This show was a very tricky install but it became interesting as a result. The walls were pretty shoddy, crumbling when you tried to drill into them which did not bode well for hanging canvases ( at least not straight). We spent a long time moving the pieces around the space and coming up with alternatives to hanging on the wall. We had T.V screens propped on the floor and stood on a unused set of stairs, images hung mounted on panelling and a giant suspended canvas.
I regret putting my phone on a plinth although it allowed people to interact to a point, the plinth looked completely out of place in the space maybe it would have worked in a more white cube type of space although I think even then it would have distracted from the object giving the viewer a suggested higher status to of the object that simply is not true. The piece was about removing and replacing elements one at a time to see how far the object could be pushed until it was unrecognisable or confusable as something else however before it got to this point I was intrigued more about the relationship between the original object and the objects used as replacement parts. The formed a dialogue calling on nostalgia. Becoming representations of the past (my past). This is another reason why i think the presentation was wrong, these objects are domestic and should be treated as such so as not to give them a higher status. changing an objects status is another intervention to the object that can be made however a compromise to the number of interventions to the object must be made in order for the work not to become wrapped up in multiple meanings that can not be read. What worked the best about this object was the bells. The fact that they were workable and the object could be animated through them. The animation was limited to only through encouragement to do so. I want to develop this object, and how it is displayed, finding a way of animating the object without encouragement or a silly sign.