The Degree Show was the culmination of three years hard work for all of us. Some aspects of it worked really well but others need to be seriously reviewed.
What worked well
The studios were presented to a really professional standard. Sean and the technicians deserve to be congratulated. We really were given the best possible venue to showcase our work. Some of us will never show in such surroundings again.
The 'Talking Head' videos filmed by Amanda Grist, Level 5, were the best way of describing student work the Show has ever used. She interviewed us about our work and then included images of our work to illustrate the concept. Sitting down to watch these talking heads taught me more about the work than I had ever picked up in group tutorials. It was a pity only nine of us chose this format to decribe our practice.
Room for improvement
Organisation throughout the run-up to the Show was abysmal. This was partially due to the apathy of the student body involved. It was also due to Sean failing to delegate. I know it was our group show, but a lot of the younger students had no clue as to how much organisation is involved in putting on a show. We had a trial run in putting on 'Workout' last year which, for some reason, ran much better. Sean needed to play to people's strengths and delegate tasks to people who can deliver. Everyone on the course is willing and helpful. They just need to be told what exactly it is they need to do. Ian liaised between Sean and the student body but it shouldn't have fallen to one person. I can sympathise with Sean's frustration at the lack of organisation but, to be fair, if he had offered some direction early on, the wheels would have run far more smoothly.
Utter Shambles!
The problem I encountered regarding the presentation of my work, leading to a formal complaint on my part, could have been avoided all togther with some forward planning on behalf of Sean. He blows with the wind with his decision-making. In trying to please everyone, he antagonises everyone. It is a fine line to walk between fairness and spineless. His remit as Course Director cum Curator cum Creative Director is to produce the best show possible which showcases the students' degree work to its greatest potential. Individual grievances and petty rivalries must be secondary to this primary concern. Throughout the year Sean has shown himself to vacillate but the gaping holes in his experience and lack of professional mettle were glaringly obvious during this Show.
At the time when Show Proposals are submitted, students are asked what their requirements are; an electrical socket nearby, wall space, hanging space, a corner location or a big floor space. As we are not having solo exhibitions, it is imperative that we compromise for the overall good of the Show. Sean needs to have some Show guidelines on Moodle. If you fail to meet a deadline, then your requests may be overuled by that of another student whose work is actually ready. If you have a problem with the content of another student's work, in my case the open sound, then you submit your objection to that student in writing no later than 7 working days before hand-in date. If you cannot come to an agreement, then Sean speaks to the students together and has the final decision. If you approach him on the hand-in day, ninety minutes before the deadline - tough! This is another area where Sean's lack of professionalism is evident. Under pressure (excuse the pun) when it comes to decision-making, instead of going into the automatic pilot mode of the professional leader, he makes basic errors of judgment. In order to raise an objection, students need to know which studio they will be located in well beforehand. For this Show, people were being relocated right up until the last minute despite the email from Sean (dated 18 May) stating that our studio spaces would be allocated by the end of the following week. This is something that would need to be addressed.
All students need to know that it is highly likely that a sound installation of some sort will be in their studio. Sean needs to have a blanket policy that either all open sound is permitted or it is banned. If it is banned, then a compromise could be that sound installation students are required to section off a separate area. Another compromise, which I offered and was refused, is to allow the sound to play once every half hour so that everyone in the studio has an equal chance to present their work as intended.
I am certainly not the only student who thinks decision-making for the Show left a lot to be desired. I can't quote them without their permission but in general discussion a lot of complaints have surfaced.
Labelling of work - or not, in the case of our Show
I emailed Ruth and Sean on the 18th May ask if we were responsible for our own labelling or, as rumour had it, there was to be a standardised format for all students' work. I was told labelling was to be standardised. This saved me getting a plaque made. Two weeks prior to the Show, I asked Sean what was happening with labelling. He said that was Ruth's department.
We had a Show meeting and were told to send in a description for our work by noon the next day. Mine was ready and waiting so I emailed it. I have never seen the 250 word description appear anywhere. I know when I go to a gallery, if I like a particular piece of work, I want to read about it. In the case of my film ,there was no sound if the headphones were being used by someone else and you couldn't even read about it to decide if you wanted to listen to it!
B-A-D curating!
Correction
I invigilated the studio on Saturday 18th from1-4pm. I could see that the descriptions of our work were on a printed A4 sheet lying on the floor by the door. When I looked at it, I noticed the description for mine and Ian's were not included. Ruth came in at about 10 to 4pm and placed another printed sheet on the floor. This included our descriptions. I don't think 10 minutes before the end of the penultimate day of the Degree Show is timely. Neither do I think a couple of A4 sheets lying on the floor is the best way to label a piece of work. Either a sign outside the studio with a separate description for each piece of work, if you don't want to clutter the studio, or a label next to the work. Call me fussy, but I think Ruth would have something to say if any Show she exhibited in failed to include a description of her work. As it happened, I asked visitors if they wanted me to tell them about each student's work. After I had, they said it had been really useful. I'm not sure every invigilator offered this service. This is where the Talking Head videos came in useful. People could watch them and then, if they wanted, go in search of the specific work that interested them. I had a few people comment, 'This is the Albatross film.' They had come in search of it after watching my Talking Head.
What a waste!
Down in the basement, next to the disabled entrance, are five unopened boxes of our Show brochures. There is only one box which is opened and half of them are still untouched. We raised funds for those brochures. They cost £1000. We put £500 and Sean matched it. They are of no use beyond the Show. Why are they still sitting there? Unless you need to use the disabled doors, you wouldn't even know they are there. You may as well recycle £5 notes!
No comments:
Post a Comment