Patrick Mifsud, (June 2012) 

A Submersible: In general could you say a little about the relationship between your ideas and the sites you work with? 

Patrick Mifsud: This all depends on the nature of the project I work with. Many times I am presented with a site and I create the work specifically for that particular site. In a way the site becomes the starting point of my work and without the site, the work cannot exist. When I am presented with a site, I tend to visit the site over and over again and make sure that I am fully aware of its architectural features, the way light comes in, height and the way I as a 'viewer' spatially navigate through it. I then start forming ideas and thoughts, create drawings and build 3D computer models of the site, (if i know the dimensions and have a plan) and slowly I start coming up with a potential installation/sculpture. I always find myself going back to the site and try to imagine my work in it, which many times results in changing the work to some degree. 

This process is however not always the case. In the series of work geometric forms [see figure] I work the other way round. In this case I know what the result of the work should look like, and I look for sights which suit the work. However, I still let the site determine the outcome of the work to a certain extent, as in these works I use the fixing points provided by the site. Therefore once again, the work cannot exist without the site.

Recently I also created works which were in a way developed prior to me being presented with a site, however the work is then modified to fit the site. An example of this is the thread work, such as connect/dissect, (installation at Marsden Woo Gallery [see figure]). What is interesting about this is that although I know the effect of the thread installations, I can never fully see its final outcome until the work is installed and each thread installation I created so far became very particular to the site the where it was located in. Most of my work cannot be built in a studio, and because of this the fist time I see my work is when it is installed, and once the exhibition is over, the work is destroyed and I am only left with documentation of the work.

A S: Could you further describe your geometric forms series?

P M: I started this project about 8 months ago. I am still working on it, (although not as much as I wish). It is a very simple project, I go out at night, normally quite late, equipped with my camera, tripod and cotton yarn and install interventions in various sites. For this project I set myself a few rules: Firstly the intervention always forms a simple geometric form which is a triangle. Secondly, I do not create any fixings to create the intervention, and instead I use whatever fixings I find on site. Thirdly, I always install the work in a space which blocks an alleyway, footpath, stairways etc. And lastly I do not want to have any human presence in the photographs.

Patrick Mifsud, geometric forms (urban series), dimensions variable, wool yarn, 2011 - 2012, 

Once I decide on a space, I install the simple intervention and take a set of photographs of the work installed on site. I do not consider the photograph as documentation of the work, since when I am installing the work I take into consideration the composition of the intervention through the camera lens. When I am happy with the photographs I take, I leave the site with the installation still installed.

The installation will eventually be removed by passers by. This is normally done within a couple of hours. For me the destruction of the work is as important as the making of the work. By installing the work I alter the functionality of the site, and when removing the work, viewers restore function back in the site. 

This work therefore exists both physically on site before it is destroyed, and exists as an image which serves as a memory of the intervention done by myself and the removal of the work by the viewers. This work is very spontaneous and ephemeral. 

So far I have installed these interventions at night and in urban spaces. I am also planning to start creating these interventions in different settings to what i have done so far.

Many ask me and suggest that I should start documenting viewers destroying the work. However I do not feel the need to witness and document this as I think that not knowing who, why or when the work was removed makes it more interesting in my opinion.

Patrick Mifsud, geometric forms (urban series), dimensions variable, wool yarn, 2011 - 2012, 

A S: What about your decision not to include figures in geometric forms? 

P M: I think formally it's because of composition. The way the intervention works with the site. When I'm planning it, I'm planning it for an empty site. But also the work is then removed by an unknown person or persons. And the fact that they're not seen in this photograph will hopefully make the viewer of the photograph think about who removed it and how. So I think the lack of interaction with these sites will then bring questions like, "how long did that stay for?" "did no one destroy it?" which I think makes it a bit more interesting.

A S: So do you think that leaving it unknown makes us consider the decisions of those who interact with the work in general rather than thinking of a narrative related to one person? 

P M: That's the point yes. I couldn't care less who destroyed it and why. I'm not interested in the person. I mean if I dig deeper I would love to see someone destroying it to be honest, I'd be giggling from behind a bush somewhere. But in reality I'm more interested in the fact that they all go, and they're all removed by humans, by different people from different parts of town. And at the end of the day they all have the same destiny that they're going to be removed. So to pinpoint that one person removing it, I think it's unnecessary. I think it's the fact that we don't know…all I can see is an image with a thread in it. It's like "maybe it's still there?". So I don't write next to the artwork that the work was removed. I leave it open but I know that they have been removed so maybe the viewers can also think that they have been removed. Because of the nature of the intervention of course it's not going to last there. So it's irrelevant to me who removed it or why or whatever. I think it's best to keep it unknown.

A S: Could you say a little about the works you had in your exhibition On Different Levels at Marsden Woo Project Space?

P M: There were three works which all related to each other, but they still existed on their own in my opinion. They all came together in the space. I thought somehow, all three of them seemed have something in common.

They kind of linked from the installation. So the installation is the main work. Not that is better than the others but it is the first work that I was working on. Then the drawings came out of a process of creating similar installations like that. The photographs of geometric forms, they became an extension of the interventions I was doing in galleries or other spaces, but more on a site specific level and more ephemeral in a way.

So there was this series of three photographs. Personally I wish I could have shown more than three but because of space the curator and I decided to limit ourselves to avoid overcrowding the exhibition.

Then there was a series of drawings, pen on paper, which are quite different. I'm not someone who makes a lot of drawings normally because I focus more on three dimensional work. But I found the process of making the installations very intriguing. How one thread is quite insignificant but when you do another one and another one and another one it creates an environment. That's what I tried to achieve with the drawings.

However when I started making these works, not the ones I showed in the gallery but when I was creating some other works, I realised I can never make them as perfect as when I create the installations. So I kind of set myself a test: If I start the first line in all drawings identically, then I am going to allow myself to make errors and not be as mechanical as when I'm doing the interventions with the thread. And that leads each drawing to become different from the other one. Again I used simple pen on paper like simple nails and thread, nothing out of the ordinary. I wanted to show the effect of one line repeated after another, that it can create a form, a pattern or...an image.

Each drawing had a different pen. I just used blue but there were variations of blue. Each drawing was done in one straight session. So it's not that I'm going to stop today and continue tomorrow because I could see the space where time stops working on the work. So they were all done in one straight session, which is quite tiring. And when you start getting tired then you start making more mistakes. And then you can't follow the drawing perfectly. 

Then the connect/dissect installation was the biggest work in there. It was about creating and defining space within a space but with this sense of repetition. For some reason I'm obsessed with repetition. I somehow throughout my last year of working, especially during my masters, found my myself working with thread. The reason why I'm not entirely sure but I know that I always find myself trying to gain as much as I can with less and less material. So from using metal, and then using wood, and then using tape...I aways kept deducting the material but still trying to achieve an effect. I thought that thread which is not very significant in terms of its volume was doing exactly what I wanted it to do.

When you have a lot of it, (I think I had about 5000 meters of thread in the installation) personally I feel that there's that feeling…when I see one thing that is repetitive…I really enjoy that aesthetic. And also because there's so much in one line they kind of become one piece.

I tried to divide different spaces within the gallery, but also connect other spaces. For instance the wall and the column that were in the gallery were there because of function, nothing more than that. There was no relationship between the column and the back wall for example or the upstairs windows. But what I tried to do, with the help of the installation and with the help of the architecture, was to bring everything together and create a new space within a space. That's it in a nutshell.

Patrick Mifsud; connect/dissect; installation at Marsden Woo Gallery; dimensions variable, polyester thread, nails, architectural features of the gallery; 2012

A S: Okay so you've said, "creating an environment" and, "creating a new space within a space" I can definitely see how you changed the way the space is experienced. And the linking as well, I really got that from visiting. So by, "creating a new space within a space" do you mean creating a new experience of the same space?

P M: Yes exactly, creating a new experience of the same space. But also for example, it does change things for some people, for those that knew the space, and had been there through previous exhibitions. The staff that worked there for instance, they found it quite disturbing in the very beginning. They kept walking into it because they took the space for granted. And then suddenly there's this fine thread installation which is blocking them from going from one point to another. So they had to alter the their movements. So in a way it's like building a new wall. So it's creating a new a space. But not just the experience of it, it's actually physical. I think it's a bit of a balance between both ideas.

For someone maybe like you who had never been to the gallery before, that's the way you know the space, so you tread carefully because you know that there's this installation because you came here to experience it. So you don't take the gallery for granted. Also the staff, once it was gone, they were like, "oh, we can walk differently now". 

A S: I suppose it's partly to do with barriers do you think?

P M: Yes yes, in a way it's a very weak cage. There's something that is hindering you from going from point A to point B. I could have done it with a big sheet of metal where you can't miss it and you're not going to walk into it because it's very obvious. But I chose very fine thread which can be very transparent in a way. So you see the rest of the space but there's this intervention in the middle. So the reason why I selected those materials is for that purpose. So that it is there but it is not there. So you play with it when you're walking around the installation. You're mind is playing with it. 

And because also of the angle it is at, it is nearly cutting the space at 45 degrees, the perception of the space changes, because they are just lines, thread. If you see it on a photograph then they look flat and that's how your eyes experience it in the first place. But when you start walking then I found myself and other people putting their arms in front of themselves to see where it starts and finishes. So that they didn't bump into it. So it's a bit of illusion, which is something that I like and that's why I chose to work with thread. 

In fact in the beginning I was very tempted to create it in white thread, which I have done before for my Masters degree. I think it would have been brilliant because then the shadows would have become much stronger. But I thought that it would be taking it a bit too far in terms of it's appearance. It can become very stale I think. Still, I still wish I had the opportunity to try it out and see whether I like it or not but of course logistics, you can't make installations and then decide on the eve of the exhibition.

A S: So to return to geometric forms, it exists for you on the one hand as an intervention in space and on the other, distinctly as photographs in their own right. So in terms of its existence as photographs, what is important for you there? 

P M: I think in a way a photograph is a memory isn't it. It's a shot in time, you stop time. And in a way on that level it's just documenting the work. But because I am composing this site by the intervention it's not documenting anymore, it becomes more like a painting, like a drawing. So it spans between all these elements I think. The work exists physically on site but then, (and not the installation, not the thread, not the actual string on site) but the whole site and the intervention then come together. Even though they were together because they were installed in the same place. They come together in a photographic way. I think that gives the site a bit more importance than before. The site has always been there, the intervention hasn't. But then they come together in the photograph, in an external space which is the gallery. I think l've said to you that I really enjoyed it when I'm there at the site taking the photographs, but I also enjoyed the aesthetic qualities of the photograph. But that's personal because maybe I have my own memory of me creating the intervention.

A S: You've also mentioned how the work also exists for you as something for someone to come across and interact with at the site where you did the intervention. Because of course, if you're someone in the street who comes across this, it's a separate thing.

P M: It's the viewer isn't it, it's a different kind of viewer: One kind is forced to be a viewer, the other one not so much because maybe they came to see the photographs. I think there's a difference in the level of also….I don't know...interest I would say. The viewer is passing by is not so much interested in the triangle, (or maybe they are, I don't know). The viewers in the gallery seeing the work, hopefully they are more interested in what it's doing to the site. I think what's interesting about it, is both viewers come from a separate point but they all meet up at the intervention and the site.

A S: Yes, it's a strange meeting point wouldn't you say?

P M: Yes it is a very strange one.

A S: Because it doesn't really exist at any one place, because there's this group of things which are sort of…

P M: Brought together by a simple triangle. Which is quite odd and bizarre maybe.

A S: So to move on, those who encounter your work on the street must choose to either pass through without altering it or to destroy the intervention. You've described this as an alteration of the site's functionality. About this alteration, do you see it as a change to the rules which are inscribed in the place? Rules which form part of the site?  

P M: Yes definitely, I think there are lots of rules, (unwritten rules in a way), relating to all sites. People walk on one side, they follow a pathway…I think it's natural for us to you know, move together through different spaces. I think these sites that I'm choosing, they're not galleries, they're not utopian spaces. They are everyday spaces. Their function is to let passers by go from one point to the other. So the sites that I have chosen, they're all the same, they're all either alleyways, footpaths or staircases which lead to somewhere else. So really the function of those sites is for the viewers to move from one point to another. And by installing these interventions I think the function, not changes completely, but there is a slight change, there is an addition to it. It acts for a moment as a gallery or as a different site which is holding something external. When the viewers destroy the work, in a way their function is restored, to keep on going with what they were meant to be doing in the first place.

An interesting fact about how we follow different paths in architecture and towns, is for example Kings Cross Station. There is a yellow line in the tiles. You know when people queue there are normally barriers, and if you go to an airport or a supermarket they have those kind of zig zag barriers, so that everyone queues behind each other.

But there's none of that in that space particularly. All there is is this yellow tiling system which is maybe taken for granted. But when commuters are queuing to get on a train or waiting for a gate to open, I've seen it many times, they queue on the yellow shape of the tiles on the floor. So in a way they follow the system that was introduced to them. I think it's very clever of the architect who made it in the first place. The barriers are not there but they are there at the same time.

A S: We have also talked about how the physical sites, independent of their photographs are important for you in a visual sense too. I understand that for you it is important that your interventions combine well with the site conceived formally?

P M: Yes I think so. If the site is too busy and my intervention is not going to be seen on the photograph I won't do it. I do these interventions for the photographs at the end of the day. So I have to choose these sites carefully. But I also find that it is quite spontaneous sometimes. I don't know, maybe because when am looking, hunting for these sites all I can see are big triangles in space and I kind of think, "yeh that goes well there" or "maybe that doesn't work".

I think one of the most problematic things I have is light. If it's too dark and there's one bulb, one lamp post, I have to adjust the exposure for thread to be visible. But if I adjust the exposure then the lamp post is going to become extremely visible and would ruin the composition of the photograph. So if that is the case I don't even bother installing it, I move on to somewhere else. So I need to have a balance of light. Even though it is all spontaneous, I learned slowly that when I am doing the interventions I need have to have a balance of all these factors, lighting, fixing points, how the composition would look at the end of it…all these things…and shadows too. I think they play an important part because you can start seeing different shapes just through the shadows of it. So all these factors come into play when deciding on a place to use.

A S: From our previous conversations I also understand that there is another sense in which the physical aspect of your work as opposed to it's photographic form is important. And that this is the process of intervening itself? You've said how it's quite spontaneous, and how it was perhaps a bit like graffiti? Could you say a bit more about the process?

P M: I'm not much into graffiti personally. I mean we've seen a lot of it. But I think the nature of the work because it's been done in a way without permission it's quite an illegal…though I hate to use the word, "illegal" because who sets the rules that you can't have a triangle? No one. So in a way it's quite legal. But it's not something I have permission to do. While installing it there's also a little bit of adrenaline. Sometimes I have to climb gates so as to attach the thread. 

It's very quick to make. I install them quite easily then it's just more fiddling around with the camera to try and get the best shot of it before I move away from it. And you could have people who will stop you, (which I've never encountered so far). And you can have people coming and giving you looks like, "what the hell are you doing there?" So all these factors come into play and that gives it a bit more excitement.

And this is quite a personal thing but I'm always looking forward to when I go back home, which could be two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning. To when I go on my computer and I can see actually how they look. Sometimes I think they have gone okay and then I go home and I find there's been a bit of a shake in the photograph. So something is not quite sharp. So like that, I threw away so many interventions. But it's part of it, you have to accept that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So I'll move to the next one, there's nothing much you can do. 

A S: Now considering both geometric forms and connect/dissect, I know that drawing is relevant for you. You've likened your work to "drawing in space". You've also mentioned how the photographs of geometric forms appear as they could almost have been drawn on in photoshop. This interest in drawing and all these different ways in which you can liken what you do to drawing, is there anything else that you'd like to say about that?

P M: My sculptures, they are quite minimal and very linear. They can be seen as drawing in space because they're not like round organic objects, they're very sharp, geometrically formed (in terms of geometric forms for example). It is very much a drawing which can be achieved with a pen on a paper. Only this time I'm extruding them into three dimensionality by actually physically installing these lines. So that to me is very much drawing in space. But it's also a sculpture because it's not flat, it's not two dimensional and it changes depending on your position in relation to it.

And that links us to the connect dissect. Because that installation changes a lot depending on where you see it from. Sometimes it just acts like a blade, sometimes it acts like a line, sometimes it acts like a wall. So it depends a lot on the position of the viewer according to the site and the work. So it's like interacting with a drawing but it is a sculpture. And I think all sculpture is very much influenced…there is a drawing element in it.

A S: You have also said previously that connect/dissect shares a temporary quality with geometric forms. Is this temporariness important to you? 

P M: Yes. I think eventually it became important. I never thought about it much in the beginning. It always happened because I had to take the work down. But then after doing it quite a lot of times I started giving that quite a lot importance. One day it's there the next day it's not. In my work very few works exist apart from the drawings and one sculpture which was created to become a permanent sculpture. 

But apart from that all my work exists on a documentation level because they don't exist any more. I am happy that I have created that work because it helps me move on to the next thing. But at the same time it's frustrating to be able make a living out of it to be honest. Because unless you get a commission it's very difficult. It's impossible to sell it because you know it's going to be destroyed. But that's not why I do work so it's fine. At least I'll keep saying that to myself until I'm living on the streets!

A S: You could sell geometric forms couldn't you? you could sell the photos?

P M: Yes, but I don't create work on a commercial level. Some people do, I tend to be more satisfied with creating work which I think has got more potential and doesn't sell. Personally, on an artistic level for me I think recognition for what I do at this stage is more than enough. I wish I could live on art work eventually. But it's a far, far away story for the moment.

A S: But hopefully you know, you're getting these exhibitions and I suppose one thing leads to another...

P M: Yes exactly.

A S: You've also said with geometric forms you liked the idea of being controlled by the site, choosing not to use your own fixings butinstead utilising the site's existing physical features. This was very different from Marsden Woo, where you had in a way more control because you did not limit yourself to using existing fittings, using your own nails in the wall to support the thread. How significant was this difference for you?

P M: I very much like the fact that I used exiting features in geometric forms but for the installation at Marsden Woo I think it was a bit different because I wanted to create something and it cannot be floated in space. So you have to have fixing points. So I created the fixing points. But in a way I created the fixing points on top of fixing points that were already there. Because the wall is there. I used the features of the gallery to inspire the fixing points which then hold up the installation. So even though there are fixing points, (I installed 901 nails in the space) I still use the features of the architecture to start off with. So I knew that I had to bounce the installation from one side of the window, downstairs to the column, round the corner and go to the wall. I could have chosen to put the nails in the floor and on the ceiling for example but I wanted the whole thread installation to bounce off the wall. So the architectural properties of the space were the starting point. Then came the fixings to hold the installation.

A S: You've mentioned that in another sense you had less control at Marsden Woo, having to take into account considerations like the fire doors which had to be kept clear. Perhaps in Marsden Woo such restrictions were a practical obstacle and not much else for you? Or was this lack of freedom also important artistically for you?

P M: When I'm creating my work I always have to encounter these things. Mostly because my work is taking place in public spaces. So I always have to take this into consideration otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to do it. So eventually I think after years of doing it, I had to learn how to go around it. And rather than seeing it as a problem I would say, "okay it's there, I cannot do much about it, lets use it as a favour and lets create something with the fact that I cannot use that side at all". So it's like curating my installation, getting round the problem which is there and which I cannot do much about. 


A S: You were in the exhibition Chance Encounters at the Parlour Gallery in January. Here your work existed on different levels: Like connect/dissect and geometric forms you had a temporary intervention. And like geometric forms there were also photographs that would outlive the interventions. But this time they were on display in the gallery where the visitors were free to remove them weren't they? Could you say a bit about this?

P M: Well the exhibition at Marsden Woo was planned a year before that time so I had to make a decision about what to show. I knew the kind of photographs I wanted to show, but once they were done I thought "they look good, they look pretty maybe but maybe it's not working so well as a work". I'm not sure, I'm still not sure nowadays to be honest.

So I said, "why not, instead of spending a lot of money on making one image, why not spend a bit less but still have a deeper meaning maybe?" A work was removed from the site and is now up for removal again from the gallery. 

And also that gives it a value, it's a one off so they're all marked from 1/100, 2/100 etc. I won't be printing those images again because that's what I kind of said to myself. So I wanted the viewer to take part of the work from the gallery like how the other viewers removed the work from the site. So I wanted to have again this temporary element of the work on two different…elements kind of. Unfortunately it didn't work very well because many people weren't very keen on taking them, either because they hated them or didn't want to take something away from a gallery.

A S: You weren't interested in having a "please take one" sign were you?

P M: No I wasn't. The curators asked me, "can we make a note?" and I was like, "actually no lets leave this open, lets use it as an experiment." And I ended up coming back with a box of them.

A S: You've also spoken of plans to experiment with doing similar interventions to geometric forms but in different locations: Woods and derelict buildings. Could you tell us a little bit more about these experiments? are you still carrying on with them? 

P M: I've got a few done from woods but I haven't done the others, not yet. I'm not sure again about them to be honest. My worry is that that they can be become a bit of a one liner.  I don't see why not test it out because I don't need to show it to anyone. But I'm still not convinced if it should be in public or not to be honest at this stage. Because I haven't done the work so I can't really say much about it. What I was thinking at this stage is that they could offer a different setting, but then in terms of the encounter with the work it looses it's meaning because it becomes more like another setting which is not going to be encountered much because it's a derelict building.

A S: Had you thought about, if you did it, if you would have have it as an off site exhibition?

P M: Yes, I had a plan for an exhibition sometime ago back in Malta and I thought about maybe making a series of it. Having them all in particular places in Malta and then hopefully they could be discovered and somehow revived. Maybe through the internet, by posting photos of them showing how they changed. But it's so vague at this stage to be honest. I'm not really sure If I'm going to go on with that plan or not. I'm really keen to do the woods one. I have done a few and I'm happy with the result. It wasn't at night it was done was during the day. So it was more kind of a compositional experiment. It was very much about aesthetics. It's like having the installation on site. Composition wise I'm quite happy because you have a lot of organic features: The trees, the roots, leaves everywhere and then you have a sharp intervention, against this green backdrop. And on that level I think they worked well. In terms of interaction with the work, like viewers removing some part of it etc. I'm not so sure to be honest.

A S: What have you got coming up exhibition wise? I understand one of your previous work black box is an important reference point to make here?

Patrick Mifsud; black box; dimensions variable; wood, tape; 2011

P M: Well black box is a physical thing but it is also a drawing to me. It can be seen as a drawing in space. Sometimes I wish I just used pencil to create it but then you know the top part couldn't work.

I've got an exhibition coming up in Malta in July which is creating this work. I've got two actually. I've got one in Malta and I'm participating in another exhibition in Leicester at the end of July. I'm creating similar works to black box. At the moment I want to move away a bit from the thread work but still working on these ideas. So it's kind of defining space by just drawing onto it. But instead of just drawing in this case I've used wood and tape. In the next project I'm just going to be sticking tape onto walls, ceilings and floors to define space or to create new spaces. So that's one thing, it's a balance between a sculpture and a drawing. 

The exhibition coming up in Malta which starts on the 27th July. It's a group show entitled divergent thinkers. And there's also an age restriction unfortunately in Malta, we do a lot of these things. It was a good opportunity for me to go back home for a holiday because I'm from Malta, while doing some work there. I was going to participate in an exhibition in the same gallery, which then got cancelled about a year ago. I had already had something in mind, I'd kind of worked on it.

It's a beautiful fortress actually this place, which had been converted into a gallery. It's been there for some time but it's quite run down. There's not much funding for these kind if things in Malta. Recently there was an artist/curator, he did the place up and called it, "Malta Contemporary Art Foundation". But after a year unfortunately it got closed down and then went back to the government. This space is brand new really in terms its interiors, it's quite interesting. It's the most contemporary gallery you can find in Malta that's owned by the government I think. The theme behind the exhibition is divergent thinkers. I'm not entirely sure how I fit into this to be honest. But I can in a way see a link because I see a space and then I diverge from the actual space and I dream about a different space, "how would the space look if there is this intervention?" I think in a way I think that was part of it and that's why I was asked to participate. At this stage I'm planning to make three interventions, using tape stuck on the walls, ceilings and floors. Very minimal and very similar to black box.

Then a week later after I come back I'm installing the exhibition in Leicester, which hasn't yet got a title. I've been asked to particulate in this because the organisers are very much interested in architecture and interventions in space. They've got this big warehouse. Again I'm going to be showing similar works, kind of territory with tape, gaffer tape and going into very minimal lines. In a way it's highlighting features of the architecture, whilst at the same time maybe creating new spaces.

But because of my practice, I haven't done the work at this stage. I've only done drawings, so I can't really tell you If I'm satisfied with them or not because I haven't seen them in reality. I've got all the plans in mind already and I've got drawings on the computer, photoshopped on top of photos. So I know how they look but in terms of how satisfied I am with the quality of the work because it's very…even though it's very minimal, the work is touching the space, so it's very important I give attention to where the installation starts and finishes in relation to the site. So that I'm using the tape in the best way possible to achieve what I want to and also let the site…you know…if there's a mark in the wall, I leave it visible or something like that. It's difficult to talk about something which I haven't done to be honest. 

And at the end of August, a friend of mine and I are doing a collaboration at a place called Bermondsey Project Space. It's a big warehouse and it's owned by Crisis which is the homelessness charity. They used to have this space as storage and now they've changed it into a gallery and they've opened a new part which a project space. And we're going to be doing a four day residency. We're not intending to have it as an exhibition. We are intending to go there, we've got a few ideas already and kind of collaborate on one project and see how it goes. This maybe will lead to an exhibition at some stage. 

But what happened basically is she's got a practice quite different to mine. She's a video artist, animator, illustrator and designer. We talked a lot about our own practices and there are lots of overlapping ideas. And we thought we should collaborate at some point. We thought the best thing to do is to apply for something like this so that we can document it and from then onwards we can apply for further projects, exhibitions etc. So it's quite an unknown territory what we're going into at this stage, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be exciting. And then maybe on the last day after four days working there, we open the doors for the public and send some invites out to come and have a drink with us, I don't know.

A S: What else have you been working on at the moment?

P M: I've done nine drawing experiments on paper, they're kind of measures of installations, but they exist on paper or card in this case and they're possible ideas for further development of the work that comes from the thread installation. Again I'm working with series, it's not a one off. There's a series of them and it's the idea of repetition, and the idea of working with simple lines to create a two dimensional object. So at the moment this is what I'm working on in the little time I've got left because I have full time job, which happens in between one project and another. I have to do something otherwise I get very frustrated. They are drawings but they kind of implement the idea of space and three dimensionality. I think or I'd like to think so. 

Patrick Mifsud; untitled, (series of 9 drawing experiments on paper); ink on paper; 2012

A S: Interesting, so it's a whole different angle on your concerns really?

P M: I think it's seeing it from the other way round now. I'm doing a drawing which implements an idea of three dimensional objects or architecture in space. But staying with with idea of triangles again, you know I've got three fixing points again. There is a repetition of the idea of lines which is very close to the idea of thread.

I think these drawings came from me experiencing my own installations and thinking about them, "how they can look if they're flat?" The next possible idea I have in mind at the moment is that I can install these as a flat drawing but still with thread on a wall and nails but they'd be flat on a big scale. So they still have that three dimensionality about them but they're flat, they're not protruding out of the wall much.

A S: Okay Patrick, thank you so much for speaking to me.

P M: Thank you for giving me the opportunity.


Links:

www.patrickmifsud.com

Interview with Patrick Mifsud conducted live online, (May 2012)

Back