Creativity In The Cubicle

Jill and Mandy file their final TPS report of the summer on The Office Show
Supplied

This week, Jill and Mandy head to a recently vacated retail space on 124t Street for The Office Show, a multidisciplinary, multi-artist, multimedia extravaganza revolving around one common theme: the office as environment and unlikely source of artistic inspiration.

Jill: Tiffany Shaw-Collinge, the curator and organizer of The Office Show, was also one of the people responsible for 2007’s The Apartment Show, which was in a similar curatorial vein as this current project. Both bring together a group of separate artists working in different media, and assign them all small individual spaces which they then may fill up in whichever way they choose. This is a very exciting prospect.

Mandy: I strongly believe that this exhibition is exactly what Edmonton needs more of: small, interactive, approachable events. This was a locally executed experimental project that opened up the formal artistic format, and challenged participating artists to create work that could engage and exist in an environment outside the gallery setting.

Jill: It’s interesting that you say that. I think you’re right, though. It was certainly more interactive than a typical gallery show: when you walk in, you’re greeted with a sign-in sheet and “visitor” nametags, and the “office” itself is pretty close quarters. The fluorescent lighting is inescapable. Shaw-Collinge wants us to feel a part of an office environment as we view the exhibition. Did she succeed in capturing this sensation?

Mandy: Well, I would have to say that on opening night, I didn’t really feel that “office-y” vibe, since a big party was going on and the place was full of folks. Full disclosure: I helped a little in the setup, though, and when there was much fewer people in the space, it really did feel very official. I know how hard Shaw-Collinge worked to create that space, and I appreciate all the effort that went into its execution. What about yourself — what was your reaction to the show?

Jill: I think you’re absolutely right about the party-like atmosphere. I’d be interested to see what the space feels like without as many people there. I was drawn to a few of the specific works, like Kenneth Doren’s piece with the fluorescent lights leaning against the wall and facing inwards, with what sounded like cellos playing from two large speakers in the middle. This piece really embodied the kind of strange relationship you can have with a continuous work environment: it seems all-encompassing and important at times, even something that people seem to worship over their own real lives. But in the end, it’s just a job — working in an office with fluorescent lights and paperwork. I thought the piece was pretty humourous.

Mandy: There was some nice visual play between the way each individual work could be experienced within its own self-contained world, but was also immediately thrust back into a relationship with the space by the smallest “office” detail. Part of what I believe makes this show unique and such an opportunity for this community is that it was so immediate. By the time this article is printed, the show will have been down for three days — it ran only from May 21-25. Such quick and concentrated displays demand a spirit of wilful participation and eagerness from their audience and their contributors.

Jill: Indeed. In that respect, the exhibit seems almost like a guerrilla art event: up quick, down quick, and if you missed it, you feel a bit left out. I also think that having ultra-temporary art events like this make them much more of a coveted ticket: if you want to go, you should go now, because it won’t be there for very long. It’s pretty efficient, actually, considering the scope of the work.

Mandy: Especially with the inclusion of pieces like Tim Rechner and Craig Talbot’s tangled, time-intensive collaborative installation, or the domineering and very permanent-looking metal sculpture by Royden Mills. I am grateful that these artists, and all the artists who exhibited, felt this show was worth their time and effort; and equally grateful to those who felt it worth their time to engage with as visitors and viewers.

To that end, I’d just like to mention that this will be the last Art Box column Jill and I will be writing this summer. Thank you to everyone who has felt our conversations were worth reading; hopefully, we’ve exerted some positive influence in a community we are both very invested in, and appreciative of.

The Office Show was on exhibit at 10341-124 St from May 21-25.

For more information, visit theofficeshow09.com.


Comments: 4

Anonymous wrote:

"Jill and Mandy file their final TPS report of the summer on the interactive The Office Sh..."

Yes, it's probably best to leave that last word unfinished.

This column deserves a spoofing, but really, someone else give it a go.. I hate to bogart the comment board all the time.

Come on folks, it's fun and easy! And did I mention, INTERACTIVE?

on May 28th, 2009 at 7:21am Report Abuse

adamwb wrote:

I was actually disappointed by the opening because I didn't think that it was enough of a party.

on May 28th, 2009 at 10:15am Report Abuse

sharoesp wrote:

I would like to thank Mandy and Jill for taking the time to critique art shows in the city and to let them know that their efforts have been appreciated. I think their opinions are worth reading and the dialogue approach seen in the articles is an interesting method of critiquing exhibitions. I find this column is quite entertaining on its own without all of the inane, superfluous comments and commend these ladies for their dedication.

on May 29th, 2009 at 3:02am Report Abuse

Anonymous wrote:

Oops. I made a comment here, but somehow it must have 'accidentally' been deleted. I won't bother to repeat the joke... I thought it was pretty funny though.

Basically, it was poking some lighthearted fun at the absurdity of See's Art Boxers telling their readership about what a "very exciting prospect" this show is, and how they "strongly believe that this exhibition is exactly what Edmonton needs more of", without us poor readers having any way to use this information to see the work ourselves or, heaven forbid, question what we read and judge for ourselves whether or not what they claim is true.

I thought it was somewhat amusing that something as mundane as signing in to see the show (which is what one does whenever viewing a show at the AFA collection facility, for example) was seen to be a significant and noteworthy "interactive" component to the show.

I thought it was funny, too, when halfway through the article, you find out that one of the writers had a hand in setting up the very show they're promoting. Is this advertising, or copy? Is there a difference? It makes me smile to myself.

Funniest of all, though, is the admission of their apparently shared desire for the art scene to be more EXCLUSIVE, rather than inclusive. At first, you think they just mean they wish the had the space to themselves, as if to be able to study the artworks without the interruptions of others. But when they make plain that they literally relish the fact that readers will be unable to view the show themselves by the time they read the column, and are even pleased with the idea that people might feel disappointed by this realization, as if these are positive things, well, that was basically the heart of my whimsical comment.

Too bad it didn't get published. It was subtle, but I think it was much funnier, and much shorter, than this long winded explanation, as you can no doubt well imagine.

on May 31st, 2009 at 2:58pm Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © SEE Magazine 2008 About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contest Disclaimer