- Venue
- http://www.a-n.co.uk/interface/reviews
- Location
- United Kingdom
Bobby Sayers has requested that I make a review of his latest work. The work consists of a review; this review in particular, which means that the work is not yet complete. I am reviewing the review I am writing as I write it; this seems like it may go round in circles.
So; I need to write a review on this review. Yes? Well, as it stands; it is fairly repetitive.
Or, do I need to review the process of reviewing i.e. that it begins by setting the scene with a general introduction of the work and then goes into more depth regarding subject, tone, feeling and setting, describing this in the context of the artists previous work and his/her contemporaries… blah blah blah:
Bobby Sayers has requested that I write a review of his latest work which consists of instructions to me to write this review of his instructions to write a review. Bobby’s work makes use of instructions and restrictive briefs to play with ideas of authorship and originality. This applies to both his sculptural work and curating practice. As a result Bobby’s work is not wholly his own; it is a collaborative effort of both the artist and the participant.
This particular work sees Bobby collaborating again, this time with me. I am the participant. I am writing the review. Essentially I am doing Bobby’s work for him; it will not be credited as me. It is Bobby’s idea. Which leads me to question – what is the ‘art‘ within the art work? Is it the originality of the idea or the making of it? Jeff Koons and Warhol both employed helpers in a production line type practice where art became consumer objects. Historically though, this is extremely common; particularly in renaissance painting and sculpture. I suppose the author is the person to whom the idea belongs too; the author of the art work. The instigator rather than the follower.
Does this make me the follower? I don’t know how well I’m doing in following simple instructions even! Re-reading what I have written I seem to have rambled a lot and brought in a few un-researched and vague historical references in an attempt to contextualise what Bobby has asked me to do. My brief is brief however; I was told to mention that I was reviewing a review of Bobby’s latest work which is this review as I am writing it but I have yet to realise an articulate way of expressing this. I do not even have any brief set on how long this is to be. Is a page long enough? Should I double space it? Is this font appropriate?
I am starting to get tired of writing this review of a review which only half exists. It is quite a weird sensation; I feel like Gromit in The Wrong Trousers where in the train chase sequence he is laying track as the train speeds around in order to catch the penguin. I think I am confusing myself the more I write. So back to the point. The review.
It is not a particularly specific or coherent review. It has a rather chopping, spontaneous feel. Plus the writer seems to keep drifting in and out of concentration on the text. It lacks a sense of commitment. I rather like the popular culture references; they provide gentle and familiar visual metaphors. However I don’t think the writer quite understands the task. It almost seems to big for them to comprehend exactly. Whether this is a failure on the part of the writer or the artist is a question yet to be answered when the review reaches a culmination.
Which I say, is now.