2. Invigilation: Beaconsfield staff will be at the gallery during the show. The PGR community will sort out the work of invigilation, taking it as an opportunity to connect with audiences and local communities;

3. The gallery space’s fluid nature and its light condition. The sound of the train is the gallery’s contextual and situational factor (many artists the gallery hosted had worked with this site-specificity during their project-making, conceptually, acoustically, and so on);

4. The gallery’s website and mailing list for promotion;

5. The gallery’s history: the gallery is the southern wing of the former original Lambeth Ragged School. The directors will share the pdf of a publication on the gallery’s history. Some fellow peers are interested in developing their projects based on the gallery’s contextual and spatial specificities.

1. Material Engagement’s activity received appreciation for inviting people to come together through making. The activity reminded someone of their childhood when they did things without overthinking.

2. Material Engagement’s activity, overlapping sewing with listening, especially David’s speech, coalesced inward and outward projection/reflection in the same space-time. Some fellow peers felt natural within this space-time condition, while others found it challenging (in a positive way) as it provoked self-reflection on their preferences and affordabilities.

3. Entanglement brought in the people and more-than-human outside the room through zoom, which problematised the limit of the gallery space, i.e. the walls, light, interface of touching). Some fellow peers sensed an opening up of enfolded surfaces in relation to a chain of ideas, figures, and sounds.

4. Membering and Invitation: the morning session showcased the act of membering through listening, skin, memory, and different fabrics and existences. The session also brought forth the idea of invitation by allowing the participants to engage intimately yet collectively; It’s open yet intimate. 

5. Awaring of our limitations: The morning session reminded someone of each group and Earthwise cohort’s boundaries and limits. They suggested creating relationships with the outside by working in and for the gallery as a space and contextual situations and by connecting to the other pieces of work. They would like to be mindful of the connections and limits of the flow of ourselves and our works.

6. Flattening, Gravity, Sloping, and Level(ing): Material Engagement’s activity, to some people, flattened them and their thread, the subjective and objective through the act of making in a group. 

Gravity and Levelling – The idea of flattening inspired a discussion around gravity and levelling that were related to the first-floor gallery’s sloping floor. Gravity, despite being palpable, is sensed differently by people. It can be made visible via a ball with water in it – when you tilt the ball, the water is always levelled itself. Water finds its own level. 

The gallery space and curating – Levelling is a key factor in curating, Beaconsfield’s director Naomi suggested. An angle will be problematic when you hang things at a ‘spirit level’ / ‘eye level’. While some artists found the sloping floor to be problematic, others found it to be a situation where you can choose to look upward by standing at a lower point; or to walk up and look from an ‘optimum viewpoint’ over the gallery. The gallery’s sloping space upstairs is reflected by the structure of the downstairs room, which follows the slope and creates a good acoustic space (despite the recurrent sound of the passing train). 

Invisible labour – The sloping floor also reminded some fellow peers of a project where choreographers wore roller skaters to show the orientation and challenge of the sloping space, which was not always evident to the viewers when they watched a show there. The project made apparent the invisible labour and challenge of the sloping space condensed in the performers’ bodies.