Dr. Yvette Hutchison and Dr. Tim White collaborate with JC Niala for 'Who You Think We Are' at Tate Modern, 14 March
Yvette Hutchison and Tim White were selected to work with Kenyan artist, JC Niala for the Tate Exchange for their Who Are We? free 6-day cross-platform event that has been specifically designed for Tate Exchange reflecting on identity, belonging in Europe and the UK, migration and citizenship through arts and audience participation. For the full programme, see https://www.whoareweproject.com/programme/
Their performance conversation, Who Do You Think We Are, runs on Tuesday 12.00-15.30 in the Southwark,Room, 5th Floor, Tate Modern for about 30-45 minutes. It aims to engage and disrupt audience member’s internal assumptions about how we attribute identities to people without having met them. We invite audiences to engage with unknown subjects who share images, stories and gestural repertoires to playfully deconstruct the first assumptions we make about people, while considering the deeper paradoxes of cross-cultural living, and how we create, perform and negotiate personal and collective identity and a sense of belonging.
Prof. Jim Davis speaks about 'Irish' Johnstone at Trinity College, Dublin
Jim Davis has just delivered a paper entitled ‘An Irishman in London: ‘Irish’ Johnstone’s representation of Irishness on the London Stage 1782-1820’ at a conference at Trinity College, Dublin on ‘The Irish on the London Stage: Identity, Culture, Politics’.
Also, on 2 February he contributed a talk on ‘Some Aspects of Anglo-Australian Cultural Exchange 1880-1960’ for the London Theatre Seminar at Senate House, University of London.
Dr. Michael Pigott speaks on 'Cities on Film' at Oxford University
On Thurs 2nd February, Dr. Michael Pigott spoke as part of the 'Cities on Film' series of events at Oxford University. Michael chose the films Dredd (Travis, 2012) and Side/Walk/Shuttle (Gehr, 1993) to be shown as part of the series and the screening was followed by a discussion between Michael and Dr. Peter Wynn-Kirby, who is an environmental specialist, ethnographer, and Research Fellow in the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford.
Organised by the Oxford Forum and Stanford University Centre in Oxford
For more information about the event click here
"Films about cities are both part of modern urban experience and a mode of our reflecting on that experience. Over the last century both cinema and cities have been in flux. What have we learned from films that explore cities? About cities? About films? About tradition? About modernity? About fantasy? About reality? About beauty? About ugliness? About living? About ourselves? About making sense or nonsense of any or all of these? In this series of Film events, the Oxford Forum and Stanford University Centre in Oxford are showing entrancing films about cities, followed by dialogues and discussion."
Dr. Anna Harpin to give talk at Queen Mary University of London, on Feb 13
Dr. Harpin will present a paper entitled “Gazing with alterity in Titicut Follies, Blue/Orange, and Ship of Fools” for a public talk organised by the MSc in Creative Arts and Mental Health and the Drama Department at Queen Mary University of London.
5:30PM-7:30PM, Monday 13 February
Film and Drama Studio, ArtsTwo Building, Queen Mary University of University of London (Mile End Campus)
Everyone welcome, Refreshments will be served, Free of charge
This talk is the first in a series of public events exploring the connections of mental health with performance and art practice.
How have artists captured and communicated psychiatric spaces and patient experiences? And what types of evidence can we gather from their work to help forge more creative and humane alternatives current care practices? This paper will expose recurrent themes of spectacular cruelty and harm across three art works – Frederick Wiseman’s Titicut Follies (1967), Joe Penhall’s Blue/Orange (2000), and the vacuum cleaner’s Ship of Fools (2010). All three artists question how one looks at madness and mad folk. They ask what it means to care, what constitutes a community, and how far the political capacity to be properly seen and heard is conditioned through interlocking, authoritative discourses. This paper will sketch the ways in which the works politically engage with the apparent legibility of madness and will argue that, through aesthetic means, the three attempt to redistribute the locus of knowledge about madness, widen the aperture of perceptual realities, and decentre the question of where to ‘put’ madness. In their aesthetic interrogations of spectacle, care and harm, they provoke new and vital considerations as to what a hospitable community of support might actually feel like.