This was the first show I have seen in ages which which really gave me pause for thought- felt like it was adding something to my thinking rather than just informing me of current practice. Two pieces in particular caught my attention: after the plough by Jess Flood-Paddock and the film work Passage to Aravandi by Alex Heim. Both made me stop and consider the object, the breath of the term, how we can relate to it in so many different planes of time. We stand before it in the now, able to see and smell and examine the craftsmanship in the making, yet are inevitably thrown back in time either to when it was made- making it already and artefact- or to the time referenced in the work. Then I was immediately thrown forward in time to consider where this artefact will go next, who else it will meet, what will become of it. And all the time I was intrigued by how the artists had expressed all these concerns in their chosen materials. The fragility yet permanence of ceramic, mailable and comparing to work with, yet unpredictable. The resistance of leather, which then goes on to be durable and reusable even. The painstaking hours spent filming, sharing time and space with your subject before labouring over the edit suite.
I definitely need to do more reading to consider if the term object is even relevant any more. I’m tempted to think that I could define anything at all as an object, a thing. This is reminiscent of lots of current writings (*runs off to do more reading) I suspect the craftsmanship figures highly in the qualification process, but i know many 2D artists who would disagree…