Publications

Dominic Thomas on the importance of a critical context for artists’ practice. One of a specially commissioned set of articles resulting from Quo Vadis available now on www.a-n.co.uk.

At one point during his presentation at the Quo Vadis networking event, artist, curator and writer Gordon Dalton was comparing the contemporary art scenes in different nominally ‘peripheral’ locations across the UK. Asserting that the periphery need not be a negative starting point, he went on to talk about how artists and organisations working outside the cultural centres can successfully operate on a local, regional and international level.

He mentioned the vitality of activity in Glasgow and Edinburgh and the way artists there had looked across the North Sea for development opportunities rather than south to London. But one particular point Dalton made hinted at another, in some ways more pressing, issue relating to artists working throughout the UK. In reference to the contemporary art scene in Scotland he suggested that its apparent success was, in part, due to the fact that the Scottish mainstream press was willing and able to engage with new art and that this helped to provide a context in which art and artists could flourish. This is by no means the whole story but the point struck a chord and raises some questions that I’d like to follow up here.

For artists whose work strives to be critically engaged with ideas and issues beyond the four walls of the studio, what does it mean to place one’s practice in a critical context? Is it necessary that one’s work be subject to external critical responses? And for artists whose work, for whatever reason, falls outside the primary channels of critical engagement what, if any, are the alternatives?

South of the border, much has been made of the apparent increase in column inches and airtime being given to new art since the early 1990s. Most of this was driven, of course by the fortuitous combination of Blair’s Cool Britannia, the yBas phenomenon, Tate Modern and the Turner Prize, not to mention some well paid PR companies. But, as Patricia Bickers pointed out in a recent editorial for Art Monthly, the almost universal glee with which the media greeted the destruction of many yBa-generation works in the Momart warehouse fire showed that although coverage may have increased, the story – personality/celebrity, titillation and manufactured outrage – remains the same. Regardless of the level of engagement, which is, with a few exceptions, generally negligible, the number of artists whose work is discussed at all in the mainstream media is rarely more than can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The fact that it seems almost perverse to imagine that the media could provide any kind of critical support for contemporary visual art is a sign of how deep rooted the anti-intellectual and anti-art culture is in this country.

So what of the dedicated art press? Do they provide a critical context for artists? Well, yes and no. There are a number of fine publications whose editors and writers strive to engage with contemporary practice and who seek to develop contextual frameworks for the production and distribution of new art. For many artists working on the periphery, critical journals and art magazines do provide a basis for critical context. These publications can be vital not least in providing access to a wider variety of work than the geographically isolated artist might otherwise encounter. Also, through a kind of parallel reading of the ideas and issues raised elsewhere, one can construct a virtual or surrogate context in which to test one’s own practice. But the tendency of these publications to focus on the same familiar players with occasional forays out to lesser-known but generally well publicised ‘provincial’ events, still leaves whole swathes of artistic activity unaccounted for in published art writing.

It is obvious that if your work does not appear in venues frequented by critics and writers, it is unlikely to be written about. But does this mean all the work of artists on the cultural or geographical periphery is doomed to be critically provincial and irrelevant?

There are the simple economics of supply and demand that will guarantee that the majority of practising artists will not feature within the pages of the art press. But there is a particular body of artists whose work remains almost entirely invisible in terms of critical responses, even though in many other ways they can view their practice as successful through winning commissions, exhibiting in public galleries and working internationally. I’m talking here about artists who have developed an expanded practice, whose work is usually project- or process-based and often site-, context- and/or time-specific. It may involve live or performative elements and more often than not, direct interaction with audiences. The fact that these practices often fall into the categories of community or public art, with their attendant negative connotations, goes someway to explain their critical invisibility.

Many artists working in this way survive and even flourish almost entirely independently of the gallery system, through a particular market niche. Though many have criticised the Government’s (and in turn Arts Council England’s) insistence that audiences and social benefit should be at the core of arts funding, these changes in funding policy have given many artists working in the area of expanded practice the opportunity to develop work which, social agendas aside, is genuinely exploring new territory. The fact that so little of this kind of work receives critical acknowledgement just goes to show how much art criticism in this country is still principally dependent on the market-led gallery sector.

So where else can artists turn for critical support? The idea of professional development has taken off in the last few years with organisations, schemes, funding and support coming from many different quarters; Arts Matrix, The APD Network, ALIAS (Artist Led Initiatives Advisory Scheme), plus many other local and regional schemes across the country, not to mention a-n’s own contribution to this area. Whilst accepting that there is a need for artists to develop their skills and knowledge in relation to career development, many of these schemes seem unable or unwilling to tackle the issue of the actual products of an artist’s labours. Questions about what, why and for whom, are often strangely absent. There’s no denying these are complex questions, involving many different issues like artists’ intentions, presentation, contexts, audiences and markets, not to mention the history of art. But without confronting these issues how can artists expect their work, as opposed to their career, to develop?

Of course the tried and tested route that many artists now follow when faced with a lack of opportunity or support is to make their own. As your professional development officer will tell you, the days of sitting in your studio waiting to be discovered are now, if they ever existed, definitely over. The model of the artist-led initiative is now a given. Don’t have a place to work? Then set up your own studio group. No gallery to show in? Find an empty warehouse or shop and start your own. No commissioning opportunities? Put in an application to the Arts Council and commission yourself. It is a model I continue to happily subscribe to myself, and one that has reaped many rewards. But if artists are working in a critical vacuum can they simply create their own critical contexts?

The avoidance of the core subject, as mentioned above, is not confined to funders and professional development schemes. In my experience, artists themselves can be equally prone to this kind of selective amnesia. Often amongst artists groups and networks I have found a reticence about raising issues relating directly to members’ work. A kind of unspoken rule which, in the interests of support and solidarity, goes either, ‘I won’t say anything difficult about your work if you don’t say anything difficult about mine’ or alternatively, ‘We are all professionals here, we know what we are doing, what is there to talk about?’ The biggest problem with avoiding this subject is that, through a lack of practice, artists do not acquire the skills necessary to talk about their own and others’ work. It should be pointed out that explaining or justifying your work through critical dialogue is not the same as writing a statement that uses the correct terminology and name checks the right artists/curators/cultural theorists.

There are artists, groups and networks who are tackling these issues. Although not a new one, the model of the peer critique is an idea that seems to be gaining favour. These monthly events expect a certain level of commitment from participants who have to actively attend a given number of sessions and give a presentation of some aspect of their own practice. I’m sure this has been going on more or less informally in groups in many areas, but specific schemes I’m aware of include a collaboration between Space studios and Whitechapel Gallery in London and another recently set up in Bristol.

New artist-initiated activities like these may begin to go some way toward filling the critical vacuum that exists for many artists, but this alone is unlikely to affect the larger national picture. It must also be the responsibility of those promoters, commissioner, funders and commentators, whose job it is to support the arts, to ask themselves what they can do to help develop an intelligent critical environment in which critically engaged practices of all kinds can flourish.

Dominic Thomas is an artist.

He is also coordinator of Re.projects/SVA, Stroud and an advisor for the Artist Led Initiatives Advisory Service. He is based on Rack Hill, Chalford, Gloucestershire and can be contacted at contexts@mundusloci.org www.mundusloci.org

An edited version of this article was published in November 2006 Good Practice publication Negotiating your practice.

Dominic Thomas

Dominic Thomas is an artist, writer, collaborator & cook. His practice focuses on critically and socially engaged collaborative production, and self-organisation and self-education within artist led activity. He is a member of critical collaboration a.Group and is programme co-ordinator at SVA (Stroud Valleys Artspace) and is currently guest editor at aliasart.org

lean2@mundusloci.org | www.mundusloci.org

First published: a-n Magazine February 2005