A series of parachute presentations, IfREX

On Thursday 15 April a day-long series of ‘parachute presentations’ was organised by the students. The idea, not dissimilar to pecha kucha, was for each person to give a 10-minute introduction to their work. The time constraint worked well, providing a set of appetisers, enabling the whole class to present projects, exhibitions and interests in one day. Leading up to the event, many students remarked that although they knew each other very well, and indeed Olafur had noted that the group had developed a certain intimacy, they were less aware of what sort of art everyone was engaged with. Further, for myself and other newcomers to the school, it was a great introduction.

I was invited to talk about my own work for 10-minutes and tried to provide an short overview of my research and why I am in Berlin, with the hope that it may be of interest to some! I found it difficult to know how to pitch my talk, as I wondered if what I had to say might be both obvious (we are interested in experiments at IfREX, nothing new in what you say)  and confusing (why and how will you investigate these issues as a geographer). It was hard to gauge a reaction, but I had tried to provide a bit of time at the end for questions. Two came my way: (1) What is geography for you? and (2) What sort of data will you collect? My rather vague answer to the first question was to discuss how I see it as a point of departure for all sorts of different projects, all with an interest in space. On reflection, I perhaps should have stressed my interest not in what something is but in what something does. In this respect, geography enables me to examine the spaces of aesthetic experimentation and draw on work from a range of other fields. In response to the second question, I tried to explain how I think of generating materials rather than looking to extract data or evidence, as such. This might include all sorts of different things and would not necessarily be restricted to text and/or talk; further the techniques would be open to suggestion, flexible and experimental (in that they might not generate much or anything at all). My fieldwork diary, audio recordings, photos, videos, sketches would be just a selection of some materials that might be produced.

The students’ talks were interesting and stimulating, as well as wide-ranging. To list them all here, or to choose just the highlights would be a disservice to their richness. The day finished with discussions on how you might, as an artist, talk about your work. How to let your artwork do its own work, rather than your talk having to supplement it. Although these are questions that might ordinarily be posed in art schools, I have no idea (!), I found it interesting to think through them with regards to geography and my own work.

Upgrade report

At the beginning of this term I had to submit an introduction to my work (c. 5,000 words) and then present it for 15 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of questions. This is part of the degree: you are expected to transfer from a Probationer Research Student to a fully-fledged DPhil candidate.

The ‘upgrade’, as it’s known in the department, outlines your research questions, a brief overview of the literature, details your methodology as well as the field-sites. My structure looked like this:

Abstract // Introduction // Literature review – spaces of experimentation – experiments with art – non-representational theory // Aims and questions // Methodology – field-sites – methods – ethics // Précis // References // Timetable

Abstract: Within Geography there has been an increasing interest in the spaces, sites and practices of experiments. Such work has tended to focus on the scientific lab, or has been concerned with sites of artistic experiments in the city. However, little work has been done on the emergence of distinctive hybrid spaces, such as art-studios, as spaces of aesthetic, or sensory, experimentation. By drawing on work from a range of disciplines, the report outlines three sets of issues that will drive the research: firstly, the configurations of spaces that generate, or are generated by, these kinds of ‘studio-labs’; secondly, the techniques, rhythms and movements of experimental practices that bring about the new; and thirdly, both the ethical and political imperatives that underpin these spaces and practices, as well as the potential these ethico-political interventions may hold. A set of research encounters with art-studios will offer opportunities for thinking about these issues, through an ethnographic approach. A number of sites have been identified: (1) the Institut für Raumexperimente in Berlin, which seeks to interrogate space-based experimental techniques; (2) an interdisciplinary project, also in Berlin, which is concerned with creating an inverted acoustic space to sonically disorientate the audience; and (3) The Topological Media Lab in Montreal, a so-called ‘atelier-studio-laboratory’, which invents novel forms of gestural media, expressive instruments and compositional systems that support speculative performances and installations. Through collaboration within, and beyond, the discipline, this thesis will seek to highlight the spaces of aesthetic experiment.

The presentation was fairly tense affair – plenty of questions – but a useful process, where you can get a taste of academic debate. I had only presented my work once before (the RGS-IBG Mid-Term Conference, a few months earlier) and so was slightly nervous. I was pleased people engaged with my work, had questions to ask and suggested other lines of enquiry.

Just this week I met my supervisors to discuss the upshot of my report, following the assessors’ comments and recommendation to transfer! Plenty to consider…

The Radcliffe Camera, Oxford

Hello and welcome to Spaces of Experimentation, a web-site tracing my research on studio-labs. This blog is an attempt to facilitate conversations and thoughts about the work I’m reading and the research I’m doing. I hope it opens up debates and encourages me to share more of my writing.