|
|
‘The remnants in the shoeboxes in the context of the
more “conventional” display made me reflect upon the status of these
remnants. To open the shoe boxes was to act out, to perform that discovery,
to be a-historical and to go against the neat, compartmentalised, instantly
understandable and satisfying "historical" narrative. Given
that the layered history of the building is still present in the wooden
beams and projection rooms, the installation in a way, for me, disturbed
the way in which we try very much to “read”, understand and pigeon-hole
chronologically. In subverting that understanding it raised questions
about such sites and whether we do not actually do them a dis-service
through period restoration, through display boxes, through meta-narratives
that tell some stories and silence others. For me, it highlighted the
value of disruption, of discovery, of lessening narration in favour of
imagination, of constructing our own stories about the place, of fiction
but a very living fiction. I liked the not-knowingness of it all but that
not knowingness coming from something that was very real. I don't think
that the power of the fragment should be underestimated. Crucial to this
was the context - the building and the surrounding display...’
(Vee Pollock, October 2007)
|
|
|
|
‘It reminded me that every person who visits leaves
something behind, takes away or experiences something different. Multiple
layers.'
(Visitor, comment on questionnaire, October 2007)
‘It was like finding the lost items yourself.'
(Visitor, comment on questionnaire, October 2007)
‘The boxes [...] changed my perception of the “detritus”
aspect of the building which has always been something I was aware of
but this enabled me to confront its reality - all the little pieces of
bits of individuals’ lives. The building isn’t a building plus theatre
- it is a building with accompanying collection.'
(Anne McChlery, October 2007) |
|