During unit 1, we were put into pairs and tasked with conducting ‘entrance interviews’ of each other, capturing this moment in time as we’re each beginning MAIP. I was paired with Makhasiri Khanoei, an artist and architect from Thailand currently living and working in Singapore.
Makhasiri and I met over video call to chat about the process and then exchanged emails over the course of the term, finishing up the work over the Christmas break. Based on our chat and investigations I did into Makhasiri’s practice, I identified areas that interested me that I wanted to tease out in my interview with her. Our back-and-forth was rich and interesting. Within our email chain, a dual dialogue unfolded – one within the frame of the interview and another outwith it – as we shared chitchat and our personal responses to the interview questions and answers.
As the deadline approached, I went back over our email chain and started to work with the text. I reordered some of the questions, I cut back how I’d worded them to give more space to Makhasiri’s words, I brought in a few details she’d shared from our wider discussion that rounded out the picture of her work, and I lightly edited her responses for flow and word count. I also formatted the document, framing it with a header and subheading and adding a pullquote or two. It was more or less how I’d handle an interview when I worked as a journalist and editor.
We’d agreed to share our final documents before we each submitted, to check we were both happy, but when we did this, we realised we’d interpreted the task differently. Makhasiri thought we’d be submitting the interview for which we were the interviewee. Looking again at the brief, it was unclear (or deliberately vague?) in this respect. We had spent a good chunk of the term thinking about ‘presentation of self’ and so taking responsibility for the document that represents ourselves, and to which we’d contributed the most, would make sense.
It was a jarring moment for me, one in which I realised how much my background was informing my interpretation of and approach to the task. I became suddenly conscious that perhaps Makhasiri wouldn’t expect me to have edited her words at all. Generally, when I work on interview pieces, I see myself as ‘the author’. But I was noticing for the first time the incongruity of this, given that the majority of words are contributed by the other person. I was worried I’d offend Makhasiri or seem controlling, but she was graciously kind and positive about me bringing this skillset to the project. And while Marsha confirmed that we were meant to submit the interview for which we were interviewer, it was still a lesson for me in how you shouldn’t assume you see things in the same way as someone else and that it’s always a good idea to talk through every detail clearly at the start of a collaborative project.
On reflection, I can see I was more concerned about my role as interviewer – I gave less thought to how I wanted to conduct myself as interviewee. In our initial chat, I was struck by the way Makhasiri spoke about her work and life – she was engaging and interesting, offering up a variety of information that helped me to identify areas that interested me. But equally, she was steering me about where she wanted the interview to go. I hadn’t thought in much detail about how I wanted to come across in my interview and I can find it difficult to open up with new people – to know what’s interesting or relevant. Makhasiri did a great job of asking questions that capture my practice at this point in time in her interview of me, but it’s another lesson for me about the role and power of the interviewee to steer an interview.
During week 4, which was focused on interviewing, we read Blazwick, I. (2007) ‘An anatomy of the interview’. I was particularly interested in the positioning of interviewing in contrast to traditional arts criticism. Blazwick sees interviews as an ethical form of communication where meaning is generated through exchange, and where responsibility is shared between interviewer and interviewee, with both subjects speaking from their own specific context. This reading struck a chord because it connected to some uncomfortable feelings I’ve had when writing critical reviews. The dynamic between interview and interviewee – the ethics, the power play and exactly how meaning is generated and communicated – is something I would like to think more about.
Leave a Reply