26.06.2026: CONFERENCE QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

I’m curious about the significance of recreating Keith Moon’s drum kit out of clay. Is it incidental - Keith knows this material well, so that’s what he used? Does clay explode more satisfyingly than other materials that could have been used? In short, is this a clay artwork, or an artwork that happens to use clay?

Some questions about documentation have been raised in a few of today’s discussions. To what extent can an artist ensure their ephemeral work/ practice is documented satisfactorily? Is it important for an artist to maintain control over documentation or is it important to have a range of different understandings of the artwork?

Is there a challenge with value to the traces of this work being ascribed retrospectively? There seems an onus on the artist to keep ‘stuff’ for institutions and archives to eventually catch up.

A question from Christie Brown for Alun Graves: could you say something about risk management today compared to the freedom of Clay Rocks in 2006? Why have things become so much trickier?

Ashley Thorpe talked this morning about museums turning objects into performances by putting them behind glass. Is it useful to think about the different ways in which participatory works can break the fourth wall?

A bit similar as Christine Brown's question for Alun Graves. How does an emergent artist set out to convince curators to trust their visions. Opportunities seem to have quite narrow frameworks for artists to work within, could the public be missing out on wonders because of this?

I'm interested in the questions around intention of work and how this is linked to how curation of work might be thought about. As an artist and Art Psychotherapist, we think a lot about engagement, enactment and embodiment; the experience, perception and emotions, elements which are hard to capture and hold onto. Do we need to hold the experience potential for others in galleries and collections? Is the experience of the engagement enough?

We have different experiences depending on presence and proximity. Different levels of engagement come with watching, looking, making, thinking and holding in mind. Each one has its own validity, one shouldn't be given more value over another. Seeing art in a book is different to making or journeying to see or engage with, but they all offer opportunities for different perceptual involvement. 

How can the soft activism of eco feminism reach beyond the artistic world? What do we hope for it to achieve? 

There has been much discussion around care, relationship building, and generative futures—this seems like the start of updated language around the ways in which we define conservation, documentation, and collection of expanded ceramics. Are there other phrases, categories, or definitions that could evolve and be productive in creating broader systemic change and perspective in our field?

I’ll offer a comment in response to Pip’s question to the audience about what might not have been talked about. I am from Aotearoa New Zealand which is still, perhaps oddly, a member of the British Empire. There the whenua/uku earth/clay itself is contested, and a strong movement of re-indigenisation is well underway. Many people think deeply about this who would be good contributors to this discussion- just a few that come to mind are Ngā Kaihanga Uku, Stevie Houkāmau, Raukura Turei, Ngahuia Harrison and Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Geoff Park for a couple of a wider perspectives on decolonizing and place. 

The conference has been an incredible way to kick off this project. Moving forward how can we capture more from diverse voices, specifically non white, non colonial  and queer practitioners? 

Regarding what we call "documentation": the people in this room are uniquely alive to the potential for matter to hold memory. Yesterday Becky Little, an artist with a background in archeology and archaeological preservation, spoke of her work as a mud mason, restoring very old structures made of earth in Scotland. She said something like: "The people who built these structures are long gone, so the buildings are my teachers.” Objects can themselves be documents of technique, process, gesture, and history.

How can these leaky / fugitive / living practices be cared for outside of the institution? I am thinking about the carriers being supported in the face of social/ economic/political forces? And whose responsibility is it?

What​ ​fantastic few days ! ​ SO much stimulating thought and enquiry - Thank you all really hope there'll be another conference next year!

In the excellent afternoon session I attended ​ on Friday Nicole Seisler​ &​ Olivia Fero ​ separately delivered very compelling ​ideas and innovative ways to think about documentation​/performance and clay practice which would have been great to he​ar more about in the panel session! ​Appreciate there's never enough time but it would be great to have the various presenters involved in at least one panel session. I ​was particularly struck by Nicoles​' description of the 'Camera as Kiln' in that the fi​ring/fixing/finishing 0f a piece of ceramic work may be in the photograph or videographic ​work- an intriguing and poetic way to think about clay based performance! 

I raised the question in the final panel discussion: 

In embracing impermanence - are we dissolving the idea of permanence?  

Thanks Arran, we will take this question forward. Your question helps to look at the breadth of the projects discussion. Thank you. 

Thanks Steph Wallace, we agree this is really important. Sadly, not all invited speakers accepted, we hope to continue to support and widen inclusion in the project. All suggestions are very welcome.

Thanks Bex Guthrie, I agree we need a focused seminar around these themes, there was no time in the session to discuss.  I hope you will join us in conversation moving forward.