I proposed a publication for the show. A small space for the participants to put forward their references. A place for found images, their own work, quotes or texts or doodles. But this paper thing became a victim of marketing and property. Logo's were thrown at it, texts were rewritten with readers in mind. Explanations were demanded of the participants, the artists, how were these things they had put forward relevant and if not why? Could they contextualise them, please.
The same questions were not asked of the work on show in the gallery. No-one suggested labels, or explanatory text, the artists' histories were not pasted on the walls, somehow context was not required. The logos were present but small and discreet, if printed to scale they would have merited less room than a single lowercase letter on the page.
But this is to be expected, we are accustomed to paper explanations, that something given away is not the artwork, it is an addition, ephemera. Its purpose is to tell us more, to help us; if it doesn't we find it problematic. It is also a static holder of information, a web page we understand as an object that will grow, be edited, have information adjusted, revised and added, on paper we desire a final product.
This was not a final product, it was a starting point for a conversation that could unfold, in the room and on the page. An invitation to find links, raise questions and develop a dialog between the artists on the AA2A scheme and the University. Reprinted and reworked the publication evolved to incorporate these conversations, one a formal discussion between the Stage 1 BA students and the artists, the second a scrawled jumbled of notes on the wall, the third my own comment on the process of making this unwieldy thing in this unknown place.
Scroll left to read the conversation in full: