Conversation Pieces

This curated exhibition presented works by Australian artists Agatha Gothe-Snape, Alex Martinis Roe and Hannah Raisin and collaborative works by Catherine or Kate (Catherine Sagin and Kate Woodcroft), Scott Ferguson (Erika Scott and Brooke Ferguson) and Courtney Coombs and Caitlin Franzmann. These artists engage with ideas of contemporary feminism through processes of dialogue and exchange, exploring subjectivity, humour and intimacy in performance and installation artworks. These works are generated by physical, verbal or textual dialogues between collaborators, participants or the artist and audience; and spark a conversation about contemporary feminist art practice in Australia today.

Material matters [curators]

The exhibition material matters brings together new works by Amy Commins, Jamie Behrendorff, Grace Kevill-Davies, Zoe Knight, Ruth McConchie and Courtney Pedersen – Brisbane-based artists whose experimental practices engage with materiality in specific ways. These works explore incidental viewpoints, suspended moments, constructed environments, cultural memory and repetitive processes. The artists in the exhibition investigate the temporal in terms of making and experiencing art in various modes – installation, sculpture, video, sound and works on paper. Through these material engagements, the artists question and re-imagine ways of connecting in the contemporary world, drawing together considerations of humour, history, politics, nature and everyday life. This exhibition was part of the 2014 Brisbane Experimental Art Festival, held at the Judith Wright Centre of Contemporary Arts.

This is not the work

The exhibition THIS IS NOT THE WORK surveyed a selection of community-engaged artist projects from different locations around the world, and followed the pathways of women-centred social networks in order to initiate further collaboration and conversation. The projects documented in this exhibition were examples of artists working with women and community in challenging and unpredictable ways, demonstrating feminist sensibilities and a commitment to non-hierarchical and collective structures. Co-curated by the feminist art collective LEVEL, this exhibition project uses the gallery as a conceptual base-camp or frontline rather than a just site of display. The exhibition was developed and presented at The Block, Creative Industries Precinct, Queensland University of Technology in 2014. A co-authored paper about the project 'THIS IS NOT THE WORK – Feminist Collectives, Collaboration and Curating‘ was presented by members of LEVEL at the 'Feminist Curating: Contemporary Art and Feminism Symposium', Sydney College of the Arts, Sydney in October 2014.

Quaternary [Guest Curator]

The curated exhibition, 'Quaternary' was held at the QUT Art Museum in 2015. Dr Courtney Pedersen was the guest curator. The aim of this curatorial project was to identify and analyse the work of a selection of women artists whose practices utilise the affective power of colour in compelling ways.Taking its cue from the Australian artist Thea Proctor's claim in 1938 that women artists make better colourists, the exhibition explored the enduring nature of this perception by presenting a range of contrasting approaches to colour. 'Quaternary' was the second iteration of QUT's triennial exhibition series, which explores the University's open-studio, cross-disciplinary approach to studying art. The artists include: Bianca Beetson, Chantal Fraser, Rachael Haynes, Natalya Hughes, Alice Lang, Gemma Smith, and Jemima Wyman.

Re-inventing the f word - it's feminism!

This article discusses approaches to feminist art practice by early career Australian women artists in the context of 'Contemporary Australia: Women', an exhibition held at the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA), Brisbane in 2012.

What's in a name - Catherine or Kate?

This paper discusses the art practice of Australian artists Catherine Sagin and Kate Woodcroft, who have been working collaboratively under various monikers since 2008. The duo define their artworks in terms of winning and losing, and play out the division of labour in an artistic practice that employs video, performance, photography and sculpture. Catherine or Kate utilise combative and comparative processes, which challenge notions of artistic collaboration and highlight the inherent tensions and competitive nature of working together.

VIBRANTe 2.0

ARTIST STATEMENT VIBRANTe 2.0 was inspired by a research project for Parkinson’s disease patients aimed at developing a wearable device to collect relevant data for patients and medical health professionals. Vibrante is a Spanish word that translates to vibrant; literally meaning shaking or vibrations. Vibrante also has a dual meaning including vibrancy, energy, activity, and liveliness. Parkinson’s can be a debilitating disease, but it does not mean the person has to lose energy, activeness or vibrancy. As technology moves from being worn to becoming implantable and completely hidden within the body, the very notion of its physicality becomes difficult to grasp. While the human body hides implantable technology, VIBRANTe 2.0 intentionally hides the human body by making it invisible to reveal the technology stitched within. Wires become veins, delivering lifeblood to the technology inside, allowing it to pulsate and exist, while motherboards become networked hubs by which information is transferred through and within the body, performing functions that mirror and often surpass human performance capabilities. Ultimately, VIBRANTe 2.0 seeks to prompt the viewer to reflect on the potential ramifications of the complete immersion of technology into the human body. CONTEXT Technology is increasingly penetrating all aspects of our environment, and the rapid uptake of devices that live near, on or in our bodies is facilitating radical new ways of working, relating and socialising. Such technology, with its capacity to generate previously unimaginable levels of data, offers the potential to provide life-augmenting levels of interactivity. However, the absorption of technology into the very fabric of clothes, accessories and even bodies begins to dilute boundaries between physical, technological and social spheres, generating genuine ethical and privacy concerns and potentially having implications for human evolution. Embedding technology into the fabric of our clothes, accessories, and even the body enable the acquisition of and the connection to vast amounts of data about people and environments in order to provide life-augmenting levels of interactivity. Wearable sensors for example, offer the potential for significant benefits in the future management of our wellbeing. Fitness trackers such as ‘Fitbit’ and ‘Garmen’ provide wearers with the ability to monitor their personal fitness indicators while other wearables provide healthcare professionals with information that improves diagnosis and observation of medical conditions. This exhibition aimed to illustrate this shifting landscape through a selection of experimental wearable and interactive works by local, national and international artists and designers. The exhibition will also provide a platform for broader debate around wearable technology, our mediated future-selves and human interactions in this future landscape. EXHIBITION As part of Artisan’s Wearnext exhibition, the work was on public display from 25 July to 7 November 2015 and received the following media coverage: [Please refer to Additional URLs]

Wear Next: An Exploration into the Future of Wearable Technology

Technology is increasingly infiltrating all aspects of our lives and the rapid uptake of devices that live near, on or in our bodies are facilitating radical new ways of working, relating and socialising. This distribution of technology into the very fabric of our everyday life creates new possibilities, but also raises questions regarding our future relationship with data and the quantified self. By embedding technology into the fabric of our clothes and accessories, it becomes ‘wearable’. Such ‘wearables’ enable the acquisition of and the connection to vast amounts of data about people and environments in order to provide life-augmenting levels of interactivity. Wearable sensors for example, offer the potential for significant benefits in the future management of our wellbeing. Fitness trackers such as ‘Fitbit’ and ‘Garmen’ provide wearers with the ability to monitor their personal fitness indicators while other wearables provide healthcare professionals with information that improves diagnosis. While the rapid uptake of wearables may offer unique and innovative opportunities, there are also concerns surrounding the high levels of data sharing that come as a consequence of these technologies. As more ‘smart’ devices connect to the Internet, and as technology becomes increasingly available (e.g. via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth), more products, artefacts and things are becoming interconnected. This digital connection of devices is called The ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT). IoT is spreading rapidly, with many traditionally non-online devices becoming increasingly connected; products such as mobile phones, fridges, pedometers, coffee machines, video cameras, cars and clothing. The IoT is growing at a rapid rate with estimates indicating that by 2020 there will be over 25 billion connected things globally. As the number of devices connected to the Internet increases, so too does the amount of data collected and type of information that is stored and potentially shared. The ability to collect massive amounts of data - known as ‘big data’ - can be used to better understand and predict behaviours across all areas of research from societal and economic to environmental and biological. With this kind of information at our disposal, we have a more powerful lens with which to perceive the world, and the resulting insights can be used to design more appropriate products, services and systems. It can however, also be used as a method of surveillance, suppression and coercion by governments or large organisations. This is becoming particularly apparent in advertising that targets audiences based on the individual preferences revealed by the data collected from social media and online devices such as GPS systems or pedometers. This type of technology also provides fertile ground for public debates around future fashion, identity and broader social issues such as culture, politics and the environment. The potential implications of these type of technological interactions via wearables, through and with the IoT, have never been more real or more accessible. But, as highlighted, this interconnectedness also brings with it complex technical, ethical and moral challenges. Data security and the protection of privacy and personal information will become ever more present in current and future ethical and moral debates of the 21st century. This type of technology is also a stepping-stone to a future that includes implantable technology, biotechnologies, interspecies communication and augmented humans (cyborgs). Technologies that live symbiotically and perpetually in our bodies, the built environment and the natural environment are no longer the stuff of science fiction; it is in fact a reality. So, where next?... The works exhibited in Wear Next_ provide a snapshot into the broad spectrum of wearables in design and in development internationally. This exhibition has been curated to serve as a platform for enhanced broader debate around future technology, our mediated future-selves and the evolution of human interactions. As you explore the exhibition, may we ask that you pause and think to yourself, what might we... Wear Next_? WEARNEXT ONLINE LISTINGS AND MEDIA COVERAGE: http://indulgemagazine.net/wear-next/ http://www.weekendnotes.com/wear-next-exhibition-gallery-artisan/ http://concreteplayground.com/brisbane/event/wear-next_/ http://www.nationalcraftinitiative.com.au/news_and_events/event/48/wear-next http://bneart.com/whats-on/wear-next_/ http://creativelysould.tumblr.com/post/124899079611/creative-weekend-art-edition http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/smartly-dressed-the-future-of-wearable-technology/6744374 http://couriermail.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx RADIO COVERAGE http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/wear-next-exhibition-whats-next-for-wearable-technology/6745986 TELEVISION COVERAGE http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/wear-next-exhibition-whats-next-for-wearable-technology/6745986 https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/29439742/how-you-could-soon-be-wearing-smart-clothes/#page1

Care for care: Studio REV's strategies of engagement

The artists at Studio REV-, along with their allies in the broader non-profit sector, address domestic workers’ rights in the United States. As a social practice art project, NannyVan works to improve how information about domestic rights is disseminated to these workers, whether nannies, elder caregivers or others. As part of a larger project named CareForce, the NannyVan project shows an ethics of care by using design traces as tactics and transversal methods as strategies.

Peace moves: Dance, identity and peacebuilding

Dance is a potential asset for peacebuilding, creating opportunities for nonverbal, embodied learning, exploring identity, and relationships. Peace scholars consider identity and relationships to the ‘other’ as key components in transforming conflict. Focusing on a case study in Mindanao, the Philippines, this paper explores the potential of dance in a peacebuilding context through embodied identity and relationships. In Mindanao, deep-seated cultural prejudices contribute to ongoing conflict entwined with identity. The permeable membrane (Cohen, Gutiérrez & Walker, 2011) is the organising framework describing the constant interaction between artists, facilitators, participants, and communities. It expands peace scholar John Paul Lederach’s concept of the moral imagination, requiring the capacity to envisage one’s self within a web of relationships. In this paper multiple methods of qualitative research including personal interviews are used to further the discussion regarding dance’s potential to diversify the nonverbal tools available for peacebuilding.

Long time, no see? (DIY walking)

Building on the launch of an early prototype at Balance Unbalance 2013, we now offer a fully realised experience of the ‘Long Time, No See?’ site specific walking/visualisation project for conference users to engage with on a do it yourself basis, either before, during or after the event. ‘Long Time, No See?’ is a new form of participatory, environmental futures project, designed for individuals and groups. It uses a smartphone APP to guide processes of individual or group walking at any chosen location—encouraging walkers to think in radical new ways about how to best prepare for ‘stormy’ environmental futures ahead. As part of their personal journeys participants’ contribute site-specific micro narratives in the form of texts, images and sounds, captured via the APP during the loosely ‘guided’ walk. These responses are then uploaded and synthesised into an ever-building audiovisual and generative artwork/‘map’ of future-thinking affinities, viewable both online at long-time-no-see.org (in Chrome) (and at the same time on a large screen visualisations at QUT’s Cube Centre in Brisbane Australia). The artwork therefore spans both participants’ mobile devices and laptops. If desired outcomes can also be presented publicly in large screen format at the conference. ‘Long Time, No See?’ has been developed over the past two years by a team of leading Australian artists, designers, urban/environmental planners and programmers.

Reengaging, reenacting and reenvisaging discourses of disaster through public space performance: Austerity, art, and the art of protest

This paper offers a mediation on disaster, recovery, resilience, and restoration of balance, in both a material and a metaphorical sense, when ‘disaster’ befalls not the body politic of the nation but the body personal. In the past few decades, of course, artists, activists and scholars have deliberately tried to avoid describing personal, physical and phenomenological experiences of the disabled body in terms of difficulty and disaster. This has been part of a political move, from a medical model, in which disability, disease and illness are positioned as personal catastrophes, to a social model, in which disability is positioned as a social construct that comes from systems, institutions and infrastructure designed to exclude different bodies. It is a move that is responsible for a certain discomfort people with disabilities, and artists with disabilities, today feel towards performances that deploy disability as a metaphor for disaster, from Hijikata, to Theatre Hora. In the past five years, though, this particular discourse has begun rising again, particularly as people with disabilities fact their own anything but natural disasters as a result of the austerity measures now widespread across the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. Measures that threaten people’s ability to live, and take part in social and institutional life, in any meaningful way. Measures that, as artist Katherine Araniello notes, also bring additional difficulty, danger, and potential for disaster as they ripple outwards across the tides of familial ties, threatening family, friends, and careers who become bound up in the struggle to do more with less. In this paper, I consider how people with disabilities use performance, particularly public space interventionalist performance, to reengage, renact and reenvisage the discourse of national, economic, environmental or other forms of disaster, the need for austerity, the need to avoid providing people with support for desires and interests as well as basic daily needs, particularly when fraud and corruption is so right, and other such ideas that have become an all too unpleasant reality for many people. Performances, for instance, like Liz Crow’s Bedding Out, where she invited people into her bed – for people with disabilities a symbolic space, which necessarily becomes more a public living room restaurant, office and so forth than a private space when poor mobility means they spend much time it in – to talk about their lives, their difficulties, and dealing with austerity. Or, for instance, like the Bolshy Divas, who mimic public and political policy, reports and advertising paranoia to undermine their discourses about austerity. I examine the effects, politics and ethics of such interventions, including examination of the comparative effect of highly bodied interventions (like Crow’s) and highly disembodied interventions (like the Bolshy Diva’s) in discourses of difficulty, disaster and austerity on a range of target spectator communities.

The last avant-garde?: Disability arts and (rethinking) mobility

Taking as its starting point a remark by Turner Prize nominee Yinka Shonibare that disability arts is “the last avant garde”, this panel focuses on the role of aesthetic experimentation in disability arts and the possible rethinking of the relationship between avant-garde aesthetic strategies and inclusive arts. Points of connection between the avant-garde and disability arts include a rejection of traditional aesthetic forms, the development of aesthetic strategies appropriate to non-normative bodies, politics and populations and the implications of these ideas for the conference themes. This panel is intended as a facilitated discussion involving researchers and artists undertaking work in this area. The panel will begin with some brief provocations reflecting on the implication of Shonibare’s comment. For example, Gerard Goggin will discuss three projects by Antoni Abad with artists and activists with disability in Barcelona, Geneva and Montreal as part of Abad’s Megaphone project, a decade-long, global digital art project. Bree Hadley will speak on performative interventions in public space, performance art, live art, activism and culture hacking by artists with disabilities, such as pwd's online performances, and artist’s performative responses to the austerity agenda in the US, UK, and Australasia. Eddie, Lachlan and Sarah will discuss ideas arising from their work on the project Beyond Access: The Creative Case for Inclusive Arts, which involved research with six Melbourne-based artists/artistic companies with disability, supported by Arts Access Victoria. Chair: Dr Eddie Paterson (School of Culture and Communication, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne) Dr Bree Hadley (Creative Industries, QUT) Professor Gerard Goggin (Professor of Media and Communication and ARC Future Fellow, University of Sydney) Dr Lachlan MacDowall (Head, Centre for Cultural Partnerships, University of Melbourne). Sarah Austin (PhD candidate, Theatre/Centre for Cultural Partnerships, VCA and MCM) Artists (tbc, based on existing relationships with artists developed in the Beyond Access research).

The prankster’s passion: Using theatrical terms to unpack players motivations in popular social performance

Amongst social players, the prank, as a social performance form, holds a lot of potential to impact on personal, relational and social status within a group or between one group and another group. More than simply showing off, a prank in the strictest definition of the term, is a social performance in which one player, a prankster, deploys mischief, trickery or deceit, to cause a moment of anxiety, fear or anger about a happening for another spectator-become-collaborating-player, a prankee – to enhance social bonds, entertain, or comment on a social, cultural or political phenomenon. During a prank, the prankster’s ability to be creative, clever or culturally astute, and the prankee’s ability to be duped, be a good sport, play along, or even play/pay the prankster back, both become fodder for other spectators and society to scrutinize. In Australia, pranking traditions are popular with many social groups, from the community-building pranks of footballers, bucks parties and ‘drop bear’ tales told to tourists, to the more controversial pranks of radio shock jocks, activists and artists. In this paper, I consider whether theatrical terms – theoretical terms from the stage such as actor, acting, objective, arc, performance, audience and emotion, such as those offered by Joseph Roach – are useful in understanding the passion some social players show for pranksterism. Are theatrical terms such as Roach’s as useful as analysts of social self-performance such as Erving Goffman suggest they are? Do they assist in understanding the personal actions, reactions and emotions of prankster and prankee? Do they assist in understanding the power relations between prankster and prankee? Do they assist in understanding the relation between the prank – be it an everyday prank amongst families, friends and coworkers, an entertainment program prank of the sort seen on Prank Patrol, Punked or Scare Tactics, or an activist pranks perpetrated by a guerrilla artist, ‘jammers’ or ‘hackers’ intent on turning dominant social systems back on themselves – the social players, and the public sphere in which the prank takes place? I reflect on how reading pranks as performances, by players, for highly participatory audiences, helps understand why they are so prevalent, and so recurrent across times, cultures and contexts, and also so controversial when not performed well enough – or when performed too well – prompting outrage from the prankster, prankee or society as passionate as any debate about a performance by players in a theatre.

Dancing into the second phase of creative industries

As we enter the second phase of creative industries there is a shift away from the early 1990s ideology of the arts as a creative content provider for the wealth generating ‘knowledge’ economy to an expanded rhetoric encompassing ‘cultural capital’ and its symbolic value. A renewed focus on culture is examined through a regional scan of creative industries in which social engineering of the arts occurs through policy imperatives driven by ‘profit oriented conceptualisations of culture’ (Hornidge 2011, p. 263) In the push for artists to become ‘culturpreneurs’ a trend has emerged where demand for ‘embedded creatives’ (Cunningham 2013) sees an exodus from arts-based employment through use of transferable skills into areas outside the arts. For those that stay, within the performing arts in particular, employment remains project-based, sporadic, underpaid, self-initiated and often self-financed, requiring adaptive career paths. Artist entrepreneurs must balance creation and performance of their art with increasing amounts of time spent on branding, compliance, fundraising and the logistical and commercial requirements of operating in a CI paradigm. The artists’ key challenge thus becomes one of aligning core creative and aesthetic values with market and business considerations. There is also the perceived threat posed by the ‘prosumer’ phenomenon (Bruns 2008), in which digital on-line products are created and produced by those formerly seen as consumers of art or audiences for art. Despite negative aspects to this scenario, a recent study (Steiner & Schneider 2013) reveals that artists are happier and more satisfied than other workers within and outside the creative industries. A lively hybridisation of creative practice is occurring through mobile and interactive technologies with dynamic connections to social media. Continued growth in arts festivals attracts participation in international and transdisciplinary collaborations, whilst cross-sectoral partnerships provide artists with opportunities beyond a socio-cultural setting into business, health, science and education. This is occurring alongside a renewed engagement with place through the rise of cultural precincts in ‘creative cities’ (Florida 2008, Landry 2000), providing revitalised spaces for artists to gather and work. Finally, a reconsideration of the specialist attributes and transferable skills that artists bring to the creative industries suggests ways to dance through both the challenges and opportunities occasioned by the current complexities of arts’ practices.