Anonymous
General Note:
[…] Ellipses Journal for Creative Research endeavours to make bare the process of research and development in creative and artistic research. This is for readers / viewers an opportunity and mechanism to see the types of academic critique engaged with creative research and to make visible the responses and development.
The following peer review was produced blind and in process, the artist / author has subsequently been given the opportunity to respond and develop both the theoretical and interactive parts of the article before publication. What you see published has been edited post this review.
Peer Review 1: You Have a New Message (2020)
Reviewer: Anonymous
Which aspects of the submission are of interest / relevance and why?
This work operates at intersections:between spiritual and environmental, fiction and reality, faith and skepticism. The Mai-MaiMarket isthe location ofthe intersectionsof the city of Johannesburg’s historical origins in gold mining, the consequent migrant labour system created by colonial and apartheid administrations to build this industry using cheap labour; and a current economic practice built around surviving the toxic and damaged environment of the city. Spiritual belief, and the practice of reaching out to the past, to people who have lived and died perhaps under difficult circumstances or before their time is something deeply entrenched in the city’s fabric. It is something that not many people here would deny, despite perhaps not ‘believing’ in it themselves.This work touches on aspects of spiritual belief that are beyond social, political or aesthetic theory and beyond the purview of academic research. It crafts a scenario, where the consequences of the past merge in the creation of a powerful new portal –not possible anywhere else precisely because of this convergence. It touches on continuing damage under present day capitalism: the continued destruction of the environment, and continued social injustices inflicted in the name of profit and the preservation of the market economy. But, it is through this convergence that something emancipatory emerges.
The work does not make clear from which point it began. But rather appears as a cacophony, putting forward a proposition that balances between fiction and reality. It provides snippets of text, and apparent quotations but does not name its sources. Its avoidance of a clear frame within which to interpret it, seems to me to be a way of acknowledging that the practices to which it refers are not fictional; they cannot be discounted nor can they be proven. The works appears to be deliberately vague, and I am left grasping for a conclusion that will never emerge. I am required to both ask answer my own questions that come from my experience with the work, not knowing if my interpretations are in line with its intention.
How are the artistic and research outcomes represented?
The work does not aim to take the form of a traditional narrative and therefore does not need a beginning, middle and end. It instead embraces the environment of the market –where a multitude of things are taking place simultaneously. The work is however also not clear in its message, and it is up to the viewer, through picking apart the experiences prepared for them, to search through the market for the root of the argument or message.
Though technically executed extremely well, it is not clear what the methodology or approach is. There are snippets of a narrative that emerge –perhaps in the same way that the messages from ‘the other side’ transmit through Kholwa’s radio. Snippets of the historical context behind Mai-Mai, as well as the reference to radioactive material from a nearby mine seeping into a crop of imphepho; both speak to the social and environmental damages caused by mining as a capitalist enterprise. Thework suggesting that this radioactive seepage had in fact opened a new, more powerful gateway to communicate with the afterlife would appear as staking a new claim to the distressing reality of the environmental and social damage brought about through mining as a colonial and apartheid era enterprise. The consequent migrant labour system which resulted in the separation of many families from their loved ones, is alluded to in the text snippets where someone ‘reaches out’ to a loved one left behind. But again, it is up to the viewer to feel their way through the material, never quite able to get a full grasp on the experience.
found the use of ‘the other side’ to refer to supernatural realms triggered an understanding that I as the viewer am also seeing the work from the other side of a computer screen. Seeing the market from the top, as though witnessing a digital computer game as gave me sense of being in another realm from the actual place, which I am quite literally. It is within this context that terms such as ‘you have a new message’ as well as the pop-up advertisements for Digi Cleanse Ferrous Based Super Stones serve asa reminder of my position, and location. All of my attempts to reach further into the work are made through pathways that allude to something more but in fact are not open. I found that it was a missed opportunity to include a phone number in the work. I called it out of curiosity and found simply a generic voicemail on the other side. I found it interesting to use the aesthetic of an advertising pop-up for Digi-Cleanse But again, digicleanse.co.za is ‘not found’ and give a similar feeling to calling the number and simply finding a voicemail. All of these are then exposed simply as aesthetic gestures that do not go much deeper than their face value.
How well does the design support the submission?
The illustration of the Mai-Mai market, and positioning of the viewer as looking down on the space is a really successful way of opening the space of the market to a limited screen size. The movement of the cursor takes on some semblance of how a person might move through a market, making various stops along the way knowing that leaving that particular spot will not mean that what happens there will stop without their presence.
The work does appear to be very data heavy,and did not initially work on the browser I was using. I had to change the browser and even thenfound that certain elements would pop up at the wrong moment –blocking other content from being engaged with. This added to my sense of vagueness about what I was meant to be seeing, feeling and interpreting of the work.
Are there any ethical or legal concerns?
No.
Conclusions and and pre publication revision:
I really appreciate the level of thought and care that has gone into this work, but my feeling is that it attempts to do too much without giving enough opportunity for the audience to immerse themselves in the proposition that is being made. While there is nothing wrong with multiple ideas and propositions emerging from a single work, I have found that perhaps in this instance it has meant that the level of engagement from myself as a viewer has ended up being more surface, as opposed to more thoughtful. I have found it to be frustrating that while the work expects that I must ‘explore’ the space of the market and find for myself the things that have been left for me to discover, that when I make attempts to look further –such as calling Kholwa’s phone number or going to digicleanse.co.za –that I am left with bare infrastructure, feeling as if I am seeing the loose ends that still need to be tied up. I would say that these unfinished elements present a huge opportunity to garner belief in the work, to allow the viewer to feel a sense of immersion and to clarify what has become a vague interpretation of a convergence of ideas.
I also think that perhaps a disclaimer about the type of browser required to view the work, and the type of internet connection required would avoid experiences such as mine –where I was left at first interpreting the malfunction of the work as the work itself. This disclaimer would however require that the work make the admission that it is only available to those with the requisite internet connection and browser.
