Articulation
Articulation:
The day began with a journey from Canterbury east to Chatham, via the train line between Dover and London Victoria. Two of my colleagues from university along with myself were set to take part in a workshop carried out by a collaboration between the Articulation organisation and a representative from Q-Arts. We had been told going into the workshop that it would be on the ability to communicate your ideas about artwork as well as critique the work of others as well as your own in a more competent and engaged fashion. This was in anticipation of the other half of the scheme that would see us deliver a workshop of a similar fashion to students slightly younger than us, in order to spread the word about valuable critiquing skills. While both being excited and nervous about this process we headed to the university of Kent campus based in the dockyard area in Chatham.
Having arrived in Chatham, and after a short walk (aided by Google maps) we arrived at the impressive campus gate. I personally found myself unsure whether this was actually a royal maritime facility or actually a university campus. Thankfully we found our way and the telltale signs of a university campus crept out into view. The meeting point would be the Café under the clock tower so obviously we began looking for that amongst the densely rich industrial buildings from a period of major industrial development. Interestingly I found myself thinking of the use of them now, as the housing of the development of students creative talents.
In the Café the first thing I noticed was what must have been a sculpture of some kind up in the corner of the room. This got me thinking about the work and where it was situated, in a place that acts as a between space for many people on a daily basis. Waiting for little more than twenty minutes we were met with the familiar face of Adam Chodzko, one of the head lecturers at the university. He welcomed us and led us into the room where the session was to take place. In the room already were a few different people of whom we were quickly introduced to members of the teaching staff, a man called Steve in particular who we found out was a tutor to the second year students. Among this group were also a lady by the name of Jenhi, who was one of the head members of Q Arts as well as Fran who worked for Articulation. These were the people that were going to be running the workshop. After a short tour of the artist studios in use by the students of varying disciplines, as well as other historic buildings that were now home to more sections of the university. During this tour we briefly chatted to those that were to be running the workshop, an interesting chat with Steve involved a question of mine asking how he found being a tutor to which he replied that there is a surprising amount of admin work to go along with what he called the fun stuff.
After the tour finished we returned to the room of the workshop to find a group of four students from the university who would be joining us in the workshop.
The workshop itself:
First of all Fran spoke briefly about what articulation do, in that they are working with numerous organisations in order to spread their message of the benefit of improved critique skills to the individuals improvement. She went on to explain their main work is aimed at those aged between 16-19, as they are reaching the end of their secondary school studies. She then went on to explain our involvement with the scheme as being to support this process through the use of our experience with higher education, trying to spread the message of how amazing it is to be within the higher education system. At this point she very happily handed over to Jenhi who was to provide the bulk of the workshop we were to experience. She began by asking us in turn our name, what we did as an artist as well as where we went on holiday over the summer, after answering these very requests herself. This was purposed to ease us into talking about ourselves slightly, trying to make us comfortable within the group, ready to move through the other tasks she would present us. She seemed extremely adamant of her position on everything as she was very relaxed in her delivery and tried to reach out to us as best she could. This worked remarkably well, both through the willingness to take part and the ease of which she carried herself. One of her main points that stood out was to ‘harness the nervousness’ as she stated this was normal and asked us to consider this when delivering the session to the younger students.
She then went on to explain a bit about Q Arts and their work in critique techniques and asking people to be open to new and improved methods of questioning. This was very constructively aimed, as depicted by the video that she then showed, including many testimonials from people that the scheme had worked with. These people proceeded to explain various different methods of critique that they had put into practice themselves, just to demonstrate the diverse range of methods. After cutting the video short she told us they were available online so we could watch them in our own time if we wished to. After this she spoke more on the topic of critiques directed at the uncomfortable nature some of them can take, especially in the occasion of people looking at your work. This can be upsetting but Jenhi told us that its important to remember that the critique is of the work specifically and not a personal attack on you as a person. This was an interesting point as I have personally found it personal when somebody has picked apart the work I have made. She told us that the trick is to equip yourself with enough knowledge of your work to be able to answer any question about the work that may come up, no matter how petty they may seem. This promotes a knowledge of your work on a deeper level, which also prepares you more for the professional world as an artist you will be torn apart by questions about the type of plastic you used and why and so on.
Other interesting points that Jenhi raised were talking about methods of relaxation in your workshop group, one of which was to use a seemingly unrelated topic to relax a person while off guard. Linking back to the holiday question at the start, by using something they can relate to fully enables them to talk freely without too much nervousness. She also spoke of the amount of different views of any single thing you can have, promoting open-mindedness and a sense of preparation to deal with any changes that may come along. Taking this a step further she told us that the jargon that comes along with art is confusing to many people but this shouted be intimidating for people and an attitude or atmosphere where people aren’t afraid to ask should be fostered fully. This is something I can personally relate to as you can feel overwhelmed and stupid when a lot of Jargon is used in any setting, especially when you are too intimidated to say anything to the person speaking. I think this specifically will be something that I will be carrying forward into our delivered session.
Jenhi then told us of a system of stages that she called the nandos scale of one two and three halipenios, relating directly to the level of questioning. So the one pepper is how it looks and the impact of it, two peppers is or could be the evoked messages within the work and then three peppers is looking in depth into things like the authenticity and consistency of the work alongside the idea in place. In basic terms a gradual rise in level of questioning.
The next activity, and the main one of the entire session involved the group pairing off with people they didn’t know in order to analyse the individual works put on display and talk about them, baring in mind what we had been discussing. After analysing them in pairs we would then have to present to the group the findings that we had made. Paired off with a girl named Nikki, we slowly wandered through the works, first making a beeline for a table tennis table fashioned from two decorative doors. After discussing very briefly and progressing to have a semi-aggressive game of table tennis we proceeded to talk in length many other works that had been set out. We spoke mostly of the work I had spotted the second I had walked into the room, the work involved a mass of plastic piping wrapped and knotted through the structural beams of the building. This provoked much conversation stemming from my initial thought from when I had walked in, basically I thought it represented social anxiety. This, I was surprised to find was actually the intention of the work as Nikki had spoken to the student in question and this was her exact intention.
Rejoining the group, Jenhi asked us to tell her which of the pieces we had decided to talk about, to which we in turn told her, each apparently having planned to wait and see what others had chosen before choosing our own. This was amusing but as it turned out we were able to each decide on one in particular. We then were asked to spend a few minutes preparing what it was we were to talk about to the group, at this myself and Nikki went through into the other room where the work was situated. We discussed at length once again, starting with first impressions of the work and then working thought the pepper critique scale to finish with a suggestion of a development that could be made. This then came to form in our presentation which went incredibly well I felt as we engaged the audience and delivered our points confidently, timing out points well after having not planned who would say what. Despite how well it went as well, as we sat down to clapping from our group, I couldn’t help but think of how shaky I was and worried that this would be wildly apparent. Jenhi told us she was holding on till the end of all groups going forward before providing feedback.
The feedback was very positive as she gave hints and tips of what we did well and what we could consider for next time. She mentioned our sensory description of the work as a group being a key method of audience engagement as well as reminding us to give our name whenever we gave a talk. This along with a reminder to sum up what you had said, after announcing what you were to talk about then the talk itself followed by that exact sum up. At this point she reiterated an earlier point of the power of three and gave an excited ‘YES’ gesture. In summary she told as that she was really impressed in how we engaged with those that we had never met before as well as wishing us luck for our delivered session.
To finish up, Fran took the floor again to give us a postcard and a post it note in order to write things we had learned and then on the postcard, things that we wanted to remind ourselves for the actual event, as she was going to post them to us in preparation of the event itself. After exchange of email addresses and Instagram accounts we all took a group photograph, thanked our hosts and parted ways. I think it is safe to say that we all left the room with anticipation and excitement of the session in which we would deliver. Having made some new contacts in some very lovely people, we left the official looking campus and headed for the Chatham train station, looking over an elevated view of Chatham from the top of the hill we had climbed earlier. A positive feeling within all of us, we had had a very good day, and really felt that the next section of our involvement would be equally, if not more, positive.
