Artist-in-residency programs are supposed to broaden the artists’ creative horizon in the spirit of immersion. Being with and within an unfamiliar, how does one say “can we talk about us?” This is the gist of my presentation this afternoon. I would like to take-off with three keywords: immersion, unfamiliar and us.
1.
We loosely use the term immersion to generally refer
- to being within a cause, an issue, a culture, a society, a people
- to becoming one of them, sharing their position; which extends to reflecting on your position; or simply having a sufficient grasp of positions in causes, issues, culture, society, people
It is inevitable that they will encounter aspects other than this. A society is not a vacuum. But these are pegs, point A in their journey that we will watch out and try to understand better. And hopeful will have enough understanding to bring in our work.
2.
Unfamiliar as a concept, it can be compared to a two-character monologue. An entity has to be familiar, so that there is another entity that can host the prefix “un” and be the unfamiliar. But they are supposed to speak in the same act. In cases of AIR, it can be two-way. Both the host and the artist are familiar and unfamiliar. The host is familiar with its environment. It might be familiar with the artist’s work. But the host might not be familiar with the artist’s process, personality, motivation, persuasions or other psychological constellation. The artist is usually not familiar with the place of residency, with the people in it, and the whole dynamics of the society. These disconnects are actually nodes where they, the artist and the host, can come together.
This concept, unfamiliarity is what we capitalize on for Transi(en)t, Project Glocal residencies. Because Duto does not speak Chinese, he’s perception of it is devoid of meaning. He experience it as a purely auditory stimulus. This is both good and bad. As a sound project, he maybe able to gather as much sound texture, color and flavor by simply putting the sounds together. However, since language have meaning there is a danger too of misappropriation of words. For example, he might be able to create a sound unit that is appropriate for his purpose, but the phrase is saying “I want to eat you alive…”, without him even knowing. So how to solve this possible misalignment or misappropriation? I do not know. I am not even sure if it has to be solved at all, because maybe, it is integral to the essence of the whole process. What I am sure of is, it is something that is unlikely if the unfamiliar is taken out of the whole picture of this residency project.
3.
Us or in symbolically saying “can we talk about us?” One might ask, who is us and how it became us, when each is a stranger to each other. You and I becomes us when the nodes have been recognized and exhausted. So that simple question is loaded with time-space relational dynamics. Asking it exhibits a level of intimacy, as a product of a process.
As I mentioned, Fairuz wants to work on stories. And as human nature tells us, strangers do not reveal the contents of their soul to strangers. Some may do it, but generally we do not. So how much or what type of stories Fairuz could gather then? If Fairuz could find a way to trick the “unfamiliar” and skirt his way in the society, he might actually get something intimate. But since we engineer our own circumstances in residencies, Fairuz initially plans to gather whatever stories “they” would want to share. Depth, location, length is not of the essence. His agenda is to talk to them.
Talking to “them” is perhaps the first step for translating exclusive us to inclusive us. For example, he might find a busker in one of the train stations. He can listen to his music and talk to him later. “What is the title of the music you just played? You play well. Hi my name is Fairuz. Isn’t this station too cold for you to play?” These are questions that may not have to do with the depth of the busker’s humanity. To put it simply, these are just questions. What is essential however is for the other party, in this case the hypothetical busker, to respond, and to respond hopefully with an opportunity to continue the conversation. And to continue the conversation, Fairuz will have to share a bit. The busker might ask “You are not from here, yes? Where are you from?” Offering an opportunity to open-up is the first step of having an “inclusive us”. It is an engagement essential.
What happens now if everybody Fairuz speaks to slams the door on his face? I am not sure what he will do. But as a curator, I still see a story here. Story of doors slamming on his face. So the conversation becomes “Let’s talk about us? – Fairuz and the doors.”
I opted not to illustrate how these keywords manifest for Mannet, as he is here to speak for himself.
How these keywords manifest in Project Glocal, at this point, I can only present as hypothesis, as we are still in the process of immersion. We have only started, in other words. Nevertheless, this is how I see it: residency is an opportunity for conversation. It offers capital or resources for creative projects or endeavours that may not be present or more difficult to recognize if the cultural exchange is limited to the artist bringing –in finished work in the host city, rather than building the work in the host city.
Before I close I would like to show you a short video of Mamoru’s work. This is entitled Lakwatsa (roaming around). A work he produced for Japan Foundation’s Media Art Kitchen, a string of exhibits on new media art, which I co-curated last year. Mamoru was the first to arrive among my Kitchen artists. He stayed in Manila for almost three weeks. He came to Manila with an almost completed project plan. But changed his mind after two days. And I am glad he did. Lakwatsa is I guess the best example I can give you how an artist manifested his immersion, went passed unfamiliarity, and was able to ask the question “let’s talk about us.”
I leave you with this video. [link of the work]
