Week 10 Assignment Post Part B: 1440

Please post two thoughtful comments regarding Friday’s exhibition, 1440. One of your comments should address the installation at UCCS and one should address the installation at Colorado College. The shuttle could fall into either category. Here are some considerations:

  • How successful were the artists in engaging the concept of “social spaces?”
  • What ideas for concurrent performances in a shared space did you get from observing this event?
  • What elements engaged you in the works? To what degree did you participate, and to what do you attribute your decision to participate?
Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Assignment Post

14 responses to “Week 10 Assignment Post Part B: 1440

  1. molly

    I enjoyed the 1440 performances at UCCS, especially the art church. I participated completely. It was the first run-through of the performance they did that night and it seemed as though they may not have been entirely organized and rehearsed. They skipped a few things in the pamphlet they handed out but the performers improvised pretty well. I thought they needed some immediate and enthusiastic participation due to the slow start. However, they overall performance was quite humorous and I enjoyed how detailed it was. Even the “communion” was related to contemporary art. I still have the “Jeff Koons” knock off hanging on my key-chain. It was great to see that some people knew exactly how to act and some people had no idea how to behave in a church setting.

    As for the laughter competition booths, it seemed more like a carnival game than an art work and, while I thought it was fun, I had a hard time reaching a conclusion about their concept. I thought maybe it was suppose to resemble a carnival game, but it was so close that it took away from the rest of the idea that I’m assuming was behind it. I didnt get five dollars…Thanks Heidi.

  2. molly

    I thought it was funny how Carissa got in trouble for messing with the installation at CC. We were talking about it later and decided it was silly that she was told not to touch it, since every other artwork we encountered that night was interactive (except for the video cameras on the buffet table at UCCS, but even that could have been interactive if we wanted it to.)

    You would think it wouldnt have been a big deal and maybe even encouragd to explore the installation of the surveillance cameras and the sink in the wall. But then again, I can see how that could get out of hand and ruin the placement of the stuff on the desk. But it is funny that she got caught in the act of doing something she wasnt suppose to, looking through a desk of someone watching someone else…

  3. desibrink

    I think many of the performance art pieces that were being performed were successful. There were a lot of interactive pieces such as the crocheting at CC and the booths at UCCS were people tried to make each other laugh and the winner got $5. Although, I have my doubts if that was all there was to the performance and wonder what the artists might actually do with that footage.
    I also wonder if the buffet at CC was being video taped like it was at our school.

  4. desibrink

    I found the mass at UCCS hilariously engaging. I think a lot of creative parts went into it, such as the light bulb hand gesture and the heart decorations that mimicked a famous artists. Even though I don’t think I truly understood all the heavy connotations connected to the piece, I was able to appreciate the humor aspect of it.

  5. heidirides

    I think 1440 did a good job of engaging the concept of social spaces, particularily the two booths. At first I didn’t really get it. I helped other people get 5 bucks, and had some fun, but didn’t think much further. Then, after returning from CC the artist approached me. She stated that I was approachable because she thought I was funny in the booth. All of a sudden I got it. First impressions are everything, and our first impressions of the people in the booths (strangers)
    was based on their actions on the monitor. The actions of the people in the booth determined the viewers evaluation of their personalities and their approachability and/or friendliness.

  6. heidirides

    I would say I participated about as much as possible without getting a slap on the wrist (Carissa). I accepted the communion of art, wrote on several walls, crocheted, played in a booth, rode on the bus, listened, read and viewed. For me, the decision to participate was easy. It was obvious that participation was integral to the success of the pieces. The work was not intended to be viewed only as a spectator without involvement. Also, I thought the atmosphere invited participation as it was more informal and relaxed than most gallery shows. What particularliy made me feel relaxed was the location of the food and beverages placed right inside the gallery space, typically a big no no.

  7. cmndrkeen

    I thought it was really disconcerting, the video cameras on the buffet table. It made me not want to take any because then people would see and judge me by my choices, “haha, ooh, she took THREE brownies, what a fatty”….or something like that. Also, the confessional wall, I wanted to write on it but there were to many people standing around. I didn’t want people to see what I wrote, I’d have preferred to be anonymous. It was really cool how everything was interactive though. I came at a slow time I think though. I showed up around seven and I think probably most people had come and gone by then.

  8. kkomaenge

    For the 1440 exhibit, at UCCS I do not understand what motivated the artists to create artwork. Also, I really did not like the piece “the art church”. It seemed like he mocked church because The Bible says, we cannot believe in any other gods, but he mentions a new kind of religion. Also, I do not understand why he put the televisions there. Another work at the exhibit had two people go inside different places and try to make the other person laugh. There does not seem to be a reason for doing that and the artist is not actually performing. Maybe people want to get the money from her, but after that what is she trying to do? Most of the works were unclear. I cannot find their concepts of artwork.

  9. kkomaenge

    For CC I enjoyed crocheting. People used different colors and kept adding to the crocheting. However, I don’t understand the point of theother artists’ works. I think that the crochet piece was the middle of the exhibit, so people would look for that artwork when they came in, but that piece was not finished and it had no artists. I do not understand the concept of the artists’ works.

  10. trinityblk

    While I was not a fan of the works presented at CC or UCCS I do feel they were good uses of the “social spaces” concept. All pieces used their space to engage the audience and evoke a “social” event. I think that the CC piece that was the desk with laptop surveillance and the UCCS piece with the projected video surveillance were less effective with the “Social space” concept than the others. Neither had audience participation other than just “viewing”. The mixture of the pieces did allow for good traffic flow so the social space was clearly visible in each space.

  11. trinityblk

    1440 made me realize how important location is for a installation piece in a gallery. If my piece was to get stuck in an unflattering or suffocating space my art piece/performance would be screwed. Obviously our class worked together to divide up the gallery space, but what happens when an artist is alone in working with a curator? Does an artist have to be forceful to get a gallery location they think would be best or do curators work with every one featured to have the best spot for each piece?

    Since most of the performance art is “outside” of the gallery world it would be quite a new thing to compensate for a gallery space and a more “traditional” art exhibit. I have learned that I will need to fully explore the showing gallery not just do a one-size fits all approach.

  12. elpetty84

    The 1440 exhibition was brilliantly advertised and the artists made use of the space they had, they basically made the space work for them. The artists who set up the “art church” and the ones who set up I’ll call them “laughing boxes” gathered the most participants because of all of the creativity they obviously put behind it to make it work. Both projects used their spaces effectively, and both gathered a lot of participants. I participated in “art church”, first by writing on the confessional wall and then by sitting through the service which unlike regular church kept me awake, made me laugh and made me feel like an individual sitting among my fellow artists. I also participated in the “laughing box” exhibit and won five dollars, being that i made the other person laugh first. i throughly enjoyed this exhibition, especially because it put me in a place surrounded by my fellow artists which put me in what I consider to be a place of peace and serenity.

  13. proverbs3v18

    The following is part I of a review I wrote for another blog- sorry for being slow to post.
    —————————–
    1440 Minutes
    4/11/2008
    5pm-?
    UCCS GoCA & CC Coburn

    It was a night of performance art and installation. In the UCCS gallery space, there were five main interaction spaces. The first was the food and drinks that met you immediately upon entering. This is incredibly new since in past exhibitions, the catering was outside in he hallway and no food or drink was allowed inside. The reason for the change is that there were cameras set up watching the interactions with the catering – after grabbing your goods, you wandered over behind the wall to find two projectors showing people moving. It was titled something like “What Brings Us All Together” – and suddenly you realize “That’s the entryway to the gallery!” You were on these projections earlier!
    For some, it made them wary of going back for seconds. Some of those that did go back were more aware of what they were doing. Based on the title, one could conclude that food and drinks bring us together; and possibly on another level, television – people doing mundane or unimportant things on TV.
    Next door to these projections was a small, dimly lit hallway to a very large black trifold cardboard probably about eight feet tall, which was labeled “The Art Confessional”. On a short pedestal directly in front of it was a stick of white chalk and fake plastic fly. At first, people wrote about art-related things, but soon the confessional “wall” was littered with profanities and nonsense statements, some not related to art at all. People would stand and read everyone else’s before putting their own confessions down.
    My favorite would have to be “I fucked Picasso”. It reminded me of the bathroom stall walls back in High School, where girls privately would write something, yet know that it would be seen – like confession is hypocritical, telling someone something deeply personal that you don’t want to share for fear of judgment (which is why for the first hour or so the confessional wall was left empty I think…) but kind of want to share to get it off your chest. Perhaps that’s why it took time for others to write; they want that cushion of anonymity so no one will know which theirs is out of all those – either that or the feeling that it’s alright to share because so many others did too. I ran into this kind of sharing timidity at the CC portion later. But let’s finish the UCCS side.
    Adjacent to the confessional was a “church”. Benches set up in rows where the “congregation” sat. It was the ARTCHURCH by the ARTOFFICIALS. They even had missals for you to take that outlined the “mass”. The “priests” were attired in black and berets, the classic stereotype artist’s dress. One stood at the pulpit, reading and sermonizing things like “Andy Warhol’s Diary” and “The Unartfulness of Modern Life”. The space was lit by video projections of churches on the front wall, and two smaller ones on the side walls. They were colored differently and in constant motion over the facades, resembling stained-glass windows. Multiple monitors stacked on one side showed various faces of people, like the iconography of saints – either that or they were the choir. In front was an alter with tabernacle (what usually holds the hosts) type thing against the wall, surrounded by candles. I didn’t get to observe the whole “mass”, but from what I gather from colleagues, they were given a little plastic shiny red heart ornament for “communion” – a mass-produced art-object. My favorite part about this would have to be “The Sign of the Bulb” which is like the sign of the cross in Christianiy, but instead tracing the contour of a light bulb and then putting your index finger up in an “Aha!” epiphany gesture.
    This art-mass was brilliant, changing the ritual of Christianity into ritual of art – as though art (which it is/should be) was something to be thought about and revered. “The Artistic Trinity, In the name of The Idea, The Process, and The Work.” It has great possibilities for provoking discussion in the arts and life as this piece can be taken on different levels: as a serious or satirical critique of art practices, as a mocking of Christian ritual, and even as an educational venue for people (the “congregation”) to learn about art.
    The last part of UCCS’ space was two curtained off cubicles on adjacent walls which were connected to one another by was of a screen and a video camera. The person in the other cubicle could see you on their monitor via your camera recording and transmitting you in real-time. Outside on the cubicles, people can see who’s inside and what they’re doing. On the walls next to the cubicle entrances were three large $5 bill reproductions (probably 12×5”) with words something like “Abe Lincoln wants someone to crack” in yellow lettering. Later that night, we discovered the real purpose – whoever laughed first lost the $5 prize. I actually won once. A person would make faces or do something into his or her camera to get the person in the other cubicle to laugh. There were even some team tries. People gathered around to watch the antics as they were projected on the outside of the cubicles as well.
    This rounds up the sort of theme of UCCS’ gallery space; it is something of watching other people and being aware of our own actions. This last piece pushes the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior and comfort boundaries: How far are you willing to go to win that $5 with all of those people watching?

    The UCCS space was fun and engaging.

  14. proverbs3v18

    Part II
    ——————-
    From there, one could take a shuttle to the CC campus gallery. For the trip on the bus there was a work by UCCS professor Valerie Brodar. On the window were large sheets of vellum printed with times, places, and descriptions of people who rode busses (at least it seemed that was what was being described). An audio track on loop played with different voices reading these descriptions one at a time – each full of inferences about the personalities and happenings in the lives of the one being observed. It was an interesting juxtaposition of elements with the context of us the viewers riding a bus. At once, this conveyance is a means to the other art space, but itself is part of the work presented by Brodar. It brings to mind the people watching that we all do, sometimes seeing another person on the bus (or elsewhere) and judging who they are from that brief window into their lives – making assumptions or conclusions that may or may not be accurate.
    It almost made riders more conscious of being a rider on the bus and of being seen by others. Some even craned their heads around to observe other riders. This piece was transition into the less interactive space at CC.
    The CC Coburn gallery sported four works, two interactive and two installation. Somehow, CC’s portion was more quiet and unused – people were not as talkative and did not interact with the artwork as much. It felt more like a classic gallery set-up where viewers aren’t really supposed to touch anything – only observe and silently contemplate.
    On a wall was a timeline with some sort of floral wallpaper design, affixed by what looks like Xerox transfers. Pencils with a sharpener were in a corner in a basket. When I got there at around 7pm, there were a few written entries on the timeline and two or three children’s drawings. It seemed people were timid, so I picked up a couple pencils and went to town drawing on those walls. After a while, my colleagues and some other started drawing on the walls too. There were no instructions for the piece and no one spoke to us about it, so we drew or wrote whatever.
    This was a little like the confessional wall at UCCS’ GoCA. However, it brings to mind a different issue about environments. It is almost culturally trained into most people that one does not touch the artwork. How the environment is set-up can determine the kinds of behaviors allowed.
    Since every work I had seen to this point of the 1440 was interactive in some way, I sat down and started playing with one of the installations resembling a decrepit office-space. The gallery manager came up to me smiling politely and said, “…this isn’t really all that interactive,” and told me I could draw on the wall or crochet over there. This office space was set against a movable wall. There was a laptop with what appeared to be security video footage on top of the desk, along with a tray and piles of papers, a ring-around of official looking stamps and three ink pads, and a half finished cup of coffee. An empty, rusty two-drawer filing cabinet completed the scene.
    Sharing the movable wall on the other side was an equally decrepit looking bathroom space with a very dirty moldy sink coming from the wall (I think there was mold or cat hair in the drain…), a cheap woven rug in front of the sink, and a small pile of women’s shoes off to the side – some being brightly colored pumps or glittery heels.
    These two installations were by far the least engaging of the 1440 show for me, because of their static nature. Even the floor crocheting was more active, with balls of colored yarn all around and a multi-pointed star-like crochet-construction where viewers could at least sit down and continue the crocheting on one of the arms.
    —————
    Overall, the show was very successful – there were more people at the opening than I have seen at other exhibition openings. The crowd was diverse and active, even drawing in professors from other departments. There was talk about the art shown, art in general, and there was socialization between friends and new people. An excellent community event.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s