Kelly Sherman, Journal

PROJECT JOURNAL

Posted: July 8, 2006
The following text is taken directly out of my sketchbook, as writing is my primary tool for developing my ideas. Although this has always been a very private element of my work, I will be posting sections of my writing and research that relate to my Berwick project. For the duration of my residency at the Berwick this segment of the website will function as a journal, a log of my project. I enthusiastically welcome any comments at the email address: info@berwickinstitute.org.

If you are reading this following my residency, please feel free to email still. The heavenly Berwick folks are great at forwarding correspondence. Thanks!



JULY 7 2006

Once I had made a decision on what to make, there seemed no need to write about it. Writing is a means for me to work out problems; and if I encounter answers not questions, solutions and not problems, it seems I have little need or interest in writing.

I have been collecting seating plans and re-drawing them in Illustrator as spare grey floor plans: a bride, a groom, a couple mothers and fathers, and the odd step-parents; that is all for people. Consistent and somehow reassuring among the plans are the dance floor, the bars, the cake table.

They are dry, to be sure. Spare. Clean. And grey. Black, white and grey. One plan alone doesn’t seem to move far beyond these characteristics and yet alongside other plans, they begin to expand. Instead of talking about the space, the plans begin to talk about the differences between the spaces. Instead of talking about the couple and their family, the plans together talk about the differences between these members. And the similarities. Again: the dance floor, the bars, the cake table.

“Then what do you search for?” And this is an embarrassing question. We search for something that will seem like truth to us; we search for understanding; we search for that principle which keys us deeply into the pattern of all life; we search for the relations of things, one to another…
–John Steinbeck

I just finished reading what I think is an obscure and peculiar little travelogue by Steinbeck–The Log from the Sea of Cortez–from a scientific expedition he undertook with a marine biologist friend. Chock full of characteristic philosophical musing, his thoughts always begin with a consideration of the natural world and its species, and the nature of study. He brings an inquisitive and very casual attitude to his subject, and lets his thoughts and writing wander. What I have found especially relevant is the way he transfers the scientific approach of study to an investigation of human nature and history, here no longer superior to the logic and patterns of survival found in starfish, anemones and sea cucumbers.

I find it a parallel approach to the way I think about these plans. Studying one couple, family, and reception will give you a deep but narrow perspective, while studying the patterns among a wide selection will tell you about trends and variation, painting a broader picture of the nature of the “species.” I like thinking about it this way, especially as it seems to confirm this method’s ability to reveal truth. Hopefully it will be a poignant truth, yet–perhaps like scientific study–arriving at truth may or may not bring you the answer you set out to find.

Posted: May 31, 2006
MAY 31 2006

Well, here we are again. It’s been awhile and I feel as though I’ve been going at 120% for the past few weeks. I’ve had all sorts of interviews and little time to stop and think about them. The past week was a bit of a reprieve and I just dealt with more admin stuff and have let all the ideas and input settle.

So it’s now time to pull it all apart and make sense of it. Move forward and actually make something.

First off, here’s something to think about: Transcribe the audio and use the language element as text. In cases such as P&K’s interview, think about the disparity between the amount that P and K talked and how to make it visual. For instance, transcribe it and display in paragraph form, like:

P_______: sdfgjdngkdfngkdfngdf

K_______:sakdfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngk
agnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndf
sdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgn
sdsakdfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngkagnasd
gknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfn
sdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgnsd

P_______: sdfgj

K_______:sakdfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngk
agnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndf
sdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgn
sddfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngkagnasdgkn
askgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnj
fnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgnsdsakdfsakf
sdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnak
dngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnb
dsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgnsdgasdgknkagjnkag
kangkangkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfn
fkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdg
kmg,ndfkgnksdgnsdsakdfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkan
gkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdk
gndkgndfsdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndf
kgnksdgnsdgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkg
mdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjans
dgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgnsdsakdfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkaj
akdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdf
kgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjg
nsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgnsd

P_______: sdfgjdsfssfd

K_______:sakdfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngk
agnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndf
sdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgn
sddfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngkagnasdgkn
askgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnj
fnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgnsdsakdfsakf
sdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkangkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnak
dngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfnfkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnb
dsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdgkmg,ndfkgnksdgnsdgasdgknkagjnkag
kangkangkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnakdngkdnfgkdfgnadkfgnadkgnksdnghierjgkerikjerkgmdf,gdfkgndskfgnkdsfgndkfn
fkdgnfdkgndkgndfsdhsfnsdnjfnsdjfnbdsjfhjsdhfjdshfjdsjhfihfjsdhfjsdfhjdsgjkndfgkjansdgjnsdjgnsjdgsdjkgksjdgkjsdg
kmg,ndfkgnksdgnsdsakdfsakfsdkgnfkgnfdkgndkggksgkangkdfngkdfngkdfngkfjgkajgkajakdsgasdgknkagjnkagkangkan
gkngkngkagnasdgknaskgnakdngkd


In this way the language and imbalance becomes visual. Think of changing the text to symbols or perhaps just bodies of color so that it becomes clear that it is the volume and not the content that is relevant. Basically, pare away, pare away; pare away the image and the content, so that this one point can be made.

Maybe think about this project as ultimately being a series of assorted works, perhaps this one, a video, and a handful of other pieces in a variety of media. The variety of subjects may then be able to come across in a powerful way, whereas one piece trying to address all the subjects I’m interested in would likely be watered-down and non-transformative.

I am overwhelmed. Where do I start? My inclination is to just begin with this and feel good about having MADE something. I just want to actually make something right now. But I’m not near my recordings, so I’ll have to keep writing. Which I guess I should be doing anyway…

Another idea: compile all the clips of people after they have talked about whatever may have been difficult in planning their wedding. They always want to smooth it over, make good, be positive, transition into more upbeat conversation. Those are interesting moments as they are both contrived and also sincere in their ability to find a positive or shrug off the negative. They laugh uncomfortably, sigh, look at each other, utter drawn out transition words like: we-ell, a-anyway, oka-ay, u-um, and so on. A montage of these moments would address optimism and imply tension and depth by showing only a minimal amount of footage and narrative.

Posted: May 18, 2006
MAY 18 2006

Well, two more interviews done and still more than ever to think about. I almost want to put everything on hold and just go over how this project needs to change. And yet I have more interviews scheduled and so I simply need to get some thinking in, fast.

There are a lot of new things to think about and some major reevaluations need to be made. A focus on tension or conflict, even though it does exist in probably every situation, feels like I’m missing the point. It’s MY point perhaps but totally peripheral in the interview, totally cynical and almost arbitrary in a way that is maybe sad, maybe negative, maybe narrow minded, but definitely missing the point.

For starters, I don’t always find tension or conflict. It’s like I’m searching for the negative and wishing it on people, which is terrible. Secondly, when I do find examples of conflict, they are never cataclysmic or destructive or harrowing, even when they are conflicts of the largest sort. The point that emerges is that weddings are examples hopefulness and optimism, arenas for these feelings, cultivated events for these feelings. The point is that all tensions are inferior to hope and optimism, that conflict can be overcome or at least believed to be overcome. The point is faith, despite all complications, difficulties, or evidence against it. The point – again I have to say it – is love and the power of love. It sounds cliché but there it is: the truth I have been avoiding.

Another interesting question is whether a parallel point of weddings is to cultivate these feelings, perhaps even when they may not be prominent. Cultivate faith, hope, optimism, in the community but more significantly, in the couple. There is a paradigm to confront, meet and match. Weddings are the apex of happiness; marriage is forever. In regard to your wedding these are not truths to question or disagree with. After engagement, no one is above these “truths” and to do so is to question your partner, your relationship, love itself and to be a poor sport of sorts. That is why the controlling (or otherwise negative) bride character is so attacked. She initiates conflict, addresses conflict, opposes the paradigm of peaceful acceptance of this perfection in love and unity. She is the real in contrast to the dream.

I want to start thinking about making something. I am getting antsy to make something. I’m excited for the long shot of a wedding reception and am now beginning to rethink what the inserted clips will be. Will they still be about seating? About tension? Should they be about hope? Should this piece be about hope? It is a really good subject, as far as I’m concerned. Should it be about the mundane (i.e. the long shot of the reception) containing the extraordinary? Perhaps I need to think about other shots that would take the place of this long reception shot. Maybe the mundane is actually too boring. If I’m not talking about seating then why would I do that? What am I interested in talking about now? How is the “point” made tangible or visible? I need to look at all my footage before I continue further.


MAY 17 2006

I’m on the Fung Wah, waiting for it to depart to NYC, where I’ll have two more interviews.

So far I’ve had two. One on Saturday and another last night. The first felt a lot like a test run. I had some technical mishaps, not because I didn’t understand how to run things but because I was distracted, flustered and a bit nervous. I’m surprised by how nervous I get lately. Anyway, they were fantastic and very understanding. Laid back about the whole thing. But I realized how helpful an assistant could be, alhough there are of course drawbacks. I had difficulties setting up the camera while talking and trying to make things seems comfortable. I had to set up the little microphones, the tape recorder, set the exposure, test the sound, and do a test recording. I also found myself trying to run conversation while doing this, which will take some getting used to. By the second interview I was much better at it and also that think having another person there would make it more formal, less intimate. I just need a little bit of practice and unfortunately one interview might have to be sacrificed.

The last interview was interesting because, unlike the first, it was a traditional wedding and so the questions and answers were much more of what I have been expecting and thinking about. Plus I felt comfortable. There was no question about the equipment and I had made some simple decisions that made it more relaxed. Unlike a usual interviewer, I am not necessarily interested in any linear accounts and so the integrity of the “shot” is totally irrelevant. I can interrupt, turn the camera on and off, get a glass of water, talk off subject, whatever. The shot will be cut up into bits anyway. Also, there is no reason that the interview needs to be an interview. It can simply be a regular conversation, so long as the places the conversation goes are relatively on topic, interesting and my couple participates. In fact I think I may have better luck getting into interesting and open conversations when I am treating it like a regular conversation as opposed to an interview. I mean, everyone is more familiar and comfortable with a conversation. Or maybe I just want to talk too.

So the thing I’m beginning to wonder about is about the idea of agenda within the interview. I mean, it would be a lie to say I wasn’t looking for stories of tension, difficulty, or stress. I’m fishing for them in a way that I find myself reacting negatively too, just like I might when an NPR interviewer seems set on his/her own point or agenda, regardless of whether or not the interviewees answers lead nowhere near their point. This might be an issue. Many weddings are happy, wonderful affairs. It’s interesting; while the stories from these weddings are not what I’m really looking for for this piece, I found myself hanging up the search for tension and just asking about the things I’m interested in, regardless of my project. I figure: recorded or not, I have this couple here who is willing to talk about their wedding, relationship, marriage, family – I may as well ask them questions I’m curious about. I find my project brain turning off and my people brain turning on. This doesn’t happen so frequently when I’m searching the Internet for my projects. I will generally always stay self-absorbed, project-absorbed. I never lose sight of what I may be able to “take” from the material. And yet with an interview that’s not falling into my agenda, I have real live people with feelings in front of me and can’t simply abort the interview or “search” like I might if I were online. I have to come up with a new plan. Additionally, I’m genuinely interested in these people for reasons other than my project. Contrary to what I’ve arrived at with past projects – but in keeping with my personality outside of art-making – I am deeply interested in engaging with people and learning about their opinions and experiences. Learning how they have organized the world to make sense to them and how that might differ from my own perspective or experiences. And that’s what’s been happening. I stop being an artist and start being a person. For better or worse.

I found myself thinking about J’s suggestion that I get actors. He figured that I had a pretty specific end in mind and I may as well just get actors to play it out for me. Then I can be totally in control. I discarded the idea immediately but found it oddly shocking and very captivating. It seems to go against my love of finding things that already exist in the world and just re-contextualizing them, but one could make an argument that acting is really just like reenacting. Perhaps?

I wonder about having a mixture of actors and non-actors. I wonder about truth. I wonder about the found and its importance. I think it really comes down to what this is doing for me. This is really a research project into other families, other couples. And I come from a negative place perhaps and was looking to find that negativity. Upon not finding it, it would be pretty sad to then create it for myself rather than take the truth that I have found: positivity, optimism, love, (goodness, have I managed not to use that word yet?) and find artwork there instead. We will see.

Posted: May 13, 2006
MAY 13 2006

Home. It’s raining like crazy and I’ve been emailing like crazy. I’m been pretty stressed actually as I feel like there are so many balls up in the air and I’m afraid that I’ll forget to catch at least one of them when they come down. The video camera was definitely stressing me out, probably because I’ve never used it before and if any error could ruin the plan it would be a video related error. Anyway, A got me totally hooked up, all profesh-like with mini clip mics and everything. Granted that didn’t make it any less daunting. I was expecting something that looked more like my digital camera than a news team monstrosity, with zoom lenses and a big mic on the front. But I tried it all out last night and then again this morning and it’s pretty simple. Actually it’s ridiculously simple and totally manageable and perfect and excellent. I have my first interview in a couple of hours and am trying to figure out how the question process should go. I admit that at first I wanted to make this whole flow chart, listing every question I may want to ask, taking into consideration that a positive answer to one question would then alter the following questions. Obviously, this is not a practical idea but an – I don’t know – controlling one. An obsessive one that certainly wouldn’t help the interview much. Anyway, that’s super obvious.

I will be interviewing a couple who eloped, which should be a pretty interesting start to a project/conversation about wedding planning. I love it.


So, obviously, you’re married. (does the woman instinctually show me her engagement ring? newlyweds only?)
When did you get married? (season, how long ago)
How long before that did you get engaged? (long/short engagement determining nature or lack of wedding?)
And, I know you eloped, so had you originally planned to have a wedding?
What did you do? Where did you go?
Did you ultimately have some sort of ceremony? Or was is a City Hall event?
Who accompanied you to City Hall? How did you pick that person?
Was there someone else you considered?
Was there someone else who was disappointed that they weren’t chosen to come?
So had either of you been previously married?
Did that effect your decision to elope?
How do you feel about weddings?

It’ll be interesting to see how much control I need to have over the conversation and how much just comes naturally. How much they will willingly offer up, and how much they mediate and navigate. It will also be interesting to see how long it takes. I have the camera, I need to pick up a tripod from S on my way over, I have the mini microphones and I was also thinking about using my voice recorder as some sort of – probably unnecessary – back-up and/or alternative. I figure: I have it and can always just tape over the interview. Perhaps they might rather the audio only as their memento. Probably not actually.

Speaking of which, I would like to figure out what kind of memento I can give as a meager thank you to people for helping out in such a major way. Originally I was thinking of giving a small booklet of my work but the more I think about that the more it seems hokey and perhaps self-congratulatory. I would like to place the work in a context though so that they can have a sense of where I’m coming from and how this project might fit in my own larger body of work. I want them to realize that it is as much about me as it is about them, I guess so that there is a certain equality of subject. I am studying myself as much as I am studying them and I think this is important. I’m also not interested at all in the power separation between interviewer and interviewee.

Although J hasn’t yet seen it, she was noting that there might be some interesting similarities between this and Sherman’s March, which I have always loved. I think that’s interesting and it is undoubtedly because I see myself in that film that I love it. While the process of my work and perhaps of this project might be similar, I don’t think that the product will have much in common at all. I’m not interested in talking about me, for once. I’m not interested in telling a story. I’m not interested in showing exploration or the unearthing of my own personal exploration, even though that may be exactly what happens in the process. The process and the product don’t necessarily have to reveal each other and I think that’s fun and interesting and wonderfully controlling in a way I am interested in. You can have this deep personal exploration and then present your work as though it is a deep exploration of other people. I like that aloofness and think other people do as well. Or maybe I just like viewing work like that; I don’t feel like I’m being told to FEEL. I may go there but I’m might be more likely to feel that I’m going there on my own terms.

Anyway, I should stop this and begin thinking about more practical issues. I have tape, batteries, mics, an umbrella, a tripod (soon), headphones to sound check.



MAY 10, 2006

...

And I have been emailing for days now it feels like, trying to get people to participate in the project. All day, like 8 hour days of emailing and I’m not even kidding. It was really fun at first, really social. I went to openings all week, like 3 in a week and felt that I didn’t have to feel guilty about not being in the studio because I was working, I was talking to people about my project, getting people on board to interview. In fact that was the only thing I really could do with the project at that point. If I had gone to the studio I wouldn’t have had anything to do. Well, at least not for this project.

It has been social. And while it is fun there is only so much you can stand. I need to get back into my head and think about things and feel a bit more grounded again. But that won’t happen yet. There’s not enough time. I have 8 interviews lined up for the next three weeks and they will bring me to New York City, two different parts of Connecticut, the greater Boston region (of course) and western Mass. And I’ll be working my jobs like usual. ...

I am really looking forward to the interviews though. I think that will be fun and very interesting. I can’t wait to edit. And I can’t wait to play with the straight footage of the reception. Paint on it or whatever, though I’ll need to learn how to do that. I’m ready to MAKE something. I want to have something tangible to look at or hold that I made.

...

Posted: May 1, 2006
April 30 2006


...


I’ve made up the “call for couples” sheet, complete with almost every question I could think someone might want to know before they agreed to meet with me and be recorded. Granted, there probably aren’t so many people who will want to participate but I hope it works out as I’m now pretty excited about the whole video thing and keep imagining editing possibilities. I try not to as I know it will probably all change once I actually have footage. But I will say that I’m excited.

I’m leaning farther away from imagining a straight-up documentary style piece, as that seems increasingly boring to me. Not that it would be boring really; I think if some filmmaker made a documentary on this subject it could be fabulous, but the truth of the matter is that I am neither a filmmaker nor do I want to be. I want to be a collector. A collector of people's stories, and gestures and looks and hesitations and nervous laughs and everything else that gives people away, letting you know that they are actually human with hearts and feelings and all that other terribly embarrassing stuff. I want to study but I don’t want to be clear in a logical way like one who studies: like a documentary filmmaker or a scientist. I want to be more vague so that you’re not quite sure why what you saw was unnerving or unsettling or moving. I want it to not totally make sense in a logical way. Not illogical either as that just goes against all my sensibilities. But mysterious.

I want to make a collage of sorts. Maybe? Or perhaps I should say montage. I might just love the audio though and am disinclined toward any linearity. Can the heart of this subject come across without narrative? Am I interested in narrative? Or fragments removed from context? Where will context come into play here, as that is the biggest question? Context is what I am in control of ultimately and what I have always been interested in manipulating. I can remove all context, misguide the viewer regarding the context, replace context. I can also subvert the context. But how? How do you subvert the context of a wedding? Of an interview? How do you subvert the context of a couple talking about their plans for an event or their memories of one already past?

What about with an entirely different subject? What about something that instead of making the difficulty of the event or planning stand out, diffuses it, makes it seem petty and silly and ridiculous? I think that would be far too easy. Weddings (or maybe just overbearing brides) can too easily be the brunt of summer jokes for the uncreative. Weddings are too easy to view as petty. But they are just as easy to view as intense and momentous and difficult. So where is the unexpected element? It is not the parents getting along or the in-laws, but the seating. Just the chairs. How did chairs come to be so difficult? Chairs and tables and name cards.

Perhaps I should try and think about juxtaposing images of tables and chairs with the clips of the interviewees. Perhaps I could do an Erasure painting on wedding photographs or video footage: paint out all the people so all that remains are the chairs and tables, the name cards. The images could be from the interviewees’ own weddings or not. It would be great if they could be authentic but I don’t think it really matters. The point matters. What color would I use? My instinct of course is white and yet what is that? A white bride melted: into everyone else, dripped all over the floor. Or would it feel like ghosts? Or a snowstorm? Or memory, washing things out – like how the couple always says they can’t remember much from their wedding day: “It was such a whirlwind!”

I think this is interesting. I wouldn’t want to just blur the people like in a Paul Pfeiffer video, as the blurred people are still unnervingly present in a way and somehow not quite as peacefully anonymous. That wavering blur is unsettling: creepy not sad. I don’t want creepy at all. I'd rather: well, wistful. Yeah, well...

Posted: April 24, 2006
Example #6

Posted: April 24, 2006 Example #5

Posted: April 24, 2006
Example #4

Posted: April 24, 2006
Example #3

Posted: April 24, 2006
Example #2

Posted: April 24, 2006
Seating Plan Example
(apologies, I know this is tiny and illegible...but there are image size rules I must obey)

Posted: April 23, 2006
APRIL 23 2006
...
I am ready to interview some couples as a test – at least – for my project. I’d like to start with a hetero couple with a traditional wedding, ideally a big affair, and a complicated family. From there on it would be great to get every kind of iteration: simple weddings, simple families, gay couples, and so on. Perhaps I should actually start with less of a prize couple just as a test. I imagine I would like to have the logistics be standard so that I can leave myself more options for splicing and interchanging the families. I will shoot them standing up, as it might be a little more uncomfortable, or at least discomfort will be more easier to see on film and with the groom consistently on one side and the bride on the other. It can be in or out of doors, I think, though it might be best if it’s in a space that relates to the wedding: the room where all the planning materials are located, the chapel, the reception hall, etc…

Is it still about wedding seating? Part of me thinks: why not? It is a great starting point and one that can be talked about in the most practical and efficient of ways. At least I think so. What I need to figure out is the questions to ask, where I want the questions to go, ideally what I hope to get out. I think it might be good to try a few questions out in very loose conversation style with a friend who has a low-pressure situation and doesn’t mind rambling along with me.

Have you given much thought yet to the seating arrangements for the reception?
Have you begun/finished planning yet?
Was it a simple or difficult task?
Are both of your parents married?
Where will they sit in relation to you and each other?
Are they in new relationships?
Will their current partners attend the wedding?
Do you have siblings?
Will they bring guests?
Will they sit together?
Are there family members who you’ve specifically seated apart from one another?
Did you have to talk with those parties about this specifically?
Who will be sitting at the head table and how did you make that decision?
If you have a sweetheart table why did you decide on that option?
How many bridesmaids/groomsmen will you have?
Do they each have guests?
Will they all be sitting together?
How did you determine where they would each sit?
Did any parties make special requests about the reception seating?
Did their requests run counter to what you would have done otherwise?
Was it difficult to accommodate their requests?
Have either of you invited people with whom you were previously involved?
With whom will they be sitting?
Were there many situations in which the two of you disagreed on a seating arrangement?
Did the situation involve family or friends?

And so on. I don’t think this actually be that hard, as it seems like I’ll be able to pick up on a strain and run with it. I do however like this very formal way of asking questions and think that asking strangers might be a great way for this formality to persevere naturally. I think the discomfort of trying to address emotional topics in a formal manner would be really interesting too. It’s as though we’re all pretending that we’re not really talking about emotion or family, or jealously or conflict. We’re just politely asking/answering some formal questions on some logistical issues. I’m into it. Keep the guard up and encourage the interviewee to keep their guard up – not because I might violate their trust but because to go beyond the somewhat simple questions I’m asking would perhaps be crass, or distasteful, to address emotion and feeling when we are “so obviously” specifically not addressing that.

OK. More later.

Posted: April 23, 2006
APRIL 19, 2006

… Last night I met with the Berwick folks and by the end of our meeting they were kind of prepping me for what I had suggested: getting some people on video to talk about their own wedding seating arrangements. Yet I don’t quite feel ready for that as I’d like to figure out some stuff via writing first. We talked a lot about my interest/disinterest in people, interacting with the people I “study,” and how that played out with regard to my work.

Here are some other thoughts:
Seating as a mathematical/formulaic methodology:
B’s mother doesn’t get along with B’s father = Seating Plan A
G’s mother doesn’t get along with G’s father = Seating Plan B

Complex subtle relationships can fit into these formulas. Does this apply in many other situations with the world at large? Do we try to make it apply?

Something else:
I don’t think that the relationship between the family dynamic and the chart is actually very interesting. In fact the chart itself seems to be less and less interesting the more I think about it.
-
Do individual family stories have to be kept intact and separate from other families’ stories? Can they all be spliced together? And yet, I do almost want this to be a straight-up documentary on wedding seating.
-
The process of matching what you might learn about a family with what their seating chart looks like seems boring, didactic and stupid. I wonder if it should be only about ONE family and not a survey of multiple families? Perhaps the survey should be of different elements of the same wedding. The piece will then be about discovering the complex dynamics of one family through noting how the practicalities of the event are addressed. This is very much like the Family House series but using a family other than my own as the subject. I could try to do something with my own parents’ re-marriages but they weren’t traditional, formal weddings. They had casual lunches/receptions instead of sit-down, place setting-style dinners. Maybe P would let me work with his wedding. … What else is there to look at?
- church/ceremony seating & placement
- “giving away the bride”/walking down the aisle
- reception seating
- toasts

The more I look at all of this and read the websites, the more undeniably apparent it is that this project is totally about me. I guess I knew it was in a way but it’s just a lot more personal and relevant than I realized. I mean, all of my friends are getting married and picking out dresses and table centerpieces and reception locations and everything while I look down my nose a little and scoff at the excess and conformity of it all. And yet what did I do for nearly 4 hours today? Search wedding websites, learn about the “sweetheart table” and follow a lengthy chat session on veil etiquette for a woman who’s already been married. Frankly, it seems like I am either feeling left out and want in on all the girly wedding stuff that my friends are all sharing or I really want to get married. More likely, this is as much of a continuation of my Family House series as it often suggests and I am trying to understand how to deal with all the emotions around my family that arise when I even consider … (gulp) having a wedding.

The fact is that I am being forced to think about marriage with so many of my friends’ weddings to attend and in doing so I cannot help but insert myself: my own family, my own personality, my own prejudices and hang-ups. My own fears and hopes. Just like the phone call stats and floor-plan layouts from the Family House series, seating arrangements are a practical problem or difficulty, a simple matter that brings the ever-present issues of my family to the fore. This is all really about me (but of course).

Do I want to make the project about me? About my potential future wedding and where everyone will sit? I don’t think so. And frankly, that’s still not very interesting to me. So they don’t get along. Don’t sit them at the same table! Done. Who cares?! They don’t get along and I/you have to deal with it on this “happy” day. THAT is interesting. Why don’t they get along? What happened? How did you deal with it on the big day? Were they civil to each other? What did people say? This is interesting.

And, no, I don’t want to talk about me and my family. I think that’s pretty definite. Do I want to talk about just one family? I’m inclined to say no. I’m inclined to want to study these people who choose a traditional wedding with seating charts, these people who conflict-ridden families as well those with happy families. I think I’m also simply curious about other people’s families, their ideas of family, marriage, commitment, their ideas of weddings and of what their function is.

“It’s YOUR day.”

Is it? Is that what a wedding is all about? I’m inclined to think not at all. I would think that a wedding is actually for the community. That it is an announcement to their community of a couple’s commitment to one another. I think it is also – in return from the community – a show of support for that couple.
-
I’m feeling muddled.
-
…
-
Come back again to the concept of the IDEAL vs. REALITY. A wedding is the consummate perfect day. “The best day of my life.” “The happiest day of my life.” Who has a bad wedding? Who has a difficult wedding? Probably lots of people but no one would ever say so because it’s supposed to be perfect and so everyone is supposed to feel perfect. Maybe I’m wrong though. Maybe everyone really does have one of the best days of their life, I mean they’re celebrating the person they love the most with everyone else they love and who loves them.

But (there is ALWAYS a But somewhere) a moderator of a wedding chat site I was on today wrote that her “f#cking father” didn’t go to her wedding because he couldn’t be in the same room with her mother. That has got to be hard. I mean, you can still have an incredibly wonderful day but there must be a tinge of melancholy knowing that your own father couldn’t put you first for one very significant day. And then there’s got to be millions of other examples of situation that are just gradations of that in intensity.

There is the cultural myth of perfection and then there is reality. Sure maybe this difficult reality hits more frequently with examples of tasteless distant aunts, homophobic cousins, or uncles who get too drunk. Probably that more frequently than a father who wouldn’t attend.

But the point – perhaps – is that it will never be perfect and yet we want it to be. We are told it will be, it can be, it should be. And we are given little ways to try and make it so. We can try to control the situations that might cause problems: separate the parents, seat the homophobe cousin nowhere near the gay college friends, close the open bar at 8pm.
-
Think maybe about interviewing people who got married a LONG time ago about their wedding difficulties, as they might have a different perspective, a different candor.
-
So, I think I do need to begin with a video: interview-style. Perhaps I will do some insane editing on it and leave just a few comments, or just a section of the image. Perhaps I will splice multiple interviews together. I can hack it to bits if I want and play with my interest in minimal presentation that way.

Posted: April 19, 2006
APRIL 18, 2006

My sense is that the visual charts of where various family members will sit will actually be pretty boring. Unless there can be some sort of discovery or unfolding of a narrative THROUGH these plans (ala the Family House piece) there won’t be much to really DISCOVER as a viewer (keep in mind this idea of discovery and where it might come into play). The interesting part is learning about the conflicts. Learning about them by engaging this navigational tool, this chart.

It’s weird because I keep picturing all my different friends who are going to get married talking into a video camera about where various people will sit, like an interview-style documentary. Why would this be interesting for the viewer? What about discovery?

Also, remember that the charts are for an event. There is the plan of how to mediate the event and then there is the actuality of how the event actually WENT. Perhaps this is what I should begin thinking about: IDEAL vs. REALITY.

What about my calendar/schedule? I think I should aim to have a Plan for next week’s meeting with the understanding that this is a starting point, arrived at by isolating what I’m most interested in and how best to describe that.

NEXT WEEK: Rough draft of plan for project.
WEEK 7: Firmed-up version of project – if simple; Firmed-up version of plan for project – if involved.



APRIL 16, 2006

… I’ve been trying to open myself up to considering a wide range of possibilities in how this project might ultimately “look” as well as how the making of it might progress. I’m trying to be open to considering a more interactive, more time based, more temporal project. P just sent me images of a seating chart he’s using to plan the seating arrangement for his own May wedding. Having access to so many weddings this summer seems like an incredible resource. Perhaps S’s infinite archive of wedding negatives would be an incredible resource also, though they may be seriously off limits.

P mentioned that addressing the seating arrangement has been difficult and stressful, though incredibly important; and while I find this first-hand info interesting, it really only seems interesting in so much as it affirms my original feelings about these charts. The fact that a real person, a real person I know well, has told me as much seems inconsequential.

And going to the weddings themselves would likely be the same. The various personalities and intricacies of potential inter-family tensions or conflicts seem kind of superfluous to the mere fact that tension/conflict exists and that this banal system has been devised/utilized to assuage these feelings. I’ve also found that so many people are interested in engaging on the topic with me, each with their own stories of seating drama. You’d be surprised. And while it’s great that people engage, I don’t know how I want to connect this interest in sharing with what I do/make. Or if I want to connect them in an active way at all.

Basically, I’m interested in the plan/chart as a form of navigation, perhaps. Like a chart for traversing difficult terrain, a rough body of water, etc…

Part of me wonders about the idea of a small text or a short film, etc… that sets the stage by describing a inter-personal, -family situation:

Joseph married Andrea. Joseph’s parents are divorced and dislike Andrea’s mother. Etc…

And then beneath it a diagram of what their seating chart looked like.

I like the idea of a little video better than a text: seeing the bride or groom talk about the family situation in person. People definitely won’t want to be so open about their family tensions though – perhaps a transcription of the audio would have to suffice.

-

Now, I can’t help but think about the fact that this is supposed to be a research project and here I am with a vision of a “piece.” I also wonder what subconscious parameters I have in place that make me arrive at a piece that apparently goes on the wall and can be experienced in a classic museum/gallery-like setting and mode. I’m definitely thinking about museum walls without even realizing it.

I wonder what a brainstorm would be like (or if it could be at all) if I was thinking only about the idea and not how to make the idea physical or into “art.” And is that really what I’m interested in? The Art? The Idea? I think the truth is that I’m into the possibilities of experiencing the Idea in the Art setting and therefore using the established parameters/conveniences of Art. It’s interesting to think of the parameters as conveniences instead of boundaries, restrictions or limitations. I don’t feel much of an interest in breaking these boundaries as they do seem just like convenient parameters that I’ve come to accept. I can work just fine within them and so I see no real need to break them. I think maybe the question – as far as that goes – is: Are there elements of the assumed parameters that are troubling? How does one present with a freshness, an unexpectedness within such time-honored traditions and formats? And then: Do I even care?

So. These are all good things to think about but right now I need to begin thinking about how to make up a calendar for my BRI time. What do I want to use as markers: products? finalized ideas for a complete project? I’m inclined to think that I would like to actually have an idea of what the completed project MIGHT be sooner rather than later and then spend the bulk of the time flushing out how best to realize it or to perhaps confront why NOT to realize it. If my weeks are book-ended with studio visits, I want to have something more than my wandering scrawling ideas, questions, brainstorms to talk about and be challenged on.