Failure?

It's almost 4am. I have just cleaned up the equipment from developing the film stills. My body aches and only 3 or 4 out of the 90 images actually looks like there probably could be something happening.

To keep me company I had my media player set to 'play all' so it randomly played any sound file I have saved. From time to time it would play recordings of conversations or journeys I'd saved. A couple of months ago I was at a secondary school talking to the students about my work and university life. I recorded it for research. At the time I had made an epic mistake and destroyed something I'd been working on for 3 months. I'd switched on the yellow light in the darkroom and exposed all the paper I had masticated, macerated, formed, and coated. Strangely whilst I was in the present failing to create a recognisable image I was listening to a recording of myself and the young people taking about the value of 'failed' work; whether all the production was the art, the story or the evidence?

There was a mixed reaction from the audience. I put it to them that if they handed this object to their art teacher and told them it was 3 months work what they expect the reaction would be. For some they would be embarrassed to submit it but others felt that if they had the opportunity to explain it's value then it would be a worthwhile piece of work. Some felt I should see this as a learning curve and begin again, but others countered that I am likely to make other mistake the next time (probably not the same one). All agreed that the work was empty without the explanation I had given them. In response I asked them how they would imagine this in a gallery - as a booklet to go with the work? At this they were perplexed.

Which brings me to another dilemma. I feel that visual art should stand alone visually and that text if there is any should serve to enhance the work. The other evening I joked with Ernest about curating a show called CONtext where we'd write lots of interesting stuff about the show and tell everyone about what they might see but when they get to the venue there are no objects just text.

When I think of what I have been producing this past year - making images on paper of making paper it hasn't been a success in as far as another machine could produce and more coherent series of images. So why do i persist? The processes I am using are outdated because better technology has replaced it. Making paper by hand went out almost as soon as it arrived in the industrial world. Making photographic images using film and enlargers and chemical is a scientific process, exclusively for the neat and conscientious worker; not for someone like me who just wants to play with the ideas.

Is what I am making art? Is it about the process? If so how do you present this work? Maybe I make a film, like Sandra's stand up shows? Present the two beside each other?