www.imaginativeeye.co.uk
I feel that there is too much emphasis on 'artist led' groups. It's becoming a slogan without meaning.
They have become a cheap form of exposition/exploitation for the established institutions. It is part of their remit in order to raise funds and look as though they care about democratic principles: democracy in fact is a leveling down process.
Artist Led work invariably doesn't cost much and can be picked off at will as a feather in the cap of the institutions.
What counts more is the content of an expression, whether it's artists led or not.
Art , to be of any worth, has to be seen in the context of a politicized culture and to be made in the form of a combative stance - form and structure are the boundaries of meaning and definition - wherein the economics (not funding) of art are contested. Only artist's led projections that lead are worthwhile, those that don't will be following a known pattern and can be dismissed easily.
Believing in the notion that art is a way of thinking, form and content must find contact in the mind of the public through a physicality of action: the senses are in the mind.
ken - 11th December 2007
Just got back from taking everything down from Invigorate to find I had won a subscriber prize from A-N.... and it couldn't be more timely... a book entitled "Taking the matter into common hands" ed Billing, Lind and Nilsson (Blackdog, 2007). Anyway a 'collection of essays by some of the leading voices in the field of collaborative arts practice.... focussing on working conditions for artists and on collaborative initiatives with activism at their heart.....' all arising out of a symposium in Norway in 2005. Useful stuff! web link http://www.iaspis.com/commonhands/.
I think the need to simplify the procees of the dissemination of work to an audience is a really important motivation for forming artists groups.
The need to simplify this process suggests a lack of open dialogue or a lack of confidence or opportunity to initiate dialogue with institutions,curators and producers and a lack of access to exhibition spaces, so that artists feel in order to show work they must take on these roles or possibly not be able to exhibit as frequently as they would like to. At least not within Cornwall.
I am interested in the challenge that artist led projects face in interacting with galleries and other institutions, because artists led projects to a degree create their own curatorial framework (sometimes more effectively than others). One has to question how relationships can be built in the longterm with institutions that have to deliver on politically dictated targets. A possible way through this question is for institutions to regard interaction with artists led projects as a facilitation of peer learning and career development, the other way forward is for artists to manage exhibition spaces themselves.
Artist led projects are potentially more democratic because they offer the potential for difference to exist in the same space. Unlike a gallery or other institution not all members have to be seen to agree on the purpose, function or rationale of the project. This offers the opportunity for different voices to come through in the work made and so frame the shared territory through approaching from many sides. This kind or relationship demands a very high level of communication skills and awareness.It's not surprisng therefore that groups are often transitory and that they fragment. What sustains collaboration in the longterm is understanding the benefit to all of the praxis formed in the group.
To simplify the delivery of artist work to an audience. Also, there is the political position of freedom and radicalism that tends to form outside. This does mean it can't or doesn't happen within a gallery/institution/organisation, artist led tends to be more democratic, from my experience. Maybe the agendas of the participants are more transparent?
I think good artists' projects are an attempt to get work shown to an audience in an undiluted way, without out having to bend to another institutution or curators' notion of how, and especially what, work is 'worthy' (for whatever particular reason) of being presented. It's a way for artists to stand on their own feet and demand attention on an equal footing to that shown by 'third parties'. It also offers us the opportunity to show in less likely environments, that might be more conducive to the nature of the work, giving it more impact. There are also a lot of artists' projects that become funding-led - they devise a project in order specifically to get funding to make work, but I don't think they realise that this is in effect no different from working for a gallery, etc, because you are tied to someone else's agenda. I think this approach really compromises the work.
Before we get to far down the heroic path of the artist led, I want to bring up the point that Invigorate is working within the confines of an Institution, one that is publicly funded, with its agenda all attached. Indeed, I was (un)lucky (!!) enough to be at the recent Newlyn AGM and hear Mariam Sharpe defend the role of Newlyn, and what it hopes for the future. This ground that we think is so dynamic and maluable is actually being taken up by the agencies we seem to talk about sitting outside.
I am not saying this is a bad thing, or that we should not engage with opportunity when it arises, but as Andy stated there is a complicity always at play, even when things feel democratic and free, in essence they invariably are not. This is not a stalling statement, we make work, we need to show/exhibit it. If the opportunity is not immediately available, we can organise it to be so. Newlyn Gallery started out as an artist led group (way back in the day...). I think there are individuals artists who look outside of themselves (or their immediate environs) for opportunity to work, collaborate and exhibit, whose work tends to be 'artist led' by default or through appearing to be. And there are artist that simply want to make work in a singualr authorial fashion and get it the best visibilty they can. Nothing wrong with that. this is all a natural state, part of the corpus that makes up contemporary artists practice.
I think a lot of what i have seen recently in Cornwall that is artist led, could be described as acting as an institution, with invites, PV, mailing list and measured curating, just without the money and organisational structure or nice building. Again this is not a bad thing, but maybe part of the natural evolution of an artist or group.
So we aren't necessarily doing anything that is special or different, we are doing what we need to do to make work. Maybe that's were the discussions could shift, talking about the work that gets made in the region. Maybe artist led is just the machine that delivers the art.
I would retype the above to make it more coherent i i had time, but I think I made my point!
I really appreciate the awareness of funding-led issues in contemporary artists - something that I really didn't think about when I started out, but has become more apparent as time goes on. Artists can be constrained and their work compromised in lots of ways. whilst artists are certainly empowered in many ways by collaborating formally in a 'group', they might also be constrained in someways by the identity, maybe even the 'branding' of that group.
I think what I really like about invigorate is new artists' groups and old getting together, contemplating collaboration and not worrying too much about 'separateness' and possibly the identity of their groups. It is to be hoped that a new flux and collaborations between groups - metaphorically hopping into eachother's beds and being a little unfaithful!! (yes!I once flirted with the idea of joining 'Palp' years ago but it was actually enough to be part of Art Surgery aleady, and try and do my own work as well...) In fact, from the fantastic projects that have been happening all summer in cornwall, groups no longer seemingly have fixed identities or a limited dedicated membership in the way that they used to.....I should think this has innumerable advantages.....a real development in the way that artist-led is apprehended and comprehended!
Dominic Thomas has some good points to make about artist led culture here http://aliasarts.org/aboutaliaseditorial.htm
Specefically the need to maintain an understanding of why artist led projects are so popular amongst funders/instituitions etc.
Also I found these;
For kant art was dfefined as purposefulness without purpose (1790)
Adorno and Horkheimer the culture industry was defined as “ puposelessness for the puposes declared by the market”
The traditional and enlightenemnt view of culture implies a critical attitude towards the status quo. However i think it can be argued that artist led culture sits fairly comfortably within a mainstream cultural context. The radical purposefullness of artist led culture has been eroded and as Adorno and Horkheimer suggest now displays significant disp[lays of purposelessness.
I think good artists' projects are an attempt to get work shown to an audience in an undiluted way, without out having to bend to another institutution or curators' notion of how, and especially what, work is 'worthy' (for whatever particular reason) of being presented. It's a way for artists to stand on their own feet and demand attention on an equal footing to that shown by 'third parties'. It also offers us the opportunity to show in less likely environments, that might be more conducive to the nature of the work, giving it more impact. There are also a lot of artists' projects that become funding-led - they devise a project in order specifically to get funding to make work, but I don't think they realise that this is in effect no different from working for a gallery, etc, because you are tied to someone else's agenda. I think this approach really compromises the work.
Delpha Hudson:
I really appreciate the awareness of funding-led issues in contemporary artists - something that I really didn't think about when I started out, but has become more apparent as time goes on. Artists can be constrained and their work compromised in lots of ways. whilst artists are certainly empowered in many ways by collaborating formally in a 'group', they might also be constrained in someways by the identity, maybe even the 'branding' of that group.
I think what I really like about invigorate is new artists' groups and old getting together, contemplating collaboration and not worrying too much about 'separateness' and possibly the identity of their groups. It is to be hoped that a new flux and collaborations between groups - metaphorically hopping into eachother's beds and being a little unfaithful!! (yes!I once flirted with the idea of joining 'Palp' years ago but it was actually enough to be part of Art Surgery aleady, and try and do my own work as well...) In fact, from the fantastic projects that have been happening all summer in cornwall, groups no longer seemingly have fixed identities or a limited dedicated membership in the way that they used to.....I should think this has innumerable advantages.....a real development in the way that artist-led is apprehended and comprehended!