The other aspect of space and site, for my work and I, relates more to the piece itself and how it directly meets the viewer. I explore this on the other pages of this blog.
Stage
2 Essay 1 Andrea Isabelle Phillips
In
this essay, I will be discussing alternative means of cultural
organization outside of the established institutions of “The Art
World”. I will be using social and communication theories such as
“The Multitude” and “The Distributed Network” to better
understand how a cultural network can potentially function.
In
the more radical discourses of Art we discuss the potential to
actively participate in the molding of culture, ideologies, and
politics. As creative workers we dream big, but it is not uncommon
that our end goals are not reflected or can be achieved by the
objects, experiences or interventions we make. This is understandable
to an extent as taking on the world and grasping the totality of our
presence inside capitalism is near impossible. Yet, this doesn't stop
us from meeting, discussing, making, and ultimately trying to connect
more with one another and express ourselves. Art is also a necessary
social therapy.
We
ask ourselves what we can do to liberate our audience. Can art offer
perspectives, physically and ideologically engage and inspire people
to assume a stronger position against capitalism? Realistically we
have to acknowledge the breadth of arts influence in popular culture,
our range is limited. We must also take a moment to fully grasp the
complexity of the political climate we live in, and not forget that
there is an existing network of activists and movements out there
that address the mode of production directly. Perhaps another
question would be more appropriate to ask ourselves. How can we
liberate ourselves more as people living in capitalism, using our
meetings and making as a tool.
The Multitude
(...)There
are two faces to globalization. On one face, Empire spreads globally
its network of hierarchies and divisions that maintain order through
new mechanisms of control and constant conflict. Globalization,
however, is also the creation of new circuits of cooperation and
collaboration that stretch across nations and continents and allow an
unlimited number of encounters. This second face of globalization is
not a matter of everyone in the world becoming the same; rather it
provides the possibility that, while remaining different, we discover
the commonality that enables us to communicate and act together.
(Michael Hardt /Antonio Negri, 2004, Multitude, Preface xiii)
The
multitude is a concept coined and explored by Michael Hardt and
Antonio Negri. The multitude may be conceived as a network. This
network is open and expansive, the differences between groups of
people are freely expressed, so we may work with and around each
other in endless kinds of encounters. The multitude is an idea we can
apply to enormous amounts of people, similar to the people,
and the masses, but fundamentally different. The people
alludes to the conception that all people are one. Whereas a
population has a variety of peoples with all that entails, “the
people” are of a singular identity. The masses has room for
different kinds of people to exist within it. However, while it on
the one hand includes variety there is a massiveness and complacency
that engulfs that variety, reducing
social/political/economic/cultural/individual nuances to a flat ocean
like presence. In contrast to the people and the masses,
the multitude is a multiplicity of all these singular differences,
each one existing and productive in and of itself, but aware of its
place among an infinite amount of other singularities. (Michael Hardt
/Antonio Negri, 2004, Multitude, Preface xiv)
The
reason I have drafted out these different perspectives is so that we
might more closely examine
what
an art community is, with its potentials and limitations, in the
bigger scope of a globalized society. If we are to go along with the
idea of the multitude as a framework for our social interaction,
artist communities are singularities in a multiplicity. I find this
to be a very different position from the more romantic leftist
approach of “we must liberate the masses”. While the latter
approach sees itself outside or above the problem, the former
suggests we are a part of a web of initiatives that have potential
influence. We are essentially also living and working inside of
capitalism and need liberation as much as any group, community,
country, or “the masses”.
If
we step back for a moment from notions of conquering the beast with
artworks, what do we do to make our ends meet? Very few of us manage
to make our living off merely selling works for substantial amounts.
This is also something that has the ability to compromise our
integrity and creative freedom. Being paid handsomely and praised by
the elite, art connoisseurs and institutions must have it's perks,
but you can't bite the hand that feeds you either. It is obvious that
there is a power struggle between us who make and grow art, wanting
still to discover new things, and those who like to own and control
it.
The Carrot Workers' Collective is a London-based group of cultural workers, interns, teachers and researchers who regularly meet to think and work together around the conditions of free labour in contemporary society. We aim to understand the impact of free labour on material conditions, subjectivity, life expectations and desires. (Carrot Workers Collective, 2009, Surviving Internships, p.1)
The
“Surviving Internships” pamphlet published by Carrot Workers
Collective explores the different reasons one might have for picking
certain roads into a future of creative work, and how to orientate
oneself. One of the main topics is internships. Here they question:
“Is an internship the best way to get what you want?” Many
of us who are trying to develop ourselves as cultural workers are
lead to believe that interning is a great, maybe even the best way,
to gain experience in the field and get a foot in the door so to
speak. However, what is an internship supposed to be? It is supposed
to be a learning experience first and foremost, where you acquire
skills that will enable you to get work afterwards. Unfortunately,
the reality is that you (more cases than not) end up working quite
hard for free, not necessarily developing creative skills at all, and
may not have a stimulating creative job by the end of it either.
(Carrot Workers Collective, 2009, Surviving Internships, p.8-9)
What
this example illustrates is that the road paved for us by the most
resource-heavy institutions will not necessarily lead to anymore
money, or creative work, than working outside of it. In addition,
working under that kind of stress and control is not conducive
towards creativity. With no room to move, suggest or initiate in a
more radical and free manner, always locked in by a budget, cultural
and economic trends and norms you didn't get to discuss, how can one
connect to the limitless possibilities of creativity and social
interaction?
Most
working artists, or any creative workers for that matter (i.e
architects, graphic designers, writers, sounds technicians),
freelance or move between several different jobs. You might teach,
work at an exhibition space, write for publications, have solo or
group exhibitions, commissioned to make work, community or
organizational work, or invited to speak somewhere. Basically working
full time creatively implies using and applying yourself in many
different ways. To me this underlines the very nature of what art and
creativity is about. Let us look at what we have to work with as a
framework and focus on expanding our own experiences, for surely that
could only make the quality, appeal, and impact of what we make
greater.
Creativity
David
Bohm writes “One thing that prevents us from thus giving primary
emphasis to the perception of what is new and different is that we
are afraid to make mistakes. From early childhood, one is taught to
maintain the image of “self” or “ego” as essentially perfect.
Each mistake seems to reveal that one is an inferior sort of being,
who will therefore, in some way, not be fully accepted by others.”
(David Bohm, 2004, On Creativity, p. 5)
We
are possibly at our most creative state when we are children. As
infants we are learning everything for the first time. We have no
choice but to try things out and see what happens. There is genuine
joy and surprise to learn new things, and we learn primarily for the
sake of learning. When we grow older and find ourselves in school,
and later in the workplace, being watched and marked, we change our
methods and reasons for learning. We then learn through repetition in
order to please our superiors, and compete to achieve predetermined
goals that were set for us. Paradoxically there is no easier way to
become mediocre. When we are always operating within a tunnel
visioned like focus we cannot notice to odd, the strange, the
original. By the time we are old enough to realise what's happened to
us we have to relearn how to tap into creativity. (David Bohm, 2004,
On Creativity, p. 1-7)
More
than ever I think the climate calls for a do-it-yourself kind of
engagement. One can talk about politics and draw awareness to issues,
which has its merits, but still there is no real challenge to
hierarchy in form of action. If we could manage to manifest “the
alternative” through the way we practice and participate in our own
artist communities we would be much closer to real political work.
Because we would be bringing to life the things we want to see more
of in our society, more direct action and direct democracy. To me,
the essence of creativity is pivotal to this. According to Bohm, real
creativity has to abandon fear and ego, and move forward for the sake
of what could be potentially achieved.
Full
Matrix
To
revisit the idea of the multitude, there are three different types of
model for network communication presented by Michael Hardt and
Antonio Negri. The centralized network, polycentric network, and the
distributed network (also known as full matrix). A centralized
network, if you can imagine, would look like one large node in the
center of many smaller nodes, where all the small nodes are directly
connected to the large node, but not each other. This model could
represent a hierarchal organization, such as a corporation, political
party or military. A polycentric network would look like a group of
large nodes spread out among smaller nodes. The small nodes link
exclusively to the large nodes, forming clusters around them. The
large nodes connect to other large nodes where they by association
link the smaller nodes in their clusters. The example Negri uses for
this model is a guerrilla army, with different groups operating
independently of each other, but still connected. A distributed
network would have nodes of equal size that have an independent link
to every other node, forming infinite amounts of connections. The
internet is about the closest manifestation we have of such a
network. (Michael Hardt /Antonio Negri, 2004, Multitude, p.63-93)
I
would argue that translated into the art world centralized networks
would be 'public'1 art galleries, private or commercial galleries,
museums, and private foundations. Polycentric networks would be
artist-run spaces and organizations, self-organized and autonomous
spaces, art squats, community organizations with art programs, social
movements, and art studios. As for a
distributive network, this is not something that we have yet on the
scale of the illustrated model. However, I experience certain
artists' and artist collectives' work as working with an open and
roaming communication that resembles the full matrix, and if
persistent could develop along those lines.
An
example is the artist collective Group Material. In 1988 they
embarked on a project that communicated itself in four very different
ways. The content for this project was made up of four issues they
described as areas of crisis in democracy: Education, electoral
politics, cultural participation and AIDS. First, they held an open
meeting inviting participants from several different fields to engage
in discussion, which they incorporated into their research. Then they
proceeded to hold public meetings around their selected issues at
town halls engaging with the public. Finally, the project ended in a
group exhibition and a publication about the project. (Claire Bishop,
2006, Group Material, p.135-137)
Conclusion
Essentially,
the question I feel we are left with is how do we make the jump from
centralized and polycentric networks to full matrix, and why?
Firstly, I acknowledge this as a long term process where the first
step might still be working on going from a centralized network to a
polycentric one. To answer the question of why a distributed network
is appealing; it would be an extremely interactive and open network
of communication and exchange of ideas, with all kinds of learning
opportunities. Imagine if we could exist even “half alive”
outside of the art world the industries control. Even the idea of an
“Art World” is somewhat imposing and threatening. One could
visualise the one large node imposing on all other smaller nodes
terms to be accepted, under threat of alienation and marginalization,
inspiring in the small nodes a uniform response to an overbearing
presence in a position of power. However, if we rely on each other
instead of that central node, it doesn't have any power. If there was
no more centralized art world, but instead autonomous art communities
all different from each other, springing up whenever and
wherever, working in a cross-disciplinary fashion, who is to say what
it would mean to be an artist and what the experience of art might
become.
The
more difficult question is how. Initiatives like Carrot Workers
Collective and Group Material, however different, create the space
and forum to discuss tactical ways of asserting ourselves in
hierarchical situations and creatively interacting with our interests
and the public. If nothing else it might be much more politically
interesting for artists to engage with their own fields in a radical
way. We could start by applying principles we would advocate to the
rest of society, or specific struggles, to themselves.
Hope,
superior to fear, is neither passive like the latter, nor locked into
nothingness. The emotion of hope goes out of itself, makes people
broad instead of confining them, cannot know nearly enough of what it
is that makes them inwardly aimed, of what may be allied to them
outwardly. (Richard Noble, 2009, Ernst Bloch, p.42)
Bibliography:
Books:
Claire
Bishop (Editor), 2006, Participation, Whitechapel Gallery and
MIT Press.
Claire
Doherty (Editor), 2009, Situation, Whitchapel Gallery and MIT
Press.
Richard
Noble (Editor), 2009, Utopias, Whitechapel Gallery and MIT
Press.
David
Bohm, 2004, On Creativity, Routledge, New York.
Michael
Hardt /Antonio Negri, 2004, Multitude, Penguin, London.
Nelson,
C./Grossberg L. (Editor), 1990, Marxism and the Interpretation of
Culture: Fredric Jameson, “Cognitive Mapping”, University of
Illinois Press.
Mark
Fisher, 2009, Capitalist Realism, O Books – John Hunt
Publishing Ltd.
Nicolas
Bourriaud, 2010, Postproduction, Lukas & Sternberg, New York.
Harrison
and Wood, 2003, Art in Theory 1900-2000, Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford.
Pamphlets:
Carrot
Workers Collective, 2009, Surviving Internships: A Counter Guide
To Free Labour in the Arts, Hato Press, London.
Lectures:
Smith,
Dan. (22 October 2012) BA Lecture: Art's Critical Function, Chelsea
College of Art, unpublished.
No comments:
Post a Comment