Further to our discussion in Brighton two weeks ago Rob and I have come up with two titles with which to title the show. They will work concurrently and separately, so, for example, they will appear on obverse sides of the same flyer, or in the press release be separated by a "and/or".
They are by no means finalised as yet, merely working titles, we would like your feedback as to how you think they operate. They are:
For Those Killed In Ambush
and/or
Wrath Of Being Rejected: Being Shut Out Makes One Lash Out
thoughts please
TT
14 comments:
For those killed in ambush: like the idea of the 'ambush', ideologies of making, creating spectacle etc becoming secondary to the 'promotion' (oh heck have I just been hoisted by my own petard) so in making for the sheer want to make and collaborating in the spirit of etc etc and a lack of determined outcome I could sit with this
Lash out: too bitter, too open to suggestions of 'wanting' to belong and personally I have no desire to
Like also 'For those killed in a bush' and will rewatch Zulu and see if there any Cainisms that could be options
S
Also very fond of manquemanque especially its wonderful play with the guttural and its simple challenge to the affectation, quite a handbag of a show title.
S
ambushed and/or excluded.
curators and/or artists.
assume these title are to stimulate and/or provoke engagement in the democracy debate?
manque and/or manque still works for me. do we vote following the hustings?
P
ambushed and/or excluded.
curators and/or artists.
assume these title are to stimulate and/or provoke engagement in the democracy debate?
manque and/or manque still works for me. do we vote following the hustings?
P
ambushed and/or excluded.
curators and/or artists.
assume these title are to stimulate and/or provoke engagement in the democracy debate?
manque and/or manque still works for me. do we vote following the hustings?
P
i was so excited to see 5 comments listed for this. then realised three of them were the same one three times. shame
T
also, for those killed in ambush doesn't indicate which party was killed, the ambusher or ambushee.
'wrath of the rejected...' title is ott on purpose, it implies too much, too much involvement, too much endeavour, and for that reason i like it. for those killed in ambush and wrath of the rejected both imply a relation to the other: ambush is ambush of the other, rejected is rejected by the other.
i think it works....
but then i would, right?
T
again manque i think is too suggestive of subject matter. it is too close to the ideas we are working with, we have to be super careful of titles, otherwise we get missread,
T
super careful? the power of the master signifier indeed.
why capitulate to masters when we have so many jacks willing to play?
I propose given the complex issues of authorship/ownership/representation/collaboration at work from the start of this project we make the title the first 'act' of assembly?
C.
As well as the budget breakdown for the funding proposal.
"we have no need for fathers, we have sons" - too much an enlightenment sentiment isn't it?
indeed, though, wednesday could be a good time for titular and budgetary discussion.
see you then
T
Before we lose our "road map to democracy" in a metaphor mash-up please note (without recourse to Reception Theory) how easy and arguably how productively it is to be misread.
like falling over a leaf..
Maybe we should worry more about China, Olympic Imperialism and Burma?
C.
p.s I prefer Sons and Lovers
I too think 'ambush' in some form has got legs, although my initial assumption was that the title ' For those killed in ambush' referred solely to the ambushee but i suppose it doesn't have to.
Something i would like to avoid is it becoming metaphor for gallery experience and obvious hierarchy of the knowing laying in wait for the unwitting - although gallery as killing zone has its attractions. Ambush is not very gentlemanly!
There's a lot of lying around waiting for something to happen which can be nice.
Manque Manque (why is it repeated? I think it was explained but I've forgotten) is a great working title but I'm edging towards the too descriptive camp.
Also, one thing that niggles but not able to clearly articulate yet is that does manque (and possibly one whole perception of failure) assume that 'being someone' is what was desired? I presume you have to be aiming at something in order to miss. Maybe its more interesting to not really aim at all - a sod if you happen to hit your target though!
JC
Let's roll this around our tongues. Man que. Manque. Man (twice!) hmm. Que. Man. Well. Hmm. Mankey. OK. Man key. A bush.
I must be a bad artist.
S
O.K O.K...
said twice because...
Manque...lacks...Manque...
see?
the one lacks the other...
get-it?
C.
Post a Comment