“The work is almost like groping around in the dark for me. It’s only through the making that I realize what I’m trying to do.” – Cornelia Parker
Reflecting on my research of the 1904 Olympic Games this semester leaves me fairly satisfied in terms of thoroughly investigating a topic and following through in a meaningful, substantial way; however, if I am frank, I must confess that the above sentiments of Cornelia Parker very much describe my semester in this course. To stretch her imagery out a bit, I suppose that I did at least know the room in which I had been placed—the room with the door dually labeled “Francis Field” and “1904 Olympic Games”—but once inside the dark room, my experience was very much that of probing and investigating and trying to find my bearings, all without quite knowing what exactly my objective was in doing so.
I have conducted various degrees of research in past art pieces, but none as in-depth as in this class. The most difficult aspect of the research was balancing my initial idea(s) that led me to choose my specific topic with where the research itself might be leading me, thereby altering those initial ideas. At a point of fogginess for me earlier in the semester, Allison Smith visited our class and offered a sentiment that I found consoling: go with what interests you. I realize those words are simple and their message appears quite obvious, but at the time they took a load off my shoulders and gave me permission to approach my research with a renewed freedom and energy to keep searching.
Another challenging aspect of this process was how to translate my research into “art.” I felt a tension between being too didactic and overt, on one hand, versus being too general and vague on the other hand. This was especially true given the interest I took in the “Anthropology Days” event that occurred in conjunction with the Olympic Games. Dealing with such a delicate topic is not what I expected to be doing, nor is it something I have much experience doing in my art. It’s not that I was looking for a magic solution; I just found myself asking a lot of questions regarding how, as an artist, to best deal with certain aspects of my research.
A couple of breakthroughs over the course of the semester really helped me begin to act meaningfully on my research. One such instance was learning about the work of Ronald Jones, an artist who uses specific sculptural forms to transport the viewer into another space and time. I decided to employ a similar strategy by faithfully recreating wooden hurdles that were used in the 1904 Olympic Games. Another breakthrough was learning about the piece Boniek! (2007), by Swiss artist Massimo Furlan, in which he reenacted the movements of a star soccer player—accompanied by play-by-play from a live sports announcer—in the vacant stadium where that match originally occurred. This gesture, coupled with the walks of Janet Cardiff, prompted me to experiment with using bodily and audio elements as additional ways to re-contextualize or reframe ones experience and understanding of a given place.
My final installation, entitled The Measure of Man, ended up being a combination of objects (a pile of hurdles, within which one tall hurdle is situated) and audio (two separate tracks playing aloud on opposing sides of the sculpture; one lists–in my voice–the results from the 1904 Olympic Games; the other–also in my voice–reads the results from Anthropology Days). Though I believe that this piece successfully incorporates many aspects of my research in which I was most interested, I do not feel that it encompasses the whole of my inquiry, at least in terms of my desired responses to it. I foresee at least one other piece stemming from my research, but I also think that it’s possible for additional pieces to arise as these initial efforts are worked out and reflected upon down the road.
Tags: Student Exhibition
