HeadTalk 1

The inaugural headtalk was held on the 15th July 2007. The discussion was preceded by a short walk at consall forge... in the rain. Despite the rain it was a great couple of hours in the staffordshire countryside, and having completed the walk, there was a much anticipated pint or two (or three) waiting at the The Stafford Arms pub in Bagnall.

  Artist or Brand? Is the role of the artist changing?

  The discussion will examine the positioning of the artist in the art market and the claims of community

    Notes towards discussion 

  starting with distinct un-nuanced statements for unpacking and critique.

  The notes are reflective of our Western and UK siting but are not intended to exclude wider reference.

What was the role of the visual artist?

Speculatively, in the ‘West’ up to roughly the mid-20th C, the individual artist (predominantly male) was working within fairly defined media boundaries (painting, sculpture,print,photography) The activity being defined by a narrative of expressivity and engagement with (affirming or rejecting) meta narratives (supposedly universally valid stories) of visual criteria or social progress. Groupings of artists were usually around these shared explorations within a fairly distinct perception of ‘high’ and ‘low’ art with an active critical aesthetic. The artist positioned themselves in the market through the public institutions (museums, local authorities), private galleries and corporate patronage; these three areas of showing having a measure of independence from each other in terms of selection or promotion of artists. The market focused on the meta-stories and aesthetic universals in order to give value and authority to the specific work. The role of the artist had a shaman, genius or rebel association.

How has that changed?

The artist now works within a territory of dispersed understandings (non-meta narratives). The distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ art is replaced by a classless democracy of resource for the artist. Universal aesthetic critique is displaced by descriptive and local evaluations (referencing other work and discourse around the specifics of the work shown).

The art work now derives from anything or anywhere and is distinguished from the everyday by the authority of the institutional context and explanatory language of its showing. The market now focuses on the artist as the vehicle of explanation and value affirming the work shown, rather than on an ‘objective’ frame of aesthetic or meta-story as in the previous era. Where an artist is chosen for investment or backing, the artist is promoted as the ‘brand’ of meaning.

At the same time, the distinct independence of choice between the public institutions, private (individually owned) galleries and corporations is blurred at the level of the main players in the art market, with corporate finance tending to dictate the selection and promotion of the artist/work brand. This change in the siting of decision or influence occurs through corporate sponsorship in the public arena and corporate gallery ownership in the private. Groupings of artists and collaborations are promoted in a similar way, as an attractive commodity mix of the individual and their work. With this view, the role of the artist is now as a unique commodity alongside others to buy into or not as part of the familiar constructed self-identity of meaning residing in brand culture.

Where does the idea of community come in?

In the previous era, artists allied with specific political movements and organizations. Particular aesthetic claims (around forms of realism) as well as moral (the artist has a commitment to engaging with social concerns) were made under the umbrella of these defined outlooks and within the meta-story frame of reference. Community tended to be seen in class terms on a macro scale. Marketing of this art was primarily through public institutions where individual artists were commissioned to produce a particular piece of work (‘plonk art’). The community in this era was usually regarded as a uniform group and passive recipient of edifying work.

The term community is now at once more localized and, at the same time, with specific global focus in some respects. . In this sense, community now embraces differentiated populations, where disadvantaged or minority groups have won a legally sanctioned voice. Also class has lost its influence as a dominant term embracing all others with respect to movements of recognition. Issues of class now cross-cut with those of other groupings (women, black, gay) and with social concerns such as world poverty, immigration, environment, public services or regeneration of cities, to name a few.

The democratizing of voice in community has shifted the role of the artist engaging in public work from one of handing down to a more collaborative approach with the people receiving the work. This is underpinned by regulative public financing (e.g., Arts Council) that devolves public projects and decision-making to alliances between civic and artist groupings. In this way art is recognized as important as a regenerative force in local settings with the right kind of collaborative engagement.

Also, apart from the public commissioning sphere, the artist can now employ issues of community within individually chosen local or international perspectives as part of their work, as these discourses are no longer the preserve of established political organizations. The identification of the artist with the social agenda is then with an issue or issues, rather than specific political groupings. Also, there is an open book of approaches, justified now by reference to the parameters defined by the artist in a discourse setting (maintained and reproduced by university art department amongs others), rather than by reference to a universal creed or aesthetic.

Does it make sense to talk about claims of community with respect to the artist’s positioning in the market?

If the artist is seen as a member of a given community, receiving education and other services and public support that allow them to pursue their work as an artist, then there is an assumption that such support has a valuable return for the community or society. That return is an active questioning and presenting of imaginative, critical as well as entertaining, alternative spaces of imagining, experience and reflection. One reasonable claim of community is that the work of artists is supported in a way that allows the fullest address to the experience and groupings in a community or wider society. In this respect there is a perceivable conflict between the needs of the contemporary market in which an emerging artist has to position themselves, and those of community. The increased influence of corporate agendas, with a prime need to market their commodities, has arguably shaped art output to limit this wider address to community. As one commentator puts it:

‘Business has moved from occasional charitable sponsorship of the arts to building partnerships with museums or artists in which the brand of one is linked with the brand of the other in an attempt to inflate both. They have further turned increasingly to collecting and commissioning art, exhibiting it, and recently even into curating exhibitions held in public venues’ (Julian Stallabrass).

This influence will tend to exclude any art that does not suit the corporate brand.

Does this kind of shaping cause self-censorship by the artist in terms of work direction?

Unattractive issues, such as poverty. arms trading, agism, health care or the displacement of peoples, do not usually fit the corporate agenda unless carefully manicured to convey images of responsibility (Shell green campaign) or chic flirting with revolutionary impulses (e.g., Nike and Rap or the Benetton photos).

The wider address to the lives of different communities or society is then limited by these commodity or consumer imperatives.

The origin of a parallel claim of community lies in Community Art, now a distinct practice area for artists and is generally free of the kind of restraints governing the commercial art market. Artists positioning themselves in this area develop a methodology of conversation and inclusion in the making of the work with the people where the art work is being placed or created. A different kind of constraint has to be negotiated, that of the perceptions of the particular community, its history and expectations. The claim here is of a perceived relevance of the work to recipients. To what extent does this requirement of community art limit the kind of work done? Often commissioned work is absent of any genuine challenge to thinking, practices, or self-perceptions.

Another claim of community refers to self-identity and source of work. Artists are individuals socially located like anybody else. In that sense they are shaped by, and mediate with, the matrix of stories and identifications of a place of birth and upbringing. The energy of their work has a relation to these origins and ongoing place and is in tension with the different kind of community represented by the art market in its prevalent form, which is heavily geared by no-localised ideas of branding and celebrity. The claim of community in this sense refers to an idea of authenticity. How does an artist retain authenticity in the market or is it a redundant term?

Finally, an alternative claim of community emerges from a growing democracy of publicity (Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame). Anyone can now access the internet and create a space of communication where the subject is themselves, their experience and imaginings in ways familiar to artists. Different communities (YouTube, My Space, FaceBook) exist that provide arena’s of individual expression. These provide a challenge to the demarcation between what counts as art (via institutional authority and favoured discourses) and what is no different except arguably this stamp of institutional approval. This scenario is a rebirth of the distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ art.

The claim then is one of active occupation of territory previously the preserve of artists. This throws the artist back onto the justification of their positioning as an artist per se.

bernard j charnley and brian holdcroft - Headtalk

Insert body text here ...

click and go