Taking my face for a walk on the heath (and a recap of my 'Frosted Face')

Since before I had my face cast, I've been planning a series of photo of my face in different natural settings - the aim being to replicate the grief feeling of wanting to sink into the earth and be 'quenched' by it - to sort of sleep forever without actually dying as such. The plan was to use the mould to cast faces in natural materials. However, I decided to have a trial run using a plaster cast.

I felt surprisingly self-conscious walking over to the local heath carrying my face in my pocket. I probably looked dodgy as hell - a middle-aged man with something heavy wrapped up in his pocket, staring weirdly around... However, once I actually got the thing out and started exploring places to photograph it, I quickly relaxed - so much so that I carried it home by the nose, dripping mud, and nobody batted an eyelid...

Actually testing out quickly highlighted a few problems:

• As I've discovered before with my frosted face (Oh! I forgot to write that up!), it's quite difficult to position the face in such a way that it looks like it's actually coming out of the ground, and not just placed on the ground
• The white plaster looked blindingly and unnaturally white against any background
• Related to the above, the photos are often 'washed out' with no detail on the photo because it was so bright, despite plenty of detail being visible to the naked eye
• Water looks great, but any depth of murky water makes it hard to see the details of the face

So since I forgot to write-up 'frosted faces', I'll quickly say that I left my wax face cast outside on a particularly cold night, and the next day took some photos:

As noted above, these worked best when the angle and position was such that the face appeared to be coming out of the earth - basically where the edge of the mask was hidden. I was really pleased with them, and got lots of positive feedback too.

Coming back to the heath, these are the best of the shots I took:

Immersing the cast in water for the third image made me realise that getting the cast muddy helped it to blend, hence the last shot! I made sure the cast was good and muddy, and took it home still caked in mud. The idea being to clean the mud off when dry to maximise the staining, but actually the drying mud made for one more great image:

The pattern made by the mud is amazing!

Overall I was really pleased with the idea, and can see obvious places to try next - broadly I want to better blend the face with the natural environment - I think that means having another with the plaster face now that it's muddy, but also experimenting with casting new faces in natural materials like leafs (ok, more like paper mache than casting!), mud, etc

Synthetic Birdsong

I went along to the Virtual Ecologies lecture "Within Perception" last night. I am always a bit leery of going to stuff in the evenings because it messes with my daughter's evening routine, but Roz recommended it, and I really enjoyed it. 

The lecture was a presentation by a neurology researcher, talking about the effect of 'nature' on the brain. It was interesting as there was a lot of discussion about how to measure what elements of 'nature' actually make a difference - is it the colours? the sounds? the space? This makes sense since from a scientific point-of-view, understanding this gives further insight into how the brain works, but also further insight into how the benefits could be best deployed to help people. 

What I found more surprising, was the seeming push towards synthesising these effects. For instance, could VR be used to simulate a natural environment? Does listening to recordings of natural sounds help? Clearly, 'real' nature has some limitations for some people in terms of access, and even feeling safe, but for most people, it seemed strange to rush to deliver a synthetic version when the 'real' thing is so clearly beneficial in other ways.

Being who I am, I made the comment that I could image a dystopian future where we are all kept in pods, and played fake birdsong to keep us happy... To be fair, my actual comment was a bit less pointed, but that was the gist... 

However, the reference to birdsong led me back to my discussion with JK about AI, and my assertion that simulated art was of equal value to 'real' art - that people don't care if that heart-felt poem was written by a real person, or written by an AI. The problem being, I realised that for birdsong, that's not true. I DO care if the birdsong is simulated, even if it's indistinguishable from real birdsong.

So why? Why would it be true for the bird? I think that what I care about is not the sound, but the knowledge that there is a real bird, singing it's little heart out, that it's a tiny vulnerable thing, making this incredible sound that seems to defiantly advertise it's location.

So if I care about that for a bird? Why don't I care about that for a person? I THINK the short answer is because I'm wrong... I DO care about it for art - yes my Insta feed is filled with art-slush that is made by AI, or looks like it was... But actually for the art that I connect with, that I care about, that I am moved by, I do connect with the artist, not just the art. I care that Tracy Emin is a real person, because I care about her art, and I care about her art because I care she is a real person. If Tracy Emin turned out to be an AI, would I feel the same about her art? Probably not (and would I feel the same about AI afterwards? Probably not!)

Of course, this feeds back into my wider wondering about the role of the artist in the piece. I have always asserted that the piece should stand alone, independent on the artist, but surely that's not true?

Open Casket v07

   REMOVED

ADDED/AMENDED

Motivation

The over all idea is to create an impression of sadness, mixed with humour and tranquillity - people should feel at rest with the 'body' not disturbed

Effigies are designed to be viewed, and to be a tribute to the deceased (or to invite prayer for the deceased). That doesn't feel right - I want a sense of intrusion and examination - dissection of life in death.

I think then, that this WAS a burial, but that burial has been disturbed and placed on show for the viewer's consideration (and perhaps in some senses, gratification). No crime has been committed, so I think this is more akin to a museum piece or an archaeological find. What is on show then, is in the spirit of a reconstruction of something found 'in situ', not the original condition.

Aesthetically, this pushes me towards more of a spartan look - this is not a sumptuous burial, but the slightly 'cold' display of one. It pushes me towards more of a 'scientific' look - harsher lights, designed for examination. It suggests that the elements should be display in a more simple 'frame', against the idea of an elaborate 'casket'. It suggests glass, and dark victorian wooden frames. It suggests, perhaps, in extremis, some form of pseudo-scientific paraphenalia, like moist monitors. It suggests broken and fragmentary and pieced together.

Shroud torn open to reveal elements inside? Like it has been forcefully revealed for study

If this is about 'interring' myself (always thought that word was 'interning'!), what better than to actually 'lay in state' at the PV while my plaster sets, and then leave the cast as my final piece.

Do I want some element of 'decay' over time? Should the piece change over time somehow? Break down somehow? Be buried somehow? Either through the materials or through audience participation?

A theme of my work is finding joy through the acceptance of the inevitability of death - could I somehow incorporate a participatory element through this? Maybe invite people to complete some form of 'note' (like "Wish You Were Hear") e.g. "If I died tomorrow, I wish I had..." or maybe more powerfully "If I died tomorrow, I'm glad I...". Could they be notes that fill the 'coffin'? Or hang on nails? Or maybe even get written onto the 'body' like "Undeliverable Letters"?

 Base

• A box? Or flat? Really want people to have to peer in so maybe a box? But weight will be an issue again
• Shaped or rectangular?
• Solid or mesh?
• Covered in something in the shape of my body? Spines of some sort?
• Shallowly moulded to impression my body (somehow? Weight!) - I'd really like to do this - but how? Some form of foam? Needs to be light, stable, cheap, and ideally environmentally friendly. Considered corn starch foam, but would have to experiment to see if it's suitable
• What the hell is the background going to be?? Becoming a limiting factor! Maybe look at real archeological displays of skeletons? Doing so, suggests something very plain - a board with some sort of backing, together perhaps with 'sides' and/or a sheet or perspex raise up as a lid

Life Casts

• Face, hands, and feet
• Face deformed in some way? Skull? Partial? Too much!
• Make sure to cast wedding ring, and guild it afterwards

Body fragments

• Fabric casts - Swags over key areas (e.g. chest, thighs, ankles, neck etc) or more fitted 'garmets' like a shroud? 
• Cast entire body as part of a performance on-site?
• If I make thin casts of enough of my body, do I need the fabric casts? Maybe fabric casts for the trunk, thin life casts for the limbs? Do I want to deliberately break any of the casts?
• Definitely want to keep them white and unstitched (e.g. no actual clothes)
• Some form of 'rib cage' - more interest, and a clearer message that this is a 'body'. Could also bring natural elements in if made from sticks
• "Wear" ribcage over ribs while taking fabric casting so it sits over the 'ribs' but also has the shape of my body
• Build an entire 'skeleton' out of found sticks?
• Lily's fist in epoxy as a 'heart'
• Hole over the position of the heart, as those it has been torn out, but also to allow the epoxy "heart" to be seen
• Threads or wire binding together? Nimbus of thread from back of face? Fragmentary face? Fabric background, with faded outline? Stitched into body?
• Should the body elements (especially the trunk) be sheets of fabric? Or string with a backing like 'holey face'?

Grave Goods

• An acorn in one hand
• A book of Time Management under the other
• Flowers on head?

Tutorial 5 with Jonathan - 28 Feb 2025

 My last, I think, tutorial with JK. I thought it might be bitter-sweet, especially as I was in a rather tired and sombre mood (I keep thinking I'll do 'just one more tweak' to my art and end up going to very bed late after many 'last tweaks'). However, it was actually a very entertaining, useful, and fast moving conversation.

We spent most of the time talking about Open Casket and the 'final show' (poor JK seems to have given correcting me now (I am such a dick!)). 

We talked about:

• How I can source some materials e.g. the base at CSM or nearby
• We talked about the format of the 'base' and I stressed that I don't think it's a coffin - I don't want the loaded iconography of a coffin, and I am also thinking of this as more akin to a museum display than a funeral or grave
• How I should be able to have a space to make simple items on-site on the first day, although we both acknowledged that this was a RISK and that I would need a plan B. It's also good to be aware that the space will quickly fill up with artworks awaiting hanging, and that the general area will be shared with MA Contemporary Photography. There is a darker corner away from the main space that I could potentially use (and which might be a great place to display the finished piece, although I didn't say that bit!). I stressed that any work I would do on-site would likely be only simple casting
• We talk about performance, and JK suggested thinking about it separately from the logistics of making, and considering the value/meaning of it as a stand-alone activity. He also suggested that leading on from that, consider if that changed the nature of the performance I would give. I think this is great food for thought... My instinct is that performance should NOT be an element of the work, as I think absence is an important part of the piece
• Leading on from this, we briefly discussed the fact that the absence of a body was significant, and I talked about my love of Antony Gormley's work
• We talked briefly about how the work has come to summarise a lot of my MA, intentionally incorporating and referencing other pieces and techniques that I have used, and we touched on how performance might be added to that, but also how I might reference my preferred form of performance: participatory art - perhaps as a way to bring change to the piece over the life-time of the show.

More broadly, we talked about my thoughts on the purpose of art. JK asked specifically about the purpose of Open Casket, and whether it is for me, or for others? Is it an act of catharsis? I struggled to articulate my thoughts on this - I think I have a sense of it, but it's hard to put into words, which maybe suggests I need to think more. I said I thought it was easier to explain if we separated motivation from purpose - I said that for me, the PURPOSE of the work is not necessarily the MOTIVATION for producing it. In this case, the motivation is intrinsic (it feels like the right thing to create as an ironic summary of my experience) but the purpose could be more extrinsic - I think it is 'for' other people. I said it's purpose was to record my own experience of 'dying' and in doing so, to act as a memento mori for other people - I observed that a lot of my thinking is around the value of confronting death, and the inspiration for life that could bring.

Leading on from this, we talked about my motivation as being both authentic and ironic. I said that I had come to believe it's hard to know my own intent at times - I believe the piece to be motivated by irony, but I suspect the irony to be a 'shield' to allow me to share something intensely authentic and raw. We talked briefly about the paradox of feigned inauthenticity being a way to access deeper levels of authenticity.

We talked about 'Holey Face' and how JK found it quite disturbing and trypophobia-inducing. I said that I was thinking i have 'trypophilia' as I seem to love adding holes to my work. I talked about Roz's shells and the idea of hidden spaces inside them. I said I have an obsession with hidden spaces, and had a realisation that it links to my obsession with the 'secret life' of spaces - the idea that they exist when you can't see them and have their own 'secret life'. I talked about how it relates somehow to the null-point and the idea of spaces with potential - rooms just before you enter them, vaults and tunnels sealed off and forgotten, public spaces with nobody in them...

Finally we talked about AI and JK's thinking about Hulme and 'ideas' vs 'impressions'. JK suggested that might be somehow related to how AI thinks vs how people think. I gave an opinion that even if AI is 'just maths', if it behaves indistinguishably from a thinking being, how could we assert that it doesn't think? Especially as so little is understood about how we think - which could turn out to be just as 'mechanical'. I said that my experience is that everyone is looking for some 'special spark' that humans have but AI doesn't, but that I thought it was mysticism and fear. I opined that artists cared that their art was made by thinking/feeling beings, that most people did not... And on that cheerless thought, we parted company! :)

Truth and Significance

 A few months ago, I stumbled across the phrase "The Tyranny of Truth" on someone's blog, and an appeal (not directly by the author) not to be bound by it... I can't find where, although I think I remember the source, but it appears to be gone, so I'll let sleeping dogs lie. I am much taken by the idea, although I can't fully understand what is generally meant by it. I know what it means to me, and I know what AI makes of it, and I've read "The Tyranny of Truth" by J. A. FitzPatrick and find much to disagree with! Which leaves me in a bit of a pickle, although also sort of proves my very point... Or at least the point I think I am trying to make.

I (and I think most people in Western culture, at least) have been brought up to place huge value on 'truth'. One must seek out the truth, defend the truth, be bound by the truth. 

The problem with the truth is that it is an act of faith - it asserts that there is one belief that is 'true' and therefore all other beliefs that don't align to this 'true' belief must be wrong... And of course, it's perhaps no coincidence that 'wrong' has come to mean both 'incorrect' and 'wicked'.

Training as a scientist, huge value is placed on facts... But facts are NOT truth, and science does not fall into that trap of suggesting they are. Scientists don't believe that facts are 'true', they simply believe that they are independently measurable values. They don't believe that their models are 'true', they simply believe that they make correct predictions of facts. Is the electron a wave or a particle? Fuck knows... Sometimes it does stuff that is best modelled as a wave, sometimes it does stuff that is best modelled as a particle? Is it both? Yes. No. Is it either? No... Is it even a real thing? Dunno... The electron is a very successful model, but it doesn't mean it's 'true', and I don't think anyone who really understands science would argue that it is.

My daughter is obsessed about lying... Not obsessed with doing it, actually quite to opposite. She's obsessed with not lying herself, and with the reprehensible nature of anyone who does lie. But what constitutes lying? If you show me your new tee-shirt and it's awful, but I say 'lovely'... Am I lying? If you ask me what I am doing on Saturday, and I say I'm going to the park, but when Saturday comes, it's raining and I go to the cinema instead, did I lie? If someone tells me that Jane pooed her pants and I tell someone else that Jane is a pants pooer, but actually the first person made it up, am I now a lier?

When I was in Israel for work, someone once said it was very funny that I started every statement with 'I think...'. Of course you think that, he explained, you don't need to tell people you think it, you just need to tell them the thing, and they decide if it's true or not.

A friend of mine in sales once said "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". I was appalled (in a silent British way), but actually, is that wrong? Of course, the answer is 'that depends'.

I think truth needs to go fuck itself. Truth is the weapon of despots and bigots and crackpots. I value facts, and I value authenticity. I value intent, and I value significance.

My daughter has placed a group of plastic dinosaurs outside her bedroom door. Sitting on the carpet and on the banister rail above, they guard her room and keep her safe at night. My daughter has seen Jurassic Park, she knows that dinosaurs are creatures of great power. Of course that's not true - they are inert lumps of plastic. But do they keep her safe? They probably do, it depends on what she is being keeping safe from.

When I make art, does truth matter? Do facts matter? Surely all that really matters is significance. The truth does not need to get in the way of a good story. 

Open Casket v06

  REMOVED

ADDED/AMENDED

Motivation

The over all idea is to create an impression of sadness, mixed with humour and tranquillity - people should feel at rest with the 'body' not disturbed

Is this a tomb effigy? Or a burial? Or an autopsy? Or an museum display? Or some combination? What vibe do I want? I think that whilst this is a 'burial', that is perhaps the least helpful since I want an element of examination.

Effigies are designed to be viewed, and to be a tribute to the deceased (or to invite prayer for the deceased). That doesn't feel right - I want a sense of intrusion and examination - dissection of life in death.

I think then, that this WAS a burial, but that burial has been disturbed and placed on show for the viewer's consideration (and perhaps in some senses, gratification). No crime has been committed, so I think this is more akin to a museum piece or an archaeological find. What is on show then, is in the spirit of a reconstruction of something found 'in situ', not the original condition.

Aesthetically, this pushes me towards more of a spartan look - this is not a sumptuous burial, but the slightly 'cold' display of one. It pushes me towards more of a 'scientific' look - harsher lights, designed for examination. It suggests that the elements should be display in a more simple 'frame', against the idea of an elaborate 'casket'. It suggests glass, and dark victorian wooden frames. It suggests, perhaps, in extremis, some form of pseudo-scientific paraphenalia, like moist monitors. It suggests broken and fragmentary and pieced together.

Shroud torn open to reveal elements inside? Like it has been forcefully revealed for study

If this is about 'interring' myself (always thought that word was 'interning'!), what better than to actually 'lay in state' at the PV while my plaster sets, and then leave the cast as my final piece.

Do I want some element of 'decay' over time? Should the piece change over time somehow? Break down somehow? Be buried somehow? Either through the materials or through audience participation?

 Base

• A box? Or flat? Really want people to have to peer in so maybe a box? But weight will be an issue again
• Shaped or rectangular?
• Solid or mesh?
• Covered in something in the shape of my body? Spines of some sort?
• Shallowly moulded to impression my body (somehow? Weight!) - I'd really like to do this - but how? Some form of foam? Needs to be light, stable, cheap, and ideally environmentally friendly. Considered corn starch foam, but would have to experiment to see if it's suitable
• What the hell is the background going to be?? Becoming a limiting factor! Maybe look at real archeological displays of skeletons? Doing so, suggests something very plain - a board with some sort of backing, together perhaps with 'sides' and/or a sheet or perspex raise up as a lid

Life Casts

• Face, hands, and feet
• Face deformed in some way? Skull? Partial? Too much!
• Make sure to cast wedding ring, and guild it afterwards

Body fragments

• Fabric casts - Swags over key areas (e.g. chest, thighs, ankles, neck etc) or more fitted 'garmets' like a shroud? 
• Cast entire body as part of a performance on-site?
• If I make thin casts of enough of my body, do I need the fabric casts? Maybe fabric casts for the trunk, thin life casts for the limbs? Do I want to deliberately break any of the casts?
• Definitely want to keep them white and unstitched (e.g. no actual clothes)
• Some form of 'rib cage' - more interest, and a clearer message that this is a 'body'. Could also bring natural elements in if made from sticks
• "Wear" ribcage over ribs while taking fabric casting so it sits over the 'ribs' but also has the shape of my body
• Build an entire 'skeleton' out of found sticks?
• Lily's fist in epoxy as a 'heart'
• Hole over the position of the heart, as those it has been torn out, but also to allow the epoxy "heart" to be seen
• Threads or wire binding together? Nimbus of thread from back of face? Fragmentary face? Fabric background, with faded outline? Stitched into body?
• Should the body elements (especially the trunk) be sheets of fabric? Or string with a backing like 'holey face'?

Grave Goods

• An acorn in one hand
• A book of Time Management under the other
• Flowers on head?

Doris Salcedo and being 'socially dead'

I came across the work of Doris Salcedo again this morning, specifically her 'Uprooted' (a house made from a thicket of uprooted trees). Naturally it immediately struck me for my interest in thickets. However, I'm terrible with names, so I was pleasantly surprised to see I'd come across her work before, and really liked it, especially 'Istanbul', where she filled the gap between two buildings with chairs. I wish I could show some pictures, but none seem to be licensed for reuse 🙄

Shibboleth at the Tate Modern

I really like her use of everyday objects as proxies for people- chairs are very good proxies. Maybe I need to think about this again - I did it once in 'Waiting Place', but have moved away from it. In general, I think my work shares the use of metaphor, with objects standing in for people or ideas.

Reading her Wikipedia page, she says:

I have come to the conclusion that the industrial prison system in the United States has many of these elements, where people, for really no reason, for possession of marijuana or things like that are going to jail, where some minor crimes have become felonies. I'm really shocked by the sheer numbers of people being thrown into jails. And also I think it's amazing how this system, being in jail and then going out, has so many collateral effects that a fairly large portion of the population are not allowed to be alive. The idea of having a large portion of the population excluded from civil rights, from many, many possibilities, implies that you have people that can almost be considered socially dead. What does it mean to be socially dead? What does it mean to be alive and not able to participate? It's like being dead in life. That's what I am researching now, and that is the perspective I have been looking at events from for a long time.

I find the idea of being 'socially dead' fascinating. I understand the context in which see means it here, but I feel a sense of it more generally - I think a lot of people find themselves 'socially dead', sometimes temporarily, sometimes more permanently. It makes me remember the time immediately after Carolyn died, when I felt 'dead' - not emotionally or metaphorically, but literally, I felt outside of reality - like a restless ghost walking the landscape.