review of rosanne robertson's 'an evening of dissatisfaction with free gifts'
Argh - too much to catch up on.
Okay, maybe a couple of weeks ago now Rosanne Robertson had an installation/performance at Islington Mill. An Evening of Dissatisfaction with Free Gifts was a strikingly personal piece about the value we ascribe to people and objects. Both monetarily and more intangibly.
This is an interesting subject for art. I once read that the human ability to place an abstract value on things is one of the important enabling conditions for the development of money. I am of course paraphrasing from memory.
I understand this to mean that aside from the survival value of particular objects humans can agree values to allow the exchange or sharing of those objects. And more, that we can ascribe a value to things that are not essential for survival.
This last point in particular seems to me to be important to the creation of art. I'm not a scientist, I may have misunderstood the original point, and it may in any case be garbage. But assuming that I'm broadly correct this similarity between the creation and appreciation of art, and the values of the market is a rich territory to explore.
But the piece had deeper aspects to it than this - touching also on family and friendships.
There were three tables arranged in the space, each of which had a number of gifts on it, which people were encouraged to take away. For one of the tables which appeared to have family photos and other personal possessions on it there was a request to talk to the artist before taking anything.
There were also a number of chairs, some in pairs (not always facing) others single, with glasses of wine by them scattered about the space. Rather as if there were an intention to encourage people to stay in the space and mingle.
Rosanne at the beginning was sat topless in one corner facing the wall. Periodically she would stand up and start a song playing on a laptop. I assume intentionally the tracks all cut short after less than a minute.
When more people entered the space Rosanne started to move around asking people questions, and spending a long time talking to those who planned to take something from the table of more personal objects.
I understand that there is an intention to follow up what has happened with the gifts in a year's time, so this is an ongoing project. I haven't checked yet whether there's any doccumentation online, but I'd imagine that the questions asked and answers recieved may be part of the project going forward.
As it happens I didn't take any gift. I probably should have, and feel rather bad that I didn't participate in the piece in that way. I was a bit more interested in watching what was in the space and seeing people's reactions.
The space and the whole set-up felt exposed and uncomfortable - although Rosanne seemed to be quite relaxed in herself. I think that sense of exposure and discomfort was both intentional and a good thing. Without it there might not have been as much thought about the piece, or as much discussion between people.
I did notice a wish to discuss taking gifts with Rosanne, even for items not on the table of personal possessions. As if there is an intrinsic desire to negotiate the value and register the taking of an item.
For me this was a fascinating and troubling piece. Beyond the summary I gave at the start I feel it was very much about identity.
How we define our identity - both personally and in the groups we associate with - through the objects we own. How identity is a negotiation between competing demands. And how possessions intersect and interfere with these aspects of identity - how the things we have about us might not reflect who we actually are at that stage but reflect our history to a perhaps disproportionate degree.
It's certainly something I've given quite a bit of thought to since. In particular to my answer to the question Rosanne asked me - which became part of tamlyn 11.
Rosanne asked 'Who is the most important person in your life?' To my genuine surprise I found myself saying 'You know, I think that's me.'
Even more interestingly I knew that this was a good and healthy thing. It says nothing about my attitude to consumerism or to other people, except insofar as it says something about personal contentment.
Okay, maybe a couple of weeks ago now Rosanne Robertson had an installation/performance at Islington Mill. An Evening of Dissatisfaction with Free Gifts was a strikingly personal piece about the value we ascribe to people and objects. Both monetarily and more intangibly.
This is an interesting subject for art. I once read that the human ability to place an abstract value on things is one of the important enabling conditions for the development of money. I am of course paraphrasing from memory.
I understand this to mean that aside from the survival value of particular objects humans can agree values to allow the exchange or sharing of those objects. And more, that we can ascribe a value to things that are not essential for survival.
This last point in particular seems to me to be important to the creation of art. I'm not a scientist, I may have misunderstood the original point, and it may in any case be garbage. But assuming that I'm broadly correct this similarity between the creation and appreciation of art, and the values of the market is a rich territory to explore.
But the piece had deeper aspects to it than this - touching also on family and friendships.
There were three tables arranged in the space, each of which had a number of gifts on it, which people were encouraged to take away. For one of the tables which appeared to have family photos and other personal possessions on it there was a request to talk to the artist before taking anything.
There were also a number of chairs, some in pairs (not always facing) others single, with glasses of wine by them scattered about the space. Rather as if there were an intention to encourage people to stay in the space and mingle.
Rosanne at the beginning was sat topless in one corner facing the wall. Periodically she would stand up and start a song playing on a laptop. I assume intentionally the tracks all cut short after less than a minute.
When more people entered the space Rosanne started to move around asking people questions, and spending a long time talking to those who planned to take something from the table of more personal objects.
I understand that there is an intention to follow up what has happened with the gifts in a year's time, so this is an ongoing project. I haven't checked yet whether there's any doccumentation online, but I'd imagine that the questions asked and answers recieved may be part of the project going forward.
As it happens I didn't take any gift. I probably should have, and feel rather bad that I didn't participate in the piece in that way. I was a bit more interested in watching what was in the space and seeing people's reactions.
The space and the whole set-up felt exposed and uncomfortable - although Rosanne seemed to be quite relaxed in herself. I think that sense of exposure and discomfort was both intentional and a good thing. Without it there might not have been as much thought about the piece, or as much discussion between people.
I did notice a wish to discuss taking gifts with Rosanne, even for items not on the table of personal possessions. As if there is an intrinsic desire to negotiate the value and register the taking of an item.
For me this was a fascinating and troubling piece. Beyond the summary I gave at the start I feel it was very much about identity.
How we define our identity - both personally and in the groups we associate with - through the objects we own. How identity is a negotiation between competing demands. And how possessions intersect and interfere with these aspects of identity - how the things we have about us might not reflect who we actually are at that stage but reflect our history to a perhaps disproportionate degree.
It's certainly something I've given quite a bit of thought to since. In particular to my answer to the question Rosanne asked me - which became part of tamlyn 11.
Rosanne asked 'Who is the most important person in your life?' To my genuine surprise I found myself saying 'You know, I think that's me.'
Even more interestingly I knew that this was a good and healthy thing. It says nothing about my attitude to consumerism or to other people, except insofar as it says something about personal contentment.
Comments