I'm at a cross roads in my practice. I operate/adopt street art tactics for the dissemination of my work. I have recently become concerned that the act of "getting up" is not a justifiable means to an end and that I should attempt to exhibit more of my intellect in my work... equally as vain as getting up in my opinion.

I don't consider myself to be a (graffiti) writer.

Here's the project I'm finding problematic:

I propose to engage in a short-term intensive period of research with the specific aim of producing a program of off-site happenings in the public. Using tried and tested tactics for the dissemination of artworks I intend to present a large-scale inflatable sculpture documenting its effect in the immediate area of its installation. Viewers will be asked to partake in a simple questionnaire and the results from this exercise will be presented as a series of graphs and charts adhering to typical assessment guidelines set out by funding organisations.

This residency seeks to, in part, recontexualise Bourdieusienne theory whilst engaging in the furthering of the “Excellence Debate” as facilitated by the Scotland Creative Nation: Cultural Summit, underlining the dangers to democratic creative production and dissemination of that output. As a conceit the project aims to facilitate debate on the expectations of the Institute and the Public on artists.

There are admittedly variables, which will affect the outcome of the data recorded for example, the installation of an amorphous inflatable form as opposed to a figurative piece would arouse differing critiques. Assuming that Bourdieu is correct in his analysis of the cultural capital people bring to their experiences of visual art, a sculpture of Darth Vader may be perceived to be of more aesthetic value than a piece which seeks to evoke the same associations of redemption, suitability of the monument/celebration and the hegemony that such that structure might compound/corrupt.