NAN

Emilia Telese talks to RJ Hinrichsen and Mark Wilsher of the Semi Formal Discussion Network (SFDN).

Emilia Telese: When was the network created, and how many members do you have?

Semi Formal Discussion Network: Our network isn't a network in the traditional sense - it has no members. It is a conceptual model that offers a structured way for artists to generate better conversations about art and ideas. The idea originated as a result of a discussion in June 2009 where a lack of opportunities for in-depth theoretical conversation outside of an educational context was identified. It also reflects our own limited ability to access normal art world events like all-day conferences and evening talks due to disability and childcare commitments. The term 'network' really suggests the potential growth of conversational connections between individuals over time.

ET: What are the aims of your initiative?

SFDN: Our idea is to create an arena for serious discussion that anyone can take ownership of and tailor to his or her own specific access and creative needs. On an individual level, artists are empowered to self organise and generate better quality conversations more frequently. This builds better relationships between artists with all the professional networking benefits that brings, and enables people who might otherwise be excluded to participate in the vital discursive culture around contemporary art. As small groups interact and exchange members there are benefits to entire artistic communities on a local and eventually, regional scale. Better quality discussion about art means that better art ultimately gets made and exhibited.

ET: The idea of a theoretical discussion network is really interesting. What do the discussions normally touch upon? Are there any recurring themes, or trends that you have noticed?

SFDN: Yes, we particularly felt that there was a lack of continuity of theoretical discussion after leaving college, and that what was needed was some kind of framework to keep it going. As we all know, it is very hard to have a really in-depth talk off the cuff, in a social situation. The only alternative to private view chit-chat seemed to be more formal gallery talks. Our model neatly fills the gap between informal and formal.

In the groups that we have been part of we have used all sorts of things as starting points for quite freewheeling and diverse discussions. Exhibitions, articles, images, or even just a vague idea or phrase. The point is that a group of committed people talking about one idea for long enough will almost inevitably come up with something interesting. It really is about what you bring to it, having a kind of openness and the unpredictable mix of people's ideas. Everyone takes away something different.

ET: Your rules are very precise, such as "don't talk about your work", "talk for at least an hour" and "groups of three to four people". Do artists talk about other artists' work but not their own? How do you feel the rules have worked so far?

SFDN: We considered these four rules very carefully. The size of the group is important; big enough to generate unpredictable dialogue but small enough to encourage full participation. Deciding the topic in advance means that everyone has a chance to think about it beforehand, meaning that you get better developed, more complex analyses. Keeping it going for at least an hour ensures that something is well interrogated. It's often when your initial ideas run out of steam that unexpected and tangential ideas emerge. And most importantly the proscription on talking about your own work ensures that it doesn't descend into a personal situation where no one is willing to be critical, and everyone is on the defensive about their own practice. Also, we feel that the arena for discussing one's own work is well established with the peer critique model. What we felt was missing from our lives was discussion around ideas. It occurred to us that endlessly talking about our own art does not lead to new art! It is the turning over of ideas and concepts that fires up the imagination in a much more open and expansive way. We certainly talk about other people's work, just not of those present in the room. There are no other limits on subject matter.

ET: Do you think these discussions will be one day formalised in academic articles or do you see this as a more organic process?

SFDN: We think that there is an inherent value to the process of discussion and it doesn't require any other form of validation. The very fact that they aren't being documented or expected to come up with some other outcome means that everyone really can talk completely freely. In a sense these talks are meant as a counterpoint to the emphasis on outcomes.

ET: How can artists get involved?

SFDN: The etiquette is to pass on the leaflet as an invitation to start a discussion. By doing this you invite people to a slightly more formalised talk than is usual, and they get to read the background, concept and rules of engagement. The leaflet acts as a third party almost, to provide an objective presence so that no one participant is in charge of proceedings. As we said at the start: this isn't a network that you join, it's a conceptual model that leads to better discussion about art. Just organise a few people, pick a topic and get on with it!

www.semiformaldiscussion.net

First published: a-n.co.uk November 2010