Wednesday, 2 May 2012
ASFF 2012: ONE MONTH TO GO! SUBMIT TODAY TO SCREEN YOUR FILM
It's now only one month until the deadline for The Aesthetica Short Film Festival 2012 (ASFF) and here in the Aesthetica offices, we're getting very excited. We've already had some excellent entries from filmmakers across the world, and with an amazing line-up of masterclasses and networking events with the likes of Warp and BAFTA, ASFF 2012 is going to be truly spectacular!
Time is running out for you to get involved! If you want to take part in this fantastic event, and share your work with an international audience, visit www.asff.co.uk to enter today.
ASFF is a unique film event, showing international short film in 15 iconic locations across the historic city of York from 8 - 11 November 2012. It's a fantastic opportunity to see your film in new and surprising visual contexts, and with the whole city teeming with the vibrant film community, you can be sure to meet industry professionals as well as filmmakers and people who share your passion for film. Plus there are also some wonderful prizes at stake, including up to £500 in cash, reciprocal screenings at other festivals, and editorial coverage in Aesthetica Magazine.
Whether you're an established or budding filmmaker, ASFF 2012 will enable you to connect with new worldwide audiences and interact with some of the biggest personalities in the film industry today. If you've got a film of up to 25 minutes, we would love to see it!
Visit www.asff.co.uk for more information and to submit today!
Caption:
Courtesy the Aesthetica Short Film Festival
The Viewer as Spectator, Subject or Performer | The Catlin Art Prize 2012 | Interview with Poppy Bisdee

Text by Bethany Rex
The Catlin Art Prize, an annual event showcasing the most promising art school graduates one year on
from their degree exhibitions, opens tomorrow at the Londonewcastle Project Space and includes new work by artists who demonstrate real potential to make a mark in the art world during the next decade. Following the publication of the Catlin Guide 2012, the shortlist of artists taking part includes: Gabriella Boyd, Poppy Bisdee, Jonny Briggs, Max Dovey, Ali Kazim, Adeline de Monseignat, Soheila Sokhanvari and former winner of the Aesthetica Creative Works Competition, Julia Vogl. Working across painting, sculpture, performance and film, the shortlist is incredibly diverse, however, there was something about the work of Poppy Bisdee that caught our eye.
A former student of Wimbledon College of Art and a recipient of the LUX Moving Image Prize 2011, Bisdee was recently selected from more than 10,000 graduating students to show her work in Future Map 11, an important annual exhibition which returned to the Zabludowicz Collection for the second year running.
Aesthetica caught up with Poppy Bisdee ahead of the opening to find out more.
BR: Let’s start off by talking about what you do. What is the main thrust of your creative practice? Where did it all begin for you?
PB: I am fascinated by the viewer's experience of art, and the ephemeral elements which make up that experience such as light, space and time. I am interested in the relationship between the viewer and the artwork, and the role of the viewer within the exhibition environment. My work is often a response to a space where it is ultimately to be exhibited. I use various recording and presentation technologies such as film and projection to create minimal sculptures and installations which reflect the exhibition space, the viewer's presence, and the duration of the viewing experience. By mirroring the viewer's physicality through images, sounds and shadows, I hope to bring in to question their role as spectator, subject or performer.
BR: What work will you be showing in the Catlin Art Prize?
PB: For the Catlin Art Prize I will be showing a 24-hour delay video installation, presenting the viewer with a video of the space they are standing in, but 24-hours before. The space will be constantly recorded, so those viewers will be shown in the video the following day. The playing video will also be visible in the recording, so there will be a repetition of the space throughout the recordings. This piece evolved as a development of previous works where I used photography to capture and present the exhibition space.
BR: Why have you chosen to work with recording technologies and projection and what are you hoping to achieve through these media?
PB: Using recording technologies, such as photographs or films, allows me to capture the space and the viewer's experience. Recording film, video or audio allows me to not only capture the visuals, but also a length of time, such as the duration of the viewing experience. Using presentation technologies, such as film projection or data projection, allows me to present the viewer with these recordings. Through my work I explore the sensory qualities of various forms of recording and presentation technologies, for example the quality of light or the mechanical sounds of an old film projector, with the aim to heighten the viewer's perceptive senses. I am especially interested in projection technologies as a projection uses the same ephemeral elements that make up an experience, light, space and time. Projection allows me to explore my ideas of mirroring a space within a space, for example I have created projections of spaces, which fall directly onto the walls of the space where they were originally recorded.
BR: If you had to condense your work into three overarching ideas, what would they be?
PB: If I had to condense my work into three overarching ideas, the first idea would be to explore our self-reflection on our immediate presence in space and time. The second would be to explore our understanding of the exhibition space. The third would be to explore our relationship as viewers with the artwork.
BR: The viewer is a central element in your work, Could you expand on these roles of spectator, subject and performer?
PB: My work is made to draw attention to the viewer’s experience which makes them part of it, and in a way they complete it. This brings into question whether they are spectators of the work, there to simply view and experience it; the subject of the work, there to satisfy the work’s concept; or the performers of the work, there as a physical element of the work. In my opinion, the viewer of my work is all three. With a lot of artworks the viewer is just a spectator, but when experiencing my work I would like the viewer to think more about their role and relationship with the work.
BR: What is your personal opinion on art prizes? What purpose do you feel they serve?
PB: I feel that although art prizes are a great opportunity for artists to gain more exposure in the art world, more importantly they allow the artist to develop their art practice further, giving them more confidence in their ideas, and sometimes allowing them to make work which would otherwise be beyond their means.
BR: What’s next for you?
PB: I am working towards a group show in the summer; details are yet to be confirmed. I am also in the early stages of organising a show with a group of fellow artists, so always looking out for exciting and unusual possible exhibition spaces. For more details and updates, please see my website: www.poppybisdee.com
The Catlin Art Prize 2012, Londonewcastle Project Space, 03/05/2012 - 25/05/2012, 28 Redchurch Street, Shoreditch, London, E2 7DP. www.londonewcastle.com
To read more about how Julia Vogl promotes the idea of community in her work please follow this link for an in-depth interview Aesthetica conducted with the artist in February.
Caption:
Poppy Bisdee Measure
Courtesy Art Catlin
Friday, 27 April 2012
Dialogues With The Physical | The Space Between | Tate Britain

Text by Travis Riley
Facing out from the entrance of The Space Between, (the title given to the recent rehang of the Tate’s contemporary collection) kneels a disfigured male, with disarmingly large, erect phallus protruding heavenward from between his legs. The work, NUC CYCLADIC (2010) is one of three pieces on display by Sarah Lucas, each a small sculpture stood atop two breeze blocks, which themselves stand upon an makeshift MDF plinth. The sculpture is made simply from “tights, fluff, and wire”. The beige tights create an evocatively flesh-like surface as they stretch across the contours of their filling. Whilst, only hinting at recognisable bodily shapes, the forms the models imply are explicitly figurative. At the rear of the models the sewn joints in the tights are left on show, just like the human body, we are uncomfortable seeing the parts that would usually be hidden from view. One of the works looks less like a single figure, but instead two nude bodies embroiled in a struggle, undoubtedly erotic.
Looking past the models to the far wall of the gallery space Tacita Dean’s Majesty (2006) comes into focus. A four by three metre image of an oak tree, equal parts imposing and sturdy, entwined and spindly. The tree is printed in strong, almost reflective ink, its form stands out dramatically from the background of the image. On close inspection it becomes apparent that the tree has been outlined, the rest of the image smothered by marks of white gouache, leaving only the tree’s stately structure as foreground. Beneath the tree, and echoing its black tangle of limbs sprawls Garth Evans’ Untitled No. 3 (1975). The piece is a rectangle of black rubber spread rug-like on the floor. Made up of short, affixed rubber strips the work hints first at a grid structure, which is never fulfilled. The inbuilt disarray in the connected strips causes the rubber to climb-up from the floor in twists and tangles, only occasionally lying flat.
Looking past the models to the far wall of the gallery space Tacita Dean’s Majesty (2006) comes into focus. A four by three metre image of an oak tree, equal parts imposing and sturdy, entwined and spindly. The tree is printed in strong, almost reflective ink, its form stands out dramatically from the background of the image. On close inspection it becomes apparent that the tree has been outlined, the rest of the image smothered by marks of white gouache, leaving only the tree’s stately structure as foreground. Beneath the tree, and echoing its black tangle of limbs sprawls Garth Evans’ Untitled No. 3 (1975). The piece is a rectangle of black rubber spread rug-like on the floor. Made up of short, affixed rubber strips the work hints first at a grid structure, which is never fulfilled. The inbuilt disarray in the connected strips causes the rubber to climb-up from the floor in twists and tangles, only occasionally lying flat.
The opposite of a rug, Alice Channer’s (Sleeve) (2009) is composed of four fabric strips, each hung from a steel hook on the ceiling. One side of the fabric bears a vertical monochromatic stripe detail, reminiscent of a bad pair of curtains. Stretching from floor to ceiling and back again each strip forms a loop; the shape appears industrial, giving the impression of a heavy-duty loom or conveyor belt. It's almost as if the piece should be rotating, following the directionality provided by the stripes. The material quality however, is not industrial, each loop of fabric is made up of more than one strip, and the joints attaching one piece to the next, whilst neat, are not hidden. Furthermore, when each loop reaches the ground, one periphery of the fabric breaks off, trailing flaccid across the floor to its end, breaking any illusion of possible motion.
Lucy Skaer’s Zero Table (2008) consists foremost of a reasonably elegant, dark wood, dining table. The top surface of the table has been carved to form a positive impression of the figure of a zero. The figure in question is stained a dark, inky black, and on the floor are two A0 sheets. Each has been printed with the same zero. The prints have a remarkably authoritative, matt-black colouring. The literal transference from table surface to printed image immediately confounds the table’s practical implication, but also betrays a process that goes unspoken in this informal layout. To produce these prints a heavy mechanical process needs to have taken place. Aside from its printing-plate the table bears no scar, the images act as evidence.
Anna Barriball’s Untitled (III) and (IV) (2006) make use of slide projectors to show corroded images of, what appears to be, a family holiday. Each of the two projectors is stuck on one image, I keep expecting another slide that reveals something more than these damaged pictures, but it never comes. Next to the projectors sits Rebecca Warren’s In The Bois (2005). Three mock-museum vitrines are fixed to the wall. From their cheap MDF surfaces, to their mal-fitting Perspex fronts with rusty nails jutting out, to the shoddy wooden post that props up the third box, they seem to be entirely incorrectly made. Inside, the image is continued, their contents range from twisted neon lamps, to lumpen, half-painted clay masses, to pom poms, painted polystyrene balls, off-cuts of wood and clay dust, complete with an affixed detritus of human hair and fluff. Unable to contain the mass of undesirable museum pieces, the objects spill out, also standing on the top of the vitrines. These boxes couldn’t be further from the museum displays that they initially evoke.
Stepping through Becky Beasley’s work, an installation complete with dual-tone lino floor, that riffs off of the scale and tones of a set of swing doors designed but never made by designer, Carlo Mollino, you enter a dark projection space. A rumbling film projector on a tall black plinth takes centre stage. The film being shown is Graham Gussin’s 1999 work, Spill. In grainy black and white we are introduced to empty industrial spaces, large rooms with evident functionality, but no present use. The rooms gradually begin to fill with a fog, at first trickling in wisps, eventually pouring, a fluid torrent engulfing the vast spaces, and after twelve minutes, finding its way outside onto the roof of the building. The use of mist can be aligned with both theatrical and cinematic traditions, but in this case the impact is far more profound. By making the mist the subject, Gussin transforms it from a now disparaged atmospheric effect to a substantive motif of its own. As it spreads through the spaces, the eddies and currents of fog are sublime.
The title of the show, The Space Between, highlights an evident theme. Each piece holds its own immediate dialogue with physical space. To take further examples from the show, Karla Black’s full-room installation (At Fault, 2011), collapses under its own weight into a pastel-coloured and powdery, paper heap, yet equally fills the space with a bath-bomb perfume, and Ian Kiaer in his Ulchiro Project (2007), generates structures to fill a specific, hypothetical, spatial function. A tall, yet delicately thin, steel structure, leans into the room. From the side the miniscule angle is almost imperceptible, yet when faced with the sculpture, there is the overwhelming sense that it will fall forwards. The exhibition title deserves further consideration. Each piece shows signs of its making or subsequent processing. Sarah Lucas takes material that is used to cover human flesh in order to make an image of skin, Lucy Skaer’s images provide evidence of a material process that has taken place, but is not shown, and Tacita Dean’s Majesty, reveals a resplendent image, but only by concealing those facets of material deemed irrelevant. The works in the show exhibit a deliberate tension between image and material and doing so define a recognisable, though not physical, space between them.
The Space Between, 19/04/2012 – 01/2013, Tate Britain, Millbank, London, SW1P 4RG. The Space Between is part of the BP British Art Displays. www.tate.org.uk
Caption:
The Space Between
Installation View
Photo: Tate
Stepping through Becky Beasley’s work, an installation complete with dual-tone lino floor, that riffs off of the scale and tones of a set of swing doors designed but never made by designer, Carlo Mollino, you enter a dark projection space. A rumbling film projector on a tall black plinth takes centre stage. The film being shown is Graham Gussin’s 1999 work, Spill. In grainy black and white we are introduced to empty industrial spaces, large rooms with evident functionality, but no present use. The rooms gradually begin to fill with a fog, at first trickling in wisps, eventually pouring, a fluid torrent engulfing the vast spaces, and after twelve minutes, finding its way outside onto the roof of the building. The use of mist can be aligned with both theatrical and cinematic traditions, but in this case the impact is far more profound. By making the mist the subject, Gussin transforms it from a now disparaged atmospheric effect to a substantive motif of its own. As it spreads through the spaces, the eddies and currents of fog are sublime.
The title of the show, The Space Between, highlights an evident theme. Each piece holds its own immediate dialogue with physical space. To take further examples from the show, Karla Black’s full-room installation (At Fault, 2011), collapses under its own weight into a pastel-coloured and powdery, paper heap, yet equally fills the space with a bath-bomb perfume, and Ian Kiaer in his Ulchiro Project (2007), generates structures to fill a specific, hypothetical, spatial function. A tall, yet delicately thin, steel structure, leans into the room. From the side the miniscule angle is almost imperceptible, yet when faced with the sculpture, there is the overwhelming sense that it will fall forwards. The exhibition title deserves further consideration. Each piece shows signs of its making or subsequent processing. Sarah Lucas takes material that is used to cover human flesh in order to make an image of skin, Lucy Skaer’s images provide evidence of a material process that has taken place, but is not shown, and Tacita Dean’s Majesty, reveals a resplendent image, but only by concealing those facets of material deemed irrelevant. The works in the show exhibit a deliberate tension between image and material and doing so define a recognisable, though not physical, space between them.
The Space Between, 19/04/2012 – 01/2013, Tate Britain, Millbank, London, SW1P 4RG. The Space Between is part of the BP British Art Displays. www.tate.org.uk
Caption:
The Space Between
Installation View
Photo: Tate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(107)
- ► April 29 - May 6 (4)
- ► April 22 - April 29 (6)
- ► April 15 - April 22 (9)
- ► April 8 - April 15 (7)
- ► April 1 - April 8 (6)
- ► March 25 - April 1 (8)
- ► March 18 - March 25 (6)
- ► March 11 - March 18 (5)
- ► March 4 - March 11 (5)
-
►
2011
(297)
- ► July 31 - August 7 (5)
- ► July 24 - July 31 (7)
- ► July 17 - July 24 (7)
- ► July 10 - July 17 (6)
- ► July 3 - July 10 (8)
- ► June 26 - July 3 (5)
- ► June 19 - June 26 (10)
- ► June 12 - June 19 (8)
- ► June 5 - June 12 (9)
- ► May 29 - June 5 (9)
- ► May 22 - May 29 (8)
- ► May 15 - May 22 (5)
- ► May 8 - May 15 (4)
- ► May 1 - May 8 (6)
- ► April 24 - May 1 (4)
- ► April 17 - April 24 (5)
- ► April 10 - April 17 (8)
- ► April 3 - April 10 (8)
- ► March 27 - April 3 (4)
- ► March 20 - March 27 (6)
- ► March 13 - March 20 (6)
- ► March 6 - March 13 (6)
-
►
2010
(126)
- ► August 1 - August 8 (2)
- ► July 25 - August 1 (1)
- ► July 18 - July 25 (4)
- ► July 4 - July 11 (1)
- ► June 27 - July 4 (2)
- ► June 20 - June 27 (2)
- ► June 13 - June 20 (5)
- ► June 6 - June 13 (5)
- ► May 30 - June 6 (2)
- ► May 23 - May 30 (3)
- ► May 16 - May 23 (4)
- ► May 9 - May 16 (1)
- ► May 2 - May 9 (3)
- ► April 25 - May 2 (4)
- ► April 18 - April 25 (6)
- ► April 11 - April 18 (5)
- ► April 4 - April 11 (1)
- ► March 28 - April 4 (2)
- ► March 21 - March 28 (4)
- ► March 14 - March 21 (1)
- ► March 7 - March 14 (4)
-
►
2009
(78)
- ► August 2 - August 9 (3)
- ► July 26 - August 2 (1)
- ► July 19 - July 26 (1)
- ► July 12 - July 19 (5)
- ► July 5 - July 12 (3)
- ► June 28 - July 5 (3)
- ► June 21 - June 28 (3)
- ► June 14 - June 21 (5)
- ► June 7 - June 14 (1)
- ► May 31 - June 7 (1)
- ► May 10 - May 17 (1)
- ► April 19 - April 26 (1)
- ► March 22 - March 29 (1)
- ► March 8 - March 15 (1)
-
►
2008
(4)
- ► April 6 - April 13 (1)