It's A Doing Think

Here are a few thoughts and questions of my own in response to our seminar with Charles Esche and John's opening comments. They are just the beginnings of some threads of ideas prompted by our talks, which I've tried to break down into bite-size chunks.

Beginning with John's question:

"Is it possible to comprehend (or imagine) kinds of art practice which are capable, sophisticated and dialectical enough to conceive autonomy and engagement as interaction? As necessary conditions of extended practice?"

My first question is what do we understand by 'autonomy' and 'engaged practice'?

What is understood by Autonomy:

Based on our recent discussions, it seems to be generally accepted in current thinking that the modernist 'privileging' of the autonomous artist or autonomous art as being something outside the realm of everyday life (something on a higher plane) is an undesirable myth. Post-modern thinking, it seems, has sought a more direct involvement at grass roots with the world in which we live.

Questions around the accessibility and inaccessibility of individual and collective vision and thinking seem to be at play. Thinking about the impossibility of seeing through the eyes of another, as well as the impossibility (and undesirability) for the artist to be positioned outside the environment in which he works, I am reminded of the thinking of Michel Foucault, who was at pains to point out that we cannot deny the impact of the environment (cultural, political, social, emotional, intellectual) in which we operate - and the limitations that that can place on our vision. This takes us all down a peg or two, and points out to us that, although we might be aware of the existence of 'the bigger picture', as individuals, we will never actually be able to see it.

"The thing that by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that." (M Foucault 'The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences' 1970)

I think that as an artist, I am always looking for the 'blind spot' in my own vision - as a means of improving that vision and my scope for thinking. The idea does, of course, have the de-stabilising implication that I might not know what I think I know. Always a tricky one to deal with!

The positive flip-side to this is that it offers us the awareness that there are very many different individual visions to enrich our outlook and potential as a society.

Autonomy and Authorship

Another question which arises (which hasn't been touched on directly but which is linked I think) is how questions of authorship link with the developing ideas of autonomy. I am thinking of contemporary artists operating anonymously (Banksy) or as collectives of unidentified individuals (Guerilla Girls) or under pseudonyms. In these practices the identification of the individual artist ceases to be important. In fact it is important that it is absent - as a strategy for operating beneath the radar?

A Sense of Self

Perhaps for the individual practising artist (whether operating individually or collaboratively) the focus needs to be on personal integrity rather than autonomy. It is important to remain focused about our own motivations, what drives us to work (in private and in public) and be clear about the rules we make for ourselves in practice. Some sense of conviction is vital, whilst remaining open to whatever the experience of our practice might reveal to us.

Maybe in response to some of the criticisms levelled at the perceived insularity of artists in the past (?), Barbara Hepworth commented (1937): "[Art] is no escapism, no ivory tower. It is an unconscious manner of expressing our belief in a possible life." This speaks of what motivates and engages the artist in his/her practice. Surely for art practitioners that engagement between the artist and the work must be the starting point of any consideration of an engagement beyond this, between the work and the wider world? Our discussion so far does not seem to have touched much on this consideration of 'engagement'.

To what end does the artist work? It seems to me that the view of Hepworth here is looking to some kind of engagement with the wider world as essential for there to be any point in doing the work (or, rather, in making the work public). Maybe it's just how we now think that the engagement with the wider world might be achieved that has changed?

Art and Politics

To my mind, meaningful work is always politically engaged if it calls into question our thinking. I distinguish between work which is political in the sense of being motivated by a personal conviction which challenges established thinking and that which is overtly issue based. For example, Cornelia Parker makes a point of saying that she does not do issue based work, but I would say that her work is politically engaged because it tries (albeit subtly) to unsettle accepted ways of thinking. Her work 'Brontean Abstracts' at the Bronte Museum in 2007, for example, simultaneously attaches itself to and challenges the cultural institution in which it is located, challenging our accepted perception of the role of the museum.

On the Question of the 'Instrumentalisation' of Art

By the term 'instrumentalisation' I understand 'ab-use' or 'manipulation'. According to Charles Esche in our seminar, art (or anything else for that matter) is always open to manipulation to some extent by social/political institutions or others. It is the inevitable consequence of putting anything into the public domain. Once it is handed over, its original control is lost. The material might be used by others with their own quite different agendas. Robert Smithson makes some interesting observations on this issue in his essay 'Cultural Confinement' (1972): "Some artists imagine they have got a hold on this apparatus, which in fact has got a hold of them." (pp. 970-1 Art in Theory 1900-2000 An Anthology of Changing Ideas Ed. Charles Harrison & Paul Wood, 2003).

First published in Artforum in 1970, 'The Artist and Politics: a Symposium' (pp.922-6 ibid.) offers very varied responses from different artists to the question "What is your position regarding the kinds of political action that should be taken by artists?" The variety of responses here might offer some openings to what might be understood by 'engaged practice'. I'd like to see it kept as broad as possible.

My particular favourite, perhaps because of the terms in which it expressed, is Smithson's reply: "Sooner or later the artist is implicated or devoured by politics without even trying. My 'position' is one of sinking into an awareness of global squalor and futility. The rat of politics always gnaws at the cheese of art . . . One keeps dropping into a kind of political centrifugal force that throws the blood of atrocities onto those working for peace."

How is this to be managed by the artist, who, up until the point of publication, largely makes up all the rules in the process? One response has been to try and engage directly with the public, rather than via the medium of the gallery, agent, critic or other middleman.

Engagement of Others

In thinking about how our practice might engage others, what is the risk for the individual art practitioner that, rather than opening up possibilities, we fall into the trap of simply working on the terms of others? "The moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist." (The Soul of Man Under Socialism in The First Collected Edition of the Works of Oscar Wilde, 1908-22). I think the idea of 'supplying the demand' is the critical bit to take on board - as something to be wary of.

The Shifting Locus and Understanding of 'The Work'

Participation & Creation Beyond the Control of the Artist

Traditionally, when we talk about 'an artwork', we understand the locus of the artwork to be in the product of the creative process undertaken by the artist: 'the painting', 'the installation', 'the film', 'the performance'. It has also been suggested that the work (or maybe I need to find a different word her?) also continues, or is re-invented, in the perception/reception of that product - in the eye of the beholder, if you like. Germaine Greer has commented: "The true field of art is the mind of the beholder . . . You can only remember it. You can't collect it . . ." (Guardian 23.10.2006: Here's a message for the art mafia in their black Bentleys:the really good stuff is uncollectable). So, the viewer/recipient is necessarily implicated in the work itself.

Ryan Gander made similar observations in a presentation of his work which I attended last year, after which I was left far from certain whether 'his work' was what appeared as imagery on the slides he showed. or was in the dialogue which took place during the actual presentation, or was the seed of some other thought which I took away to develop myself. When asked about the audience with which he seeks to engage, his response was to say he believes he has 'a good one', by which I understood a receptive and responsive one. (It was notable during the same presentation that he also spurned the political agendas underlying Arts Council and other public funding).

Perhaps the next logical manifestation is the actual participation of the public, the viewer becoming actual participant. This was highlighted in the talk by Peter Gorschlueter, curator at Tate Liverpool, talking about Tate's "Ideas Taking Space" on 17th February.

Where does this leave the question of autonomy? Maybe what we end up with is a very large melting pot of individual outlooks? Or is the artist really still directing the participation of others (albeit from some distance)? The fact is, somebody is still making the rules for participation, aren't they? And the participants (knowingly or not) are falling in with those rules.

'Engaged Autonomy' or 'Negotiated Autonomy'

As far as the ideas of 'engaged autonomy' (to use Esche's term) or 'negotiated autonomy' (John's term) are concerned, I think they go right to the core of how we understand ourselves as individuals and how we position ourselves in society as a whole. What contribution do we have to make as artists? The conundrum of how we exert our sense of individuality and recognise our part in all rubbing along together is one of life's perpetual dilemmas and riches.

Personally, I think that the practice of the stand up comedian offers an illustration of what might be termed 'engaged autonomy' at work. Something akin to the Shakespearean Fool (but without the tag of insanity or stupidity), he/she is very much a part of the fabric of our popular culture, simultaneously entertaining us and holding up to us a mirror which at times can reflect some uncomfortable truths. It's a fine line. He'she gets away with subversive observations by making us laugh at ourselves. Perhaps we have something to learn here.

And Finally

To come back to John's question.

I am struck by how much these debates come down to dealing with a definition of the parameters of our understanding, when those parameters are changing all the time. This is what makes such discussions so slippery - and more productive of questions than answers!

I don't know that it is ever possible to say in advance how art practice might evolve, though I suppose we can have some objectives in mind. At the core of my own art practice, I am conscious of a making, an un-doing and a re-making process which goes on ad infinitum.  There is a critical intellectual process which runs in parallel, but the outcome in the practice is very much the result of some action or experience on my part. Art practice is a 'doing think'.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Kathryn Oubridge

18th February 09