Described by the curator as a sort of 'auto biography' for him self, created specifically for the space of the Tate, St Ives. He drew upon life and his surroundings to create a path through his past showing the vital points that made him who he is today.
Since the lecture with Matt Fletcher questioning the meaning of performance I have thought about his challenging views a lot. The same could be argued about art. Where does the line really stop? My parents certainly didn't see this as art, and I have to admit it was quite bizarre. Is this just a stationary performance of his life designed to fit into a certain building to show people or is it more?
I have to admit that it certainly wasn't to my taste, I find conceptual art quite baffling at the best of times though it was clear to see which things had influenced him and what effect they had had on him. Through out the exhibition there was a strong influence of homosexuality, with a recreation of the bar that his parents owned filled with bull horns penetrating bottles and sausages hanging from the ceiling and gay pornographic imagery on the walls.
This is quite interesting in the way that he has recreated his parents bar, but has used artistic lisence to highlight the things he feels it was important for him to highlight and emphasise to get his story across which is something that I can learn from.