Imagine an Audience Day 2, 01022011, a semi-live report
The second day focuses more on filmmaking in the fine arts, and the strings attached to that… The first panel is moderated by Edwin Carels – who worked on preparing the conference and came up with the title: Imagine an Audience. Many in the audience were not present yesterday, so Florian kicks off with a short recap of the first day.
On the panel are John Smith, Luke Fowler and Michel Chevalier. Each one does a short (10-minute) presentation, after which “the real discussion and fighting” can begin.
Luke Fowler
Luke Fowler (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Fowler), (lux.org.uk/collection/artists/luke-fowler), (spikeart.at/index.php?option=com_magazine&func=show_article&id=104&lang=en), speaking with a beautiful Scottish voice, gives a brief introduction to his life as an artist. He has been quite fortunate to have his work shown both in art galleries and at film festivals. He has always resisted the new media – the Internet – as a way of distributing work.
One of his “seminal” moments as an artist was a friend giving him a videotape of “Wavelength” by Michael Snow. As he watched it alone in his flat in Dundee, he felt alienated, not knowing what to think of it – knowing nothing about the film or its context. (VHS also not being the right format for this film.) To him, a community is essential if one is to understand new ways of dealing with audiovisual content. British public television in the ’80s and ’90s was also an influence, particularly the documentaries shown there – in the days before the decline of television programming. He also saw the work of Douglas Gordon in Glasgow. At that time he was not involved in the discourse of video art – not part of that community – and he found much of video art self-indulgent. He was looking for a way of making film that was less solipsistic, and would relate more to life. This is when he made his film “What You See is Where You’re At” about a psychiatric experiment – a film constructed mainly from interviews, using archive footage. He wasn’t particularly self-conscious about the form; because the film deliberately lacks a coherent narrative, it can be seen as challenging dogmatic ideas of documentary filmmaking.
Then his 10 minutes are over. He hasn’t even said a word about his later films.


