I dont know about community……

This more or less concludes this blog! Sadly, having broken my ankle just after the exhibition opened, I’ve not done much follow up of the exhibition. But suffice to say the reviews we had were interesting. Its been a tricky project to get across, but I do hope these posts will have been of interest to others….let me know!! so long!!

In what way is what artists do different than other forms of creativity?
Can something useful be learnt from asking artists simply to respond through their work to these situations?
Curating the community based leg of the project meant that curator, artists and audience were invited to view sites of community work in a new way. Not coming here for a service or to find help – we came to see if the work would fit in – with the place and the people. Discussions, getting to know what went on there, answering questions about our project, assessing the possibilities of each space as a potential display area, bearing in mind the embryonic works in progress – discussions took place at each centre, broad discussions about what art is going on here already or what they’d like to see happening. Suggestions about artists working with young people, older people, placing work in environmental centres, programming a film series for refugees, places that already have thriving projects with artists – creative people who already work her making links with these was a good outcome of the project and could potentially lead to a multitude of new projects.

Being there finding out, sharing – developing the networks became a part of the process of the project. Getting challenged. What purpose were we serving (actually only one person did question this – everyone else was bending over backwards to help) The gatekeepers of community spaces. Overworked, creative, busy, but taking time to hear about artists and hoping that their place could be involved. If nothing else this could lead to other things perhaps – and might promote their own centre. Again, it wasn’t art that was confusing people – but CN4M was!

In Manchester’s centre of power, the gloriously gothic Town Hall, Hafsah Naib’s TV installation plonked 6 ordinary people – and their living rooms, into the seat of local power. Councillors and public servants came to sit before these disembodied talking heads and eavesdrop their conversations. Sidestepping the Galleries and Museums version of “culture” whilst creating a work that was paradoxically very much at home in the independent gallery, being an arena for ideas. Hafsah created a virtual network of people whose musings about culture were discussed via the medium and the subject of TV. So the discussions stretched from family relationships, the nature of technology, representation, what kids do, to global political issues – but with their heads in their own television sets.

What is the role of the artist’s work within a social or institutional realm? Should artists’ practice address social issues, work for the institutions or should it be apart and question the status quo?
Grennan and Sperandio, engaged with a set of workers in CN4M. Then through their art they questioned the authenticity of the artists vision – of anyones understanding of their environment. Using renderers to paint their paintings, they removed the romantic notion of emotional gestures and replaced it with cool reproduction. The jarring, empty quality of these “centres” of community activity was immediately apparent to viewers belonging to the Gorton Visual Arts Group. They puzzled over the subject matter and in discussion with the artist discovered what lay behind these renditions, introducing them to another way of thinking about art and represntation. The artists saw no contradiction between where the work is seen, no distinction between gallery goers or community group members.

In Jil Moore’s work her approach to the huge subject of the rush hour, transport and the position of the individual became epic and philosophical. The glass vessels delicately placed on tiles of mirror created an endless feedback with the viewer. In the gallery, they were placed on a window sill reflecting the very transport systems outside. But Jil also travelled the bus network with Bill, the transport network coordinator and shared with him his stories. She spent time with the children and young peoples network coordinator and read documents.
Is being there, being part of something, trying to understand and directing all this into a work of art enough? Rachael, a woman who experiences mental health needs saw the work at St Lukes and commented that yes – she loved the work, she too thinks about life in this way and she writes poetry – but some people, she said, will just go into town to shop and will never think about their lives being part of a bigger picture.

Jo Lewington’s interest in human and economic patterns, led her to the factory floor and the extraordinary film that she made engaged the assistance of the textile workers. They became the camera operatives in her production, simply by doing what they do day in day out. This was a specific community that played a specific part. But this work was not made to empower the workers – it was made to articulate an artists vision. It is the intention and the approach that matters. The artist wrestled with the best way to work with the factory, to respect the workers and to convey her idea about time, work, routine and life. When it was shown in a local community centre, debate and discussion ensued – for all kinds of reasons – people recognised the type of machines in use, reminisced about their own working lives, argued about the meaning of the film. Watching the film broke up the day and people came together for a time and were comfortable in their workplace to express themselves.

Given the subject of Community Networks in Manchester, how would the seven contemporary artists respond? Could we develop a project that stood up in the gallery and how would the work be received in the community venues?
Was it possible that art could work in both places and that the two exhibitions could inform each other. How would art work in the social sphere? Does it matter, or is it essential that art inhabits another sphere?

The following paragraphs describe some of the discussions that arose from this project which set out to raise debate about the role of the artist. These are taken from discussions with the artists and participants and at a panel discussion held during the Castlefield show.

What is a community? What is a network? What is an artist? Where is art best experienced?
Community is a contentious word. A catch-all that means everything and nothing. Could community also mean this community of workers employed to create connections, represent others voices, or to channel funding? Could community be or include the community of artists?

A network is how people develop their communications. This wont always fit a mould or a conceptual framework such as that proposed by CN4M – it might rather be organic, personal and responsive according to needs and strengths of members of that network – everyone has their own network and that can be hard to pin down. It will not respect the assigned borders. Andrew Wilson and Joe Richardson attempted in different ways to map these relationships within CN4M. But CN4M also tries to support these networks to add an advantage to those without.

And what constitutes an artist’s engagement with “community”? Working with community groups themselves, perhaps along the lines of a community artist, requires many more resources than this project could offer as Andrew Wilson discovered. Hoping that Venture Arts, a local charity, would take on some of the work of creating his game. The will to participate was there but they were too busy with their own projects, and without his direct ongoing input momentum slid. Trying to “involve people in making their work” just for the sake of it, may have felt like tokenism, or box ticking or recreating other models. I wanted to see if artists would choose this kind of engagement of their own accord. Maybe its just as valid, to allow artists, if they wish, to hover and float and do their own thing – to observe and play as William Titley did, attending meetings, grappling with the information and finally playing, doodling and making words into pictures and concepts into objects that contained an essence of the understanding of the processes and ideas that the meetings were dealing with. Artists will engage with community or with particular individuals as required by their practice, no need to force it.