Folklore Contemporain II
Aaron Angell - Jack Bilbo

ArtReview Issue 66, January-February 2014, Review by Susannah Thompson
Folklore Contemporain
Laura Aldridge - Travess Smalley

Review by Jenny Judova for Art Face online

Last Friday was another opening at SWG3 (Studio Warehouse Glasgow) yet this time instead of reviewing the show I decided to meet with the new curatorial duo Camille Le Houezec and Joey Villemont to talk about the show. Joey and Camille turned to be young, vibrant, smart, and absolutely in love with art, it also turned out that they are both artists as well as curators. Personally I am very curious of artists as curators because what happens with an artistic ego? This duo has successfully managed to find a way around the issue as their own practices are different from each other and the artist they are usually interested in and who they show have practices different from theirs. Although as Camille admits sometimes there is a feeling of ‘I wish I would have done this’ but then because of the difference of practice she probably wouldn’t have. At first I assumed that the duo met on the job at SWG3 but it turned out that their story goes a few years back and starts in France where they met in an art school in Bourges and collaborated on curatorial projects there. They also set up an online curatorial space Its Our Playground which is a stark contrast to the template Deviant-art like online galleries, and a successful example of digital curating.

Folklore Contemporain is the second show this curatorial/artistic duo curated for swg3 and the first one of the Folklore Contemporain series. Folklore Contemporain seems like a straightforward concept at first glance: every age has its own folklore the only difference is that our one is predominantly digital and consists of memes and lol cats. Yet this is only on the surface, the digital age had big consequences for the art practice, if the previous generation asked the question is paining dead? We speculated if Photoshop will take over the practices, and if Deviant-art like websites will become the new galleries, if instead of a canvas you will have a .gif hanging on your desktop? As Camille points out neither of this happened. the digital did not take over it just transformed the existing. Of course artists go online and use Photoshop but that does not take over rather it helps to create. Travess Smalley comes up with slightly psychedelic patterns that would have probably been impossible without the color tools in Photoshop producing contemporary color tapestries which are begging to be touched. Laura Aldridge’s work is more domestic more folkloristic, yet she also uses contemporary techniques.

Seeing Laura’s and Travess’ work alongside each other it is remarkable how two artists with two completely different practices can have such a similar aesthetic. The curatorial work is also impressive as the works are displayed so neither of the artists overwhelms the other, neither are they positioned against one another. If anything they merge together in to one whole, they are just on the border of becoming homogenous yet still keeping their identity. For example: it takes a while to realize that the vases are Travess’ work and not Laura’s but it is identifiable in the colors, or Laura’s work ‘We are Gripped by Being Blessed’ being positioned between Travess’ canvases is by default assigned to him until you actually look at it and realize that thought contemporary it is different.

The concept of Folklore Contemporain is not just the name and the concept of the show it is also the form. One of the artists represents folklore (Laura), the other – contemporary (Travess). The contemporary world is also multicultural thus one of the artists is local –Glasgow based and the other international. As already mentioned Folklore Contemporain is the second show curated by Camille and Joey and the first one of the series of three under the heading Folklore Contemporain. The next two shows will have the similar format: two artists one for folklore the other for contemporary, one local the other foreign. The series is planning to be spread over the next few years; the upcoming show by the duo in swg3 is a group show of eight local artist titled Last Chance. Having seen this show I am pretty sure that the three shows together can be considered as a snapshot of the contemporary art scene.

Now it is almost impossible to talk about art in Glasgow without mentioning the Glasgow Miracle. A term that has no specific meaning and its definition is in the eye of the beholder. The most generic definition is that it is a ‘miracle’ that so many great artists and so much great art has a connection with the postindustrial shabby, crack chic Glasgow which is also home of the deep fried Mars bar. Joey’s immediate answer is ‘I think that it was coined by someone from outside Glasgow, who came to Glasgow for a few days and then left Glasgow a few days after.’ He goes on to point out that ‘Glasgow is exotic, it’s a place most people have heard about and think ‘I should check it out’ but no one actually makes it here.’ It’s the periphery of the (known) artistic world the modern equivalent of the medieval marginal ‘Wondererous East’. Camille goes on to point out an interesting conundrum ‘we are surrounded by non-Glaswegian people in the art world.’ So though it’s a ‘Glasgow’ miracle there are very few people from Glasgow or Scotland, both Joey and Camille are French a lot of the artists they know are from elsewhere in the world or somewhere in Britain.

All these people from everywhere are drawn to the Glasgow School of Art (GSA), Joey himself came to Glasgow to study in GSA, I couldn’t help wonder maybe it’s then worth changing the name from Glasgow miracle to Glasgow School of Art miracle? Camille also makes a very rational point that you don’t need a big budget in Glasgow to put on a show, flat art shows are a fairly common thing, the things you can do in Glasgow on a ‘lemonade’ budget cannot be done in London or Paris. In other words the ‘miracle’ might just as well be the combination of cheap prices and talented people with a student budget. As for the ‘miracle’ Joey sums it up in a brilliant way ‘I don’t know as for the miracle….maybe the miracle is still going on and so we do not realize its happening.’
Soft Paste
Zoe Williams

This is tomorrow
SWG3 Gallery on Art in America
Folklore Contemporain I
Laura Aldridge - Travess Smalley

This is tomorrow
Easy Living
at Less is More Projects

MOUSSE online
The Quid
Owen Piper

This is tomorrow
VEGETAL PASSION

O Fluxo
Trademark Horizon
Mick Peter

ArtReview Issue 59, Summer 2013, Review by Susannah Thompson

The function of brand Imagery and logo design, we might assume, is to communicate the beneficial qualities of the product or brand as clearly, concisely and quickly as possible. Signification is intentional and ambiguity is avoided. So far, so semiotically uncomplicated -for design at least. On the other hand, as David Crow notes in his book Visible Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics (2007), contemporary art offers ‘many examples of work that deliberately seek to avoid what [Umberto] Eco calls “the laws of probability that govern common language’”, going on to reiterate Eco’s view that contemporary art ‘draws its value from this deviation from common structures‘. Is this really the case? If so, Mick Peter’s exhibition wholly undermines some of the common (and for designers, infuriating) misconceptions around how art and design ‘make meaning’ in different ways.

Continuing his interest in the world of commercial art — as seen in last year’s exhibition Lying and Liars at the Collective Gallery in Edinburgh — Peter has variously appropriated, translated, invented and adapted trademarks drawn from predigital eras of illustration. These form the catalyst for the five large sculptures in Trademark Horizon. The trademarks themselves, drawn from old Graphis annuals and other sources, are intriguing because of the abstract or idiosyncratic approach to the product or brand their

designers aimed to encapsulate. Even before Peter’s intervention, the downright eccentricity of these ‘failed pictorial trademarks’ suggests that the anchor had already begun to become unmoored. Working with these signs, Peter has increased the detachment of the logos from their commercial application, focusing instead on the almost fantastical design processes that seemingly underpin them. This is clear in works such as Toot and Come In (all works 2013), a large-scale iesmonite and polyurethane foam sculpture based on a supermarket logo that featured the head of a pharaoh. What links an ancient Egyptian king and a mid-twentieth-century grocery store? And what are Thing Fish (beyond the title’s

reference to Frank Zappa) and Book-Keeper selling? While the style here is mid-century modem, resembling the imagery of Robert Stewart’s textile and ceramic design, it also emphasises Peter’s interest in revisionist histories of an and design, the odd moments of madness or brilliance where art and design go completely off-kilter and veer into counterculture.

It is the apparent arbitrariness between form and function that lends humour and playfulness to both the original trademarks and logos, and to the artist’s treatment of them as almost animate objects or puppets. Set on a stagelike blue ground that sometimes appears to float above the bare concrete floor of the larger gallery space, the sculptures could be read as strange, lifesize chessmen about to perform in some kind of object theatre, or as monumental props in Iacques Tati’s Playtime (1967). It is this visual wit, verging on kitsch, which is perhaps Peter’s own trademark and the success of this show.
Screen Play

This is tomorrow
O Fluxo
Dust Magazine Online
For Immediate Release
Folklore Contemporain III
Bastien Aubry & Dimitri Broquard - Anne de Vries

The Kinsky
This is tomorrow
La Chose Encadrée

Dust Magazine Online
Artforum Summer 2014 issue - Review by Jacob Proctor
4

By investigating unconventional means of presentation, Le Houezec and Villemont have cultivated a terrain which preserves the transience of images and objects within their representational structure. Anchored by a desire to be liberated from traditional exhibition frameworks, Le Houezec and Villemont facilitate practices of plagiarism and collaboration within an animated virtual landscape. An elucidatory fragment of text on their website reads, ‘it is when she/he frees themself from constraints and from models, that they produce the most exciting stories in the form and often the content’. As a testament to this endeavour, It’s Our Playground dismantles archetypal models of display as a tactic for describing an alternative space for art to exist within the everyday.

Article published in Line Magazine
2

IOP examines the nature of the archive in contemporary, networked culture and manifests itself, accordingly, as an environment which functions outside of authority and ownership. As an archival portfolio IOP is dictated, not by sequential chronology or prescribed curatorial template, but by the designs of the user. The arrangement of each micro-exhibition can be restructured by the audience simply by moving the cursor, so as to encourage a non-linear reading of its constituent images. Owing to this mutable format, IOP collapses the notion of a definitive composition and engenders increased curatorial agency within the viewer. Le Houezec and Villemont uphold the act of viewing as a generative gesture, and posit that transmission and dissemination are of parallel import to the creative action. As a consequence, passive examination is substituted for a physical act of disturbance which implicates the viewer directly within the process of curation.

The French collective pursue a curatorial ideology that prioritises freedom of retrieval and exchange. Circumventing linearity, their strategy eschews rigidity and didacticism in any form. By harvesting the deposits of the internet, Le Houezec and Willemont have assembled a cache of digitally-sourced imagery, which the viewer can simultaneously digest and modify according to their own narrative. This proposes a representational model that translates completed works into raw materials so as to reveal new shades of meaning within them. Endorsing mutual authorship, Le Houezec and Willemont undermine the value of material possession, as the autonomous work of art is subordinated to the choreographed ensemble.
3

The post-internet age of online exhibitions has engendered a curatorial territory in which physical space is progressively enfeebled. In deviation, IOP’s most recent project, serves to re-introduce a sensitivity to material space via representations of architectural motifs. The Sunday Curator is a chronicle of photographs depicting domestic alcoves and recesses in which we accrue and display the artefacts of our daily lives. The photographs depict accumulations of utilitarian objects, artistic curios, decorative trinkets, sci-fi memorabilia, arcane souvenirs and literary volumes organised atop an assortment of vertical and horizontal surfaces, each a transparent emblem of intellectual, political or aesthetic discrimination. The project meditates upon the way in which we assemble visual indexes and cultural ornaments and how these come to constitute a history of our passages through geographical and virtual space. Describing the impact of post-internet culture on curatorial practices, Artie Vierkant writes, ‘the goal of organising appropriated cultural objects after the Internet cannot be simply to act as a didactic ethnographer but to present microcosms and create propositions for arrangements or representational strategies which have not yet been fully developed’. Locating artistic significance in such household arrangements, The Sunday Curator speaks to our compulsion to compose our individual worlds so as to designate ourselves as imaginative and self-determining subjects. As Le Houezec and Villemont articulate, ‘The Sunday Curator suggests seeing these arrangements as micro-exhibitions and tries to satisfy our inevitable need to see art everywhere.’
It’s Our Playground: A curatorial playing field
by Stephanie Richardson

Founded in 2010 by Glasgow-based French artists Camille Le Houezec and Jocelyn Villemont, It’s Our Playground (IOP) is a curatorial platform and co-operative online exhibition space. Both Le Houezec and Villemont studied at Ecole Nationale Superieure d’Art de Bourges and Glasgow School of Art. They relocated to Glasgow and collaborated to establish the online platform after finding it difficult to secure a physical exhibition space. The project surfaced out of a scrutiny of the online staging of imagery, and the way in which an artwork can become supplanted in the recollections of the viewer by its own documentation. While their physical projects integrate sculpture, installation, performance and collaborative workshops, the medium of digital photography dominates IOP’s virtual output. By extension, the methods of production and display become closely enmeshed, thus enabling the image to manifest itself as more than an immaterial reproduction of an erstwhile source object. Reflecting upon notions of dematerialisation and virtual presence as essential form, IOP serves to disengage artworks from their specificity. Reframed through a practice of de-contextualisation, the original implication and autonomy of imagery is disturbed and new correspondences are kindled.

As a curatorial platform, IOP enables the two artists to exert their role not as creators but as orchestrators, wherein curatorship is treated as an artistic medium in itself. Unbridled by physical perimeters the online exhibition space is well-positioned as an open-ended vehicle to disseminate visual and textual information. Conscious of the liaison between the artwork and the virtual languages that surround it, the architecture of the site is stylistically modest and constituted of a constellation of pages which extend from a central index. Encompassing a myriad of routes to be pursued, IOP’s dimensions are suffused with language and imagery that opens out and then folds back in on itself in almost endless configurations.
4

MC: Why did you choose to work with these artists?

IOP: Heather and Ivan Morison’s works evoke the primitive and mysterious, and we were sure they would bring strong materials. We chose them to begin the exhibition as we knew that they were busy and the only thing we wanted was the list of materials indicative of their dream workshop, which was quite easy to get.

We knew Neal and trusted that he would respond to the project in a way that would surprise us, being efficient, dynamic and generous. He is also a survivor, and has climbed the Mont Blanc.

We invited Nick Evans because we have an appreciation for his work. He is an artist in Glasgow who has shown an interest in building and displaying exhibition furniture, paying strong attention to the plinth and wall drawings, as evident in his collaboration with Lotte Glob in the The Erratics at the Mackintosh Museum.

We also have in mind for this exhibition concept to travel to different places, with new builders and other artists.

This interview took place during the stage of the exhibition where Neal Beggs was creating works from Heather and Ivan Morison’s dream workshop, and I had the chance to speak to him.

MC:
What was your reaction when you heard about the project?

Neal Beggs: I just said yes, why not. Sounds like an interesting project and I was excited to play around with materials that I didn’t know what they would be before, and without the stress of thinking about what it is you would make.

Generally, when somebody suggests a project, unless there are warning signs, you do say yes, that sounds like good fun. People don’t ask you to do a project unless they think you are appropriate for what they have in mind.

Often artworks come into existence because of the opportunity, when a curator says I would like you to be in this exhibition. There is a sense that this project emphasizes that happenstance aspect, where we respond to the pragmatism of our context. I will be doing an open studio where I will talk about the works that are in progress.

Nick will take what I’ve done and do exactly what he wants with it. I’ve tried to make things in units. I have an idea of how I want to arrange it. Nick will arrange it in a totally different way, or he might not even want to use it.
3

MC: How did your online projects begin and how are they a part of IOP?

IOP: The online projects started as a channel and place for both of us to work together, when Joey first came to Glasgow.

Once, Joey went to Frieze Art Fair and sent Camille 400 images to make a selection for an online exhibition. Called To the museum – curating Frieze Art Fair 2009 , we played the curators for the fair, and the project was borne from a reflection on the way images of art appear online and how documentation seems to replace the work in our mind.

When Camille arrived in Glasgow, it was difficult to open a space and a website was a platform for projects. It was a way to curate internet images, texts, videos and give them a new life. From the beginning, we wanted something quite quick, and to have an exhibition every two weeks.

We contact the artists whose images we use, if they have a website, or email address, or through their galleries. We have also started inviting others to create online projects on It’s Our Playground.

MC: The phased nature of the exhibition, where one artist kicks off the building process which another artist continues, makes me think of collaboration but also constraints based on the parametres set by the preceding artist. What were your considerations for the exhibition?

IOP: Everyone in this project has different constraints. Heather and Ivan Morison had the constraints of the budget and space, while Neal has the constraints of the materials and seeing his work used by someone else.

Constraints are not bad, and in fact, create stimulating conditions. It is not about what you can’t do but about what you could do.

Similar to evolution and civilization, you have the first people coming on the island, explorers developing and the builders using what others have created. That is the process for the different levels of the show – bringing materials on the land, building it, and arranging it. In a sense, it could be interpreted as a satire on the world of art. There are people making artwork and those exhibiting it, but at the end it is a team of builders, as collaborators and part of a chain reaction.
1

THE BUILDERS: AN INTERVIEW WITH IT'S OUR PLAYGROUND
October 25, 2011
By MAGDALEN CHUA.

The Builders is a “living exhibition” that runs till 30 October 2011 at The Market Gallery, Glasgow, and unfolds from interventions by a group of artists working in sequence. Heather and Ivan Morison first list the materials and tools that form their dream workshop; Neal Beggs creates new works in the gallery for seven days using only what is found within the workshop, and Nick Evans displays these works in a final exhibition. The Builders is a project by Camille Le Houezec and Joey Villemont, also known collectively as It’s Our Playground (IOP).

Magdalen Chua: How did IOP come about, and do you have your individual artistic practices?

It’s Our Playground: We’ve never done curatorial courses and have been trained as artists, with our personal artistic practices. We see exhibitions as an artistic practice, not just reserved to a certain number of people trained to do exhibitions. In France, curatorial practice is not something often heard of, although some art schools are starting to have classes on curating.

We noticed that the exhibition, as a subject, was not part of our programme, and we turned our studio in the art school (Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Art de Bourges) into an exhibition space.

For every project we’ve done, as seen in The Builders, a work is produced. We really like to be surprised, and not just select works. As we both come from an artistic and not an institutional background, we prefer working with an artist, not just with his work.

Maybe there is a relationship with our own practice. Camille only produces work when there is the chance for it to be exhibited. We know that artists have to produce and want to work with them on it.

We have never approached an artist for one specific piece. It is always for a project, and the collaboration is always central to our practice. We want to find our own place in this process and do not want to be just spectators.
2

MC: Why are you called It’s Our Playground?

IOP: We see the exhibition space and gallery as our playground and there is a strong idea of playfulness in our work. This is not in a childish way or about doing ridiculous things. It is about a free approach without boundaries or constraints. When we started having our online projects, it changed the way people saw what IOP was about, as they could play with the way works were being displayed. Even in our personal work which is very serious, there is also irony. IOP will stop the day we don’t find it fun.

MC: Could you describe your residency and what parts of the residency were important in leading you towards The Builders.

IOP: We submitted our proposal to The Market Gallery in January this year. Our project focused on the socio-economic context and we wanted to prove that the cuts and lack of money was not a reason not to make good shows or good pieces of art, and not to be ambitious.

We started to think about what form art could take in this context, and about processes and performance as a cheap way to make art. We thought of inviting artists to live in the gallery through a living exhibition that would also reflect the contexts outside the gallery.

During the residency, we had mentors, Francis McKee and Sarah Lowdnes, whom we had exchanges with that brought a dynamic to our practice.

We also presented an exhibition on our website, The Survivors, the Explorers, the Builders , which were the sketches for The Builders, and a way to put the research into a certain form. This is the first time our online projects have led to something real.