Elaine Fisher and Lucy Gresley ‘Buddo’ (2017) part
what seemed appropriate (successful?) in a collaborative approach was that it was subjective, yes, but there was also a plurality to that subjectivity that wouldn’t quite let ‘Buddo’ settle. Yes we brought ourselves to the process but we also left ourselves. Rather than finding common ground we encountered a kind of sediment, the settlement that occurs as thoughts and feelings aired gently find their own temporary resting place together. A suspension of text over image allowed a view through, between and beyond. The view could have been other and both elements could have been different. This was a muddy response to a muddy assignment.
The very nature of the collaborative process meant that we captured a moment in time, time spent (with the concept of ‘Buddo’) in relation. In this way we encountered ‘Buddo’ as many different people have before us, at a particular point in the trajectory of our understanding of the world. A temptation to edit, to tweak and improve our assignment response, was removed. Hindsight is not an option in this way of working and Hindsights would have retuned ‘Buddo’ to a new suspension, equally but differently uncertain.
a response to ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY: ASSIGNMENT 1 a visual essay, outlining and critically assessing the entanglement of visual culture, in the processes of collection, curation and display