Part 2 is an interview that pertains to questions about the two exhibitions put to the three coaches and the Handshake5 artists. The opportunity to create a dialogue with those involved to express perspectives and experiences brings consideration to both Handshake5 exhibitions. In contrast to the CODA exhibition that focused on the CODA collection and a selection of themes; the Te Uru exhibition was motivated by an opportunity to respond to its tantalizing architecture and the beautiful alluring Waitakere surroundings. Te Uru has been redeveloped in 2014 from the original Lopdell House Gallery into the new adjacent building we know today. Te Uru is a regional gallery with a distinctive West Auckland focus but with a national and international perspective (click here for part 1).
An Expedition – Part 2:
A voyage brought home
The Coaches:
Roseanne Bartley, Vernon Bowden and Sian van Dyk, were the three appointed Handshake5 coaches throughout the 2019 project. They came in at differing intervals as constructive and supportive facilitators. The coaches received questions that were relevant to the parts that they played to document, similarly to the Handshake blogs; insights embedded within this project that otherwise would not be revealed or recorded.
Roseanne Bartley – Online Coach (Artist Jeweller, Writer, Educator)
Roseanne presented a masterclass, followed by individual emails and skype sessions. Her review, published by Contemporary Hum, stated that HS5 had ‘been mediating their engagement from a distance: not only from the other side of the globe, but also working from images rather than engaging directly with the artefacts themselves.’[1] For the masterclass Roseanne constructively pushed the HS5 artists ahead by bringing their attention to the virtual aspect. Roseanne asked all to read her essay, Encounter with a necklace 1978[2].
SWH:
By elaborating on your foresight, did you have any specific expectations that would arise from this way of working and is there anything you could say in hindsight that may also reference your own experience with a virtual dialogue?
RB:
Thanks for preparing these questions Sarah; I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on my involvement in the HS5 Project.
In my initial reading of the project outline I was really impressed by the level of opportunity the 2019 iteration of Handshake offered participants. While I noted the brief was complex and multi layered and the time lines quite tight there was one aspect of the brief that I found interesting. I was curious to know how participants would frame their response to an object (or three) in the first exhibition and secondly to a space in the second, when the basis for their encounter with artefact and space was metered (for most) via digital image and or online data.
Aspects of this situation resonated with the conditions in which I was commissioned to write the essay Encounter with a necklace 1978. Before we met and worked together I invited participants to read the text as well as do some warm up tasks based on its content. I offered the essay as a reference text but also as an expanded methodology for exploring the material, relational, and affective potential of jewellery as both an artefact and spatial practice.
I envisaged the text and workshop would provide participants with the opportunity to tease out what it means to dialogue with an artefact and with space. The key word here is “with”. I was keen to encourage and assist where I could and humbled by the generosity of spirit which everybody brought to the task.
SWH:
I imagine the masterclass must have been a challenging prelude, for you to address. It helped me to clearly realise my intent for the Te Uru exhibition. For CODA you helped immensely with my concept that focused on my theme, Rough and Raw, via the individual discussions that followed through later. Dealing with discussing both exhibitions at once, how did you approach the delivery of such a specific and complex class brief?
RB:
Luckily the workshop occurred early on in the year and I was the first of three coaches’ the HS5 participants interacted with throughout the year, so I didn’t carry the burden of delivering on outcomes nor harbour a sense responsibility for making each participant jump through any project related hoops. This meant I could enjoy the process of working with each artist for what it was, the potential to have a meaningful exchange on their work. I imagined the workshop to be generative space where our specific and general interests in jewellery could intersect, be challenged if need be and opened up through exposure to new or different modes of expression. In the face to face and online tutorials I worked quite hard at listening out for what was resonating, and invite each individual to reflect on their practice interests further. On occasion I would draw attention to other artists, texts or processes that might help extend the work. I didn’t have enough continuity of contact throughout the year to feel that the final outcomes had to reflect my interests in jewellery or aspirations for exhibition practice. Although, I was quite keen to have each practitioner use the blog effectively to give readers greater insight into their process. I’m really pleased to hear you found our exchange useful.
Vernon Bowden – Technical Support Coach (Artist, Jeweller, Install Technician)
Vernon was brought on-board to assist with presentational and installation guidance solely for the Te Uru show. He generously connected with all HS5rs via skype sessions to anticipate and discussed any potential issues and followed through meticulously via emails and a spreadsheet that mediated between the artists and Te Uru.
SWH:
Te Uru has their own team of install technicians and over a 3 day set-up they methodically spaced out each of the Handshake5 artists to come in and assist with their installs individually. Being there with us, you needed to blend in with and straddle between them and us, how did you find this role and what, if any, challenges arose from it?
VB:
It comes down to experience of working in arts institution, I am aware of the craziness that can go on in some of them, and the Te Uru staff were pretty accommodating when it came to the install. I couldn’t wait for the install to happen; that is when it gets exciting. There is always that slightly sick feeling that you have overlooked something or someone has forgotten a crucial aspect and that we have enough contingencies, half planned, to cover eventualities (such as your plinths had no hanging points in the ceiling!). All the major planning should have been done well before install, so it is just a matter of getting it up (ha!). I saw my role in the install of HS5 as advocating for the artists and making sure that they got what they needed, and that Te Uru was kept on side through the process.
Sian van Dyk – Studio Visit Coach (Art Curator and Writer)
Sian visited all HS5 artists in their studios to discuss what they were doing and to essentially give curatorial advice, even though she was not involved in either the CODA or Te Uru exhibition directly. CODA preferred that artworks were not displayed in the open or on the wall and stated that vitrines were necessary for the security of the works on display. Knowing, from early in the project, that HS5 work had to be displayed in vitrines, to a degree, dictated what was made for the show. Both CODA and Te Uru management requested that all the dialogue had to go through HS organiser Peter Deckers.
SWH:
Have you ever curated in the way CODA did, where you haven’t spoken directly with the artists involved and instead given them prerequisites and do you have any insights on curating from these two different perspectives?
SvD:
I have not curated an exhibition that way when working with living artists who are making new work. My curatorial practice is about facilitating and collaborating with artists, and I see myself as a bridge between the artist’s vision, the institution’s agenda (and to a certain extent their limitations), and how audiences interpret work. The closest I came to giving prerequisites was probably when I curated ‘Handshake 3: Reflect’ at The Dowse in 2017, where I gave participants a brief. However, even then I collaborated with each artist to find a balance between what they wanted to achieve, while attempting to bring the group together in a cohesive manner.
Speaking with Handshake 5 participants, it sounded like the communication channel for the CODA exhibition was challenging. The model seemed somewhat outdated; favouring the voice of the curator over the artist and also like it may have caused missed opportunities for interpretation because of that lack of interaction between curator and artists.
SWH:
What are your thoughts, from a curatorial perspective, on the CODA show concept, pairing Handshake5 artists with 3 works from their collection and one of the 3 themes, Innovation, Relationship to the Body or Rough and Raw?
SvD:
At first the concept came across superficially. I questioned its critical relevance and wondered what it would achieve other than bringing CODA’s collection out and giving Handshake 5 participants an opportunity to show at a prestigious institution. Such outcomes often unfold when artists are brought together because they belong to a group, rather than because of their shared concerns. However, I think the framing of the show to consider the Internet’s effect on international jewellery both geographically and chronological is an interesting point of view when our lives are lived with such a heavy digital influence. Like any contemporary jewellery exhibition held at a public institution, the challenge would have been how to convey this to an audience through installation and interpretation.
The Handshake Artists
The HS5 artists Caroline Thomas, Vivien Atkinson, Neke Moa, Nadene Carr and Kelly McDonald, responded on questions directly put to them. These questions and conversations related to their exhibition logistics, development of ideas and work.
SWH:
Caroline, your work ‘Worth’ at Te Uru was conceptual and appeared quite different from your CODA work. It tied in extremely well with the proposed idea that the work somehow intervenes with an allocated space, surroundings and architecture. Yet, actually, like the CODA brief you created a dialogue with Billy Apple’s ‘Cut Away’ that permanently resides as part of Te Uru’s architecture. You were quite clever; managing to also leave a gold square so that it would be painted over and forever embedded in the building. Can you expand on how you came up with ‘Worth’ and how you process your ideas?
CT:
A project stemming from the phrase ‘worth your weight in gold ‘had been on my mind for some time before the Te Uru HS show was even on my radar. When we were asked to create work/s that responded to the architectural spaces at Te Uru, once I became aware of Billy Apple’s Cut Away, this vague idea that had been kicking around on the periphery took on a more concrete form and I was able to start examining ideas surrounding artistic worth and self-worth. Billy Apple’s Cut Away, as an example of his long-running Institutional Critique series, provoked many emotions in me, emotions which were initially quite knee-jerk and unrefined. I wanted to channel my original anger and belligerence and create a more measured, thoughtful and controlled response.
‘Worth’ is quite different to how I normally work which is to respond to materials and, through the making process, have a conversation with my materials and allow meaning to take shape. I’m normally quite wary of making work that is conceptually, rather than materially, driven but on this particular occasion, it seemed the right thing to do.
SWH:
Vivien, due to security reasons, CODA expressed their preference that work was not presented open on the wall, but as some of the works would not fit in the vitrines they would be flexible on this. Your ‘Knitting [Wandobjects] (Bracelets)’was displayed on the wall alongside LAM de Wolf’s Wandobject, 1992 and without any encasement. This was different from the majority that were in vitrines. It appears, your scale and presentation, was not dictated by the vitrine prerequisite allowing you to be true to yourself with what you produced. How did you approach discussions about your presentation not fitting in the vitrines when we were instructed that there was to be no direct contact with CODA and all dialogue was to be done via Peter Deckers?
VA:
In responding to the initial CODA exhibition premise I immediately signalled a number of points that indicated my strong interest in working on a larger scale than would fit into a vitrine.
Writing from my application to be included in HS5; “I am especially interested in the ‘site specific’ aspects of the proposed Handshake5 exhibitions, the chance to delve into a location/object and make work that engages both with site and audience fits well with my practice”. Having both Fine Arts and Applied Arts degrees has led to flexibility in the way I am able to work and I enjoy testing the boundary area between these two disciplines.
In looking through the CODA catalogue I singled out Beppe Kessler (I am also attracted to her 2D work which adds a Fine Art component that is often present in my own work) and Lam de Wolf (her use of installation of small fragments building into large works across the wall is particularly exciting) as artists who worked not only in wearable jewellery, but brought in aspects of a fine arts practice.
So I had selected two artists from the CODA collection – it was CODA who decided that I should respond only to Lam de Wolf’s work, they also selected the three pieces – one of which was a large gridded wall work (the other two were neck pieces – I made one work that responded to these – a neckpiece that did go into a vitrine alongside Lam de Wolf’s pieces). I assumed since this was a piece they chose that they were implicitly acknowledging that I had ‘permission’ to work outside the vitrine and make use of a wall.
From the start of my experimenting I was really only thinking in terms of some kind of installation and in looking back at my blog entries, this is obvious. As we had been told at the outset that the blogs would form the main communication vehicle between us and CODA, I hoped that they would understand and agree with this direction – as time progressed no questions were raised by either Peter or CODA about any of the work that I was doing.
SWH:
Neke, you have a very strong identity focus that appears to happen very naturally in your work. I previously mentioned, New Zealand jewellery having its own identity and questioned whether the brief for CODA brought the differences between New Zealand and European jewellery closer together. From the images you have seen of the CODA show and the direct alignment of HS5 pieces with European pieces, what do you think about the comparative identities of your work, New Zealand jewellery and European jewellery?
NM:
I think they had a good time together judging from the photographs I saw of the exhibition. There was dynamism, the objects related on a grand scale. I really enjoyed seeing my pieces finally in place with the CODA work, it was a real conversation they had all together and all at once. I think the exhibition highlighted the similarities in innovation and evolution from past and present and to where contemporary jewellery is now. I think that identity is inherent in all of the work and it is interesting in the way the objects were displayed and curated. They were the centre pieces, the common ground.
SWH:
Nadene, out of all the HS5 artists, your work ‘Bling Bling’ at Te Uru had the most obvious visual link to the work you made for CODA and followed through by becoming larger and more intricate. ‘Bling Bling’, although a title for the Te Uru work, seems interestingly contradictory to the CODA theme you initially worked with when you started exploring with the welding mild steel and paradoxically your CODA work was all titled individually as a weight in ounces. Can you describe how you came to your titles for both shows and how the CODA theme impacted on them and your process?
NC:
Each piece was titled by the weight of the object. The material that I chose to work with for CODA had a whole new level of weight. When I changed from copper to mild steel it became heavier, so for me it was quite significant that I was making these small pieces that were quite heavy. I felt the weight was quite intuitive of the theme ‘Rough and Raw’, as it shifted to becoming more rough and raw from using those materials. The material was driven by my research of the 3 different artists. I was asking similar questions, that they asked of themselves, and that is how the question came to me; what is my essence, what is my reason for my material? The mild steel is my essence as a New Zealander. Everything was directed by the essence, which led onto the material, which led onto its weight, its weight was essence, its mana.
I wanted to bling-bling up the wall at Te Uru because it was a jewellery show and I really wanted to adorn and jewel the walls treating the architecture as you would the body, as a contemporary jeweller, and stay true to my roots. Bling-Bling has nothing to do with CODA – by the way – bling-bling just came for Te Uru, when we were asked to address the space and I wanted to bling the frick out of it, you know I wanna bling it up. Brooches for buildings, for walls it’s as simple as that. Contemporary jewellery has a fine line of what it is and what it isn’t and I wanted to push it with size but my pieces are all wearable.
SWH:
Kelly, all 3 of your collection pieces, you chose to be paired with, where from 1 collection artist – unlike myself who chose 3 collection pieces, from 3 different artists. I found that considering all 3 of my paired collection pieces all at once, quite liberating. Can you enlighten how your dialogue, with your 3 paired pieces – all from the same artist, played out in your making process?
KM:
Onno Boekhoudt (OB) is one of my heroes. During the initial selection process it felt clear to me to request 3pieces of OB’s work. My rationale was that had I chosen three different makers’ works, the overall response might get muddied and the strength of the response, possibly compromised. My three collections of work were not only a response to the works assigned me, but also to Onno’s oeuvre, to his prioritisation of a playful making process over the importance of an end result, to his large collection of found objects and importantly, to his fascination with holes. My introduction to his work and making process came in my first year at art school. His exhibition catalogues travelled a hemisphere to arrive at 20-year old me and I remember feeling overwhelmingly excited to see jewellery and sculpture all in one. His approach to making, materials and ideas is all that I loved and 20 years later, still love about jewellery. This project reminded me all over again why I still make things, especially in the face of a world absolutely overrun with stuff. Finding OB’s catalogues in my art school library was a formative experience, so responding to only three of his works felt like a limitation. It also felt like a disservice to my memories of discovery, and to OB’s place within contemporary jewellery – both historically and the contemporary role his collection now plays. To counter this I supplemented my exploration of the three works with looking at CODA’s full collection of OB’s work online and studying Carin Reinders book Onno Boekhoudt – Work’s in Progress (2010). This allowed a more fluid and productive response from heart, head and hands all working in unison. I made 22 works in total, all individually titled, but the title of the whole work, ‘It should be something like breathing’ was borrowed from Liesbeth den Besten’s article in Onno Boekhoudt – Work’s in Progress (2010).
My work aimed for a playful investigation of holes and the space they make for both the body and for light. For me, holes also point to the disparities between looking and seeing and the possibilities that sit between an absolute truth and the unavoidably shifting perspectives of an individual’s physical and philosophical standpoint. While holes provide a frame for an audience’s view into the work, the hole also provides a frame for the maker to look out at the audience. Through the provision of space for a wearer, the maker brings their audience to their making. My work was also a thank you to Onno for the opportunity to again meet my enthusiastic 20-year old self.
SWH:
To finish; Vivien and Kelly – how did you approach working on both the CODA and Te Uru shows, in quite quick succession, that had different objectives?
VA:
When Peter introduced the idea behind the Te Uru exhibition at our first session I had two immediate ideas – one involved a very long chain to mark out the space of the gallery and the second was to be a video projection. I think both these ideas sat in the back of my mind, though I did actively start collecting chain from recycling and charity shops. The development of the actual work went on in my subconscious and when the CODA work was nearing completion, the Te Uru work surfaced. Although I had developed 4 variations on the chain idea, none was able to be used in the exhibition.
The video work was a performance piece I had thought about during my first year at Whitereia (2005) in response to the very first brief – ‘A ring’. Strangely, at the very beginning of HS5 when we needed an image of ourselves for the blog, I had pulled out and used a photograph of a test, of the idea, done for my workbook at the time. Some work needs a very long gestation period and perhaps my decision to use that image was a signal that I was unknowingly, finally ready to do the work. Although it might seem quite tangential, I also think the long periods spent knitting for the CODA work and the research behind that work (WWI) influenced the choice of a piece largely based on memory. Because the idea of responding to a space seemed quite different from responding to an object, somehow there seemed to be separate spaces in my head to develop them in parallel, even if I wasn’t always conscious that the considering was going on.
KM:
I was really pleased with the circular aspect of my 2 sets of work. Both ideas were driven initially by the pragmatics of New Zealand’s geographical isolation, with the internet so often mediating the information we receive in ways other than algorithmically. Dealing with the spatial translation of weight, size, materiality, colour etc. through a screen, is not ideal for a maker. After months of interpreting OB’s objects/work/ideas from 2-dimensional surfaces, I was keen to acknowledge this mediated translation in a different way for the Te Uru project. The CODA work was an immense pleasure to make, yet I knew I was producing work that would not be handled or worn, instead, it would live under perspex. This somehow felt a little selfish. My Te Uru work, titled Who is wearing who? was an antidote to this frustration. I translated internet images of the gallery’s interior architecture into jewellery, expressly for people to wear while visiting the exhibition. To further this, a live ‘social wall’ was installed alongside the work within the gallery. The social media wall contributed to the circularity. Through inviting the audience to borrow the items to wear, record their travels or experiences during their visit to the exhibition and then upload their images to the social wall (using the hashtag #whoiswearingwho), the human translators mediated the return of the jewellery engaged with the architectural space, back into the ether.
Jewellery’s integral relationship to the body is usually well understood, most often from having worn jewellery ourselves. What we rarely consider is jewellery’s relationship with the objects and spaces around us, and what this information offers us about ourselves and the spaces we occupy. By inviting visitors to wear these pieces through the exhibition, it enabled an engagement with tactile and spatial possibilities, positioning the relationship of the work to the wearer, as closely as possible and reflecting the online portrayal of physical spaces as a tool for communication, as well as our online relationships to material possessions and to each other.
Reflecting on this, I can’t help but think about the role an audience plays in my making process. When you think of making jewellery as simply a continuum of tiny decisions; Cut here or cut there? Emery with 400 or 600? Leave those marks in or remove? Is it an object, or do I need to make it wearable? It makes sense that at some point an audience enters these considerations, but at what point?
I remember a well-regarded NZ jeweller talking about having the ‘wearer sitting on his shoulders while he works at his bench’. With another equally well-regarded NZ jeweller being intrigued by the amount of thought (or angst) I was giving to the role ‘audience’ plays in my practice. Instead she is staunch about the idea that any consideration of audience does not enter (metaphorically) any part of her making process, from idea inception right through to installation. Te Uru and CODA were polar opposites in this regard. CODA was all about my own translation and dialogue with both the objects and with what I could glean about OB’s practice. There were no concessions made for wearability or salability. For me, this kept the integrity, of process and play, completely intact.
Te Uru on the other hand, felt a little like making towards a design brief. The audience had to be able to safely wear and administer the works unsupported, requiring thorough consideration of easy wearability, comfort, safety, access and aesthetics. The audience was not only present on my shoulder, they dictated many of the making decisions and although I was happy enough with most of the pieces, the making process was less enjoyable.
[1] Bartley, Roseanne, https://www.contemporaryhum.com/roseanne-bartley-handshake-5 viewed 24/2/2020
[2] Bartley, Roseanne, https://artjewelryforum.org/an-encounter-with-necklace-1978, viewed 12/2/2020.
CLICK HERE for Part 1