2-17: METHODOLOGY FOR SPATIAL INTERVENTION

In the final version of my research paper, I decided to abandon the dossier component (see 2-15), feeling that it lacked clear criticality existing as a purely visual element.

Instead, as I began to compile relevant notes and narratives of works that embodied the idea of spatial intervention as a form of documentary, I started to construct a methodology for creating spatial interventions. Intended as a conceptual, working document, I included this component with the intention of allowing my findings to better form a position directly relevant to GCD practice.

I began the third component of the Triangulate project by attempting to build a spatial intervention of my own, following this methodology.

Easier said than done.

LOSING SIGHT OF SITE

I was, in some sense, ‘site-less’. When attempting to design a spatial interaction, I opted to instead focus on materials, attempting to create something more modular and versatile that could potentially be applied to any number of spaces.

Inspired by the Light & Space artists of the 60s, who worked with materials such as glass and scrim, I had considered obscuring sight as a simple yet fascinating way of interfering with the sensory experience of space.

In particular, I had sought to examine whether obscuring one particular part of a space could heighten awareness of other aspects. For instance, if you were to talk with an individual whose face was obscured, would your focus instead turn to some other aspect of their body that you may not typically observe during conversation?

Unfortunately I did not find it physically feasible to produce the structure I had hoped to, due to a mixture of budget, time and technical restraints.

I instead opted to produce some iterations using translucent material, simply having others hold it to obscure elements of space. I did not take these as far as I probably should have, and may revisit the idea in a different context.

Were I to revisit this concept, I would likely want it to occur in a more ‘live’ manner; as I discussed in my research paper, participation and experience are critical aspects of intervening in space, and it was challenging to interrogate the ways in which the use of this material truly manipulated the space and its inhabitants.

In retrospect, I feel I rushed too quickly into trying to make a work resembling that which I had been writing about; in turn, I disregarded the crucial importance of understanding and focusing on a particular site in producing such an intervention. To refocus my approach I would have to return to a ‘reverence’ of site, with an acceptance that it would be difficult to produce something with the same depth and understanding of a certain space as the artists I had written about, who spent many months or years interfacing with their chosen surroundings.

STEPPING BACK

In the aftermath of my previous experiments, I decided to take a step back, return to my earlier notes and attempt to get a firmer grasp on what I was doing and how I had reached this point.

In particular, I returned to my research on the ‘Paris Syndrome’ notion (see 2-12) and the ‘frames’ I had created. Though I was not so interested in engaging with that particular medium again, I wanted to return to the idea of re-inserting something intangible into the space from which it originates, in some physical form.

I began to think more closely about the sites available to me, the actions I performed within them, why, when and how I inhabited them. As my research paper had revealed, an understanding of site would be crucial when attempting to intervene in it.

Inspired by artists such as Ana Mendieta, who had used her own body as a means of physically manifesting a collective experience of space, I looked to take myself and my actions—as well as others who used the space—and implant them in some physical manner disconnected from the raw action itself.

Why have I stuck a picture of myself sitting on a chair on the wall of the studio?

Well, what do you do when you go into the studio?

The aim of this piece is to re-insert into a space a piece of its own codified identity.

Reactions to the installation ranged from indifference to fear. Some simply didn’t notice it, whereas others found it difficult to work with it lurking just slightly out of view. Some, who viewed the work from a distance, simply assumed it was the real me, sat facing the wall.

Though it is an ambiguous metric with which to consider such a work, if the installation’s presence in the room encouraged a viewer to consider some element of their surroundings they would not otherwise, then I would consider it ‘successful’.

I am considering the possibilities of going further with this type of work in different contexts; what if a similar technique was applied to objects or other facets of space? More iteration is required to really get a grasp of this medium, but here’s where I am for the time being.

FOOD (OR LACK THEREOF) FOR THOUGHT