As I mentioned in the report the act of arousing suspicion among the participants of the project is the most interesting facet of it to me. I will get to this in more depth. However, I also wanted to mention the value of returning to the site of intervention and retrieving information about how the work was received. As a designer, I often become fixated on an intended response I am trying to elicit. To find out how an object is actually responded to not only enriches my concept of the object itself. It provides a significant refocusing of the problem, leading, I believe to more significant efforts later.
What interests me in the aspect of arousing suspicion, in relation to previous discussions of my work, is this idea of invoking curiosity; eliciting knowledge through conflict. About the grain of sand I wrote:
"In this case, I suppose it is the idea of connectedness among different object... A physically embodied mystery... a physical situation that just by itself begs the question, "How?" It is an invitation to knowledge through curiosity. And, coming back to ambivalence, this is what that is to me. A juxtaposition of two competing perceptions and the invitation to a struggle to bind them together, somehow."
The arousal of suspicion often involves the effort to resolve an incongruous situation. More significantly, though, and adding another layer to the idea of "two competing perceptions," suspicion often arises where the two perceptions are not clearly delineated. That is to say, with suspicion, one perception may seem to obscure another; or, the two may obscure each other so that they seem to be one in the same.
This is what I think was interesting about "Cacht" and what I think I would like to explore in the future given the opportunity. This is what I refer to when I say in the report that suspicion can be like the line of charcoal, modulated, thickened and thinned under the artist's hand. Which is to say, what are the characteristics of the intervention and how can they be modulated? The two primary categories are the physical clues and the verbalized clues. These have significant impact on the outcome of the piece. If attendants were to shout at patrons as they attempted to retrieve the objects, this would have a significant impact on the reading of the piece. Likewise, if the objects were black instead of translucent white different readings might be attributed to the money that was distributed.
It is invaluable for me to have the chance to reflect on and articulate these thoughts. In my work, my thinking tends to be circular and illogical, which can frequently bog down the clarity and effectiveness of the projects. To be able to categorize attributes like color or tone of voice enables me to build a logic around a work. It allows me to parcel out the characteristics of the piece into discrete attributes color, size, volume, decibel level, etc. and then sit down to decide which attributes to transform and which ones to keep constant. Thus, setting up different rhythms, cadences and directions or emphases for the work. In this way, a singular simple idea with minimal components, like "Cacht", can be modulated to encompass a nearly infinite range of emotions and ideas. And, for the opportunity to express and record this idea, I am grateful.