So the performance was a good experience for me, and there were nice people there and I felt a strong energy to the room. I was pleased to have been able to make the performance. From talking to people afterwards I got the impression that they got something out of the experience of watching it. I felt like the intern team at 126 who curated the show had made a good job of showing the work of the artists they’d selected and consequentially creating a thematic experience for the audience. The careful placing of work and attention to detail was evident. I had submitted my Conversations with myself Body alphabet film from May 2019, with accompanying postcards. The work was placed strategically in the space and allowed a pathway for people to watch it without getting in the way of others looking at other work.
I put the review above in this sped-up format as the body alphabet that I used to perform last Friday was largely inaccessible to most people there, bar some people who got a few words of it. It’s potential to be understood was and has always been only ONE layer of the work. Therefore to me its important that the review should echo this incomprehensibility, and be also largely unintelligible. I would also question which is more memorable, to view someone talking about their work for 6 minutes or a hyper sped up version which condenses all that information into a 2.5 minute period. Making these sped up monologues is something I’ve been developing and thinking about talking as an act of endurance, as well as an act of communication. In the video above I talked about how I wasn’t feeling very well on the day of the performance and had really had to work beforehand at bringing the energy to push the performance out into the space. Also how you feel pre-performance, mid performance (approaching flow state) and post perforamance. I am not sure if the sped up video concept is of use, and certainly it might be construed as annoying 🙂 but they are part of the current process of trying out endurance based tasks.