I quite like the idea of therapy- admittedly this is a highly cathartic conversation/project for myself and I do hope this is reciprocal in its nature. I believe we share a common want to change something, even if it is unclear how and what form it may take. Yes, I concur with the ‘no fixed rules’. I think my task is not to specifically define the collective, but to draw out nuanced characteristics with which we can begin to gain a greater understanding and to ultimately legitimise practices (and thus languages) which seem logical to artists and creatives within the sector, such as ourselves. This is not to co-opt ‘what we do’ into conventional institutionalised art history, but in fact, to contribute a small change in new knowledges of social art history.
It’s interesting that my introduction to your work was through the Rome exhibition and your meta-project "Turbulent Times. Nothing happens in Nice Weather". I immediately recognised a deeper criticism of our current times it’s what set that work apart from the rest of the exhibition. Also, yes by ‘play’ I was referring to a general aesthetic rather than the actual notion that we can entirely be at play, as artists, all of the time. I think that the aesthetic of play is really important in our times as its at once relatable (somewhat satirical in form) by the audience/viewer. However, it simultaneously reveals the interplay between the personal and the political (political, in the broadest sense of those friction points) intention in your work.
Yes, I couldn’t help but think of Walter Benjamin when you positioned images as non-singular, it’s about circulation, hit rate and sharing, this is the other side of collectivism which I’m reticent to spend time on as it is probably a whole other PhD. However, it does of course play a role and cannot be ignored. I suppose a post-structuralist would argue that the relationship between text and image creates the illusion of a single meaning.