between struggles, between different practices, contexts and experiences. There was a sincere interest to embody our politics; to connect what we read to our lived reality; to compare what we thought against the reality we were being asked to live. How, for instance, could we continue to talk abstractly about political issues without also seeking to connect with individuals who could meet us, confront us with a lived experience and help us critique existing terminologies and constructions?
So, we shared books, shared out interest in them and years later evolved into sharing our work our questions and our friends.
It felt necessary to make our space as open as we could because everything around it was exclusive. We wanted an open place of learning, of sharing, but also a space that could also potentially become something more. There would be no professors and no students. A study or residency programme continuous with life, which could become a theatre group, a filmmaking co-op, an autonomous place of learning, a commune, an infrastructure for developing dissident thought and inspiring new forms of processes. It would become a horizontal space to give one another time, allowing different levels of engagement and involvement, a challenge to capitalist ideology, a revaluation of artistic practice toward an immeasurable horizon of a contestable present.
Even as I write this, I ask myself how to even assert that what we have done was not exceptional; this was a simple modest everyday practice, which took very little resources other than our time, labour and thought. It may appear exceptional to some, simply because to be social today, to share time with strangers, to cultivate a collective, public intellectuality resists the dominant ideology, which asserts that each person is self-interested and that human relations are either of the order of exploitation or without value.
I have a friend visiting so will have to resume later.
Best,
Simone.”
I put the ‘group could be this and that’ bit Lucy mentioned in bold, and i'll see if there's someone we can invite
“When several of us first started reading texts together and inviting people to share their research and questions, there was no need to call it a school, an artwork, an artists collective or anything in particular. It seemed that this act of naming would only throw people into a situation of identifying themselves as students/teachers, administrators/directors, artists/non-artists, spectators/lecturers, participant/audience, insider/outsider, invited/uninvited, etc. A name might have given it a certain legibility and sensibility, for people to more quickly identify it or categorise it within a series of gestures, problematisations, discourses, institutions, etc., possibly giving it a certain degree of immediate efficacy. But, for our purposes, it seemed that such an act would also risk delimiting what it could be or become for each participant. Schools and educational programmes are terminal. And the date of termination is often not of our choosing. One is a student then one becomes a “professional” or maybe a “teacher” or maybe unemployable. We wanted none of those titles. We cared for none of those ascriptions, descriptions or conscriptions.
[We skipped this next paragraph but here it is]
We knew that there were things that we could learn from each other across generations, across “disciplines”. In fact, I personally felt a need to collectively discover ways of breaking both disciplinary constraints – constraints that were keeping experiences and research, which could have practical or useful implications, too easily confined in a rarefied, untouchable or unreachable place. These are the same constraints which effectively deny individuals the opportunity to see connections between struggles, between different practices, contexts and experiences. There was a sincere interest to embody our politics; to connect what we read to our lived reality; to compare what we thought against the reality we were being asked to live. How, for instance, could we continue to talk abstractly about political issues without also seeking to connect with individuals who could meet us, confront us with a lived experience and help us critique existing terminologies and constructions?
So, we shared books, shared out interest in them and years later evolved into sharing our work our questions and our friends.
It felt necessary to make our space as open as we could because everything around it was exclusive. We wanted an open place of learning, of sharing, but also a space that could also potentially become something more. There would be no professors and no students. A study or residency programme continuous with life, which could become a theatre group, a filmmaking co-op, an autonomous place of learning, a commune, an infrastructure for developing dissident thought and inspiring new forms of processes. It would become a horizontal space to give one another time, allowing different levels of engagement and involvement, a challenge to capitalist ideology, a revaluation of artistic practice toward an immeasurable horizon of a contestable present.
Even as I write this, I ask myself how to even assert that what we have done was not exceptional; this was a simple modest everyday practice, which took very little resources other than our time, labour and thought. It may appear exceptional to some, simply because to be social today, to share time with strangers, to cultivate a collective, public intellectuality resists the dominant ideology, which asserts that each person is self-interested and that human relations are either of the order of exploitation or without value.
I have a friend visiting so will have to resume later.
Best,
Simone.”
Minutes of meeting 8/6/10
Present: Lucy Bannister (chair and minutes), Stuart Bannister, Martha Jurksaitis, Dan Robinson, Rob and Terry, James Hill, Dave Ronalds
Sorry these have taken so long to do – a hazard of both organising and minuting a meeting!
So… the intention that I set out for the meeting was to discuss what Black Lab could become, talk about names and intentions and how it could be described both internally and externally.
The group that were present were all very clear that a name was not important – we all felt happy with simply ‘Lab’ or ‘No Name lab’ or ‘Lab with No Name’. We didn’t feel we needed to change from the new blog Andy has set up (this one!). This was discussed at the end of the meeting put it feels most appropriate to say it now, in these minutes.
We started by Dan reading a text he found in a book. It was a letter written by 16 Beaver http://www.16beavergroup.org/ which outlined some of what they had done and might do. What really stood out was the idea of ‘could be’ – that there was no manifesto or list of rules or goals but rather a sense of what could be – an ongoing list that can be added to as things develop with the Lab. Dan will hopefully add this to the blog as it was really inspirational for us.
It was from this idea of ‘could be’ that the rest of the meeting took a hold.
We discussed many things that it is hard to relay in detail here so I will simply try to sum up! I wrote a series of post-it notes on the night relating to words I thought were important in the conversation. Below are those words with some explanation.
In no particular order.
Not Formalised
The group should remain loose structured and organised to allow for organic development and what ‘could be’
Momentum
The momentum that was achieved at Green Sands was essential and kept things moving forward and lively. It perhaps caused added stress, however, as it put tension on the group to do things in a set time period. Somehow we need to retain a sense of momentum without too much pressure!
Regularity
Meeting on regular dates helps people to come in and out and get on with their lives. It also helps to open the Lab to other people.
Structure to allow business to be done
No matter how much ‘could be’ there is, there will always be business to be done – such as arranging meetings, events, trips, equipment and the more esoteric stuff like feedback and sharing ideas. We all felt that it was an essential part of the progress of the Lab to have business type meetings. See below for how we worked on this.
Process
Relating to the above – the activity of Black Lab emerged from a process of events, meetings, talking. We need to retain a structure to allow this process to happen.
Social
Everyone agreed that a really important part of Black Lab was that it was a chance to see friends, chat, drink, eat and that the social part should not be neglected or sidelined in the Lab!
Deeper Focus
Ability to take ideas into a deeper focus – this is where spin off events, meetings, listening sessions etc. can be really useful – for those that want to go deeper into topics that have arisen in the regular meetings.
Tensions and emotions
It was commented that a number of people had actually been upset by Black Lab meetings (not a particular one, or because of individuals). It was acknowledged that the Lab could stir emotions and it can be a challenge to keep coming. This shouldn’t be swept aside or dismissed, nor should it stop passion and debate!
Talking Points
Where issues are particularly of interest, activities could be established (such as a reading or discussion group) to explore these further.
Working with people
The process of putting on events, running workshops etc. allowed people to work together who wouldn’t have done so otherwise
Intuition
Trust our instincts
Moving on to things of a more practical nature…..How the Lab operates from here…..
Starts from the meeting
The basis of the Lab is a bi-weekly meeting, 2 per month, on Tuesday nights.
The first part of the meeting is relating to the business of the Lab and would include critical feedback on other meetings/events/sessions that have taken place since the last meeting.
The second part of the meeting could be a film screening, a poetry recital, a reading, a music workshop, a walk, a visit to the pub, it could be anything! But they would be activities that could take place on a Tuesday night. Activities that need a more prolonged time or just a different day (like the 24hr music jam) would be organised separately.
Peripatetic
The Lab does not have to stay in one place. Whilst the Black Dogs have Saw Mill Yard it makes sense to use this when it is appropriate and it gives a good solid base to get things going from. But the Lab is not defined by venue. If an activity needs to be somewhere else, or is better suited to being elsewhere, then it should be. This includes the bi-weekly meetings. See the image for ideas of where we could go e.g urban or rural hiking, graveyards, Sheffield, Pubs, Lumen, people’s houses…..
Structure
The structure does not define the Lab – it simply gives it a logistical framework
Plan ahead
In order to maintain momentum, forward planning would be a damn good idea. Keeping a calendar that is used to plan 8 weeks ahead could encourage activities outside of the bi-weekly meetings to actually happen.
Invite list
For events the person organising it should set the invite list according to what they feel is appropriate or manageable.
We also discussed making the bi-weekly meetings more approachable and open. It was discussed that specifically inviting people you know, and repeating that invitation a few times would be a good way to entice new folk along.
Key Holders
In relation to the Saw Mill Yard space we discussed there being 8 key holders that wouldn’t just be members of Black Dogs. This means that a member of Black Dogs isn’t obliged to be at meetings unless one they are convening it; although they probably will want to be there most of the time anyway!
Key holders would need to take turns to open up for meetings and events. With their being 8 this shouldn’t need to be very often.
Volunteers at the meeting/current holders:
James Hill
Dave Ronalds
Lucy and Stu Bannister
Michael Burkitt
Andy Abbott
Yvonne Carmichael
Dan Robinson
I am going to try summing up:
No Name Lab (Lab, The Lab with No Name) is a peripatetic group of individuals that meet twice a month to share conversations about and through creative outputs that are their own and other people’s.
It could be many things; the list of what it could be will continue to grow as the Lab evolves.
The Lab meet regularly on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month.
Activities are not restricted to the regular meetings; these simply offer a structure to the Lab in order to generate momentum and a process of investigation. They allow an entry point for people to join in and for activities to be discussed, organised and staged.
All Lab attendees are invited to convene the regular meetings, to organise activities, arrange appropriate venues, generate specific conversations for deeper exploration, or any of the other possibilities that can be seen to be feasible within the Lab.
Sorry these have taken so long to do – a hazard of both organising and minuting a meeting!
So… the intention that I set out for the meeting was to discuss what Black Lab could become, talk about names and intentions and how it could be described both internally and externally.
The group that were present were all very clear that a name was not important – we all felt happy with simply ‘Lab’ or ‘No Name lab’ or ‘Lab with No Name’. We didn’t feel we needed to change from the new blog Andy has set up (this one!). This was discussed at the end of the meeting put it feels most appropriate to say it now, in these minutes.
We started by Dan reading a text he found in a book. It was a letter written by 16 Beaver http://www.16beavergroup.org/ which outlined some of what they had done and might do. What really stood out was the idea of ‘could be’ – that there was no manifesto or list of rules or goals but rather a sense of what could be – an ongoing list that can be added to as things develop with the Lab. Dan will hopefully add this to the blog as it was really inspirational for us.
It was from this idea of ‘could be’ that the rest of the meeting took a hold.
We discussed many things that it is hard to relay in detail here so I will simply try to sum up! I wrote a series of post-it notes on the night relating to words I thought were important in the conversation. Below are those words with some explanation.
In no particular order.
Not Formalised
The group should remain loose structured and organised to allow for organic development and what ‘could be’
Momentum
The momentum that was achieved at Green Sands was essential and kept things moving forward and lively. It perhaps caused added stress, however, as it put tension on the group to do things in a set time period. Somehow we need to retain a sense of momentum without too much pressure!
Regularity
Meeting on regular dates helps people to come in and out and get on with their lives. It also helps to open the Lab to other people.
Structure to allow business to be done
No matter how much ‘could be’ there is, there will always be business to be done – such as arranging meetings, events, trips, equipment and the more esoteric stuff like feedback and sharing ideas. We all felt that it was an essential part of the progress of the Lab to have business type meetings. See below for how we worked on this.
Process
Relating to the above – the activity of Black Lab emerged from a process of events, meetings, talking. We need to retain a structure to allow this process to happen.
Social
Everyone agreed that a really important part of Black Lab was that it was a chance to see friends, chat, drink, eat and that the social part should not be neglected or sidelined in the Lab!
Deeper Focus
Ability to take ideas into a deeper focus – this is where spin off events, meetings, listening sessions etc. can be really useful – for those that want to go deeper into topics that have arisen in the regular meetings.
Tensions and emotions
It was commented that a number of people had actually been upset by Black Lab meetings (not a particular one, or because of individuals). It was acknowledged that the Lab could stir emotions and it can be a challenge to keep coming. This shouldn’t be swept aside or dismissed, nor should it stop passion and debate!
Talking Points
Where issues are particularly of interest, activities could be established (such as a reading or discussion group) to explore these further.
Working with people
The process of putting on events, running workshops etc. allowed people to work together who wouldn’t have done so otherwise
Intuition
Trust our instincts
Moving on to things of a more practical nature…..How the Lab operates from here…..
Starts from the meeting
The basis of the Lab is a bi-weekly meeting, 2 per month, on Tuesday nights.
The first part of the meeting is relating to the business of the Lab and would include critical feedback on other meetings/events/sessions that have taken place since the last meeting.
The second part of the meeting could be a film screening, a poetry recital, a reading, a music workshop, a walk, a visit to the pub, it could be anything! But they would be activities that could take place on a Tuesday night. Activities that need a more prolonged time or just a different day (like the 24hr music jam) would be organised separately.
Peripatetic
The Lab does not have to stay in one place. Whilst the Black Dogs have Saw Mill Yard it makes sense to use this when it is appropriate and it gives a good solid base to get things going from. But the Lab is not defined by venue. If an activity needs to be somewhere else, or is better suited to being elsewhere, then it should be. This includes the bi-weekly meetings. See the image for ideas of where we could go e.g urban or rural hiking, graveyards, Sheffield, Pubs, Lumen, people’s houses…..
Structure
The structure does not define the Lab – it simply gives it a logistical framework
Plan ahead
In order to maintain momentum, forward planning would be a damn good idea. Keeping a calendar that is used to plan 8 weeks ahead could encourage activities outside of the bi-weekly meetings to actually happen.
Invite list
For events the person organising it should set the invite list according to what they feel is appropriate or manageable.
We also discussed making the bi-weekly meetings more approachable and open. It was discussed that specifically inviting people you know, and repeating that invitation a few times would be a good way to entice new folk along.
Key Holders
In relation to the Saw Mill Yard space we discussed there being 8 key holders that wouldn’t just be members of Black Dogs. This means that a member of Black Dogs isn’t obliged to be at meetings unless one they are convening it; although they probably will want to be there most of the time anyway!
Key holders would need to take turns to open up for meetings and events. With their being 8 this shouldn’t need to be very often.
Volunteers at the meeting/current holders:
James Hill
Dave Ronalds
Lucy and Stu Bannister
Michael Burkitt
Andy Abbott
Yvonne Carmichael
Dan Robinson
I am going to try summing up:
No Name Lab (Lab, The Lab with No Name) is a peripatetic group of individuals that meet twice a month to share conversations about and through creative outputs that are their own and other people’s.
It could be many things; the list of what it could be will continue to grow as the Lab evolves.
The Lab meet regularly on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month.
Activities are not restricted to the regular meetings; these simply offer a structure to the Lab in order to generate momentum and a process of investigation. They allow an entry point for people to join in and for activities to be discussed, organised and staged.
All Lab attendees are invited to convene the regular meetings, to organise activities, arrange appropriate venues, generate specific conversations for deeper exploration, or any of the other possibilities that can be seen to be feasible within the Lab.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Next Lab Meeting
Hello!
Just a thought, but I'd be interested in watching an artist documentary that's just under an hour long with anyone who might be interested. We could do it down at the space. It's called "Last Supper" (kind of nice connection to the Last Supper thing at Black Lab), and I haven't watched it yet, though from reviews etc. sounds very interesting (always need to see for yourself though right! nullius in verba etc). It's about the practise of serving prisoners a last meal before they are executed (another word for murdered). I can bring it along as an option to the next meeting if anyone's interested (we can always watch it another day).
xm
Just a thought, but I'd be interested in watching an artist documentary that's just under an hour long with anyone who might be interested. We could do it down at the space. It's called "Last Supper" (kind of nice connection to the Last Supper thing at Black Lab), and I haven't watched it yet, though from reviews etc. sounds very interesting (always need to see for yourself though right! nullius in verba etc). It's about the practise of serving prisoners a last meal before they are executed (another word for murdered). I can bring it along as an option to the next meeting if anyone's interested (we can always watch it another day).
xm
Monday, 7 June 2010
Meeting 8 June 6pm onwards
The meeting will be at the Saw Mill Yard space, unless the weather is super, and then perhaps we will have part of it in a beer garden.
However, we could do with being indoors with walls for some of the time as my plan is to try and kick start some discussion as to what 'Black Lab'/ no name lab could become, try and pin a name to it, and come up with some ways to describe it both internally and externally.
Will most likely involve paper, pens and post it notes. Woo hoo!
However, we could do with being indoors with walls for some of the time as my plan is to try and kick start some discussion as to what 'Black Lab'/ no name lab could become, try and pin a name to it, and come up with some ways to describe it both internally and externally.
Will most likely involve paper, pens and post it notes. Woo hoo!
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Elizabeth Price
Hi all - just transferring this from the old blog so ignore if you've seen already!
I wanted to let you know about a week of screenings and events Pavilion will be putting on in collaboration with Elizabeth Price. She's a really interesting artist who draws on institutional crique, philosophy, modernism, sci-fi, pop culture and advertising to 'reinscribe and reformulate collections and archives.'
We're screening two 'epsiodes' of Price's ongoing work The New Ruined Institute - WELCOME (The Atrium) and USER GROUP DISCO (The Hall of Sculptures) - at Pavilion, which each (as Price describes) "unfolds a different room within the notional architecture of a fictional Institutional building."
Screening times: 15 June: 5.30 pm 16 June: 3 pm, 17 June: 3pm, 18 June: 5.30 pm, 19 June: 3pm
We've also got a reading event at 42 New Briggate at 7pm (drinks from 6.30) on Tuesday 15 June (including reading by Elizabeth and by cultural theorist Eric Prenowitz) and a screening at the Hyde Park picture house at 6.30 where we'll be showing films that have directly informed the visual formulation of Price's work (Kenneth Anger, Painleve, Alain Resnais and Chris Marker).
We've just commissioned a text by Rachel Withers (Wimbledon College of Art/ Art Forum) which we're putting out as a piece of print so if anyone would like a copy just send me your address.
More info about it all at www.pavilion.org.uk
There's an Art Monthly interview between Elizabeth and Paul O'Neill which I found a useful way into her work.
There are also some excerpts of her videos and an essay by Gilda Williams on Lux
If you'd like to book on to any of the events/ screenings just drop me a line(gill@pavilion.org.uk)
Bye for now and looking for the next lab meet.
Gill
Hi all - just transferring this from the old blog so ignore if you've seen already!
I wanted to let you know about a week of screenings and events Pavilion will be putting on in collaboration with Elizabeth Price. She's a really interesting artist who draws on institutional crique, philosophy, modernism, sci-fi, pop culture and advertising to 'reinscribe and reformulate collections and archives.'
We're screening two 'epsiodes' of Price's ongoing work The New Ruined Institute - WELCOME (The Atrium) and USER GROUP DISCO (The Hall of Sculptures) - at Pavilion, which each (as Price describes) "unfolds a different room within the notional architecture of a fictional Institutional building."
Screening times: 15 June: 5.30 pm 16 June: 3 pm, 17 June: 3pm, 18 June: 5.30 pm, 19 June: 3pm
We've also got a reading event at 42 New Briggate at 7pm (drinks from 6.30) on Tuesday 15 June (including reading by Elizabeth and by cultural theorist Eric Prenowitz) and a screening at the Hyde Park picture house at 6.30 where we'll be showing films that have directly informed the visual formulation of Price's work (Kenneth Anger, Painleve, Alain Resnais and Chris Marker).
We've just commissioned a text by Rachel Withers (Wimbledon College of Art/ Art Forum) which we're putting out as a piece of print so if anyone would like a copy just send me your address.
More info about it all at www.pavilion.org.uk
There's an Art Monthly interview between Elizabeth and Paul O'Neill which I found a useful way into her work.
There are also some excerpts of her videos and an essay by Gilda Williams on Lux
If you'd like to book on to any of the events/ screenings just drop me a line(gill@pavilion.org.uk)
Bye for now and looking for the next lab meet.
Gill
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
The Lab With No Name Week One
Present: Andy Abbott, Michael Burkitt, Rob Quirk, Terry Slater, Lucy Bannister, Stuart Bannister, Yvonne Carmichael, Gill Park, James Hill, Dan Simpkins, Penny Whitehead
Dan and Penny joined us from Liverpool and gave a presentation that reflected what they thought of as the theoretical and political framework for the Black Lab (from what they had gathered from the blog). This moved through an outline of global Student movements and occupations reacting against the neoliberlisation of the University and the increase in debt culture through to (post)-communist/anarchist writings by the Invisible Committee (in their small book ‘The Coming Insurrection’) which they have been reading as part of a reading group about political aesthetics in Liverpool.
Afterwards we talked a little about if and why Black Lab had consciously avoided such a directly oppositional/radical framing? For some of the participants it is/was a definite reference point and might help articulate the idea of a ‘common’ ethos but in practice we spent as much time ‘doing’ rather than ‘framing’ and often a lot of the activity was quite humble and less obviously politicised. Would the kind of framework offered by Dan and Penny (through autonomous and self-organised global movements) perhaps help articulate what the Black Lab is better to a wider audience and aid in finding connections with a broader range of ‘common’ activities?
We then began to talk about the specific issues of moving on from Black Lab. It was mostly agreed that a new name would be appropriate for whatever it becomes and a few practicalities were agreed:
- that it happens less regularly (once a week has been too much of a commitment to continue with),
- that the preceding admin and documentation/dissemination (through the blog) is rotated through a ‘steering group’ rather than one person always taking care of it,
- and that it would be a good idea to experiment with different spaces in which the meetings are held so it is not reliant or tied to spaces that Black Dogs have secured.
We spent the majority of the conversation talking over some of the issues that had arisen at the last meeting to do with renaming and also articulating neatly what Black Lab/the new project is. There is a clear tension between wanting to have clarity over what the project is so that it is open for other people (not necessarily to join but to engage in) and the potential for this to unduly ‘fix’ what the project is. Its fluidity and organic development have been key to its success and we want to leave that intact whilst being able to offer a better projection of the project to help address misinterpretations like ‘it’s Andy Abbott’s Independent Art School’.
This relates to whether we call it a ‘club’, ‘school’, ‘lab’, whether we use ‘art’ in the name and whether the name is ambiguous or attempts to be descriptive. Dan offered an observation that perhaps as long as the activity is continued to be well documented then the pressure to summarise what the project is becomes lessened. The sort of people that will feel an affinity or share common ground with a project like Black Lab are hopefully the kind of people that will appreciate the fact it can’t be easily or neatly articulated in a sound bite and will spend time engaging in a blog to get a sense of what it is. The people that can’t be bothered to do that are perhaps people that wouldn’t connect with it anyway.
Lucy suggested that we have the next meeting as a workshop in pulling out some key reflections on the past project using paper, pens, post-its etc. This might help us to find ways of articulating the project that we are collectively comfortable with. Lucy will therefore be the first in the ‘rotating chair’ and responsible for setting a date, time and venue (Saw Mill Yard should be available) and contacting potential invitees. Andy will forward around the contact list to everyone who has put themselves forward for being in the ‘steering group’ to date.
Actions
LB to arrange next meeting date TBC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)