This post comes to you from EcoArtScotland
Judy Spark: We have talked about â€˜hopeâ€™ and about â€˜wonderâ€™ but looking around at those mechanisms that will seek to commodify almost every realm of human endeavour the second it appears, itâ€™s easy to feel a bit dispirited sometimes, despite the legions of creative practitioners who are standing up to this â€“ or that play along with it in order to! Is for instance, the creeping â€˜academisationâ€™ of creative practice something that we should worry about in this respect? This development is surely bound up with the commodification of â€˜knowledgeâ€™ and in a way that is closely aligned with what Tim Kasser (mentioned in the last post) would call â€˜extrinsicâ€™ values? In any case, for me, writing happens differently to making â€“ though listening is still a major component â€“ but Iâ€™ll need to think about what makes them different.
Samantha Clark: For me, itâ€™s important to keep a lightness to creative work, not to let it become too sure of its own rightness, or too didactic. It needs to be a little uncertain, always in a questioning stance. But, like you, Iâ€™m also drawn to the academic, philosophical work. For me, the two are in direct conversation, I donâ€™t draw a line, though as Iâ€™ve said, I like that I can load the academic work with all the baggage so the art can have more lightness. But itâ€™s not done in the hope that I might make better art as a result of all that booklearning, but because I like to stretch my mind that way. But I recognise itâ€™s not that way for everyone. As for writing v. visual, creative work in either medium feels like a similar processâ€¦you hold an idea, thought, sensation, moment in your mind, turn it over and over, and itâ€™s quite fuzzy and indistinct at first, but then something begins to crystallise out. Maybe itâ€™s a word. Maybe itâ€™s a sound. Maybe itâ€™s an image. Maybe itâ€™s an image that conjures up certain words. Maybe itâ€™s a word that conjures a particular image. But whatever it is it seems somehow to resonate. And so you set it down. Then another word, image, sound seems to sit alongside it in a way that is more than the sum of the two, and so you just keep going. It always feels like stepping out blindly, one foot after another, into a white fog hoping the ground will be there when you step onto it.
JS: Yes, that is a highly accurate description of the process! It seems that neither of us really make a line between the processes of writing and making. Something led both of us to the MAVE; perhaps a desire for rigour in the philosophical subject area that might not be found within the fine art MA (I very much liked the reference you made to the notion of the â€˜personal trainerâ€™ to get you through all those philosophical texts!) Perhaps this latter point, about rigour, could be a bit contentious given the current phenomenon of the interdisciplinary MA? I mean because maybe some of those fine art crossover MAs think that this is what theyâ€™re offering â€“ and I hasten to add, maybe by now they do, but contentious also because of the number of artists that are beginning to take on this â€˜trainingâ€™ â€“ Isnâ€™t making art enough!? Stupidly, it becomes about whatâ€™s â€˜fashionableâ€™â€¦if enough people do it, institutions think everyone should, and so begin to structure their courses accordingly; and so we end up with, for instance, the debacle over the PhD potentially becoming the â€˜terminalâ€™ degree in fine art instead of the MA â€“ James Elkins and Brad Buckley have both written well about this.
For me, a lot about the way I work has to do with recognising the multitude of other ways that artists work; itâ€™s to do with the generosity / gift / love element of contributing to a dialogue. In short, I donâ€™t work the way I do because I think itâ€™s the â€˜rightâ€™ or â€˜onlyâ€™ way to work â€“ and Iâ€™m sure you donâ€™t either â€“ it is about â€˜following your nose, as a way of making that sort of contribution.
SC: Yes, I see what you mean. For bookish types like us itâ€™s fine, but there are some very fine artists around for whom this is such an imposition, this expectation that you should be an artist AND an academic, that making art is no longer enough, you have to also be able to theorise it extensively, and write about it academically. I suppose itâ€™s an inevitable outcome of the process of Art Schools becoming part of Universities. Itâ€™s worth pointing out that art education in Germany has not gone down this path. So there are alternative routes. And artists donâ€™t HAVE to be in the academy to practice, unlike a philosopher, for example. Artists can and do exist completely outwith the academic world, but are just subject to a whole other set of pressures â€“ commercial ones â€“ which they navigate with varying degrees of success and equanimity. Unless you are financially independent (with your own gallery and PR to boot), youâ€™re going to have to navigate either, or more likely both, of these worlds. And itâ€™s going to be a continual adjustment. Well, thatâ€™s my thinking anyway. Maybe Iâ€™m fudging it, but wherever there is money there is an agenda. As education becomes increasingly monetised this will change, but still, for all its many faults, the world of Higher Education inspires me more than the commercial art world, and fits more closely with my values. Not a perfect fit, but good enough for me to make some creative headway.
JS: Yes, I feel that inhabiting that world works for me too. It seems the best place to be, to return to hopefulness for a moment, of formalising my hopes of contributing fully to, and of getting something back from, on-going philosophic discourse of environment (and for you too perhaps, through the field of creative writing). Of course it is possible to contribute in this way as an artist, and though it is at least beginning to be widely accepted that artists have much to offer within such discourse, I feel that they are also generally expected to bring an artistâ€™s perspective to the mix, whatever that means! In my experience, I still think that it is difficult to shake off the perception of the artist as being some free spirit that can drift in bringing their artistâ€™s perspective, like some elixir, to every problem. I wonder if there is still the tendency to regard this perspective as a form of idealism, a sort of blue sky thinking outside of real world solutions to problems?
Perhaps itâ€™s not important but I noticed very recently, when under pressure to refine REF statements in fact, that it was, for me, very important that the written output stood as something undertaken by a person who is writing as opposed to the notion that the writing might take on some form/character as a result of having been written by an artist. Indeed itâ€™s perhaps the case that being â€˜An Artistâ€™ actually hinders dialogue over some things, but you go to a conference, first just as another â€˜someoneâ€™ who has written something and then it comes out in conversation that you are also an artist, that seems to work better!?
Buckley, B. And Conomos, J. (2009) Rethinking the Contemporary Art School: The Artist, the PhD, and the Academy, Halifax, Canada: The Press of The Nova Scotia College
Elkins, J. (2009) Artists with PhDs: On the new Doctoral Degree in Studio Art, Washington, DC: New Academia Publishing
ecoartscotland is a resource focused on art and ecology for artists, curators, critics, commissioners as well as scientists and policy makers. It includes ecoartscotland papers, a mix of discussions of works by artists and critical theoretical texts, and serves as a curatorial platform.
It has been established byÂ Chris Fremantle, producer and research associate withÂ On The Edge Research,Â Grayâ€™s School of Art, The Robert Gordon University. Fremantle is a member of a number of international networks of artists, curators and others focused on art and ecology.
Powered by WPeMatico