Satellite Group
The Satellite Group is an active and open platform or forum. Its role is to construct communication bridges among the diversity of research interests stemming out of the PhD research projects undertaken by students of the Loughborough University School of the Arts.
We are particularly linked to the ideas of an active practice, of effectively acting. Since we aim to produce identifiable outcomes in communities, we see this group's practice as a politicized practice: therefore we assume a conceptual affiliation with the activities of the Politicized Practice Research Group which works within the Loughborough University School of the Arts.
- The Satellite Group Blog
- The Model Village project
- Satellite Group video footage
- The Model Village website
The Satellite Group: "Model Village" an intervention in the frame of Parade / Market of Ideas, Chelsea College of Art and Design London
Introduction
"Model Village", the project undertaken by the Satellite Group in the frame of Parade / Market of Ideas responded to the following research question: Can Art Inform Modes of Being in Public?
Our aims were: (a) to experiment with alternative methods of being in public / public assembly, using artistic modes of expression; (b) to explore the absence and presence of place through performed and interactive dialogue; (c) to creatively mould and strengthen our group identity; (d) to raise the visibility of research activities at Loughborough University School of the Arts.
These aims were met through the following accomplished objectives: (a) we "performed" an artistic intervention in the Chelsea College/London public space; (b) we engaged with the participant public (c) we made contacts with fellow participants/ visitors; (d) we set the basis for networks both in the academic and in the non-academic milieus.
Description of the Intervention
The event Parade / Market of Ideas organized by Critical Practice Chelsea / Chelsea College of Art and Design proved extremely useful to the Satellite Group as an incubator space. We were able to engage with ideas, with each other, and more importantly, with 'the public' in a safe context. Our focus was always on the participants and on strategies of encouraging participation.
Our intention was to experiment with 'alternative methods of being and explore the absence and presence of place.' Contrary to our expectations, we had to perform in a structured space (the very physical presence of the milk-crates construction) with little possibilities of radical de-and-re-construction. However, we rendered this lack as a positive opportunity to employ our creative imagination in a machinic assemblage of object-body-voice-sound-image-gesture-space-time.
The complexities of this were evident in the images collected and then dispersed around the space, the juxtaposition of black & white and colour, in different temporalities or zones, in the clash between pre-recorded sound and live dialogue, in spontaneous individual performances. To the same process belongs the acts of image-taking, sound recording, video-editing, post-reflective conversation, report writing, which makes the "Model Village" an endless process.
Because our methodology involves a collaboration which runs deeper than a skill share and would be better described as a rotation of roles that crosses many disciplines and fields, the process that informed the piece at Parade / Market of Ideas already embodied 'the social.' The term here is 'process' rather than preparation, as it became clear in the four hour durational performance that our timetable of activities leading up to the event had done more than simply inform the work.
Characters or roles naturally evolved as we began to work the space akin to a building site, building abstract thoughts and ideas. Miffy evolved into a hybrid human-p/a machine bombarding the serenity and calm of Parade with street noise collected in Chongqing (China) the month before. Cat weaved her improvised reminisces around the discordance leading people through images from the last day of the mine and our tour around the now defunct pit head. The footage from the former miner had suddenly become so much more than a screening to inform our practice: here in the "Model Village" it was acting as 'found object' on the washing lines. Its' relationship with the present, the past and the not so distant past of our 'field trip' transformed it into lines of flight, lines of thought, boundaries marking space, or conceptual parameters. Meanwhile Michelle was determined to give home-made cakes to the visitors - who often suspicious asked "what idea are you selling?" On reflection the Satellite felt this beautifully encapsulated the potential for the public to disappear under the hands of a capitalist system where all exchanges are governed by commerce. Charlene was busy spreading her sweet tooth and the word like a virus about The Satellite Group. Vlad spent much of the day draped in a boiler suit probing the proceedings with a mini dv camera, always on hand to philosophically dissect what was unfolding before him.
Prior to our enactment of The Model Village in one of our many timetabled preliminary meetings we had already agreed to disagree and critically disrupt any convenient strategy. Thus it was proving problematic to reach a consensus on structure or lack of. It seemed more natural and less laboured to let the four hour time slot we had dictate proceedings. We would perform our process live in real time, in a permanent backstage area where others were free to pass through, observe or join in.
'...the group decided to take the Model Village as its paradigmatic conceptual umbrella under which the intervention in London has been conceived.' This seemed straight forward enough, we intended to take Cresswell as a model of alterity to London, to affluence and academia - to take an intimate snapshot of a backyard or private place and thrust it before strangers' eyes.
The notion of 'field research' that enabled the conception of the project is an ongoing process, it is part of our methodology to perform the ways we might gather information or arrive at inspiration. To this end the "Model Village" should be perceived less as representational or as finished object but temporal in its' own right. In other words: it existed for its' duration only! This was in part achieved by our engagement not in 'script writing' as such but in a process of devising which resulted in improvisation. Of course there was also the chance encounters with others we hadn't met yet. To these ends the "Model Village" was open ended and had no point, no one point anyway. It wasn't tidy, it was a drawing across space and time, scattered lines that met and parted again.
What we have (not) accomplished
Our project proved successful in the sense that by the end of the four hours between us we had arranged or arrived at a new model or mode of production; that was not a book although it had pages, was not a film although stills or freeze frame moments abounded, was not theatre because too many simultaneously/ conflicting dialogues flew about the space - but it was performative, was not a lecture, or a talk, or even a dialogue or conversation although all those elements were present. The Satellite might not have broken down entrenched differences/ separations between individuals, communities and disciplines, but we had arrived at a compromise a hyphenated-and-hypertextual collaborative process. Any one visitor at Parade could pass through our space countless times and encounter a different version of events, for example whilst I was busy rubbishing utopian ideologies to anyone who'd listen Cat was drawing people to a model of how things had been when they were more perfect than they are now.
The Satellite Group's main disappointments out of the event were that the initial structure of crates had been so fully assembled before our arrival that we didn't have as much opportunity to affect it as we would have liked. We also felt on reflection that Critical Practice had perhaps been mistaken to take up the term 'public' and had perhaps actually meant 'audience' (?) because there was no doubt that as a model for a conference all participants received and contributed ideas in novel ways. However, in our eyes as an exercise in the 'public arena' it was not able to escape the territory of bourgeoisie critique, was not quite outside of the institution or structure. To this end it is interesting to note the reaction to the question Cat asked of them - who is this event actually for? Who is the public? This was interpreted as provocation, one contributor commenting that the 'public was a black hole...!' They mistook The Satellite Group's intent or motivation in asking this question, our main drive after all being that of engaging and encouraging participation with 'others' - we did not feel our purpose was to play lip service to a conceptualisation of the public.
The professional networking with fellow academics and practitioners proved far more fruitful: the Dean at Chelsea School of Art was very interested in our research model as were others including the director of the Nottingham Contemporary Art Centre. Further links have been established with research groups from the Master in Curatorial Practices (Goldsmiths/London) and the Royal Academy of Arts (London). These engagements meant concrete commitments in realizing further joint projects and contributed to a raised visibility of the research practices at the Loughborough University School of the Arts.
From the Satellites' point of view the opportunity to experiment with humour, theory and improvised engagement proved invaluable in strengthening our group cohesion and identity. We only ask ourselves now: if we aim to stay true to our intentions must we not take our model to the streets?