Download Report

Jesse Ash
Stella Capes
—
Vanessa Billy
Sam Porritt
Two interviews made to accompany ‘Weight-sharing’— a group exhibition
at Limoncello, London, July/August 2008.
Interviews edited by Kelly Large, an artist based in London,
and Rebecca May Marston, director of Limoncello, London.
Published by Limoncello, London, 2008
Copyright: the authors, artists and Limoncello, London, 2008
Design by Europa www.europaeuropa.co.uk
With thanks to the artists, Chris Bird, Grace Brennan,
Sara Nunes Fernandes, Mia Frostner, Alice Ladenburg, Tom Sankey,
Robert Sollis, Paul Tisdell, Rasmus Spanggaard Troelsen,
and George Vasey.
Limoncello
92 Hoxton Street
London N1 6LP
limoncello@limoncellogallery.co.uk
An interview with Jesse Ash & Stella Capes by Rebecca May Marston & Kelly Large.
London, April 2008.
KL:
You live together and do the same job, so is your work/leisure dynamic porous or
are there clear boundaries?
JA:
I think your interests are always going to be linked to the work you make. One
of the things that we do a lot, which I imagine many artists do, is just spotting
things and talking about irrelevances and stuff like that — not necessarily art
related … I think that we do separate out time to talk directly about each other’s
artwork though, don’t we?
SC:
Yes, if we want to talk about each other’s work, for feedback or something, we do
tend to allocate time for that in a way that makes it a job rather than it being
something that we’d do in the pub. Of course they’re intrinsically linked, but I do
like to try and create a bit of separation between work and the rest of my life.
Possibly it’s because I work at home.
JA:
I think it depends on the issue; if it’s about needing critical feedback then to just
do it in-between some sort of domestic task doesn’t seem enough sometimes…
SC:
It wouldn’t be giving it the energy that it needs if we did it in-between things, so
we tend to set aside a time.
RMM: Apart from critical feedback, do you talk to each other about the other stages in
the creative process, such as the conception of ideas and the production of work?
SC:
Yes, a lot. Although when it comes to the practicalities of the work, maybe with
issues to do with materials etc., we chat about those things in-between whatever
we happen to be doing.
JA:
…But in relation to the conception thing, we don’t go sparring off each other in
a clichéd ‘Wow, aren’t we eclectically productive’ way. In the beginning stages
of work I think it’s more about how you talk about the sources that you share.
Like when you see a film and talk about this or that bit, that’s often where the
beginnings of ideas come from, through that discussion.
SC:
I feel that the very first part of the idea is dealt with quite autonomously…
JA:
But what I’m saying is, we don’t actually talk about a piece of work as a
conception. We talk about a film or an exhibition which then becomes an
influence through conversation…
KL:
I’ve been thinking about the point at which I let my partner, who is also an artist,
into my ideas and the points when I exclude him. Is there a point at which you
exclude each other?
JA:
I don’t know if exclusion is the right word…
SC:
I don’t know whether ‘letting in’ feels too precious? In terms of actually
discussing an idea, I only bring it up with Jes if I’m having difficulties with it, and
if I’m not, he often won’t get to know what I’m really doing. If I suddenly hit a
block where I feel I need some imput then I’ll ask him.
KL:
Do you see each other as an audience for your work? And how does that
relate to the wider audience that might then see the work in a gallery or in a
presentation setting?
SC:
Yes, but only in the same way I would do anyone else whose critical ability I
respect.
JA:
Quite similar for me too, I think. Stella is the sort of viewer I would hope to be
looking at my work, someone who’s interested, inquisitive…
KL:
So you don’t necessarily see each other as the people who give the most ‘cut to
the chase’, honest opinion above anybody else?
SC:
I have more respect for people who can be honestly critical than for people who
protect each other to the point where you can’t get to the bottom of the work.
The viewer isn’t going to give a shit about how the artist feels. Jes is one of a
number of people who I rely on for an honest opinion.
JA:
There aren’t that many people who are that open and honest though. When you
come across those who are, you notice it.
RMM: I think a lot of people strive to be honest, but so much of the time,
because of social or professional relationships, you have to couch it with a
suitable cushioning.
KL:
Or you have to do it in a different environment, which is maybe the good thing
about having a formalized time when you talk about each other’s work. Can I ask
if you have the same goals? Is there competition between you?
SC:
No not at all. I think it’s possibly to do with the fact that our practices are so
different. Our subject matter, the mediums we use and our overall approach
is different.
KL:
You may want an equivalent recognition or respect in the art world though?
Do you think your opportunities are different or do you get invited to do the
same things?
JA:
No, they’re rarely the same, which I think helps. But I also think it’s just a human
thing about being rational about someone you share a life with. You know,
if you’re going to be a complete arse every time your partner gets a show, or
insensitive when you get one, then you’re not going to have a good relationship
are you? It’s not just art that presents these difficulties, there are inequalities,
tensions and jealousies in all fields — about childcare, freedom, money, success,
ambition…
RMM: If you’re with someone and you see the same films etc., you can pick out each
other’s sources; you have a familiarity with their work. Do you think that this
privileges you above other audiences?
SC:
I think that it gives you a subjectivity which can sometimes hinder your ability
to judge the final work. When you make your own work you often have a certain
subjectivity that you desperately want to get rid of in order to be able to look
at the work to see it how the rest of your audience might see it. If I think about
my knowledge of the process of Jes’ collages — I always want to know what the
original images are first, but that’s irrelevant if I’m going to try to attempt to be
objective or potentially representative of the audience that he might show that
work to.
KL:
Yes, there’s a kind of incrustation of process that means that you can never see
the final product in the way that other audiences do. I think that in our questions
we’ve assumed that it gives you a better understanding, but maybe it is just that
it’s a different sort of understanding.
RMM: Maybe I assumed that it is a privilege, or maybe I mean a responsibility, because
I do a different job to all of you, you being artists and me being a curator or
whatever I am. I want to talk to the artist about their ideas and processes
because in my job I ‘represent’ the artist and talk about their work a lot; it’s a
responsibility to relay that information.
JA:
We don’t really have that. We rarely have to represent each other, do we? So it’s
not a responsibility.
SC:
But if somebody, say at an opening, was to ask me about Jesse’s work — I feel
a certain responsibility to be able to explain the work succinctly and to be able
to give it the justice that it deserves. It also represents your own critical ability
and perspective.
JA:
Also you’re assuming that by being within a couple we both have an overall
definition of what the other person’s work is. I don’t have that; I have an
approach to Stella’s work, which I know is going to be different to hers. I can pick
out a few things that would describe some of the themes, but there are things
that I’m interested in that aren’t necessarily what Stella would like to pinpoint
her work as.
KL:
Stella, do you think that you have certain sorts of partialities in terms of Jesse’s
work, areas that you’re particularly interested in?
SC:
Yeah, I think I come to Jesse’s work with a whole set of interests that I have, like
I do to anyone’s work, but I try to put those to one side and think about what it
is that he wants to do, where he wants to go and how that could be interesting
and why it works. I think it goes back to a feeling of responsibility and what I
think my role is in talking to Jes about his work. For example, looking through the
collages you’ve just got framed for the International 3 show, I immediately loved
one of the images more than the others, but that doesn’t mean that that is the
best image.
KL:
But doesn’t that make it the most successful for you?
SC:
Perhaps for me personally, but that doesn’t help the attempt at a broader,
more open reading of the work.
KL:
Do you think it is possible to do that, to say: ‘This is the one that I’m most
interested in, but this is the one that everyone else will be most interested in.’
There is never just one broader audience. Everyone’s utterly partial aren’t they?
SC:
I think it’s more subtle than that. I’m trying to distinguish between being drawn
to a work for subjective, perhaps instinctive reasons and trying to critique a
work intellectually with the intentions of the artist in mind. The response is not
necessarily always the same. When I was a student I used to get really frustrated
with tutors who came into college and every bit of advice they gave was about
them trying to make your work more like their own, because they were thinking
about the very aspect of your work that was like theirs. I think it’s far more
productive to look at what the student is doing, where they want to go and how
to get there.
JA:
You put a lot of effort in. Listening to you now reminds me of the slightly
ridiculous thing we do, setting up specific times to look at each other’s work,
rather than a little comment over pasta sauce … there’s a definite serious
commitment to these discussions.
RMM: Would you ever collaborate?
SC:
No.
JA:
No.
KL:
I wonder if we should ask some questions directly about the show?
RMM: Yes, because out of all four artists, Jesse, you are the only one who has harnessed
the subtext to the invitation and is using it head on.
JA:
I was interested in the idea of the psychological framing or sequence of framing
that happens when you talk to anyone about work that hasn’t necessarily
manifested itself yet. When you talk about work everyone has different images
in their heads. I wanted to make a piece, which was constructed by a series of
perspectives, including the viewers. And, I was interested in the social networks
that were going on in the space between the people involved in this show.
RMM: Those people are you, Vanessa, Sam and me aren’t they? Is it specifically not
Stella because it’s a statement that you would never work together, or as a
counter-point to this interview?
JA:
Both. But also, the work requires me to be a neutral producer in a way — I’ve
asked Vanessa and Sam to pick viewpoints from which I draw the other’s work,
then Rebecca chooses which one goes into the exhibition — the work would
become something else entirely if I drew Stella’s work.
RMM: Can you say something more about the reasons why you had doubts about
the show?
JA:
I just don’t feel particularly comfortable with my private relationship being
considered alongside my work.
RMM: Do you think the show does that?
JA:
Well, I think that although the work acts autonomously, two couples are
showing together, and this interview highlights that. It’s more of a focus on my
relationship than any other exhibition I’ve ever been in.
RMM: But I very specifically would never say that that was the theme of the exhibition,
just the interviews.
KL:
Did you consider not doing it?
SC: Yeah, but when we looked at the sort of things that Rebecca was doing at
Limoncello, and how subtle she was being with some of the themes of the shows it
reassured us that this wasn’t going to be completely embarrassing! Revealing the
format and structure of it as an afterthought, as opposed to bright lights saying
‘double date’!
KL:
In terms of people encountering the work, have you considered what happens
after they’ve read the interview? Do you think it will shift their understanding?
JA:
I think the interview obviously reveals these relationships. And this discussion
that we’re having about methods of production, support and critical feedback
may well produce associations between works that weren’t apparent
beforehand…
KL:
What about if people read the interviews before they look at the work?
JA:
I would find that more problematic.
KL:
Why?
SC: It feels a little bit like it’s about declaring that this is the person I am in love with
and share a bed with and that those things are somehow relevant to the work!
KL:
Do you see this show as a risk?
JA:
If I wasn’t confident about the work then maybe, but I think that the work will be
interesting. I’m not talking about myself necessarily; but from what I know of the
artists involved, I think it’s going to be a good show.
Jesse Ash (B. 1977 and based London) completed a BA Fine Art at Nottingham Trent University (1999)
and an MA Painting at Royal College of Art (2003). Recent exhibitions include Tulips & Roses, Vilnius;
Tanya Bonakdar, New York, and International 3, Manchester. Ash is currently researching his PhD Fine
Art at Goldsmiths, University of London.
Stella Capes (B. 1978, Sheffield, based London) completed a BA Painting at University of Brighton
(2000) and an MA Painting at Royal College of Art (2003). Recent solo shows include Associates, London,
and Fri-Art, Fribourg, as well as international group shows. Forthcoming shows include Bank Street Arts,
Sheffield, and e-flux Project Space, New York.
10
11
An interview with Vanessa Billy & Sam Porritt by Rebecca May Marston & Kelly Large.
London, April 2008.
KL:
You are both artists and you live together; do you have clear boundaries between
work and leisure?
VB:
I find it frustrating because there is no leisure time, but I wouldn’t want to set
aside hours and for it to be static.
SP:
Our conversations are about general ideas and things, sometimes they touch on
work… ‘art’ is just a natural part of our dialogue. There are some weeks when we
are both working in our studios, which are in the same building, and we spend a
lot of time talking about art.
KL:
Can you imagine what it would be like if one of you wasn’t an artist? As so much
of your discussion revolves around art, if that was taken away, what would
be left?
SP:
If one of us had a nine to five job it would make the other person’s life easier.
VB:
I think it would also bring structure, with work time and leisure time.
SP:
We don’t talk about art all the time. It filters in but we talk about other things
too, there are so many other things that are just as interesting…
RMM: Sure, but specifically to do with art, you said you talk about ideas. Do you also
talk about other things, like the production or the evaluation of your work?
KL:
Where do you think the conversation starts?
SP:
In the studio generally, or when we have seen each other’s work. It comes quite
soon after seeing something.
RMM: Do you speak to each other more than you speak to anyone else about
your work?
SP:
Definitely.
12
KL:
Why do you think that is? Is it simply close proximity or is it that an ongoing
dialogue exists?
VB:
Both of those things and also because it is relaxed and we can be open and critical
about the other person’s work. Sometimes with other people you have to be more
careful about how you word things.
SP:
It’s healthy, we can be very critical of each other’s work.
VB:
But I also think Sam really tries to get me to talk about things that I find very
hard to talk about.
RMM: So it’s a constructive dialogue then?
SP:
Yeah, not consciously but the effect is often constructive.
RMM: Do you set out to challenge each other?
SP:
By challenge what do you mean?
RMM: Like a tutor and a student, pushing someone a bit?
SP:
Sometimes, yes. I accept Vanessa’s project broadly speaking, but within that I
feel that ‘pushing someone a bit’ is important in order to be useful, to try and ask
things that I don’t necessarily feel.
KL:
Like a devil’s advocate… Would you say that you’re more honest with each other
about your work than anybody else is? Do you trust each other’s opinions more
than anybody else’s?
VB:
I probably do trust Sam’s opinion on work more than anyone else’s.
SP:
I think ultimately we do trust each other more because the conversation is much
more open.
VB:
It doesn’t mean that we are completely in synch with each other’s work. At times,
like when a piece is coming together the other person can probe discussion a bit
and it makes you think about what you’re actually doing. It makes you take that
step back, it gives you that distance. Then you either stand up for it or not.
13
KL:
Is there ever a point at which you don’t want the other person’s opinion?
VB:
That suggests it’s a very sustained conversation. It’s more that you have to look
for the other person’s attention rather than say ‘stop’.
SP:
Yes, I pester Vanessa to come and look.
KL:
Is your engagement with each other’s work cerebral or do you physically help
each other?
VB:
More often I ask Sam, who’s better technically, but then I’ll help him on the
computer. We balance out helping: this for that.
KL:
Do you consider your partner to be your audience? If so how does that then relate
to the wider audience?
VB:
I see Sam as the first audience, but I see him as part of the general audience too.
It gives me a way to get an understanding of how other people might see or
approach something.
KL:
So it’s almost like the first public outing for the work?
SP:
You mean ruining the tension that exists between the studio and the exhibition
space — that because Vanessa has seen it, it’s no longer unproven? It eases the
transition of the work from a private space to public space.
RMM: Do you think that knowing the work from its research stages through to the
installation privileges you with an understanding of the work that no one else
will ever get to? If so, does that feel like a responsibility?
SP:
We were talking about this just the other day. You said you could see where the
work was going as well as a sense of its history; that you could see around it.
I think you used the word ‘anticipate’…
VB:
This is something I really like, going into Sam’s studio and seeing what’s
happened, often I make the piece in my head but then it turns out
completely differently.
KL:
Does knowing the history of each other’s work make it easier or harder for you to
14
make judgements when you experience it in the gallery?
VB:
It makes it harder; you can’t come to it ‘fresh’ with all this other understanding.
SP:
I agree, but what I like is when my feelings about Vanessa’s work are confirmed
by other people…
KL:
So in a sense there’s one of you making the work, two of you having a
conversation and then that conversation is reassessed by a third level of viewing.
SP:
Yes, but it’s not us against the world; it’s not interesting if we are a mutual backslapping club.
VB:
There is a responsibility knowing that we take each other’s opinion into account
— knowing that if I ‘approve’ of something too readily without testing it with
the right questions, it can have a particular effect.
KL:
Do you think that to some extent you have some kind of authorship or ownership
over each other’s work? Given that you have an influence?
SP:
I don’t think that I have ownership of Vanessa’s work in any sense.
VB:
I have never felt like I owned any of Sam’s work either, nor influence it that
much. Although that contradicts what we said about us taking into account each
other’s opinions.
KL:
Maybe that contradiction is how art-making happens, in that it becomes
autonomous to you, despite all the discussion.
RMM: Would you ever collaborate?
SP:
We haven’t ever, but if the situation presented itself then maybe.
VB:
I think it could happen. There was one incident a while ago, I’d made something
and Sam liked it. I didn’t know what to do with it and Sam said that he could
build the support for it. It never happened in the end though.
RMM: In lots of ways your work seems to have similarities and it makes sense to me
that you would be asked to be in shows together. I wanted to ask what you think
15
some of the similarities and differences are within your works?
SP:
That’s an interesting question…
VB:
It’s a big one.
SP:
There is an ease or effortlessness to Vanessa’s work and she does things with far
more risk, more disparity. The spaces between the works are perhaps smaller,
whereas the way that I work tends to be quite heavy. I often trick myself into
making work by setting a problem that I then have to solve.
VB:
I think Sam knows what he is doing before he sets off doing it more. Also with his
materials — he will know what new material is needed to be able to resolve a
piece. I often don’t know until I come across it in an indirect way.
SP:
I try to force work to a closure rather than waiting until something presents itself
as a conclusion.
VB:
I think that maybe Sam’s also better about talking about his work than I am.
SP:
Although I sometimes leave the work behind when I talk about it.
RMM: Has one of you ever pipped the other person to the post with an idea?
VB:
I think it’s a lot to do with confidence, that thing of not being scared of someone
else’s work or ideas being close to your own.
RMM: Yes, I absolutely agree with that when it’s friends and colleagues but I’m just
wondering if the intimacy of your relationship means that you have to stay away
from the other’s territory a bit.
KL:
Do you see yourselves as being in competition with each other? You’re at a similar
stage in your careers and I guess you’re going for similar sorts of things?
VB:
I think it used to be a lot harder but now I don’t feel that at all because we’ve
reached a similar level.
KL:
How do you negotiate the points at which the status quo isn’t equal?
16
SP:
We talk about it. I think we have a basic distrust of the things that register
success. I always knew the reasons why there was a disparity in our relative
stature were nothing to do with the quality of the work. I went straight on to do
an MA and did some shows, but I always knew the shoe would be on the other
foot at some stage. You had a pretty hard time when you weren’t making work
but you were quite conscious you wanted to stop making art for a year after
you left Chelsea to see if you felt strongly enough about wanting to carry on as
an artist.
VB:
Yes and it turned out to be about two years in the end… I decided not to go
on to do an MA straight away, to see what happened to my work. It was a
difficult time.
KL:
When somebody’s at the point of thinking about something, and somebody’s
at the point of finishing something off, it’s like you’re in different head-spaces
at those moments … I’m interested in your studio spaces because that’s the
one space you don’t share if you live together. There’s a sense that a studio is a
physically built mental space, so how does it work with your studios?
VB:
We go into each other’s studios freely, it’s not an issue.
KL:
But do you feel like guests in each other’s spaces?
SP:
Yes, absolutely. They are separate spaces and they feel very different to
each other.
VB:
Completely.
RMM: Can I ask you a question specifically about the work that you are putting in
this show? I think you are making completely autonomous works even though
you may have talked about collaborating. I wondered why you’ve chosen not to
harness anything to do with the structure of the show?
VB:
I think it would have taken one of us to be really keen to explore this avenue of
the collaboration.
RMM: And in your individual works you didn’t conceptually harness the ideas behind
the exhibition either?
17
SP:
The piece that I’m making will have a reading that is changed, altered and bent
when the structure of the exhibition is revealed.
VB:
The show has given you an incentive to make the piece, but you don’t see it as a
reflection on the theme?
SP:
Not specifically.
VB:
I find that you can fit almost anything within this remit, so I don’t feel like I’m
restricted or I don’t feel like I have to work from it. From talking to Stella and
Jesse we’ve realised that they’ve been thinking about how to approach this show
a lot more because they’ve found it problematic.
KL:
Do you think that your working process or dialogue has been shifted by the remit
of the show?
VB:
No, we’ve hardly spoken about what we are going to.
SP:
Yes, no idea what Vanessa’s showing — concrete?
VB:
No.
RMM: Ok, let’s end it there. Thanks.
Vanessa Billy (B. 1978, Geneva, Switzerland, based London) completed a BA in Fine Art at Chelsea
College of Art (2001). Recent solo shows include Limoncello, London, and BolteLang, Zurich, as well as
international group shows. Billy is the co-editor of annual publication FLATWORK, with Kitty Anderson.
Sam Porritt (B. 1979 and based London) completed a BA Sculpture at Chelsea School of art (2002) and
an MA Fine Art at the Royal Academy Schools (2005). His recent solo exhibitions include Brown and The
Hex, both London, as well as international group shows.
18