Compromise?

My friend came back into the studio. Seeing my utter dejection, she asked what had happened. Sean came back into the studio. My work still had not been signed off. My friend asked if we couldn't compromise on the open sound? Sean had mentioned two empty studios. My friend offered to pay for and provide the carpenters for the installation of my work in one of those, in order to have my film presented in the way it was intended throughout the process.  Sean flatly refused as this would mean calling back the Health & Safety officers and did I want to risk jeopardising the whole Degree Show?  Of course not.

I asked him if, for my assessment on the following Tuesday, the examiners could see my film with open sound as the other artists wouldn't be involved. Again this was out of the question as the presentation for the assessment has to be consistent with that of the Degree Show.

Sean asked me at what distance from the screen I wanted the headphones to reach. He told me to position my mobility scooter and decide. I asked him where I would get headphones from?  He told me to go to see Boris, the technician. He left the studio. I moved backwards and forwards on my mobility scooter but the whole thing was becoming a blur. My friend asked if we should go to Currys to buy headphones. They would need to be PAT tested before I could be signed off and, by then, Sean had told us Boris the technician was off sick. Sean came back into the studio bearing a set of headphones and we thanked him. We now had to get off to B&Q to source a hook.  Sean signed off my work.  It wasn't the best way to remember hand-in day!

A Sleepless Weekend
It wasn't until that night that I realised all the implications of this change in presentation of my work:
I really felt that Sean had held a gun to my head. I was coerced into agreeing to the use of headphones because of a) the 'problem' had to be resolved before sign-off. The deadline had already passed. b) There was no reasoning with Sean. His decision was made. c) There was no compromise as Sean had pointed out that bringing Health & Safety in again could compromise the whole show.

• In the 2000 word illustrated document I handed in I had made no mention of headphones anywhere. I had an entire section on presentation and sound. Did that not look like an oversight on my part that I had omitted to mention headphones? I also had a section on 'professional use of my film'.  Wouldn't the examiners think it odd that I intended to show it to groups as the basis for an art workshop through headphones? It was never at any stage my intention to use headphones consequently I made no reference to them.
• My presentation was due the following Tuesday, before which there was no time to appeal about this headphones ruling.  I had no idea as to what my student rights were. Was I entitled to a student advocate? I was beginning to feel really sick.
• I felt that my work was being unfairly penalised because it simply didn't suit three other students out of the entire student body. Isn't this a form of censorship? Other people who had sound installations were permitted the use of open sound.  There should  be a blanket policy - either no open sound for anyone or reasonable sound permitted for everyone. I was the only student with an audio installation penalised in this way. Was this flouting equal opportunity rulings?
• Then there was the logistics of the Show itself. My film lasts 5 minutes give or take. Using headphones, only one person can watch it at a time. No other person's work is limited to an audience of one. How would Ian react if only one person at a time were permitted to enter his 'particpatory art installation' and the rest ushered to wait behind a barrier? Who is going to be prepared to wait in line for the use of the headphones?
• There is also the issue of the viewer's engagement with the piece.  I had planned for months how to present it with the greatest impact.  The music is integral to the piece.  Every image is synchronised to match the ryhthm of the music. Take that away and you only have half a film. You have changed the dynamic of the piece and the interaction between viewer and work.
• I was seriously worried about my presentation to examiners the following Tuesday.  Sean insisted that the presentaiton for the assessment had to be consistent with that of the Show. How was I going to present my work when it is in a different format to what I had planned all along? Was I going to pretend that the headphones weren't there or was I going to pretend that I'd planned to present it that way?

I really felt the need for some sound advice.  That weekend I made some useful contacts.

Result!  It pays to know people who know people in high places. Due to the community educational art projects I have been involved with, I have quite a few contacts in academia. They felt that Sean's action was outrageous and passed me on to whoever they thought might be useful in this situation. By Monday afternoon I received confirmation that a meeting was being called between myself, Sean and John Butler, Head of BIAD for Tuesday. It was to take place after my scheduled presentation assessment but I was grateful to have this meeting so soon as I don't think I could have dealt with the anxiety much longer.

Presentation to Internal Examiners
If any BCU students with a problem read this, take heart. I went in with my points prepared in a statement. John Butler allowed my friend to sit in with me. I did not want her to contribute other than in a supporting role because my nerves were in shreds from lack of sleep and food.  I was allowed to read my statement and then Sean had his right to reply. I offered the compromise of only showing my film with open sound once every half hour. Sean made no response. John Butler gave me a fair hearing. Whatever the outcome, I feel that the decision will be made by fair-minded people.