strict warning: Declaration of content_handler_field_multiple::pre_render() should be compatible with views_handler_field::pre_render(&$values) in /home/lindsayseers/ on line 0.

An Article by Elizabeth Fullerton in Elephant

So rarely has a critic spoke to me about the work of mine they then write about, with exceptions like Charlie Fox, Tom Morton and Elizabeth Fullerton. Often the reviewer/critic has never seen another work of mine. The works have often been outside of London or have very low capacity for viewers because of the structures I build (hence audiences are small).

The reviewers generally seem to want to take a ‘without prejudice’ view - an idea that they do not want their unsullied perception of the work to be shaped by an artist’s intentions that they do not recognise themselves simply by watching the work. However in the case of our usual relationship to art there are two systems - one which calls on our historic knowledge on say Rothko for example - narratives that place the work and often biographical facts are very much part of this - the back story, the influences the contexts that utterly shape our perceptions. But to come to a concrete block in a room cold, presented as an art work it is hard to know what it is referring to - unless it is told to you or written down that it was taken from the sea and used to drown a specific man. Leave the work without its back story and it seems your unconscious bias is really the only mechanism at play.

What this artist (me) wants to find is someone that can see as much - if not more than I can - that they can elucidate what it is you have been doing because they are the writers not us - essentially we are not necessarily word smiths. But we at best can introspect our unconscious drives and see them like in dreams and recognise them consciously.

I am extremely grateful to Elizabeth Fullerton for taking the time to consider the complexity and density of my work in Elephant magazine.