Contextual Presentation

13 02 2008


Main Issue: Digital Art as the Language of ‘Experience’

Individual Context:

Bill Viola

James Turrel

Collaborative Context:

Gilbert & George

Cornford & Cross

Project Progression



Drawing Experiments


Working Structure


Postgraduate Presentation to BA Students

12 02 2008

The Work: Power/Play


Current Video Work


Drawing Process

The Experience








Online Coordination


Cross-MA Shows

Working Structure

10 02 2008


Installation Sketch

From our discussions, Mosh and I found that coming up with one unanimous or even third screen would defeat the entire purpose of the project. We realized that the opposing screens would be the best way to create the installation. This way, the audience has to focus on one piece of work at a time, though the two interact. Like within a conversation, where one’s focus shifts from one person to the other, so with this work.

Preliminary Methodology
The installation also echoes the preliminary methodology that we came up with.


Interactivity Sketch

And for the interactivity, Mosh came up with an idea of using lasers that intersect, one from each of the work. It will be like the pieces are invisibly connected and once that line is broken, various disruptions take place. We thought of the two lasers so that there could be three variations. When each of the lines is broken, something happens. When both are broken, something happens as well. The pieces will be moving subtly until they are ‘disturbed’, or until one of the lines are crossed.

Drawing Experiments

9 02 2008


Drawing Experiment 1

With this piece, Mosh and I just started drawing on a single piece of paper. We didn’t make up any rules, and we just did the whole thing pretty silently. To be honest, it was quite fun to just let my mind keep quiet for a bit. The great thing was that after, we both talked about it…and we noticed how we were both looking at what the other was doing, trying to sort of flow with the other’s technique so to speak. Mosh did the broad strokes and I started with the thin lines. He then started to do the lines as well, though in his own way. I on the other hand, started to shade the large lines and the curves to create depth. Interesting process.


Drawing Experiment 2

With this experiment, Mosh and I started drawing lines on two intersecting pieces of paper. We then started to move the paper around as we continues, creating intersecting lines. Then, we pulled the papers apart and started to draw dots where the same colors intersected. Mine is the one on the left, with the red dots. His is on the right, with the blue dots. We just thought this would be an interesting break from all the arguing;). Strangely enough, it helped. We realized we really are quite different and the best way to create this collaboration is through bringing these out on the same page so to speak. We don’t have to arrive at a unanimous decision.

Combative Collaboration – Investigating the Process of Cornford and Cross

8 02 2008

As a creative partnership we do have agreed aims, but we don’t have a set
method or approach. What unites all our projects is that they are developed
through prolonged, intense and often adversarial discussions and debate
(Cross. 2004:p658).


A Month in the Country October 2003

Cornford and Cross have developed a process that is argumentative. According to their interviews, they create through debate, with one constantly trying to outdo the other’s ideas until one gives up. They both believe in the strength of a good idea, meaning if it withstands critical debate, it’s worth pursuing. When one finally gives up, and agrees that the other’s idea is stronger, they create the work. This image above is from A Month in the Country. It is about the commodification of the image and particularly photographs which they acquired from Corbis, which has the world’s largest stock photography collection. Instead of showing the photographs, they whitewashed it, making the piece into a statement, rather than a product.


The Abolition of Work November 2007

The question that arises is that with debate, one person wins and the other loses. Their form of discourse exists in the opposite side of the spectrum of Gilbert and George. In a way, they always say no, until they can no longer prove that the other is wrong. When defeat is accepted, they both do the project, achieving their aim of a conceptually strong piece of work.
Our practice deals with neither the discourse of Cornford and Cross nor Gilbert and George. To achieve our aim of having the choice to agree or disagree, it is important that two artistic visions are presented. That is the reason why we have chosen within our process to either affirm or negate the other’s techniques and ideas. In presenting two individual pieces that interact, we choose to reveal the negotiations that take place within collaborations, rather than hiding the discourse that takes place.

Additive Collaboration – Investigating the Process of Gilbert and George

7 02 2008

‘We don’t think we’re two artists. We think we are an artist’ (Sylvester. 1999).


Bloody Life No 16 (1975) Photo courtesy Gilbert & George/Aperture Foundation


With this collaboration, there is a complete dissolution of one’s individual identity. They have agreed that no one can disagree with the other. Their process is additive. One person puts an image, the other adds another. They have made it into a rule never to say no.

“One of our first rules for ourselves was “Never discuss.”’ (Sylvester.1999:p13).


Fates 2005 Laser print on paper 4260 x 7600 mm

Here, choice is obviously constricted. One is not allowed to say no. Though for them, this process works in pushing each other’s creativity, there is also a lack of freedom. Individuality is sacrificed for the sake of the whole. In our practice we are challenging this idea. By creating two pieces of work with distinct voices, that interact, we are questioning the need to ‘homogenize’ oneself within a collaboration. In fact, there is only one piece that reveals the artistic styles of Gilbert and George. Two drawings that are entitled Gilbert by George and George by Gilbert. They both admit that this is the piece they hate the most.


Cabbage Worship (1982)

They reveal in their interviews that they use the photo-montage as a way to hide their individual drawing skills, saying that it is because they want the idea to be the most important thing, and not who made what.
By removing any obvious signs of the handmade, they effectively thwarted the possibility of the viewer being able to differentiate one person’s input from the other’s, with potentially divisive consequences (Gibert and George. Major Exhibition. Tate Gallery, ed.)
This can be contested as a way of hiding one’s strengths and weaknesses, and in that way, one’s differences. How can any bit of hiding be the truth? This is the very thing that our collaboration challenges. Though we agree that the discourse within collaborations makes a unique experience and process that would not be the same without the presence of the other, we do not agree that making one’s individual mark (which is inevitable) brings the audience closer to the truth.


Framing Light and Space – Analyzing the Work of James Turrell

6 02 2008


James Turrell expresses ‘experience’ by allowing the viewer to experience light. Since light is so familiar to us, we no longer see it. This artist, helps us see it once again. He uses different techniques, one of which is framing:






He also used sculptured light.


To bring focus unto something we no longer see, he controlled, shaped and crafted the environment and therefore the viewer’s experience. He allows us to see something that was always there, but failed to see. This experience can only be achieved with digital art, through research into how the senses perceive light, sound, space and time.

%d bloggers like this: