Added Mar 29, 2014
The first night of 'Open' was interesting. A quick brief on the concept; to open a locked public space to the public for them to use as they wish, the thinking being how people view public spaces. Most are 'owned' by a local council, which in turn is funded by people. So it does question ownership of these spaces. The aim was to not project my personal views, but to get others to form their own views unencumbered by political propaganda.
So the opening night arrived and in came people. I have a small tent set up in the corner of the space to keep dry if it decides to pour down and to keep paper work dry. Flyers, press release and my comment book. Which simply asks: 'What do you think?'
At the begining of the evening a local group of musicians came in to the space to play for everyone which made it a rather spectacular opening. Lots of singing and dancing. Being evening though meant the light faded quickly and it became too dark for them to continue to play. So my thoughts were; should I have provided more light. I came to the conclusion even though more light would have been very beneficial that would have been me taking control of the space, which contradicts the point of allowing the space to be, to relinquish the idea of ownership of a space. No ownership means nothing provided.
For a while I played with the portable projector using an ipad app to write in light on the walls, which I then let the children of the band members scribble on, they rather enjoyed making marks that lit up. The mayor was making a tour of all the exhibtion venues, and arrived, watched and went.
Once the band had gone the space became relatively quiet for the remainder of the open night. Which then left me wide open to da da da da....the critics. I was char grilled over the concept: "Isn't that somewhat of a cop out? Is it art? All you have done is just opened the space!" Yes. I explained a little behind the concept but could see by the facial expression he was still unimpressed. "They are locked with good reason" came the reply. I decided the best response really in that situation was to accept that his view was valid, as was mine. Art is subjective. I offered him the use of my comment book, but to be honest it was so dark, that was not happening. The man looked to my tent: "Are you sleeping here?" "No I am not, I have a very comfortable bed at home, it is not a performance". He then asked if I was locking the gate at night. To which I said I had proposed it was left open all the time, but the official hours of the exhibition was all that would be allowed. "So hasn't it failed then from the off?" Well at this stage I really cannot say if the project was a fail or not, far too early, but he was right in the respect it was not open 24/7, but...and here is the but, baby steps, the aim was to allow people to think about the use of these spaces, so being denied the opportunity to keep the space open full time is also under that banner.
People have made the comment: "I think you are very brave"...after that cross interogation, (which went on far longer than I have written about), I now see why that was said. Critiques and convenors at university prepare you for such, the; 'Justify yourself and actions!' I will never fear another convenor after last night, the public can be far more brutal than anything said at uni, but with conceptual work it has to be expected and a big old double layer of thick skin was applied prior :)
Back to the night, another artist came into the space and introduced herself, she then used the one small light to the rear of the space to practice her drum, so was a pleasant end to the evening.