Lab Report

Its hard to report on something didn’t get proper critique.

The text was documentation of my lab endeavour, a validation of my nothingness a making of the useless useful.

As the text went on it gradually started to come back to the present and began questioning the audience. A point was raised on whether or not these questions needed a response. Would validation be given to my question in the form of an answer? Did it need to? I think the problem here lies in belief, belief in something that happens in the present and therefore masquerades as reality. But then isn’t that also the point? This was documentation after all, a validation of my lab endeavour. A validation that twists the truth for greater reward and that questions (through self referring) the need for documentation and therefore validation at all.

Validation +knowledge + too much information = an interlacing of truth and fiction that comes across as reality

Context also seamed to be important. Sat in my usual place in the studio the idea was to use the usual reality that the script/documentation appeared in to give greater validity. This however only seamed to happen when the text mentioned objects within the space. It was the text that gave validation to the space.

After this the discussion gave way to a talk on intuitional critique, talk on Gavin Turk’s validation of his years at art school and seemingly useless endeavours such as the Rubik’s cube. All useful (and valid) subjects but not really a critique of the work its self. This worried me greatly. I need this critique to give even greater validation to my documentation and in turn my lab endeavour. COME ON! Give the pointless point. Critique and validated! Give the institution what it needs. Tick more boxes!

Documentation + Critique = Validation = Box Ticked