Following on from my post of 3 August last of the same title:
I saw this piece again yesterday as I was at Tate Modern for the Tino Seghal Curator's Talk and this time I experienced it very differently. No conversation with a participant this time; I was viewing the unfolding from above up on the bridge. So the piece became about movement and fluidity of form, created by the group of participants. This is form/shapes created BY CHANCE through individuals moving around, seemingly randomly.
This new experiencing of the piece came about, I think, because I was watching from above and not from the level on which the participants were moving around, where the onlooker becomes more physically integrated into the piece and the only physical level on which the 'conversations' take place.
The movement element of the piece seemed and now seems more interesting to me than the conversation element as, over time, I have come to feel that these 'conversations' one has with the participants have a somewhat contrived feel and perhaps a triviality and unauthenticity about them. Interestingly, in the talk, the Producer Asad Raza said the opposite; that the conversations are authentic because there is no former knowledge of each other and it is therefore just the conversation, without the usual interference from prior knowledge/prejudice of occupational background, social status, nationality, etc.
Today, after yesterday's talk and viewings before and after the talk, I feel the fluidity of movement is the most interesting aspect: I was fascinated by the way the fluid movement of the group illustrated form and formlessness very nicely: the formation of the group is random at first and then begins to take form as you begin to see a pattern/structure develop and then dissipates again.
I suppose this is a good illustration of how this piece - and all art for that matter - is perceived by the viewer according to their own personal perspective; things resonate because you have a certain interest, you come from a certain background/culture.
Another interesting aspect, which I hadn't homed in on back in August, is the 'social' interaction between the participants. Perhaps it wasn't there so much in the early stages of the work and things have evolved, participants have begun to interact differently as they have become more familiar with their role, or the choreographic directions have changed. I enjoyed watching the participants watch each other, pairs homing in on each other and then from a distance begin to move around in a kind of almost synchronized series of movements. I feel this reflected real-life social interaction far more so than the 'conversations'.
Some of the notes I took during the talk:
Most people's subsequent comments in the social media and other platforms are about the conversations: 95%, to the surprise of the curator and producer. Why? Because they zoom in on the personal perspective, latching on to things that resonate with them at the time. My own personal view: also something to do with the physical position of the viewer (as commented on above).
Asad Arad: '20th century art is about defining what art is and then finding what it is not'.
This last comment gives much food for thought: if 20th century art was indeed about finding what art was not and if that has been explored to the full, what is 21st century art? It has to move on from the 20th century, therefore, as an artist in the 21st century I have to find a path through the labyrinth and find a place for myself that fits with who I am as an artist and a person. That requires some further thought ...
