Our project will not die. The openness of our project has allowed for major development of our piece.
From feedback, it was apparent that the link between the video and the live performance was not clear. This then poses the question – does it need to be?
Let us look at how this project could be taken further:
First the Video: (Here is a smaller version)
There are many connotations with this. Firstly the image is being digitally manipulated or if you like ‘hacked’. The video is hacking a Victorian painting. It is almost as if a Victorian painting is getting a computer virus. With this in mind I will now mention an earlier post.
What if this was to happen but instead of it being different pieces of art, what if it was part of the performance. And what looks like a mobile phone getting ‘hacked’ would show a video of idealisation or to avoid the general term art that is more honest. What if the video was to show loads of different images? For example if the project was done again over a series of days and taking a picture on each day and composting those into a video.
Now to the live art. What were people’s reactions? From what I could see there was a range of different reactions. Some entered and looked at the performance for a while and left. Others came in looked at the performance and did not enter as there was ‘something different’ on. Others came in and looked around the performance and the room as if we were part of the room. These responses link back to our original idea of art watching and people watching art. As the site was open to the public it also gives us a power in the room, as we are forcing members of the public to watch. We were also creating art. (Obviously the drawings and the application of make-up) but the make-up wipes as well. When they were discarded they were a piece of art themselves almost like a painting. As it was paint on paper (sort of). What if we photographed them and hanged them up in a gallery as a permanent memento to what we did?