As an alternative to the standard press release Gallery Director and Curator Emily Woodhouse held a conversation with the Artist in order to get a more personal insight in to their work.
Nathan Murphy
In conversation
with Curator and Gallery Director Emily Woodhouse
Nathan Muprhy completed
his MA in Fine Art Sculpture, from Wimbledon in 2011. He was a Shortlisted
finalist in Future Maps 11, ‘an annual survey of the best cutting edge talent
of the graduating year at UAl’ exhibited in the Zabludowicz Collection.
Murphy’s piece on the
terrace space is the first work to be commissioned by Hotel Elephant. He was
asked to create a piece, which reacted to the material, aesthetic and
architectural nature of the estate.
E.W: Nathan can you talk me through the piece you’ve
created on the end terrace space here on the Heygate Estate?
N.M: I wanted to create
a piece that worked with its surroundings but also made use of the brutalist
language which is present, linking it all to the Heygate estate. The terrace
was formerly a communal space walked through by hundreds of people.
I wanted to direct and
create movement through the space with my sculptural installation.
E.W: How did you first approach the commission and what
informed your decision to go for this ‘design’?
N.M: I approached the
commission by looking at the space and what was around, thinking about the
materials, the architecture and the forms which where present.
I thought initially
about using cast concrete forms and modifying the structures in the space.
I came to the conclusion
that the concrete was already there and that casting anymore would be just
unnecessary. The idea was to use steel to map out spaces whilst allowing the
sculpture to exist without dominating the space.
The design related to
the repetitive angular geometry of the Heygate Estate’s tower blocks in modular
square sections.
The sculpture was built
around the main chimney form on the terrace, as this is the central point of the
space.
E.W: The choice of material and the colour of work are
two significant features of the work….
N.M: Steel was chosen due
to it’s strength and rigidity, just like it was used formerly as a structural
core to cast concrete structures.
The colour was chosen to
work against the cold concrete that surround’s the work but also to lift it from
the grey of the architecture without truly dominating the space. The colour is
also a reference to the tall working cranes across the road.
E.W: What was it like actually constructing the piece on
site here on the Heygate?
N.M: At times very
difficult, there were instances when it was hammering down with rain and I had to
use my own sculpture as a support for tarpaulin to stop me getting really wet.
The ground in parts is
incredibly uneven and trying to keep the sculpture square and level was almost
impossible… the sculpture has steel lengths that have changed shape from the
angle and ground position they have been fixed to. Some of the most interesting
lines are the ones that don’t fully line up correctly. This is the nature of site-specific
work and working with such an open and unusual site.
E.W: You work mostly site specifically, what is it that
interests you most about this way of working?
N.M: Working site
specifically enables you to make a work that has a stronger sense of purpose
and relationship with the space it occupies. I find it interesting to relate to
the space and deal with the curiosities and potential problems it presents.
E.W: The piece in the second gallery space ‘Necker
De-Construction’ is a reworking of a previous piece, can you talk me through
how it has been presented here?
N.M: The Necker Construction
was a sculpture that worked to play with my interest in visual engagement and
the way lines can represent form without being solidly three- dimensional. It
was the first piece I produced that stripped away the form and concentrated on
suggesting and mapping space.
The sculpture ‘Necker Construction’ was
reconfigured due to the limits of the space and its orientation changed for the
room it currently occupies. The change in the way it currently sits, interest
me in a way of ‘fitting’ and relating more to the current space due to
limitations regarding the height.
Much like previous models and maquette's the
piece has been moved around to operate in a different manner albeit this time
due to the confines of the space.
This is why the piece has been renamed and
re-imagined for this exhibition as ‘Necker - De-Construction'.
The way that this piece has been affected by
the space demonstrates here another interesting aspect of working site-specifically.
E.W: Both ‘Necker De-Construction’ and ‘Heygate
Installation - Logical Design’ interact with the surrounding environment by
casting shadows which almost create and describe alternative spaces, is this
something that was intentional?
N.M: The shadows are a
bi-product of the sculptures use of space but this is also quite interesting
visually. The shadows extend to occupy the site moving beyond the solid lines
of the physical sculpture. The reflection from the water when areas get wet is
also interesting. The sculpture is mirrored and extended through this.
E.W: The series of drawings in the second gallery space
where made along side the Heygate Installation, how do you feel these work
complement the sculpture?
N.M: The drawings
reference the mapping of the space, the forms, the lines and the intersecting
shadows. They are flat representations of visually interesting parts I have
seen and experienced in the creation and manufacture of the sculpture.
E.W: Finally – If you had an unlimited budget and access
to the Heygate Estate what work would you like to make?
N.M: I would have to
think about it further but using a similar method to how I have created Heygate
Installation - Logical Design I would like to create a (to scale) wire form
replica of the estate standing its entire height x width x length - that would
be quite a feet of engineering and a spectacular 3D line drawing!
Cheryl Field
In conversation with Emily
Woodhouse, Curator & Gallery Director at Hotel Elephant.
After forays into the realms of
Molecular Biology and Parasitology, Field studied BA (Hons) Sculpture &
Environmental Art at The Glasgow School of Art, 2007 and MA in Fine Art at
Goldsmiths College, 2012.
Field is represented by BEARSPACE
Gallery, London UK and her work was picked by The Telegraph as one of the Top 10 artworks at London Art Fair 2013.
E. W: Firstly, I am intrigued to find out how you came to your Art practice
from your beginnings in Molecular Biology & Parasitology?
C.F: Ha! That’s a good question. I loved both Art
and Science when I was at school. And as much as I really yearned to do art I really had no clue what that might
mean in reality. I had no clue what “being an artist” might entail, I’d never
met an artist and it seemed such an unlikely career. So I took the sensible choice and studied Molecular
Biology instead. That led to post-graduate work as a parasitologist, which in
essence meant I sieved buckets of dog-shit looking for parasitic worm eggs for
four years (the advert didn’t mention that!) I guess it was at that point that
I realised that I’m more of a science-admirer than I am a science-practitioner.
It took several more years for me to get to the point that I had both the means
and the opportunity to study art... to be fair, even at that point I still
couldn’t really conceive of what “being an artist” might entail, but it seemed
like such a grand adventure and a leap worth making.
E.W: Would
you say that your work is informed by your background in Molecular Biology?
C.F: Definitely. Absolutely. 100% yes! I love
science and the scientific process and although I gave up being a practicing
scientist, that passion has never deserted me. Evolutionary biology, neurology,
psychology, physics, astronomy... these are the things that make my brain fizz
with glee. They crop up repeatedly in the images and objects I make; the
materials I use; my creative process and of course the topics I’m most
concerned with. If pushed to sum up their influence I’d say that at the heart
of my work is a scrutiny of the role that science, popular science and science
fiction play in creating a secular mythos for contemporary secular
culture.
E.W: The
piece you have created for this exhibition is a ‘breathing’ inflatable
structure, can you talk me through how you responded to the location with the
creation of this piece?
C.F: I have been working with
‘breathing’ inflatable structures for the past few years.
The installation at Hotel Elephant draws inspiration from the
sinuous spaces and voids that the various spiralling bridges create around the
Heygate estate. Wanting to play with the physics of filing space, but do so
with the most insubstantial and temporal of materials; air, sound and light.
These inflatable’s are neither ‘sculptures’
nor ‘objects’ per se, rather they are something closer to ‘devices’ in as much
as they are a means to create an
alternate space.
E.W: How
did you come to using Mylar in your work?
C.F: I started playing with Mylar whilst an
artist-in-residence at Taigh Chearsabhagh Arts Centre in North Uist (one of
chain of islands off the north west coast of Scotland). It is an
extraordinarily elemental landscape (another island in the chain, Harris, was
used by Stanley Kubrick as the surface of Jupiter in 2001: A Space Odyssey). I
knew it would be so easy to be bent to the will of that landscape and end up
making work that melts into it if I wasn’t careful. I’m sure you know the kind
of thing I mean: cairns of stones / nests of twigs and the like. I was
determined not to do anything sympathetic like that, and so arrived on the
island with loads of odd materials to
play with, including sheets and sheets of Mylar - it’s such an evocative
material for me; very space-age. Along with the Mylar, the wind that whips
across the island became a material for me to use too - and gradually the big
shiny behemoth inflatable’s evolved.
E.W: It’s
a fabulous material! Have you ever tried to create inflatable’s with other
types of material?
C.F: The dull answer is no, not really. I think
this material is particularly important to me when it comes to the
inflatable’s; the play of light, the sound, the fragility and strength, the
conceptual content associated with the material etc. etc. I use plenty of other
weird and wonderful materials elsewhere, but the inflatable’s just have to be
Mylar.
E.W: Do
you have a clear idea of how the inflated form will look when you start to make
the work?
C.F: Each inflatable I make is site-specific. So
I’ll map out the proposed space in my studio and work to build a structure that
will play well in that location. I don’t inflate the structure until I am in
the actual site for installation - which means I will never truly know what it
will look like in advance. That’s because the materials are erm... problematic.
They don’t lend themselves well to being folded / unfolded, inflated / deflated
and moved too often. A good percentage of my studio time is spent incandescent
with rage, shouting at inanimate objects that refuse to behave the way I want
them too. As a result, the first time I inflate the work and see what it is
I’ve made, is as much of a surprise to me as it is for everyone else. I’m
usually so controlled and meticulous about everything I make - verging on the
obsessive - these objects are the antithesis of that, they deny me any real
control and frankly it’s quite terrifying. And I’ll admit - a little
exhilarating too.
E.W: And
finally – You’ve worked in lots of different types of mediums– what is your
favorite way of working?
C.F: I navigate the world through material
engagement and by that I mean that my brain works best when my hands are
occupied. I’ll happily fill my head full of gold through reading, watching,
looking and listening, but when it comes to thinking, creating, working through
problems, playing with ideas, looking for answers - give me a lump of
plasticine or a bunch of magnets, a big box of lego or Meccano and I’m a happy
happy bunny - I sound like a ten year old boy don’t I!?
