#unconventionalart

bull (or something like this), crayon on paper

Hi! I'm Zuzia Głuchowska, an artist from Poland. I'm showing my art progress on the internet and growing an audience since 2019. I create using mixed media - oil paint, markers, crayons, oil pastels, ink, watercolors, anything that comes in hand

crayons and pencil on paper

Hi! I'm Zuzia Głuchowska, an artist from Poland. I'm showing my art progress on the internet and growing an audience since 2019. I create using mixed media - oil paint, markers, crayons, oil pastels, ink, watercolors, anything that comes in hand

figur, watercolor on paper

From reading everyone else’s entry on the field notes, we all seem to make the same realisation that Liz’s  ‘Unearthed Underground’ has a way of invoking playfulness in all ages. This, I think is also due to the spatial context of this work. It's placed in a non-traditional gallery space, open with no walls, just air. It offers no separation between the bar and the art or to the world (reality). This has allowed a relaxed and fluid feel in how we behave towards an art object. 

I think we’ve all, at least once, criticized the white cube and Bold Tendencies is the antithesis of an indoor squared white room. At Bold, there is no barrier between in and out, life and art, just as Duchamp’s attempt in bringing the everyday to the gallery only expanded what the white cube can contain. But as I invigilate and tell people coming in, “yes, they can enter the tunnel”, I do wonder if that’s enough. I think in a gallery setting, people know that the objects are art and therefore are treated like art. You do not necessarily need context to appreciate an artwork. Unlike in a white cube gallery space, where the visitor is required to remain a silent and thoughtful observer, at Bold Tendencies we can see the genuine interaction between the art and the individual.

I guess maybe that’s where we step in, as invigilators, our role to invoke something deeper; to explain and to have a discussion. I feel like I'm always at a crossroads when I make art: am I doing enough to communicate my message? Whether or not it will be considered art? And is it even important since we’ll never have full control over how art is perceived and understood?

Addition since the last thought:

I’ve learned to lock up all the art works using barriers. This method oddly is not as efficient as we think. People still went under them as if they were merely an added fun to the installation. This would’ve never happened in a white cube; there you’d even be afraid to breathe too loud. Artworks vary in impact according to its audience and environment. But the events of today reminded me how much spatial context is a part of communicating art. Or I wonder if the visitors are oblivious of our presence, vigilating these artworks, which otherwise would’ve been inherently obvious in a gallery setting. I think this brings up an interesting thought experiment in how people would interact with art without anyone invigilating in a gallery.

Reflection since then:

I’ve been reading my newly purchased book, ‘fiction as method’. The topic of fiction as a part of daily life is mentioned as a means to help ‘oil up’ the systems that exists in the everyday. These systems include the financial market, superstitions and the all-important institutions. As we have learnt from previous mentor talks, institutions are important in educating the public about art. Their funding comes from sponsors and/or grants, and can be partly funded by the government. These funds are distributed in the hope that it will enrich society. So it becomes self-evident that institutions are heavily associated with the arts. In that case, maybe we can let the commercial galleries off the hook with their pristine interior, clean as a surgery room can be intimidating, but on the other hand, these spaces allow the general public to appreciate art for free.

I think the problem arises when people hold the belief that art should exist within the confines of the white cube gallery space. This idea of art becomes integrated into art culture and then into ourselves. This thought echoes the second wave of critique of institutions; the first wave regarding the economic and political aspects of institution. The second wave comes with the conclusion that we cannot escape the institution. In Andrea Fraser’s words ‘because the institution is inside of us, and we can’t get outside of ourselves’. The institution has become embedded in the culture of art, and so that is how we have come to understand and interact with art. I am interested in the popularisation of the white cube and how it became such a dominant force in the art world. As I’ve mentioned in my previous paragraphs, invigilators can also be seen as the factor that is partly to blame for promoting a feeling of discomfort among spectators. 

We can approach Liz’s work with the understanding of the ‘institution inside of us’. I think the reason why some people choose to ignore the art at Bold Tendencies is due to the fact that the artwork is not presented in a traditional manner. There is no confined environment, no room to delimit the environment, rather the art is on a rooftop and exposed to the elements. On countless occasions we have pointed out to visitors it's significance as an art work, however more often than not this property is overlooked and dismissed. Instead, visitors find themselves subconsciously reverting to child-like behaviour with the artwork. 

Let’s take a closer look at the idea of public art. Personally, when someone mentions public art, more often than not, the first thing that comes to mind are street performers and sculptures and figures dotted around the city. Which is why the idea of free artwork exhibited on a carpark is not as familiar to the general public. This is partly due to the hurdles an institution like Bold Tendencies has to overcome to acquire such as a space - it is very difficult to acquire permission and satisfy various health and safety requirements, and it is difficult to determine beforehand how the public will react to such a space. The artwork is not protected by the walls of a gallery, it's out in the open where people belong. 

Perhaps another reason as to why people seem to disassociate Liz’s work as an art work could be due to its external appearance. The grey facade of the artwork blends into the concrete surroundings of the car park, and the entrance tunnels evoke a sense of play, inviting the visitor to explore. I’m trying to understand the perspective of someone who’s just stumbled onto the car park, and to view the artworks in more ambiguous manner. I am wondering if people understand Liz’s artwork as a functional piece, such as something you might see at disneyland or at some theme parks, like a decorative interior rather than an artistic  installation.  

It has been interesting to observe how the public interacts with the art. I have developed an new understanding of the interaction between art and its spatial context, and its effect on its immediate environment. Working at Bold Tendencies has also raised the question of whether or not we always have an authentic engagement with art. For instance, although Tate aims to ensure visitors interact with the exhibits with as little constraints as possible, the artworks are nonetheless presented in a closed and vigilated area. 

Ultimately, it should be up to the artist to assess whether or not the interaction between the public and their art is in line with their original intention. This highlights the idea that space in itself plays a huge role in the understanding of the art. Nothing is a blank space, not even the white cube; as they automatically suggest a status and context to the work. However, maybe there is an interesting idea in creating an installation around the idea of heavy surveillance and confinement. Rather than imposing a certain behaviour around the artwork, an artist can look to create an installation/artwork that seeks to emulate a typical environment of a gallery.  This reminds me of what Andrea Zittel mentioned in her book ‘Lay of my land’, in which she talks about the Spiral Jetty and how it is not a work to be experienced on site but rather through the medium of photographs. This is because photographs allow for greater contextualisation, by referencing to the specific sites and to the land. Over the course of my traineeship with Bold Tendencies, I have come to realise on-site and experience-based artworks present more of an interaction between the visitor and the artwork compared to a traditional white-cube space. We actively crave interaction and this means we have to think about the kind of interaction we are looking for in these works. I hope this idea helps anyone to think more about their work and how it communicates/interacts with their audience. It certainly did for my own practice, which I am now re-thinking. Surprisingly, I am leaning more towards imposing my artwork on the audience, rather than inviting an interaction as I initially thought I wanted with my work. If anyone is interested in my work, it’s a parody online instagram account that sell dildos made of twigs. The shop @the_kosm_, was made there because I thought I wanted a more ‘real’ interaction with audiences different from those found in galleries. But I think it is more about wanting to be seen, wanting to impose on the mass rather an interaction. This thinking has revealed what I was truly wanting for my work. 

Toward the end of her traineeship, Narumi created this app prototype in relation to her reflection and Unearthed Underground :  https://xd.adobe.com/view/9924327d-3697-4cdf-72ff-3adeecbb1eaf-ef15/  (better display on phones)