‘A gesture maybe a ‘young project’: but it is more argumentative.., and it speculates riskily on the future’[1]
Gestures within the young modernist avant- garde movement arose out of a response to a threat and a challenge within the art world.[2] The work created was experimental and innovative and pushed the boundaries of the status quo within the ‘norm’. Peter Burger in ‘The Theory of the avant- garde’ believes it is necessary for art to retain its autonomy in order to have any voice at all. Within this it can be asked, is the artist as curator autonomous and in this legacy do we see a body of artists as curators?
Gestures within the young modernist avant- garde movement arose out of a response to a threat and a challenge within the art world.[2] The work created was experimental and innovative and pushed the boundaries of the status quo within the ‘norm’. Peter Burger in ‘The Theory of the avant- garde’ believes it is necessary for art to retain its autonomy in order to have any voice at all. Within this it can be asked, is the artist as curator autonomous and in this legacy do we see a body of artists as curators?
What is now left by our great predecessors of the Constructivist years (1919-1934), the Abstract Expressionists(1940-1960), Conceptual Art(1998), Situationists 1958-1962, and Fluxus of the 1950’s, onwards? The 1990’s saw the rise of curatorial authorship when the curator became maker and the rise of the artist as curator seen in the Joseph Kosuth show, ‘Play of the Unmentionable’, Brooklyn Museum, September 1990 and Fred Wilson ‘Mining the Museum’, Baltimore 1992.Marcel Duchamp’s young gestures in the gallery invents the artist as curator, unveiling a new leader of the institution with his ‘1,200 Bags of Coal’ exhibited at the International Exhibition of Surrealism 1958 New York. An artist subsumed an entire gallery with a single gesture. Contemporary critique became quickly immersed in the stereotypical traditional art place. This legacy is evident too in Andy Warhol’s ‘Factory’, the Dadaists and even more recently Hirst and the YBA group.
The avant-garde remains the new unprecedented discipline that receives a great sudden influx from a new generation of artists. Cyclical revisiting of this old curatorial model continues within the artist run space that closes down only to revive itself again during times of change and crisis. In the context of Ireland, fertile ground is now available for the artist as curator to grow within the artist run space as we face further economic threats, social, cultural and political changes. Gemma Tipton questioned recently in her article‘Leaving space for the grassroots’,[3] which is more important the institution or the individual? It is a fragile often torrid affair between the two and a battle of wits takes place at times. Both are just as important and need each other to survive. 126, an artist run gallery in Galway is in its fourth year primarily as a grassroots organization, managed by six individual artists and lies at the forefront developing this dynamism, variety and experimentation in Ireland, Tipton speaks of in her article. [4]
This essay will focus on the legacy of artist as curator within the context of 126.How is this legacy incorporated by the artist curator board, the curatorial policy and 126 role within the institution during artist/curator collaborations? This interrogation will look and question the adopted models immersed in present curatorial strategies at play in 126. Last years ‘Project Dorm- Artist led fair’ at the Model Niland Gallery, Sligo, 2010, will be discussed to reveal hidden patterns from the past and highligh future curatorial direction.
126 is Galway’s first artist-led exhibition space, a non- profit organization first established in 2005 in response to the urgent need for more non-commercial gallery spaces in Galway. It has developed a reputation as an organisation which supports traditionally unrepresented experimental artistic projects. It is similar to Transmission in Glasgow which was set up in 1983 by graduates from the School of Art who were dissatisfied with the lack of exhibition spaces in Glasgow. [5] The artists began to invite artists who had influenced them to show in the gallery and become part of this dialogue. It provided a model for other collectives like Catalyst in Belfast and like 126 it is managed by a voluntary committee of six people. Each member of the committee serves for up to two years and is then replaced. Transmission evolves under the influence of each successive committee member.
Artist’s movements throughout history have added to this legacy of artist as curator through their stubborn occupation of slack spaces. But has this route changed significantly since the avant-garde disruptions of the past? 126 provide a democratic space, freedom to work, and a platform for a voice to be heard outside economic, social or political crises. The mechanism of contemporary art free from bureaucratic restraint, delay and jargon is key to reclaiming this position. New channels of communication are created through projects on location as well as gallery exchanges that emphasize the concept of anti-art, the seriousness of commercial art and a critique of identity, truth and belief. This is similar in spirit to the avant-garde Fluxus group whose philosophy is intertwined with 126. Fluxus like 126 is an attitude, not a movement or a style. Fluxus is fun, and humour has always been an important element in Fluxus [6] which is vital for 126 too in order to maintain fresh opinions and prevent stale stagnant repetition.
Each exhibition and exchange is organized by the artists on the board and funded by government bodies. 126 curatorial decisions are made on an artistic rather than an economic basis. This is an important strength, but each unemployed board member is an active unpaid curator. Experience is gained through learning which is invaluable to all who partake in the gallery both for their career and practice. But, can the constitution of 126 remain the same if the board is paid? Is there a need to become more philanthropic as a board that may too make a living? Would this increase the quality and strength of 126 or destroy it? This needs to be addressed as part of the wider political art agenda at the 126 AGM and with the members. It will cause conflict and a reshaping of the organization by appointing an administrator and gallery staff yet maintaining the healthy turnaround of the board, this is debatable. As a dynamic precious group this could self destruct within this framework.
The creation of a collective artistic identity is an untouched public sphere according to Jurgen Habermas who describes this as a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be found and access is granted to all. 126 artist’s curators are shaping an understanding of culture; art and politics within this sphere. The programme reflects a desire to stand out from the cultural embrace of capitalism.
Habermas’s realm of life can be applied to justify the existence of 126 who take pride in opting out of capitalist mentality preferring instead to gather and display voices that are unrepresented. This is a position of authority, according to curator Karen Atkinson[1] and within this voices are framed. She believes our assumptions as the artist curator and the language we use shape the curatorial method, context and nature of the institution and shape society.
The curatorial strategies for project ‘Dorm’ are reflections of this legacy and position of authority.[1] The director Seamus Kealy aspirations were to mediate an urgent international programme of contemporary art for a wide audience. The gallery showcased experimentation that actively engages socio-economic and political realities both local and international.The Model re-opened at 6pm on May Day with a vibrant exhibition. With a nod to the political events of May 1968, it was an opportunity to shake up the "old society" and traditional morality, focusing especially on installations referencing pagan traditions; projects involving political activism; a collaborative photo project with the local military; complex video projections; participatory projects that involve the public, local government and cats; sculpture that confronted audiences with international issues; collaborations between Irish and Northern Irish artists; and elaborate, playful constructions in the gallery that invited the viewer in. Twenty-two international artist collectives transformed the building into an all encompassing art project full of resistance to co-modification, bureaucratization and focus on building an imaginative social environment that promotes a new form of collective ownership. It was not about showcasing a big curator or moving into the canon of curating formalism. It was more about applying the lessons and failures of avant- garde art to a curatorial ethos which needs a curatorial and artist voice. Boris Groys insists that art has become biopolitical due to this desire for art to resemble life, a life of imagined society and utopian desire.[2] Dorm nodded towards a desire to be like life so that the division between art and non-art could reduce within this large scale parody of the art fair against the backdrop of the international crisis. They questioned what defines our world today in relation to power, reinforcement, the corporate and the social structures. Artists too, can be pioneers who produce new forms of social commonalities in resistance to techno-cultural capitalistic dominance. There is a new power of resistance within the artist led space which provides voice to the individual struggle to maintain a relationship with the world and space for nameless plurality that is often unrepresented[3]. Kealy, as director (not curator) believes this is a possible task for contemporary art.
Catalyst Arts, Belfast and 126, Galway collaborated together to put on display how a gallery runs over a two months condensed into two days. A direct unplanned relation was made to Asher’s exhibition Project for Clair Copley Gallery 1974 who used the gallery as his material and exposed the gallery structures.[4] This critique engaged the gallery as a reflexive site, one of socially engaged relations. The gallery’s office was put on display in 1974 by Asher as author of the situation who incorporated a formal analysis of the gallery site.
A form of institutional critique emerged from the intersection of conceptual process with the site specific. The artist curates the show and dominates the space. The work is embraced. The brains of the gallery and arts trickery are exposed within this successful quiet confrontational collaboration now art-historical curatorial critique. A restatement of its urgent stakes arises May 2011 in ‘Dorm’. Asher develops Duchamp on. Catalyst and 126 move Asher on with this created Project for The Model as a pure coincidence with the historical context it embodied. Art now exists for discourse practices that recognize it as art within this gesture by demonstrating that the institution of art is not only institutionalized but internalized by modes of perception that allow us to produce and curate.
A mini opening took place within the space alongside the opening night of ‘Dorm’. The space took on a life of its own and took shape quickly. 126 ran a live open call and all submissions were displayed in the space. The office contents from both galleries became the art objects which provided the context of this piece. Catalyst displayed its archival library and developed the ‘Curiosity Club’. Local artists were invited to show their work and businesses in Sligo town sponsored the event. The dynamics of running a show were put on display alongside the office and curatorial methodologies. Every single member of each board wore blue boiler suits sprayed with their individual logo mimicking capitalist branding similar to the branding of cows in a massive field in order to separate two neighboring farm animals. This collaboration represented the young artists creating the young argumentative gestures. It was not clean, controlled or about display. There was a shift in the exhibition making and it suggested a reversed wild curatorial strategy which was a little grotesque. This was by no means fresh. 126 and catalyst moved it on by inviting the public to partake in the show, invited the corporate in and local business sponsorship, facilitated a live open call and held an opening with cheese, wine and a disco. But did this move both organizations into a tight corner with no way out except to party? No great curators are employed here and this creates a fluid status enjoyed by the independent artist curator on the board.This may have been subconsciously repeated. How can we prevent the same recurring list of events again and again or is it just part of the learning curve? Perhaps it is the natural building block process for the artist led rite of passage. 126 and catalyst emancipated their roles within the institution and this took on a new currency.
Artists worry their work will be sublimated to the curators ideas while the institutional curator worries whether the artwork will contribute to the curatorial theme. Curators like authors often give a rise to a kind of artistic development over time. The director of the model learnt from the artists but what was learnt and what has been achieved from the past to the present by the artist as curators? A shared dialogue and mutual exchange took place. This all seems a little flat. There is a desire for something more in the post modernist artist led space where pushing the boundaries is simply no longer enough. How 126 position themselves as artists curators and how accessible they are shaped the content of the exhibition and have implications for how the project was received. It was not good enough and resulted in retrograde curatorial strategy rather than a future for critical curating.
‘If it is successful it becomes history and tends to eliminate itself’
This comment by Jens Hoffman suggests that history tends to eliminate its success. This may have added to this curatorial amnesia adopted by 126 and Catalyst. Hoffman suggests curators question and dismantle the structure of exhibition and the institution using strategies from the 1960’s to the 1970’s. Dorm adopted the parameters of the artist run exhibition who are still using these strategies. These parameters are restricting which was felt as you walked in and out of each boxed room that housed each collective. This became its material in 2010. Both the curator and the artist need to negotiate a way out of this tight rigid repetitive frame. The institution became the discursive platform for this negotiation to take place.
Asher’s legacy resurfaced in the artist run collaboration by accident and in an amicable way. There is reason for disappointment. Curating is a key practice that 126 does well in itself and not just a means to facilitate negotiations with artists and institutional curators. There is a need to reassess the role of the artist run curated space. 126 is a live working group who build networks, references and partnerships, resources and exchanges. The quest for new curatorial practices between the institution and the artists needs to shift to blur the lines between the artist and director, artist and audience.
Perhaps there is a need for small cumulative off site dialogical project development. Is this a new challenge for 126, Catalyst and the bigger institution? Perhaps contemporary art no longer needs the bigger institution despite Kealy’s desire for the curators voice and the artist voice to work together. The so called avant- garde model is reworked within the limitations set by its cultural political environment and always preceded the frame but now seems stagnant or choked by that frame. An even playing field should be provided because 126 is a fragile space that sows the seeds for this critique.
“We are the institutions of art: the object of our critiques, our attacks, is always also inside ourselves”[1]
The term collective is slippery and in forming as one why is this meaningful? What is the value in the collective identity with no signal author? There is no demand to have a ‘big meaning’ as such it is about actively doing and participating in this world as active citizens. 126 is different which is central to shaping a healthy public sphere. The collective has been and tried yet the desire for community continues. Ireland did not experience a revolution in the 60’s or 70’s similar to America or Europe; it is only beginning and is reflected in today’s manic art activity. Culture, bound in red bureaucratic tape has been Irelands experience to date. There is an urgency to maintain this freshness and uniqueness within the democratic space of the artist led space and the institution for the artist as curator.
The avant-garde remains the new unprecedented discipline that receives a great sudden influx from a new generation of artists. Cyclical revisiting of this old curatorial model continues within the artist run space that closes down only to revive itself again during times of change and crisis. In the context of Ireland, fertile ground is now available for the artist as curator to grow within the artist run space as we face further economic threats, social, cultural and political changes. Gemma Tipton questioned recently in her article‘Leaving space for the grassroots’,[3] which is more important the institution or the individual? It is a fragile often torrid affair between the two and a battle of wits takes place at times. Both are just as important and need each other to survive. 126, an artist run gallery in Galway is in its fourth year primarily as a grassroots organization, managed by six individual artists and lies at the forefront developing this dynamism, variety and experimentation in Ireland, Tipton speaks of in her article. [4]
This essay will focus on the legacy of artist as curator within the context of 126.How is this legacy incorporated by the artist curator board, the curatorial policy and 126 role within the institution during artist/curator collaborations? This interrogation will look and question the adopted models immersed in present curatorial strategies at play in 126. Last years ‘Project Dorm- Artist led fair’ at the Model Niland Gallery, Sligo, 2010, will be discussed to reveal hidden patterns from the past and highligh future curatorial direction.
126 is Galway’s first artist-led exhibition space, a non- profit organization first established in 2005 in response to the urgent need for more non-commercial gallery spaces in Galway. It has developed a reputation as an organisation which supports traditionally unrepresented experimental artistic projects. It is similar to Transmission in Glasgow which was set up in 1983 by graduates from the School of Art who were dissatisfied with the lack of exhibition spaces in Glasgow. [5] The artists began to invite artists who had influenced them to show in the gallery and become part of this dialogue. It provided a model for other collectives like Catalyst in Belfast and like 126 it is managed by a voluntary committee of six people. Each member of the committee serves for up to two years and is then replaced. Transmission evolves under the influence of each successive committee member.
Artist’s movements throughout history have added to this legacy of artist as curator through their stubborn occupation of slack spaces. But has this route changed significantly since the avant-garde disruptions of the past? 126 provide a democratic space, freedom to work, and a platform for a voice to be heard outside economic, social or political crises. The mechanism of contemporary art free from bureaucratic restraint, delay and jargon is key to reclaiming this position. New channels of communication are created through projects on location as well as gallery exchanges that emphasize the concept of anti-art, the seriousness of commercial art and a critique of identity, truth and belief. This is similar in spirit to the avant-garde Fluxus group whose philosophy is intertwined with 126. Fluxus like 126 is an attitude, not a movement or a style. Fluxus is fun, and humour has always been an important element in Fluxus [6] which is vital for 126 too in order to maintain fresh opinions and prevent stale stagnant repetition.
Each exhibition and exchange is organized by the artists on the board and funded by government bodies. 126 curatorial decisions are made on an artistic rather than an economic basis. This is an important strength, but each unemployed board member is an active unpaid curator. Experience is gained through learning which is invaluable to all who partake in the gallery both for their career and practice. But, can the constitution of 126 remain the same if the board is paid? Is there a need to become more philanthropic as a board that may too make a living? Would this increase the quality and strength of 126 or destroy it? This needs to be addressed as part of the wider political art agenda at the 126 AGM and with the members. It will cause conflict and a reshaping of the organization by appointing an administrator and gallery staff yet maintaining the healthy turnaround of the board, this is debatable. As a dynamic precious group this could self destruct within this framework.
The creation of a collective artistic identity is an untouched public sphere according to Jurgen Habermas who describes this as a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be found and access is granted to all. 126 artist’s curators are shaping an understanding of culture; art and politics within this sphere. The programme reflects a desire to stand out from the cultural embrace of capitalism.
Habermas’s realm of life can be applied to justify the existence of 126 who take pride in opting out of capitalist mentality preferring instead to gather and display voices that are unrepresented. This is a position of authority, according to curator Karen Atkinson[1] and within this voices are framed. She believes our assumptions as the artist curator and the language we use shape the curatorial method, context and nature of the institution and shape society.
The curatorial strategies for project ‘Dorm’ are reflections of this legacy and position of authority.[1] The director Seamus Kealy aspirations were to mediate an urgent international programme of contemporary art for a wide audience. The gallery showcased experimentation that actively engages socio-economic and political realities both local and international.The Model re-opened at 6pm on May Day with a vibrant exhibition. With a nod to the political events of May 1968, it was an opportunity to shake up the "old society" and traditional morality, focusing especially on installations referencing pagan traditions; projects involving political activism; a collaborative photo project with the local military; complex video projections; participatory projects that involve the public, local government and cats; sculpture that confronted audiences with international issues; collaborations between Irish and Northern Irish artists; and elaborate, playful constructions in the gallery that invited the viewer in. Twenty-two international artist collectives transformed the building into an all encompassing art project full of resistance to co-modification, bureaucratization and focus on building an imaginative social environment that promotes a new form of collective ownership. It was not about showcasing a big curator or moving into the canon of curating formalism. It was more about applying the lessons and failures of avant- garde art to a curatorial ethos which needs a curatorial and artist voice. Boris Groys insists that art has become biopolitical due to this desire for art to resemble life, a life of imagined society and utopian desire.[2] Dorm nodded towards a desire to be like life so that the division between art and non-art could reduce within this large scale parody of the art fair against the backdrop of the international crisis. They questioned what defines our world today in relation to power, reinforcement, the corporate and the social structures. Artists too, can be pioneers who produce new forms of social commonalities in resistance to techno-cultural capitalistic dominance. There is a new power of resistance within the artist led space which provides voice to the individual struggle to maintain a relationship with the world and space for nameless plurality that is often unrepresented[3]. Kealy, as director (not curator) believes this is a possible task for contemporary art.
Catalyst Arts, Belfast and 126, Galway collaborated together to put on display how a gallery runs over a two months condensed into two days. A direct unplanned relation was made to Asher’s exhibition Project for Clair Copley Gallery 1974 who used the gallery as his material and exposed the gallery structures.[4] This critique engaged the gallery as a reflexive site, one of socially engaged relations. The gallery’s office was put on display in 1974 by Asher as author of the situation who incorporated a formal analysis of the gallery site.
A form of institutional critique emerged from the intersection of conceptual process with the site specific. The artist curates the show and dominates the space. The work is embraced. The brains of the gallery and arts trickery are exposed within this successful quiet confrontational collaboration now art-historical curatorial critique. A restatement of its urgent stakes arises May 2011 in ‘Dorm’. Asher develops Duchamp on. Catalyst and 126 move Asher on with this created Project for The Model as a pure coincidence with the historical context it embodied. Art now exists for discourse practices that recognize it as art within this gesture by demonstrating that the institution of art is not only institutionalized but internalized by modes of perception that allow us to produce and curate.
A mini opening took place within the space alongside the opening night of ‘Dorm’. The space took on a life of its own and took shape quickly. 126 ran a live open call and all submissions were displayed in the space. The office contents from both galleries became the art objects which provided the context of this piece. Catalyst displayed its archival library and developed the ‘Curiosity Club’. Local artists were invited to show their work and businesses in Sligo town sponsored the event. The dynamics of running a show were put on display alongside the office and curatorial methodologies. Every single member of each board wore blue boiler suits sprayed with their individual logo mimicking capitalist branding similar to the branding of cows in a massive field in order to separate two neighboring farm animals. This collaboration represented the young artists creating the young argumentative gestures. It was not clean, controlled or about display. There was a shift in the exhibition making and it suggested a reversed wild curatorial strategy which was a little grotesque. This was by no means fresh. 126 and catalyst moved it on by inviting the public to partake in the show, invited the corporate in and local business sponsorship, facilitated a live open call and held an opening with cheese, wine and a disco. But did this move both organizations into a tight corner with no way out except to party? No great curators are employed here and this creates a fluid status enjoyed by the independent artist curator on the board.This may have been subconsciously repeated. How can we prevent the same recurring list of events again and again or is it just part of the learning curve? Perhaps it is the natural building block process for the artist led rite of passage. 126 and catalyst emancipated their roles within the institution and this took on a new currency.
Artists worry their work will be sublimated to the curators ideas while the institutional curator worries whether the artwork will contribute to the curatorial theme. Curators like authors often give a rise to a kind of artistic development over time. The director of the model learnt from the artists but what was learnt and what has been achieved from the past to the present by the artist as curators? A shared dialogue and mutual exchange took place. This all seems a little flat. There is a desire for something more in the post modernist artist led space where pushing the boundaries is simply no longer enough. How 126 position themselves as artists curators and how accessible they are shaped the content of the exhibition and have implications for how the project was received. It was not good enough and resulted in retrograde curatorial strategy rather than a future for critical curating.
‘If it is successful it becomes history and tends to eliminate itself’
This comment by Jens Hoffman suggests that history tends to eliminate its success. This may have added to this curatorial amnesia adopted by 126 and Catalyst. Hoffman suggests curators question and dismantle the structure of exhibition and the institution using strategies from the 1960’s to the 1970’s. Dorm adopted the parameters of the artist run exhibition who are still using these strategies. These parameters are restricting which was felt as you walked in and out of each boxed room that housed each collective. This became its material in 2010. Both the curator and the artist need to negotiate a way out of this tight rigid repetitive frame. The institution became the discursive platform for this negotiation to take place.
Asher’s legacy resurfaced in the artist run collaboration by accident and in an amicable way. There is reason for disappointment. Curating is a key practice that 126 does well in itself and not just a means to facilitate negotiations with artists and institutional curators. There is a need to reassess the role of the artist run curated space. 126 is a live working group who build networks, references and partnerships, resources and exchanges. The quest for new curatorial practices between the institution and the artists needs to shift to blur the lines between the artist and director, artist and audience.
Perhaps there is a need for small cumulative off site dialogical project development. Is this a new challenge for 126, Catalyst and the bigger institution? Perhaps contemporary art no longer needs the bigger institution despite Kealy’s desire for the curators voice and the artist voice to work together. The so called avant- garde model is reworked within the limitations set by its cultural political environment and always preceded the frame but now seems stagnant or choked by that frame. An even playing field should be provided because 126 is a fragile space that sows the seeds for this critique.
“We are the institutions of art: the object of our critiques, our attacks, is always also inside ourselves”[1]
The term collective is slippery and in forming as one why is this meaningful? What is the value in the collective identity with no signal author? There is no demand to have a ‘big meaning’ as such it is about actively doing and participating in this world as active citizens. 126 is different which is central to shaping a healthy public sphere. The collective has been and tried yet the desire for community continues. Ireland did not experience a revolution in the 60’s or 70’s similar to America or Europe; it is only beginning and is reflected in today’s manic art activity. Culture, bound in red bureaucratic tape has been Irelands experience to date. There is an urgency to maintain this freshness and uniqueness within the democratic space of the artist led space and the institution for the artist as curator.
