.. coming to the end

End of third year..

I can't really sum up just this subject without the top heading "end of third year".. because this subject has been more than just another subject, but a subject which has made me inspired again, and move my practice in a really different way. It feels apt that it's at the end of my final year in a way.. wow feel like i'm really rambling!

Prior to this subject i was ready to go "fuck art".. what's the point? so we get to sit around together and talk about how great that artists managed to portray a concept of something we already know something about. How many times can I really say an art work deeply challenged me?.. not that many really. Whilst it feels nice to sit in a room with other students and critique all these artists.. where was it really taking me? or anybody else? what did it really mean beyond this school, these students, and the 'art world'. In some ways, maybe that's ok.. but it's not enough for me. I want to be a participant who questions and challenges, i am that participant.. and the fact i can use art to do it really excites me!

I loved learning about collective practices, about public space art, and about art as activism. I think these a powerful tools for change which reinvigorates me about not just art, but also new ways forward for activism beyond another meeting, another fucking rally. It's changed the way I feel about art and my activism.

Doing this course made me see so much potential for artist activist work... for some reason i wasn't taught this up until now... and i think that's fucking incredible and disgraceful. I forgot this potential existed when i was surrounded by works which existed on walls. My current piece of work was going to exist in a public space, (running out of time.. this might come later).. you know what my academic advisor says to me, in a panic "but what are you going to do for the grad show?"

As I write my honours application i wonder if it will make it through.. i wonder if this institution will support a process driven work. I wonder if i want to stay in this institution? Is this the best way to develop my practice?.. one which i want to be collaborative, maybe collectively based, and explore community issues. Well.. I'll submit it.. and see what happens.

Art as Activism

I've been thinking and reading a lot about art as activism lately. I've been really inspired by artists such as Suzanne Lacy, Group Material and Proceso Pentagono.
These are all artists working in pretty different ways but who are interested in art beyond authorship. They are interested in art which is about and for communities. Art which seeks to address social inequalities, transgress the borders of 'art', bring knowledge and power to people.
Group Material were a collective in the 70's and 80's who were doing quite radical things for their time, and I would argue still now. They worked from an institutional critique perspective and were very big on manifesto's.. but these weren't just manifesto's but letters to the community. Very honest and direct letters not only about their thoughts, aims, goals, and political beliefs.. but also about their reflections on mistakes. They had an alternaitve artist run gallery in New York which sounds like they still acheived some pretty great things, but they felt they were too tied up in the bureacracy that is the art world, and not really able to connect with the community, and had so fallen into the trap of what theywere crtiquing . So they went more public space art gallery,which I personally find really great. I think the opportunities for public art works to capture and engage people politically, as human beings, is so vast.
But I really like about the kind of practice that they engage in is one which aims to not only move away from authorship, but in a real and concrete way,ego. A collective that admit when they make mistakes. Something which I think artists are so scared to do. But what makes this act so political and powerful is that it makes them vulnerable and suggests it's safe for others to do the same, and this is when real connections are enabled.

laibach - the limitations of questioning radical activity

Having looked at youtube links to understand exactly what Laibach was all about - as the reading alone was not quite explicit enough for me.. I really enjoyed it.

I really enjoyed the humorous irony evident in their work, the explicit questioning of authority and the ridiculing of a type of masculinity within this. I like the way they use a ridiculous pop culture to bring to a public's attention a critical engagement with ideas of socialism, democracy and facism.

The following comment in "Foreward: they moved underground" I find somewhat irritating : "Is there in our cynical "postmodern" idelogical" universe, still a place for a Laibach type intervention, or is such an intervention immediately "co-opted" neutralised?"

I find this line of questioning irritating because it implies a need to be thinking one step beyond the state/ capitalism, something we can't control. There are many form of resistance which have been co-opted, this doesn't mean they failed. In many ways I think it's speaks to their success, that the state or capital felt they need to over take them. But we then move on to do other things. Nothing should be still. The good thing about working in a decentralised collective is that you have the capacity to be flexible and experiment with new forms of resistance. So the question for me "should we do this? - it might get co-opted" is a complete waste of time. The state/ capital does have a large capacity to co-opt all sorts of things, but if we define our activities in this way we limit ourselves and our expression.

temporary services in Redfern

I remember seeing the work by Temporary Services "Public Sculpture Opinion Poll on Bower" just outside of Redfern station. I was walking to Redfern station, as I live in the area,and thought it was a really interesting idea. I had no idea it was an art work, and thought it was probably some activist group agitating to create voices, to think about your own sense of ownership within the space. I was kind of on the fly so took down the email whereby you could email your responses rather than write it up there. As is the case for many bits of paper i take down notes from the street I forgot about this too unfortunately. However when I saw

Whilst I forgot to email when I saw it the work again at the exhibition "There goes the Neighbourhood" I realised it's impact had not been lost. This project reminded me of the lack of presence I had in that space. Suddenly I was asked to engage with my sense of autonomy within the space I resided, and the way in which such public art exists in such an dictorial way that we never question it's legitimacy. The work was really interesting as it engaged people with art in a very different way. Though the act of questioning it enabled me to question the role of that installation in the local community and the role public art should play - Who has the say about what is installed in our public spaces?

I wondered at the time if it mattered that people may well not have seen it as an art work.. and now I think it really didn't matter. The questions it raises I think are more important than that.

collective art practices

I was really excited reading Grant Kester's intro to "Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art ". Dull title but hey can't be good at everything I guess!

I'd like to expand on Luke's idea about the notion of "art actually changing thing". Something I really enjoyed about this piece of writing, and what I'm really looking forward to in reading this book is the way in which this art form is contextualised within vanguard art. From the impressionists to the dadaists to conceptual art - this is the art which challenges the art world.

It's refreshing to see Kester take this on so passionately and put it up as the new vanguard art.

Something which I find pretty special about this type of art is in the notion of collaboration. The idea that the artist in not the key central figure. It's not about the finished piece, but about a process.. a process of collaboration between key players in the work, an intentional conversation between artist/s and audiences as being key to the work. I find it so inspiring to have the notion of dialogue become so important in contemporary art. Dialogue and stories we can learn from, expressions from those (including myself) not always heard really excites me - and I'm looking forward to researching more about community & collective art practices.

radicalism and art

I enjoyed reading "Constructing the situation: the Situationist International and the passage of a few people from art to revolution" by Gerald Raunig. It took me back to the UWS Bankstown student centre occupation in 1999 (of which I was part of) and how we used to dream of living May 1968.. ha we could dream! God those were exciting times!

Anyways.. For me what was the most inspiring part of this reading was the understanding that the situationists had come from a 'school of anti art'. It's kind of amazing to me that being part of an anti -art movement could inspire a group of people to become so radical and motivate such resistance in others. As much as I love art and my experiences within art communities I have not found works which have inspired revolt or resistance within me. It is through experiences these have derived, which I suppose was Debord's love with the idea of the derive. It is the idea of art and experience being so intrinsically linked which has excited me about this subject.

I've always liked the idea of the derive. As a conscious activity which promotes active engagement with your environment, and creating the capacity to experience your space in a new way. I've toyed with using this as the basis of an a art project.. to take derives in unknown locations.. though I have not done this.

the market economy of the art world

Reading through Kirsi Peltomaki's chapter 1 "Situation Aesthetics: the work of Michael Asher" I was struck by the artists need to posit himself as making truly 'edgy art'. Asher critiqued Irwin's work in stating that the 'work became more important than the spectator'. Perhaps this is what Asher is also doing in positing his work at truly revolutionary.

Whilst I really appreciate the work of Asher and the ideas it bring to the 'art world', extremely relevant practice, I resent reading things such as "experience is everything", inferring this is 'real art'. I think gallery wall art has as much place and significance in art communities as the experiential installation based work of Asher. A work which apparently does not push ideology on the viewer. Perhaps the ideology Asher is pushing is somewhat more egotistical - this is the one true art. I don't want to subscribe to an art world which see a particular type of art as more important than another. In doing this are we only buying into a market economy based on competition?

bishop and relational aesthetics

Having read both Claire Bishop’s October article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics”, Liam Gillick’s response, and Bishop’s counter response I make the following points:

The most interesting thing that stood out for me in Bishop’s article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics” is the way in which Bishop questions how we can evaluate the effectiveness of ‘relational aesthetic’ work. What is interesting for me is Bishop’s critique of relational aesthetics on the depth of relationship being developed. Bishop states for Bourriard what Tiravanija cooks, how, and for whom is irrelevant - the most important outcome is that the food is free.

Bishop argues that she is not ‘suggesting relational art works need to develop a greater social conscience’, however I do think this is in part makes up an important part of her argument, and I think is entirely valid. Bishop argues we need to consider why are we creating these works, what kinds of relationships do we think are important to create? I think a critique based on the sorts of social relationships we’re creating/ affirming and the ones we are not is incredibly relevant. Bishop goes on later to critically question the kinds of democratic relationships occurring within a field of artists, and later heralds the work of Santiago Sierra for it points to the sorts of power inequalities which exist under capitalism.

The difficulty I see in works such as Sierra’s which is pointed out by Gillick (though his over all response was irritating) in his response is that these works don’t seek to go beyond exposing the inequality. Sierra himself has said “I don’t believe in the possibility of change”, yet Bishop argues that his works which create antagonism hints that ‘their boundaries are both unstable and open to change’. Whilst I think this is an interesting point, and I think that the work could potentially have flow on effects creating conciousness and change it is a depressing depiction of powerlessness, which I don’t actually think assists a process of change. This fact does not necessarily cheapen the work, but I think is relevant when comparing it to a strategy within ‘relational aesthetics’ which is an attempt at creating some sort of change.

I really appreciate the work of Sierra’s as I think it’s an honest representation of race and class inequalities which need to be reflected. This kind of reflection is missing in works such as Tirivanjia ‘(Untitled) Tomorrow is another day” , though I appreciate the strategy of creating a space which allows social relationships to evolve. However I think for it to be truly meaningful it needs to take up the questions raised by Bishop regarding “what sorts of relationships and communities do we want?”

Relational Aesthetics

I really appreciated the reading by Nicolas Bourriaud on Relational Aesthetics.

The reading made me think a lot about the kinds of unacknowledged social interactions which occur around art generally and influence the work, everything from; the discussions whilst in researching/ making/ developing with other artists/ mentors/ friends and lovers about the work, discussions with people whom you contract to do specialist work for art work, discussions with models/ actors you use to see the work come to fruition etc.. and the way in which these interactions aren’t usually considered. And what about the relationships that evolve through creating art which were never seen to be about the art work? It was an interesting thought for me to think about the community surrounding art before ‘art’ is even ‘made’/ the relationships that are ‘made’ as a result of the art. Isn’t this work and these relationships just as important? yet we often value the object or the outcome.

Whilst reading this piece I was considering the work by Christian Janowski for this years Biennale at the MCA ‘Live from the Inside’. I really liked this work and have thought about it a bit. This work is very evidently a comedic send up of the media spectacle that is the Biennale. However in relation to this reading it made me consider the works exploration of some of those fringe relationships which assist work to evolve, the relationships and unacknowledged work which occurs outside of the gallery walls and the importance of these not just for making work but for the sense of community they create.