Today we had our expanded crit event in the gallery space with Donald Smith and after a few quite intense few days (weeks) this was a important¬†opportunity to step back and consider what we’d done with this show. And I think for each of us a hugely positive process.

The general very positive points were that we’d managed to form this group and that there were very genuine underlying concerns criss-crossing between artists and practices. What the discussions brought to the fore is that the show did certainly have elements of what we were trying to do (hybrid, layered, experimental, interrupted spaces) we didn’t quite manage to follow this through with the show as a whole. But I think we were and are certainly on the right track and I think a lesson learnt in communication and confidence of intention and (paradoxically) being comfortable with risk. ‘Risk’ is a term that cropped up – difficulties with genuine risk and risk for risk’s sake – for me here it would be, very simply, making decisions that are (and continue to be) unsures.

Perhaps were we came slightly unstuck is overconsideration. I think the spontaneity of this show was everything, the movement and momentum. Certainly when we arrived and dropped of our work in masses there was every potential in that mess! And as things were unpacked and moved and abandoned and annexed (by Henry or Siobhan!) it was these early movements and shiftings that led to impromptu, temporary or underpinning configurations that I think formed the basis of the install. And to continue in this approach would certainly be a risk. When is an exhibition ready when done in this way? Is the idea of having this ongoing install process as the exhibition Рlayering and removing, continually evolving. And in a way this would remove  any curatorial responsibility, anxiety and so too ultimately, ironically, the risk.