My first encounter with this somewhat high brow (in every possible way) bit of art, is at the private view where I am serving beer and wine to the public, and not really capable of forming an appropriate or coherent response. (totally unrelated - I don't think the word ironical should exist, its ironic or nothing)

Anway, back to the point. This is my third week of sitting with this art - and the first time I have actually stood and watched it with a proper (not still drunk from the night before) head on. Having previously described it invariably as anything from a bit poncey to outright shit, I don't think I really gave it a chance. So now I have, and this is my sort of review.
A black and white video projection onto one wall of a more or less square gallery space, begins with an eye (I think its the female artist out of the two) and she begins by giving you literally, 'the eye', but its kind of a dull - disinterested(ing?) eye. Then the main bulk of the work consists of various experiments in geometry. Hand drawn geometry, guaranteed to fuck any mathamatian or that way inclined autistic savant, involving pentagons, mazes, mirrors, shoddily produced 3D pentazoids or whatever they might be, i'm disinterested in the particulars. Although, bear in mind that I have the superior benefit of havign attempted the artists explanatory sheet of 'themes', and I know just how complex the references are - so complex that to a mere mortal, they are totally undetectable. And I don't think i'm alone in this poverty of footholds in the mountain of meaning they have created. I think this is art at one of its most obscure - and I'm glad I have waited it out a bit to chew it over.

I digress, other elements of the film are an operatic soundtrack, that kind of lulls the viewer along a clearly very emotive (to the singer and opera enthusiasts and at certain points, dogs) journey. The various sections of the piece toy with movement along geometric patterns, unfinished sequences, dead ends, repetition and production of form, blah blah empty words for me. I didn't feel the emotive connection with the music and the film, for me the music is a perfectly enjoyable art work as it stands alone, and unfortunately - Rachel and Steve's piece probably wouldn't fend for itself very well outside of the cosy artist run space, especially without the music.

Oh oh, another (clearly very important to the artists, but a mystery to me) point is that the opera score is played forwards and then backwards, concluding with the eye again. Now I understand the artists need to complete a piece, and what better way than to bring it full circle etc. But its quite hard to detect this subtle point, once I did notice it, because I was looking for it and guessed whereabouts it may be. It did actually add a rather perverse element to the piece, but I feel like that with any music or spoken piece played backwards, its inherently creepy.

So, in summary - creepy geometry thats subtle complexity is just frankly too subtle for everyone.


its still quite inaccessible