Shannon defines “work” as “activities that are moving towards an ultimate goal”. With it’s focus on activity, this interpretation is similar to that of Priya Peña, however here work is more strictly defined in relation to progress toward an expected outcome. Where Peña’s practice can be seen to “document” her incidental “private work”, Shannon appears to work with an end goal already in mind. Are these two methodologies as different as they appear?
Shannon defines “site” simply as “a location”, and suggests that site relates to work through “the influence on your work based on the imagery, limitations etc. of the site”. Thus the site in which the artist works can be seen to have a direct relation to the work that is produced there – exerting “influence” through the presence of stimuli and (enabling?) constraints. As in the work of Joel Davidson, the parameters of “site” expand to encompass a whole environment.
Shannon notes the “subconscious” influence of his environment on his work. Does this imply an extension of “site-specificity”, in which works are made not for a specific site, but instead are produced (to some extent) by a specific site?
Taking this idea further, we might suggest that art practice entails a kind of “collaboration” between actor and environment – a hybrid process of occupying (or populating) a space, editing it, and functioning or performing within it. Art “works” would then constitute indexes of this process; outcomes generated from (and reflexively documenting) the relations between work(er) and site.
Shannon lists the sites in which he works as his “studio, […] computer, […] house [and] brain”. It is interesting to consider the different kinds of work and outcomes that might be generated in “collaboration” with these different sites, and the ways in which these collaborations might be influenced by the (enabling) constraints of each environment.