Reuben Henry

Conversation Exchange

click to enlarge

The public are invited for a one-to-one conversation with myself. The conversation becomes the form of the work, starting as a potential blank canvas, but as with any conversation, influenced by the context. The situation, while I will be attempting, within my own psychological limits, not to ‘perform’, and to create a relaxed situation, will inevitably feel institutionalised: set not only within a public institution with a strong affecting context, but within an exchange which is invited not just out of the curiosity to acquaint and learn from one another, but with the inevitability of a ‘reason’. Often when the public become involved within a piece of art, suspicions arise as to hidden reasons for their involvement.

This hidden context echoes the potential blankness of the white space, always tainted with the atmosphere and meaning of the institution.

The pretext for the conversation, hence, is that we speak for two minutes, in private, with our conversation recorded. Because of the loaded situation I expect that most often my conversational partners will ask me for the reasons behind setting up this situation. The synopsis I will explain is that we will talk, and then re-record the conversation as a slickly edited multi-shot video (shot between myself and conversational partner). The video will be smooth flowing like a film, yet without rewording the text, but with our respective speech swapped around. So on re-filming, we will take turns to repeat each other’s words. The films will then be edited and screened on a monitor.

On playback, the videos will show my conversational partners speaking my words, and vice versa. They will be seen, one after another, repeating a similar explanation, yet an explanation which develops and becomes more concise. Taking ownership of my knowledge, they will reverse their stereotypical role as members of the public in the art institution: they will be intuitive and knowledgeable of the situation, taking the stance of one who tells the artist what the work is about. Ironically, this is a situation of free expression which art in the institution aspires to, where an un-intimidated public express their views on the work. I, as the artist, on the other hand, will give away my usual stance, and will continually restart as knowing nothing about the work, but may also continually create new ideas, new objective perspectives, and perform shows of knowledge which does not belong to me.

A conflict within this situation arises, pivoting on competitive conversation. For in the case of any argumentation, the winner will become the loser and the knowledgeable the un-knowledgeable. Would psychological warfare commence under the knowledge of an impending switching of outcomes? The logical outcome is that constructive conversation will be encouraged, whereby we work together to attain new knowledge rather than battle for our pride. If this happens, then the outcome of the experiment can be seen not just as interesting in some way, but as constructively positive as is the ideal aim of dialogue within art institutions.