•Present the state of research to date
•Obtain critical feedback that will further the development of the research study

I decided that these criteria were informal enough to allow me some flexibility in terms of delivery although my key focus would have to alter to presenting the ‘state of [my] research to date’, rather than from being concentrated upon presenting my lived-experiences (which is my usual approach when delivering my texts). However I needed to include both elements anyway as they are infused and each cannot exist without the other.

In placing the ‘prior to’ this event I need to explain a little about the way I was feeling during the time leading up to the upgrade presentations. Presenting my work to others is a familiar experience for me having managed the art department in a college of further education and taught for nine years (undergoing numerous inspection procedures in the process). But the visible nervousness I displayed ‘prior to’ and ‘during’ this event was not due to my lack of experience in delivering papers, rather, it emerged because of the experiences I have had of delivering presentations in academic environments (as a teacher). I am not referring to 'bad' experiences here, on the contrary, I have never experienced more job satisfaction than while teaching. No, these nerves can be attributed to the responses I have had to the managerial practices that were applied in the educational environment in which I was previously employed and the political structures that imposed them. Therefore my nervousness and shaking can be connected with the transference's I was making between the academic institution that had employed me and the academic institution in which I was due to present my paper.

I retired from teaching through ill-health caused by stress (which in turn was caused by excessive workloading) several years ago. The upgrade presentation was to be the first time (since my retirement) that I had addressed a group of people in a teaching space and although I was not presenting my upgrade paper as ‘a teacher’ this made me feel even more exposed because I was appearing without the barrier of my 'profession'. As a teacher I could put on my professional (dramaturgical style) cloak, go into class and 'do my stuff' in a capable and confident manner. At this event I had no such specific role to protect me. I was not really prepared for the effects that my being in such a position could bring. I had considered the possibility of finding the situation a little difficult but the shutting out of such possibilities is not hard to do when you have a head bandaged in antidepressant medication (as I have had for at least two years). And so all my nerves and doubts became condensed into three little words... 'go for it'.

I need to detail this prior to the event thoroughly because it was the detail that eventually offered me critical guidance. I think that my anodyned approach to the presentation would have worked quite well had I adhered to the procedures and planning that I had set.

A vital piece of learning from my years as a teacher was the importance of preparing myself and the environment before a class. I particularly pride myself on this aspect of my work and I ensured that I applied it in preparing for my upgrade. And yet while my presentation was prepared thoroughly, I certainly was not.My normal procedure prior to delivering a presentation would be to have had a period of calm and quiet through which I could concentrate upon my work and focus myself. In seeking to prepare myself I was aiming to concentrate fully upon two specific aspects; feeling 'love' and having 'respect', for the audience.

The practical difficulties that I encountered on the day of the presentation generated serious interventions at this event which in turn provided me with some vital learning experiences. However, before I turn to the afterthoughts I noted I need to provide you with a little more detail relating to the situation prior to this event.

I had prepared a range of ‘props’ to hand out during my presentation. These props were not simply intended to illustrate my presentation but offered the audience an opportunity to interact with-in the presentation. My props were varied and many (too many) and some of them (especially the dandelion heads wrapped in glue that I mention in my diary notes below) were very delicate. This meant that I needed to accept offers of help with getting my props into the presentation venue which of course meant that I was no longer working independently (as I am used to doing). I am now going to ask you to switch your reading style, as I am going to switch my writing style, so that I can offer you my diary afterthoughts in a more immediate and personal manner. I need to advise 'caution' at this point, because my notes contain so-called 'bad language'.

'The upgrade presentation was looming fast. I had all my props ready and everything done. My slides weren't organised but they'd wait until morning. I'd hoped to have a little quiet time before I did my bit, but was basically ready to go with whatever happened.

The taxi was late. I didn't get my slides out of the case to sort them because it may have turned up at any time. Still, no panic. I waited and waited. Half an hour later, the taxi showed up. He was a lovely driver, no point giving him a hard time about it.
Got to university, phoned a student friend who'd arranged to meet me to help get my props to the dept. and to pick up a letter giving me permission to collect a video camera so I could record audience responses during the session.

I'd earlier asked another student if they would make notes about how the audience were responding to my session because I'd be too caught up with my presentation to take notes. My friends suggested that as I'd need their help with managing the props, why didn't I set up a video recording to do the observational job? Great idea I thought (about to drop the bollock!).

Why didn't I think for just one moment about the implications of doing this? After all, its not as though I'm unfamiliar with the issues involved for they dominate my research (surveillance, oppression and so on). Anyway, I gets to university (about half an hour late), glued dandelion heads in boxes falling all over and sticking together. I have to wait a further 20 mins. for my friend to get to me and help me up to the dept. As we meet, another friend hands me a letter saying I have permission to collect a video camera. By the time we get up to the dept. I've lost the letter. Time is spent searching for it, despite my knowing from past experience that if I want a quiet time to prepare I'll have to leave the camera collecting till last. The letter can't be found and my friend tells me to collect another from the office.

Its busy now. People are arriving. My friend is telling me I've got to go and pickup the camera from Media Services. Why don't I assert myself and say 'no, I need a quiet time, sod the camera?' Instead, I rush over campus to collect it and get back to the seminar room. I'm ten minutes late by now. The first PhD candidate is already into delivering his text... My slides aren't sorted, I'm not prepared and calm. Oh bastard-shit. [I calm down and listen to the speaker].

Its my turn now. I'd asked one of my helpers to scatter texts around the room, the chairs, and the floor with me. But the gentle 'scattering' and 'giving' gestures I'd hoped for became a sort of forceful 'chucking'. My helper had taken a lead and I didn't check it or communicate my needs. The all important ambience I'd hoped to set just wasn't happening. Oh well. Just 'go for it Sue'. If there's anywhere on the planet I don't want to be, its here. Friends set up the video camera for me. I didn't know it then, but at this point the bollock was dropped publicly and big style...
The session seemed to go quite well despite my many fuck-ups, and then it was feedback time...'.

Conclusion of diary afterthoughts
Before I situate myself, my work and my learning in relation to this event and also in relation to the macro elements that influenced it, I would like to first refer you back to my upgrade performance/presentation paper and also to the written transcript of the feedback given. In order that you should be able to progress clearly through this text you will need to have read both of these documents.

Situating Self
Having articulated this event from a lived perspective through my diary after thoughts, the upgrade presentation paper and the transcribed feedback, I would now like to undertake the following tasks: to situate myself and my art practice in relation to this event in terms of historical, contemporary, practical and theoretical influences and also, to explore the several 'afters' to this event that I referred to earlier in my writing.

There have been two character traits that have been consistent throughout my life. Humour or 'having a laugh' has always featured prominently and emerges through my sense of mischief together with 'tekin't piss' [taking the piss] out of myself, others and life in general. These characteristics have both helped me to survive trauma and have also got me into trouble. Humour is risky, delightful and problematic and holds huge attractions for me. Although I am limited here to presenting a brief overview of how humour has influenced my art practice I would like to propose that I should carry out a detailed investigation into humour and subjectivity through psychoanalysis in my final thesis.

The need to make art has figured strongly throughout my life and has been a key element in all of my significant experiences. For the moment though I would like to outline how my perceptions of 'art' have altered during my lifetime. These altered states might very briefly be summarised as being 'a personal adjustment from the belief that art was primarily about traditional artistic skills' to my asking the question, 'What cannot be considered to be art?' This in turn has led to my exploring the personal question, 'What is my art practice now?' This shifting of focus from technical elements to critique and concept has occurred through my gaining access to knowledge through education and especially through being able to study feminism, psychoanalysis, critical theory and art practice. So far this explanation is straight forward enough. After all, it would be unusual for students not to alter their perspective as knowledge is gained, but at this point I need to bring in three other aspects of my learning which define a moment of impact between my everyday life experiences and my art practice and education. These elements are 'protest', 'dissent' and 'oppression'.

The process of deregulating the further education sector (that I describe in my 'upgrade presentation text' was taking place while I was simultaneously working as a full-time lecturer and also a part-time student on the 'MA in Feminism and Psychoanalysis' at The University of Leeds. I was in my second year of study and was due to prepare an essay relating to the module of learning that I was undertaking and yet I was struggling to find issues to write about as I was finding it difficult to focus upon my studies. The conditions of labour at the college where I was employed were deteriorating rapidly and I was collapsing under the weight of working 60 -70 hours per week, being a 'mum' and a 'wife' to my family and studying at MA level part-time. My thoughts were consumed with the injustices being imposed upon workers through processes of deregulation and privatisation. At my mid-term tutorial my tutor, Dr Alison Rowley, offered me the advice that would define the current course of my art work and writing. She suggested that instead of struggling to find an area to write around, that I might make use of the situation that I had found myself in as an educator and investigate it thoroughly.

As we had been studying the production of a range of artists (on the module) who in the 1970s through to the mid-1990s had articulated struggle, protest and dissent through the production of artwork and theory, it was suggested that I might focus upon some of these artists and use their practice to guide and inform mine. This was how I came across the work of the many artists who have produced (politically radical) aesthetic practice both by way of psychic release and as a means to political protest. In my final thesis I shall be investigating the historical influences of 'protest art' (from the1970s onwards) upon contemporary (dissenting) art practitioners and their work, concentrating in particular upon an exhibition that was held at The Whitechapel Art Gallery (September - November 2000) titled 'Protest & Survive', together with a specific visual arts project produced by a contemporary artist, Denise Green.

One artist in particular has been a primary influence in informing developments in my work... Jo Spence. Initially it was my personal identifications with Jo Spence (the autobiographical person) that 'hooked' me into her work. These identifications stemmed from the issues that form the focus for much of her writing; autobiography, class, humour and protest. The critically autobiographical aspects of Spence's work relate directly to the politics of everyday life experiences and hence also to my own aesthetic production (which seeks to do likewise). We also share the experience of having had our working class identities 'being made strange' through the experience of accessing higher education. And yet I don't want it to seem as though I am drawing parallels here for our individual art production is as subjective as we are. I would simply like to illustrate some of the identificatory elements that drew me to her work.

The humour presented in Spence's photography is woven through with a seriousness that comes from the historical consciousness that informs her work, which is not concerned with presenting an aesthetic beauty through which viewers might sublimate their emotions. On the contrary, Spence is concerned with presenting what are often referred to as being negative aesthetics which she applies as tools that offer the possibility of prompting a shift in understanding for the viewer. At that particular time of learning it seemed to me as though through her photography and writing Jo Spence was offering me permission to dare to do what I felt I needed to do. Not from the perspective of bravery, lunacy or lack of caring, but through tolerance, critical understanding and very importantly, through sharing. These ethical qualities relating to Jo Spence's aesthetic production continue to offer me direction, but what is this sense of 'daring' that I refer to and why is it so necessary to my work?.

Jo Spence's work is perceived to be daring for a range of reasons. For example in 'The Cancer Project' she collaboratively presents, with Terry Dennett, societal taboos surrounding representations of illness and the body that are expected to remain private. And in her 'Class Shame Series' she explores issues of power, class conflict, and dissent from a working class perspective. The issues that Jo Spence investigates are connected with humanity and everyday living and as such they are perceived by many people to be uncontrollable, controversial and uncomfortable. Can I bring in the work of Franko B at this point and a comment he made that is referred to in an interview with Gray Watson in which he stated that he aims 'to make the unbearable, bearable for the viewer'2. This comment prompted me to ask myself if in some way this might be something that Jo Spence was also seeking to achieve through her work?.

A connection could be perhaps, that societal taboos which can often seem to be so traumatic for people when exposed are often constituted from insubstantial ideologies. An example of this (in an everyday context) would be the gendered approach towards body hair and bodily functions. The power of societal taboos to perpetuate and maintain themselves lie with those who uphold them. As such, although some taboos may seem farcical when closely examined, they have the power to become issues of life and death for people, dependent upon their geographic location and adoptive culture. And so, enabling the public to access the private can be a way of grounding taboos in their socio/political contexts. While I think this aspect is crucial to Spence's work I do not think it applies in relation to B's work, which does not engage with political issues directly but rather with the body as a technical tool of production for 'art', which in itself is a taboo. I shall refer to Franko B's work further when I explore the issue of 'violence and the viewer' through my feedback transcript.

The private being made public in relation to class issues is something I have investigated both through my writing and my performance projects. Although I was aware that when I delivered a teaching session (in my role as a lecturer) I was in some way 'performing' I certainly had never placed myself in the role of being a 'performance artist'. However I do have distant memories of a time prior to being labelled as 'dysfunctional', or 'psychiatric', a time before education became a tool with which the authorities could beat me, when I enjoyed writing stories and poems and performing 'routines' for my family. However short and sweet these memories are I do feel that they offer clues to the directions in which my art work has developed.
It was after I had delivered my text 'This Time Next Year We'll Be Farting Through Silk: Aspiration and Experience' at 'The Work and the Image' conference in Leeds 1998, that I realised that I was presenting my writing through a 'humorous tinge' (despite its serious content). This was not a conscious move it simply emerged, I recognised it, and decided to go with it. I like the protection that humour offers me from the harshness of reality. I also decided to work with humour because it felt right that I should offer the audience some entertainment value by way of 'thanks' for subjecting them to the perceived harshness that is reality. The more texts that I came to deliver, the more the manner in which the texts were presented came to be of importance to me.

I have especially resisted declaring myself to be a 'performer' because I have never experienced drama training or anything that might be considered near to it. I therefore tried to discover whether what I was doing had a name, a genre or such like. With regards to my practice the closest identification I could make was with performance-writing and with regards to the research outcomes I hoped to generate I made some connections with a process described as 'participatory action research'3. But I still wasn't clear about what I was doing and I still tended to look and sound vague when people asked me; 'What is your work like?' However, following my experiences at this event my learning has been furthered and my progression is subsequently more sure-footed. This learning stems from the outcomes of what did happen, what did not happen, and what should not have happened at this event.

It is here that I need to refer to specific, crucial aspects of the feedback that I received following this event. The first critical issue that I need to refer to was the issue of surveillance raised by Dr A and which is important for several reasons, including the fact that my attempt to gather audience responses from this event (through visually recording them) set an adversarial tone for the entire presentation. I quote below from Dr A’s comment,

'(...)the first one [question] relates to notions of surveillance and control and aspects of relations between these in the workplace and the fact that we are being filmed now and the fact that we weren't asked it we wanted to be. There's a parallel going on... subjecting us to the lens(...)'4.

If you refer back to the replies I gave to Dr A in the 'feedback transcript' and also to the 'diary afterthoughts' I presented earlier, you will notice that the parallel being drawn in the question above (between surveillance and the recording of audience responses) was not something that I had carefully considered and hence cannot be assumed to be as calculating as it was assumed to be. On the contrary, as has been explained, this aspect of my presentation was clumsy, thoughtless and ignorant in its application. However. No matter how the video camera came to be at the presentation the issues that its presence raised are of great importance, both in the context of this event and also with regards to my prior personal experiences and theoretical investigations into surveillance and monitoring.

Jo Spence explored professionalism as a self-regulating method of surveillance, connecting it to the middle-class values that determine who is, and is not enabled, to access education and professional power structures. She wrote 'I neither come from the middle class, nor have I experienced any of its wealth and power, nor do I work as a professional, or manifest managerial skills to control others. Professionalism encourages the use of codes of conduct, and standards of excellence, which are not seen by the participants as being political. In the main these are not perpetuated by coercion, but by professional consent, and can become more extreme according to the political climate. Thus we learn to police ourselves'5. The lack of control, trust and independence given to workers in the knowledge industry of today, has been a key focus for my past investigations into personal experiences of oppression in the workplace. In 1997 I wrote the following text, '[A]s with Bentham's plan of the panopticon, these professional, strategic, structures [which seek to negate democratic principles such as trust] are designed to provide the overseers (who are invisible in their offices) with complete authority over a particular place and group of people who they do not only mistrust, but who they also want to control. Replacing the panopticon's architecturally controlling structure, are the professional and managerial systems (both actual and virtual, for example, via the data trails that trace our daily movements) which ensure that the workers are caught up in a power situation in which they themselves become the overseer as well as the overseen. It is an important mechanism for it automatises and individualises power. (...)When the overseers are deemed to be sufficiently self-critical, they can then inspect themselves using Self-Assessment Review systems and Internal Audit structures. Self-governance is granted (but still checked upon)’6.

Through my writing I was presenting a critique of the managerial structures which demanded that I should evidence the outcomes of my labour production in my role as a teacher. Although I was deemed to be a 'professional' I could not be trusted to work as such, in other words to work independently. These demands were specifically related to the prioritising of my workload and the conflict of interests between my manager's needs and those of my students. Because my workload was excessive and I also sought to satisfy both groups requirements, the ultimate outcome of my endeavours resulted in self and imposed, harm. My personal ethics which prioritised a moral allegiance towards supporting students above 'paperwork' perpetuated my downfall, because my ethical standpoints directly conflicted with those of my bosses who prioritised the need for statistically driven economic outcomes above all else.
The gendered influences that contribute towards self-harm as an aspect of the relationship of exploitation known as 'employment' were recently articulated by Valerie Walkerdine who presented the case-study of a worker employed within the Australian new labour market at the 'Translating Class, Altering Hospitality' conference in Leeds 20027. She described how a particular female worker had found herself caught up in a cycle of working an ever increasing number of hours in order to meet the standards she had set for herself. Her managers, impressed by her ability and commitment to her work piled more and more work upon her. This lead to her becoming depressed as she felt unable to cope with her workload and became dissatisfied with her job. Valerie Walkerdine commented that this woman's story was the narrative of a constantly failing subject in terms of class and gender. I am referring to this case-study because of the parallels I drew between this woman's experiences and my own. A key factor in this case-study was the relationship that was held between this particular employee and her father. Apparently, in her youth she had been desperate, though unable, to please her father. This was the key element that 'struck home' between my own and this particular workers story. I had responded exactly as this woman had done to the New Labour ethos of my employers in my role as a teacher. Likewise my relationship with my father has always been deeply problematic. Enough of these minor similarities though because there is a major similarity which emerges through this particular worker's and my own, unique situations. This connection is linked to the notion of 'blame' which is of course is conditional to the production of evidence.

The (global) new labour market is all too ready to apportion 'the blame for failing to conform' with workers, who can often be regarded as being militant, lacking in resilience, inflexible and so on. Referring back to this particular worker's narrative in relation to my own, according to Walkerdine's case-study, she responded to her situation in the same manner as I initially did to my own. That is, we blamed ourselves for our failure to cope. These are the internally and externally imposed middle class professional values that both Jo Spence and Valerie Walkerdine refer to and that we are tempted or seduced into subscribing towards. Both myself and this worker are united through the impossible longing for parental approval, caring and love, which is then transferred onto the patriarchal or matriarchal figure manifest in the form of 'the boss' who in turn becomes a condensed signifier for the organisation, institution, corporation itself.

To return to issues of blame, evidence, surveillance and monitoring both in general, but especially in relation to workers in the knowledge industry of today. For reasons of clarity, I would first like to point out that the British New Labour government is currently differentiating (through policy making) between a 'worker' and an 'employee' with the aim of excluding hundreds of thousand of women workers from accessing full maternity rights. Their means to achieving this target is to create a distinction between a 'worker' (as someone who does not have a written contract of employment) and an 'employee' (as someone who does). And so although the ideological presentation of the government's proposed Employment Bill focuses upon the extension of maternity rights for women from 18 to 26 weeks, the provisions of The Bill will only apply to women classed as 'employees' and will therefore exclude many women workers who are already among the most vulnerable in our society such as home workers and agency workers. There is a little extra 'sting in the tail' though for any 'employees' who might find the prospect of their own maternity leave being extended a temptation. Some crucial changes are being proposed with regards to employment status in relation to maternity rights. A standard contract need no longer be a permanent contract, but could be a fixed-term contract and anyone taking their full maternity leave could be liable, upon their return to work, to find that their contract of employment has been reclassified from that of a 'permanent employee', to that of a 'fixed-term employee'. In effect, job insecurity is being legalised. These strategies, which have become all too familiar, currently present themselves through the guise of neo-liberalism whereby those who hold power pretend to give with the one hand while taking everything with the other. I shall be discussing my crossover into the field of political activism later as it directly connects with the issue of surveillance that I began this section with and with which I'd now like to continue.

There are specific reasons as to why people in the audience at this event assumed that the presence of the video camera represented a calculated and oppressive tool of surveillance rather than a genuine attempt to gather responses. Over the past decade particularly, people have been repeatedly subjected to the threat (real or apparent) of surveillance and so the excessive monitoring of our everyday existence weighs heavily upon us. I perceive it to be 'healthy' that Dr A led an uprising against the the threat of intrusion that I presented through using the video camera at this event. The government Minister David Blunkett recently admitted that he had 'blundered into the issue' of his 'data proposals' which have now been shelved to allow for further consultation'. Blunkett's draft order 'would have given a host of government departments, local councils and quangos the power to demand, on their own authority, access to detailed communications'8 such as e-mail records and mobile phone location information. There was a groundswell of public opposition to the proposal that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) should have access to this intrusive authority, that was presented through the ridiculous ideology of being of vital importance to national security (following the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001). Politics can never be severed from the issues that concern us.

And so a resistance to being recorded became apparent among the audience (of academic staff and students) at this event. So powerful and yet all too easily able to be misunderstood in a critical sense. For example, what of the cameras that survey our everyday movements, uninvited and often invisible? They do not seek to reveal their presence let alone seek permission to record us. The possible distribution of our appropriated imagery is of course a vital issue but if we can critically investigate these issues in an academic environment then why on earth can we not apply this sense of critical enquiry to the 'outside world?' I am unable to enter into a generalised history of surveillance in this text and so I would now like to move briefly and specifically towards surveillance in the workplace.

The management of workers (which could otherwise be referred to as gaining a maximum while giving a minimum) has its own long history, with contemporary management strategies becoming established (for example) around the1920s organisation of Ford car production workers and later, through time and motion studies. Today there exists a 'Hamburger University' which educates the elite of 'McDonald's' rigidly managed workforce. This is at core about productivity through control, which is then applied through an ideology of self-empowerment that ultimately has no substance.

Electronic eyes have got eyes which have eyes for the surveyors are always surveyed. 'As surveillance techniques intensify (we are on average, visually recorded 300 - 400 times each day that we walk around a city) and privacy, in the 'old' sense of the term is being eradicated from our lives'9. And yet we must always remember that we are complicit in this process through the manner in which we survey ourselves and each other. Few of us dissent about the way in which our images and personal details are appropriated and distributed for after all it is never clear exactly who is watching us and the network does seem to seek to serve us through protecting us against crime. But does it? Or is this belief a part of the social pathology that desires a paternal/maternal guardian figure however useless they may prove to be in actuality?. For example, there is the argument that Close Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV's) do not actually prevent crime but simply serve to displace it. The workplace is a rather more sensitive area of surveillance for us though, because it is within our working environments that we experience the direct effects of surveillance through economics and 'performance related pay' for example, or through sick-leave of absence records and promotion. And so in working environments methods of surveillance can impact directly upon our own and our families lives, hence the requirement for a more concentrated focus on our behalf. Is it coincidental or relational that the two people who opposed the recording of the audience most during this event were academics who were employed by the institution in which I was recording?

The video camera at this event was assumed to be associated with the lack of trust that usually accompanies the surveying of people and issues of trust and control are directly related. However, in this instance, there was no lack of trust in the audience on my part, no desire to control, only to love and respect. But I have to ask, ‘Did I in some way seek to control the audience?’ and ‘Why did I want to record them? I've mentioned in my diary afterthoughts why I think I sought to record the audience (to gather feedback) and certainly I have no regrets in making an audio recording of their feedback as it has provided me with vital learning. But then again I need to ask myself ‘Why did the audience not mind me making use of the audio recording of this event (I was granted permission to do this for research purposes) while feedback via a visual recording was considered to be unacceptable? Could this be a deconstructive privileging of sight? I had originally sought to visually record responses as a means to gathering audience (non-verbal and verbal) feedback in relation to my work and as a means to informing my future project. I admit to making a misguided attempt to be egalitarian towards the audience and I say this because it was my desire to avoid the distractions of 'charisma' in relation to performance that made we want to share ‘the stage’ with the audience. But I should undoubtedly have explained this before I began. In any case, I accept full responsibility for the lack of thought that led to the presence of the video camera and for my inappropriately unassertive behaviour towards my helpers. The knowledge I have gained through receiving critical feedback and through critical self-reflection has led to me become more assertive in relation to my art practice and with regards to the production and presentation of my work I have also become sensitive and respectful in applying a more considered awareness towards the needs of the audience.

And so to return to my problem, 'How am I to gather feedback from the audience that may contribute towards my research outcomes?’ This is a deeply contentious area in relation to photography, documentary video and film making with regards to the representation of others and their narrative experiences. There mostly seems to be a threat of appropriation that underpins all forms of representation together with such things as publicly and corporately funded creative projects. I personally experienced having the genuine intent of my work appropriated while employed as a lecturer in art and design at an inner-city technical college... Because the local art college attracted the 'cream of the sixteen year old achievers' as they left school my small and struggling art department (in a technical college) tended to be grateful to accept most of the students who had been rejected by the art college, both in a bid to boost student numbers and also in a related attempt to secure the possibility of courses surviving into the following academic year. These students often emerged to be the most rewarding people to work with however hard my work was in seeking to generate the enthusiasm and commitment that is necessary to successful learning and progression. Massive achievements were made in enabling the majority of these students to compete nationally (and almost always successfully) for university places. But this ‘ground-level’ success was of no concern to my managers. They certainly did not disapprove of our efforts but then again they would never have missed them so long as achievement and retention rates added up and the funding was forthcoming, It did not concern the managers either that in their first few months of study these students would often behave in a confrontational manner and that I was continually breaking-up fights whereby scalpels would be drawn (and not to cut the card with either). What did interest my managers though was that the ‘end of year show’ that I had established at the Corn Exchange in Leeds was a huge success in attracting critical acclaim from industrial sponsors of the college. ‘The Show’ concerned them because it was an opportunity for display and publicity. The 'suits' always turned up in large numbers to these events and would 'sing my praises' on the day while remaining totally unsupportive in the teaching environment. One year I was rewarded for organising this spectacle by the Assistant Principal whispering in my ear on the 'opening night' of the show that the college management would like to reward me for its success by funding my MA study (on the condition that I did not tell any of my colleagues that they were doing so). The words 'divide', 'rule' and 'compromise' come to mind in this instance, further tactics through which to manage and control people.

Another difficulty relating to the problem of how others might be enabled to present themselves and their narratives is revealed when middle class artists stand accused of seeking to appropriate working class struggles as content for their own production. It is not simply the subject of representation and the editor/distributor who are problematic in this regard, for the issue of 'violence to the viewer' is also a necessary aspect of this particular enquiry. I briefly discussed politically radicalised art practice earlier in relation to my influences and I'd just like to add comment regarding historicised aspects of feminist performance art before moving on to Franko B's work in relation to the viewer and violence. 'She walked into the room (...)wearing nothing but war paint and a tampax'10. This quote describes the work of one of a 'new breed of academic performance artists who emerged into prominence in the 1980s'11. Such work may be deemed to crossover between the conceptual/formal school of performance and feminist theory but whatever the definitions we might produce for such work it does nonetheless present a powerful image, together with posing a practical question... 'But where exactly did the tampax dangle from, because if it was dangling from her vagina it would not have been very visually effective?' Anyhow, my point is that the power in such an image lies with its ability to burst forth from the veiled domain of 'the taboo' directly into the 'face' or 'imagination' of the viewer/reader. The power inherent in such work is enabled to have effect through the ways in which people respond to it. And yet with such approaches, that which might under different conditions have emerged as a considered response from the viewer is translated into a kind of defensive horror by way of an immediate reaction to the perceived threat of confrontational violence. Franko B says that he does not need or want to know people's responses to his work. He (like all artists) hopes to cause an affective shift in the viewer through his work but does not want to know if he has achieved this aim or not. However it makes sense that this should be the case because Franko B's work is produced to the modernist agenda that defines the body as a sculptural, technical element and is narcissistic not political in its communication. Franko B does not mind if the viewer experiences his work as being violent. He'd prefer it not to be so, but its inevitable that some people will 'get' what he's doing and that others won't. His relation with his audience therefore seems to be a 'you win some you loose some'. Now ordinarily I might be given to applauding such a 'chilled' attitude but in this instance there seems to be a reluctance (on the part of Franko B) to integrate the notion of ethical responsibility towards his audience in his work, which is again an indication of modernist influences. This is why careful, critical, egalitarian consideration needs to be given towards the role of the audience as participants in the performance and this is why my learning was intense at this event. Setting the scene through the production of a specific ambience is a primary element of my work now.

An opportunity to apply the learning from my experiences of this event came recently through my being invited to present a performative text relating to class conflict at Congress CATH 12 which was held in Leeds Town Hall. Following (what initially seemed to me to be) the painful outcomes of this event I decided that my favoured approach in enabling my progression at Congress CATH would be to work to the best of my abilities to seek out methods through which I might communicate with my audiences.I do recognise that progress did seem to be made through the organisation and presentation of my performance at Congress CATH and I hope that I achieved my aim in connecting better with the audience (therefore enabling a more successful communication to be made through my work). I considered my audience and my presentation very carefully in this instance, although risk is always inherent to the process of performance because the outcomes of such work cannot be predicted. And yet I arrive, once again, at the problem of how I might gather responses from my audiences?, First I need to acknowledge that presentation and feedback are inextricably linked processes and providing we are not at the mercy of some psychic or physical pathology we cannot help but respond to external stimuli. And so every performance will inevitably impact upon its audience in some way or other. For me the question therefore becomes one of, 'How might I generate the trust that is necessary for people to be enabled to share their experiences and responses with me and with others?' This remains an important question for me. My concern regarding my Congress CATH performance was to explore a method of presenting my work that might generate a collective desire for further discussion through critical feedback. Following this event I had realised that unless the appropriate ambience was in place my aim of inviting other people to offer their own narratives was useless. Some suggested methods of presentation for my work were offered at this event such as the suggestion that perhaps I should 'go over the top' in imposing methods of surveillance upon my audience, thereby oppressing them mercilessly as a means to raising these issues. However, I could never knowingly subject people to such a process, although it was suggested that I had done so (albeit unwittingly) at this event. Another comment made during the feedback session from this event and which had a significant impact upon the later performance that I produced for Congress CATH came once again from Dr Rowley. She suggested that I might push my application of humour in performance to extremes. These extremes would have to be very carefully thought through and presented with an equally considered economy of application. Dr Rowley suggested this method both as a means to presentation and as a means to distanciation, from the raw pain that I am still experiencing with regards to the issues that concern me.

Such an approach held strong appeal for me and I decided that I would like to apply it at the Congress CATH performance that I subsequently produced titled 'University Challenge; I Talk Two Languages, Everyday and Academic'13. In short this was a performance of two parts that focused upon communicating class conflict and the issue of access to education from the primary viewpoint of lived-experiences. The politics that inform my work were once again evident in this performance yet not in an adversarial or confrontational manner. I can offer a brief example to illustrate the collective mood that I sought to generate at the conference through discussion of my problem of ‘tremouring’ or 'shaking' in relation to private and public spaces. I mentioned earlier in this text that the politically determined effects of the occupational abuse that I had suffered as a teacher emerges through my inability to control my bodily tremours. This lack of control (which is often on the verge of possible collapse) can seem very threatening to people. This 'shaking' can become extreme under the pressure of the gaze of the other and as my performance required that I should both roll a cigarette and apply varnish to my nails [albeit at differing times] I perceived there to be a significant amount of tension building in the room around whether or not I would actually be able to do these things (as my shaking became increasingly apparent). I knew, that the audience knew, that I knew that this was happening to me and it was therefore necessary for the issue to pop out from behind its normative, polite, negating shroud and be raised. I asked the audience to bear with me in my endeavour to carry out these tasks as I was quite determined to complete my performance. I managed to 'put a fag together' but the anxiety and embarrassment that I was feeling (raised by the possibility that I would fail in putting my fag together) reared again as I came to try and paint my nails. My hands sought to be operative but logic was not a dominant force in this instance and my attempts seemed outrageous as my shakes got the better of me. I decided that perhaps it was better to admit to this anxiety and this ultimately had a 'better than I could have hoped for' effect in the room. I looked at the audience as I began my nail painting ordeal and commented 'this is going to be a laugh isn't it?'. The audience laughed with relief and the anxiety that had emerged throughout the audience (I could almost perceive them thinking, 'Can she do it?', and 'How embarrassed will I be if she can’t do it?', became translated into the shared approach of, ‘she can do it’ and ‘if she doesn’t manage the task we can laugh about it together anyway’. There was therefore a release of anxiety ridden tension which in turn made the performance easier for us all to bear. I believe that this non-violent and humorous approach will perhaps offer me a means through which (in future performances) I might be able to encourage others to share their experiences with me. Honest, open and genuine endeavour are the ethical guides that I need to apply throughout all of my work (whether practically or theoretically based) together with the need to seek permission at all times from those involved with any aspect of its production.

On a practical level this may manifest itself through the need for me to prepare a 'flyer' outlining my research project which I might then distribute at performances. This flyer could detail the purposes of my planned internet site (through which I hope to present this research project) and invite people to contact me. Following the feedback given to me at this event by Dr B in relation to my distribution of institutional style documentation as 'handouts', I feel that it is not appropriate that I should use this approach any longer. Dr B correctly pointed out that by doing this I had simply parodied systems of oppression as opposed to critically 'upturning' the structures themselves. I do think that people have had enough of this approach and I repeat that I do not want to subject them to any more of it. I see my role as being supportive of the audience in our shared circumstances rather than imposing more pain upon them.

There will always be outcomes in response to external stimuli of an aesthetic kind and we need to be careful not to assume that because these outcomes may initially exist in the abstract alone that they are of a lesser value. Every member of an audience will take away with them a personal souvenir of a performance and whatever role it may or may not play in their lives will depend upon them alone and upon their particular experiences. These are the immeasurable outcomes of my 'pure research performance project' and my enquiry continues to focus upon 'how I might encourage people to accept my invitation to share their responses with others'.

An Account of Future Research Following this Presentation
'Class divisions were once such a powerful political tool for action'14
I shall conclude this text through clarifying the developments that have contributed towards my crossing over into the field of political activism. My desire for 'art' has always stood in sharp opposition to my lack of desire for other things such as 'maths' or 'politics'. Both have always seemed equally inaccessible to me although for differing reasons. However, it soon became clear to me through my research that politics were a determining factor in my life and work and that I therefore have a personal and societal duty to (at the very least) be aware of the ways in which politics affect my particular circumstances. This process of learning was not as deadening as I originally anticipated it would be because I was able to gain an awareness of politics through investigating politicised art practice and I have an active enthusiasm for art.
My entrance into the field of political activism is recent and was not planned, although an original objective of my proposal was, and still is, to seek collaborative relations within non-aesthetic environments, for example presenting my work to those involved with the teaching and learning of managerial systems. By chance, and at short notice, I received a copy of an open invitation (addressed to workers and academics at Leeds University in general), to attend a conference in Berlin that was being organised to oppose processes of deregulation and privatisation. Once again I was privileged to be able to access such learning opportunities. An outcome of my attending this conference was that the questions relating to my art practice became more specific. For example, I presented my contribution to the Berlin conference as an independent artist/researcher and improvised a short performance for the audience. I ultimately felt that this was approach was inappropriate however, because while it was effective and I obtained a good deal of positive feedback, the experience was quite traumatic for me. This had nothing to do with my desiring the sense of security that can be generated through targeting your work towards specific audiences who might be 'more receptive' to it for Jo Spence enabled me to dare to move beyond the desire for approval. But once again, the issue of my need to establish an appropriate ambience for each performance predominated. Political conferences can be similarly adversarial environments to those of academic conferences and likewise, there are codes of conduct which are to be observed. For example, regardless of whether or not you are invited to speak at a political conference, once you are there, you have sole responsibility for 'putting your hand up' and requesting to speak. This small point of conduct proved problematic for me at the Berlin conference, due in part to my inability to communicate or understand any language other than English and in part to the fact that I had absolutely no idea that this procedure (together with others) existed. The outcome of this was that I literally intervened in the conference environment by performatively insisting that I should be allowed to speak, which in turn resulted in my making an impassioned contribution that was fuelled by anger.

Imagine my surprise then when the other British delegates who attended this conference contacted me upon my return to England to ask me to work with them again. Alarm bells immediately started ringing when they did this. 'Who are these people?' and 'How come they want anything to do with me after my performance in Berlin?', I wondered. But I wanted to contribute towards attempts to reclaim 'people power' and believed in using collective action as a tried and tested tool for working-class political intervention and social change. I am not advocating the negative purism connected with traditional and sometimes corrupt trades union structures for in any case there can never be a return to the past. But I now faced the question of 'How my art intended to negotiate the very differing fields of political activism and art practice?’

Although I remain (as always) open to learning, further important developments have recently taken place in relation to my artwork and writing that also relate to issues of political activism and performance.The British 'comrades' that I met in Berlin invited me to attend a conference in Geneva last week in order that I might present a political campaign opposing the ratification of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions, which although imperfect, present the most progressive protection of workers rights existent in Europe. The campaign that I presented focused upon the issue of maternity rights as are being currently proposed in Britain by the New Labour government and that I mentioned earlier. Following my 'Berlin experiences' I had a greater awareness of the work that this contribution to the conference would entail and I had to re-examine my position critically, both as a political artist and as a political activist, investigating how, and if, these positions might crossover? After giving a great deal of thought and consideration to this invitation (in the space of the evening that I was allowed to respond to it) I decided that I would attend the Geneva conference as a political activist, therefore enabling myself to present the appeal through the distanced protection that is offered by delivering a collective text on behalf of others. The Geneva conference was not about my personal experiences in a direct sense although they undoubtedly fuel my desire to be actively involved in opposing oppression through political means. I had figured that if I were to be successful in communicating with both political and aesthetic audiences, then I may have to keep the two areas distinct while allowing them to simultaneously reinforce and feed from each other.

The analogy I offer by which to illustrate the importance attached to the preparation of an appropriate environment for my performances is that of a 'writer', tearing a citation from its original context and forcefully inserting it within the realms of another without introduction or explanation. In relation to my performances, they need to be presented in very specific contexts which are able to offer a 'mise-en-scene' which the audience might situate themselves within. And so I have formed some thoughts around further progressions for this research which have again involved some cautious self-reflection on my part together with a great deal of critical 'soul-searching'. The first stage of this process of development was the suggested requirement (from my comrades) that I should join the Labour Party in an interventionist mode. This was not an easy decision for me to make as I have been 'bitten in the past’ by involving myself with authoritarian structures (my employers) while disguising a covert agenda through which I might oppose them. And yet there is still a part of me that strongly desires an element of non-confrontational mischief in my life. I have decided that as my work is without doubt politically informed I must therefore again acknowledge my societal and personal responsibilities to contribute towards 'straight' political action. However, I can never deny my overwhelming desire for that 'queer' or 'other' mode of communication which is often referred to as 'art practice'. To be allowed to continue communicating with others through this mode of presentation is a nonnegotiable aspect of my work. I have therefore decided that in return for my labour as a political activist, I should draw the attention of my comrades towards their reciprocal responsibilities towards me by allowing me to present my politicised performances at conferences, trades union meetings and at official Labour Party events. I acknowledge that I am not making life 'easy' for myself here but I do consider it to be a fair exchange.

Women are a vital and inescapable element in contributing towards political activism and are desperately needed within existing trades union and oppositional structures. There are too many reasons for this that I might detail here but a basic example is the politically correct (otherwise known as 'self-preservation through spin') factor that is present in all aspects of contemporary life. I perceive my performances to be important in this regard because while women can no longer be outwardly marginalised, the internalised prejudices we live with daily are as apparent as they ever were including in political environments. I therefore hope that performances such as those that I shall seek to produce in these places will enable these issues to be humorously, critically and effectively raised. And so my continued intentions are to deliver my performative research sessions through an approach that presents art as a mode of analysis, applying humour and critique for this is an aesthetic combination that 'uses art as a form of legitimated public discourse, a conduit through which to enter ideas into public discussion'15.

Each performance-research-session that I present will offer differing outcomes and an (always) incomplete process of learning. Ultimately they will also constitute the research outcomes that my thesis hopes to present. It is at this point that the immeasurable outcomes of such learning and teaching methodologies often become radicalised, or alternative, as they resist being appropriated by mainstream value structures. And so in my next research session (divided into two parts) I hope (in part one) to offer pertinent words about subjective experiences that connect with the experiences of others. These will be delivered through the interdisciplinary modes of performance, text and visual arts practice. In part two of I will shift from my previously defined position as an artist/researcher to that of the learner/teacher seeking to establish egalitarian (but not utopian) relations with the audience. I would like to join with the audience in part two and invite them to offer their own experiences and stories relating to the issues that I raise in part one.
As with a 'live teaching session any performance is unique and cannot be recorded or documented in a ‘real’ context. Any attempt therefore made to document a performance cannot be realised for each event differs (even when repeated) and once an event has been recorded it becomes something else, for example a video recording, dvd or a photograph. My work acknowledges the importance of memory-recording in learning experiences including the potential of memories to alter and remerge over time. Through the audience and myself participating with the external stimuli provided by the research session I hope that together we will generate considered responses (outcomes). Responses that are offered publicly through speech, text, image (or whatever) will provide material sources of data towards my final project and those responses that are not offered publicly will not, although it is possible that they (like memories) may become 'something else' after the event.

Once again I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the guiding influences of my supervisor Dr Rowley.

References
1. Rowley, Alison, Advise given during supervisory session No. 8, 6 June 2002.
2. Watson, Gray, Interview with Franko B published on B's internet site 'Home Sweet Home', http://www.ainexus.com/franko, 13 June 2000.
3. O'Neill, Maggie, 'Understanding Prostitution through Participatory Action Research', Women's Studies Network (UK) Association Newsletter - April, (England: 2002). pp.9.
4. Dr A, Cited fully in transcript of feedback session.
5. Spence, Jo, 'Cultural Sniping: The Art of Transgression', (London: Routledge,1997), pp.40.
6. Anonymous, 'This Time Next Year We'll Be Farting Through Silk', in 'Work, Craft and Labour', Griselda Pollock and Valerie Mainz (ed.), (England: Ashgate Publishing, 2001), pp.199.
7. Walkerdine, Valerie, Presentation delivered at Congress CATH 2002, 'Translating Class/Altering Hospitality Conference', Leeds Town Hall, 22 June, 2002.
8. Millar, Stuart, Ward, Lucy, Norton-Taylor, Richard, The Guardian online, June 19, 2002.
9. A History of Surveillance, 19 August 2001, Channel 4 Television.
10. Jay, Martin, 'Keywords of Our Time', (London: The Athlone Press, 1998), pp.138.
11. Ibid.
12. Congress CATH 2002, 'Translating Class/Altering Hospitality', The Town Hall, Leeds, June 21, 2002.
13. Wilks, Sue, 'Performative text produced specifically for the Congress CATH conference, 21 June 2002.
14. Pollock, Griselda, Congress CATH 2002 'Translating Class/Altering Hospitality,' June 22, 2002.
15. Molesworth, Helen, 'Housework and Artwork', October 92 Spring (2000), pp.95 - 96.

Top