Goldfrapp. Cambridge Corn Exchange, Cambridge. 4 February 2006

As a birthday present for my best friend I got tickets for Goldfrapp’s concert at the Cambridge Corn Exchange, whom we’re both big fans of.

I have to express an interest straightaway – me and my friend were both in the same year at college with Alison, and while I was never really a close friend of hers I have a link to her nonetheless which undoubtedly biases my opinions. I suppose I could easily be quite jealous of her success, but I’m actually really pleased for her – and I like her music, so that’s a bonus.

I get the impression that Cambridge is bit of a backwater on the concert circuit, I think there are a number of other places nearby that could provide alternative and potentially better venues, so I think it’s quite rare for a relatively big name such as Alison to come here. But apparently she’s been here on a previous tour, so perhaps there’s some kind of sentimental link. I’m sure there must also be good economic reasons.

So perhaps unsurprisingly it was a very popular show and I was only able to get seats at the very back of the balcony. And I was only able to get those from a third-party agency as the box-office had sold out, but I figured it was better to go with mediocre seats than to miss the show.

For me the standout aspect of the concert was the quality of the lighting system, producing intense stabs of bright, pure colours and intense white highlights. This was an adaptable system that produced many varied and extremely effective results. One song had strong white top-down spots illuminating the stage, bleaching out the colours, Alison’s top being the only colour – an effect you would expect to see on TV as the result of digital manipulation – this felt very unreal to be seeing in real life.

Alison’s costume was a black body and trousers offset by a loose pink/red pleated top that really stood out as the highlight of the stage. Fans (of the electric kind) placed in front of her blew her top and hair around, in a kind of disco/romantic way.

An oddity in the lighting department were two people with spotlights hanging from the ceiling rig who tested their lights before the show but never turned them on throughout the whole show. One of them was dancing around in his seat for most of the gig. Strangely redundant.

The sound was very bassy, from which the support act – The Shortwave Set – suffered most, their vocals being almost indistinguishable. This was possibly due to our seats being very near the back of the hall (UU23 and 24, only five more rows to the back of the building) – possibly if we had been able to get down into the crowd the sound would have been better. During one quiet song I also realised that the audience was making a hell of a lot of noise, there was an incredible amount of talking going on, not certain if it was from the balcony or the floor. I was constantly distracted by people coming and going and talking. There seemed to be little respect for the show going on.

It was a shame that Goldfrapp didn’t play my favourite song, ‘Pilots’, although there was a good mix of tracks from all the albums otherwise.

The only real musical downside of the evening were The Shortwave Set, who replaced Hot Chip as the support act. They were dull but capable musicians. I found myself feeling very drowsy during their set which may have been down to the cocktails I’d had beforehand, but I think it’s revealing (probably more about my taste in music, admittedly) that they were unable to keep my attention whereas for Goldfrapp I was completely enthralled.

I really love Goldfrapp’s music. My favorite material is from the first two albums, but even the tracks I was less than keen on were enjoyable to hear in this context. This was a great concert and I’d definitely recommend them to anyone.

Geoffrey Farmer. The Power Plant, Toronto. 24 September to 20 November 2005.

Geoffrey Farmer: A Pale Fire

Immediately I’m concerned with the waste of useful furniture, can’t it be put to a better use than being burned in the name of Art?

The moniker of Art takes an object out of its context, removing its use value only to re-present it for us to read its use value back in. The real-world object is neutered (bad/wrong word, suggests sexuality is overriding meaning), the Art object becomes the paradigm of the real.

That’s all well and good, but so what? If the artists activity involves wastefulness, they invite censure from a social/environmental point-of-view. Does an aesthetic bonus outweigh a social penalty?

Certainly this piece engages with some contexts, the artist is said to have an “interest in the latent potential of the gallery as a site for social engagement”.

…the work is advertised as a political action – a sit-in. Here, rather than burning logs in Imbert’s fireplace, furniture is used as fuel. The furniture is amassed in an installation that is slowly transformed through the progressive dismantling and combustion of its individual pieces. Each day these pieces of furniture are set alight using a broadsheet with politically related texts and manifestos.

While the metaphor engaged here of the sit-in could be interesting, the surrounding, ‘real-world’ consequences of the enactment of that metaphor are ignored. I also think it is misplaced to imagine ‘the gallery’ as an effective place for social engagement. My main concern, though, is that the pieces political aspirations are overshadowed by its material reality. And that material reality is a nihilistic waste of resources.

UPDATE 22/2/06: You know, maybe I was being a little harsh on Geoffrey Farmer. I guess the piece is just trying to elicit a response, get a reaction (which it succeeded at). But, if this work wants to be judged as effective politically or socially and not just aesthetically then it has to accept the consequences for meaning inherent in those discourses.

Clare Hall, Cambridge – Architect: Ralph Erskine – 1969

I visited Clare Hall for the first time on Tuesday. It reminded how much I enjoy modernist architecture. To qualify that statement, how much I enjoy architecture with a humanity, which excites you with it’s motions and spaces. Moving through the building, up and down the short series of steps between it’s many levels interspersed with gaps through to other spaces. The greenery of which they are proud pops up all over the place, as small planters, or vistas through to the gardens.

Documentation – Small Book – 1992

Document – Small Book – 1992

1. Gallery

The Walls of the Gallery

2. Gallery

The Act of Noticing

3. Gallery

The Prisms Channel

The Walls of the Gallery become more expedient as a bridge across that which divides the courtyard. In the process it takes on the characteristics of the viewers perception of the framing edge of the wall, cutting out wedges of viewed material, in a sculptural sense. These wedges act as prisms laid along-side each other, to channel light along their lengths into the gallery and, ultimately, into the viewers eye. In the courtyard this division turns round the limits of the walls, introducing perspective curving akin to gravitational space.

The Act of Noticing: the first moment of viewing sets up a program of incidences, between the viewer and the viewed. Note: the viewer looks out to the incidences before him. The incidences project back and into the eye of the viewer. The drawing is unrelated to the act of viewing. It tries to understand what you see in relation to what is thought to be there. An imaginative movement from your eye out to the position from which the picture is drawn /or which the picture represent.

The Prisms Channel two ‘world lines’ of light through their material and the material that creates the curve in spatial perception (conceivably this may be a function of the eye-ball). Looking at this arrangement in reality we do not see these bodies but only their composite actions.