tracing the borders publication, eray cayli

3

Tracing the bordersA collective reaction from emerging European artists to

their contemporary cultural environments

7. 12. 09 - 16. 12. 09

Co-ordinator Sarah WaltersEditors Olivia Bailey, Sally Mumby - Croft, Sarah Walters

Design Emily Whitebread

4

Introduction 6 Tracing the borders by SarahWalters

Participant Details 8Contact details of artists

Trail One 18Olivia Bailey

Trail Two 28Nino Biniashvili

Trail Three 41Eray Çaylı

Trail Four 72Vivian Chan

Trail Five 78Justine Christauskaite

Trail Six 83Cathrine Dahl

Trail Seven 106Natalie Dray

Trail Eight 112Pernille Fjoran

Trail Nine 116Erika Erre

Trail Ten 119Marit Flåtter

Trail Eleven 138Niels Henriksen

Trail Twelve 142Sally Hogarth

Trail Thirteen 146Jaakko Karhunen

Trail Fourteen 150Kim Kilde

Trail Fifteen 162Monika Lipšic

Trail Sixteen 166Kat Mammone

Trail Seventeen 172Natalie Marr

Trail Eighteen 182Sally Mumby-Croft

Trail Nineteen 188Lina Norell

Trail Twenty 192Maibritt Pedersen

Trail Twenty-One 246Kasparas Pocius

Trail Twenty-Two 254Pasi Rauhala

Trail Twenty-Three 258Hanna Saarikoski

CONTENTS

5

Trail Twenty-Four 262Viktorija Siaulyte

Trail Twenty-Five 268Johanna Sipilä

Trail Twenty-Six 274Line Dolmen

Trail Twenty-Seven 278Sille Storihle

Trail Twenty-Eight 286Kristin Tårnes

Trail Twenty-Nine 292Marie Thams

Trail Thirty 311Linas Tranas

Trail Thirty-One 318Egle Vitkute

Trail Thirty-Two 324Sarah Walters

Trail Thirty-Three 332Laura Wesamaa

Trail Thirty-Four 340Emily Whitebread

Trail Thirty-Five 344Giedre Zukauskaite

Acknowledgements 349

6

Tracing the borders:A collective reaction from emergingEuropean artists to their contemporarycultural environments

Tracing the borders: A collective reaction from emerging European art-ists to their contemporary cultural environment was conceived for the Trondheim bi-annual, Manufacturing Today, in 2009. Manufacturing To-day, curated by Cristina Ricupero, is a five-year research project with stu-dent participation, working within the context of art and education. The bi-annual seeks to question what art education is for, how art education functions alongside the art market, and ultimately, what it means to be an “artist”. Manufacturing Today will take the form of workshop sessions, a publication, an exhibition and several commissions.

Tracing the borders explores similar ground to Manufacturing Today, but whereas Manufacturing Today is not a self-organised project, generated from “below”, “Tracing the borders” is entirely so.

From the 7th December to the 16th December 2009, thirty-five emerg-ing artists from six European countries came together, via the Internet, to produce Tracing the borders, a collaborative text.

Created through a number of email conversations Tracing the borders began with a single question. Artists were asked to answer the initial question and to then ask another participant of their choosing a new question. This structure was followed throughout; eliciting over one hun-dred and fifty questions and answers among the group of artists.

The resulting text raises a variety of topics that preoccupy the minds of contemporary emerging artists practicing today. Those currently based in England, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland and Denmark discuss their experiences of the differing conditions in the art scenes that they have been part of. From London to Jerusalem to Lapland, the discussion

INTRODUCTION

7

raises questions about art education systems, governments’ roles in the art environment and the prevailing attitudes towards emerging artists in each location.

Personally and politically this collaborative text provides participants and readers with numerous mini essays which are both informative and inspiring. Tracing the borders is a vital example of how, and why, emerg-ing artists have the desire to shape the future of their profession. Not only is the dialogue of importance, but the act of exchange is also crucial. Through exchange we are able to identify the specificity of our situation and progress through shared experience. Tracing the borders provides an essential forum for these conversations; these words that come di-rectly from “below”.

Sarah Walters

41

Trail Three

Olivia Bailey, Eray Çaylı, Justine Christauskaite, Natalie Dray, Pernille Fjoran, Marit Flåtter, Kim Kilde, Kat Mammone,

Sally Mumby-Croft, Lina Norell, Pasi Rauhala, Viktorija Sialuyte, Sille Storihle, Marie Thams, Linas Tranas, Sarah Walters,

Giedre Zukauskaite

42

Sarah Walters

Eray Çaylı

JustineChristauskaite

Pernille Fjoran Marit Flåtter Kim Kilde

Linas TranasEray Çaylı


Pernille Fjoran SallyMumby-Croft

Sille Storihle

Sarah Walters SallyMumby-Croft

Linas TranasSille Storihle Marie Thams Linas Tranas

Kat Mammone

Lina Norell ViktorijaSiaulyte

Olivia Bailey

Natalie Dray

Pasi Rauhala

Linas Tranas

Marie Thams

Linas Tranas

GiedreZukauskaite

43

Sarah Walters

Eray Çaylı


Pernille Fjoran Marit Flåtter Kim Kilde

Linas TranasEray Çaylı


Pernille Fjoran SallyMumby-Croft

Sille Storihle

Sarah Walters SallyMumby-Croft

Linas TranasSille Storihle Marie Thams Linas Tranas

Kat Mammone

Lina Norell ViktorijaSiaulyte

Olivia Bailey

Natalie Dray

Pasi Rauhala

Linas Tranas

Marie Thams

Linas Tranas

GiedreZukauskaite

44

From: Sarah Walters ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 07 December 2009 09:46:03 To: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected])

Dear Eray,

As an emerging artist can you describe the contemporary art environ-ment in the country/countries in which you are working or have worked?

Sarah Walters

From: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected]) Sent: 07 December 2009 22:10:53 To: Sarah Walters ENGLAND ([email protected])

Since I am not really an artist, I will try to address this question by referring to my observations concerning a recent redefinition of the contempo-rary understanding of art, as well as design. I want to start by pointing out to two paradigm shifts that occurred in Western culture which I think paved the way to such redefinition. These are:

1.From Fordist to Post-Fordist Economy. (Physical manufacturing of goods moved to what is often called the developing world). Broadly speaking, in the Fordist economy, designers, artists, etc. used to be evaluated by the “end-product” they created. (By product, I don’t mean only prod-uct design--when I say product one should understand the outcome of any creative process, it can be a painting, a sculpture, etc.) Here “the object” was the focus of the creative practices, therefore style was of utmost importance--this was how the creative practitioner distinguished his/her work from others. Let us call this focal point “THE WHAT.” In the Post-Fordist Economy, “the what” is in decline as an asset.

2.The Societal Shift to the Information Age. “Know-how” was the name of the game in pre-information age times. Information was difficult to reach; therefore specific practical skills were extremely valuable. How-ever, today with increased ease of access to information (open-source programming, tutorials, file sharing, etc.) the creative individual is able to reach an immense amount of information. Let us call the focus of the pre-information age creative process “THE HOW.” Due to the information age paradigm, “the how” is increasingly declining in value.

45

In an era when anything can be done by anyone at anytime, how does the artist make a difference through his/her practice? Since we have seen that “the what” and “the how” are in decline as values, now is the time to suggest a new focus for creative practices: “THE WHY.”

This is precisely how I see the contemporary condition of art to have evolved: no matter what style the artist adopts, no matter what particu-lar form his/her creative process ends up in, there is an increasing pres-sure as to how he/she contextualises his/her work with relevance to cul-ture, society, politics, etc. Here there is an increasing emphasis on why the artist has done what he/she has done.

Therefore the contemporary art scene witnesses a proliferation of works that are “politically-conscious,” “socially-responsible,” “culturally-rele-vant,” so on and so forth. This is most evident in the contemporary design scene in my native Istanbul, whereby the artworks that are able to strike a chord in the international scene are often the ones that seemingly take a clear ideological stand vis-à-vis the current political climate in the country. Therefore we no longer see artist collectives that are char-acterised by certain styles--on the contrary, they are distinguished from others by their critical discourse. To be sure, here the central discussion should focus on whether the above notions that show the increasing im-portance of “THE WHY” are able to make any impact on the society at large, or rather serve as mere labels that are inevitably exploited in an era whereby style and know-how has given way to meaning and con-text.

Best,Eray Çaylı

New question asked. See page 45

From: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected]) Sent: 07 December 2009 22:39:01 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Pernille Elida Fjoran NORWAY ([email protected]) Marit Flåtter NORWAY ([email protected]) Kim Kilde DENMARK ([email protected])

46

As a creative individual receiving training/education to become a “pro-fessional” artist/designer/craftsperson, how do you see your future prac-tice to be affected by the following changes brought up by the network society: 1) Loosening of intellectual property rights (e.g. open-source, wiki, etc.), 2) Rise of the amateur (e.g. Etsy.com)?

From: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 11 December 2009 11:29:20 To: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected])

Hello,

Here I send the answer. Have a nice day,

Justine

1. Loosening of intellectual property rights is very useful – it spreads infor-mation. Sometimes it can lead to mistakes, because there’s no guaran-tee that everything that is written is a fact or more a subjective interpre-tation of the creator. When I studied Politics and International Relations in Vilnius, my country’s capital, it was not allowed to use such sources as Wiki for their lack of certainty. Such Internet pages as Wiki and others are very useful for the people having small income but wanting to clay their intellectual gaps. In contemporary times a person if motivated and stub-born enough can learn anything he wants individually with no courses or lectures. The Internet provides any type of knowledge; just sometimes it is hard to separate the truth from the made up. It is hard to select and mo-tivate yourself enough – so many possibilities and choices make people feel lost.

I listened to the lecture Steven Johnson “The Web and the City” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-SBzQnFx7A and I agree how the Inter-net is changing communication between people. An open source like Google is competitive – which link will be the first on the list. For me this lecture answers quite a lot about network and society.

2. If you make a website in order to sell, its virtually can question the no-tion of trust. In a physical market you can touch, smell and get sure of the product by your own eyes, here you get a picture. These amateur Internet pages make it (the web) more warm and get the possibilities for average rich or not rich people to show their talents, to find an alterna-tive job - afford a living. There’s no need to study in art school and doubt

47

your talent – just make it and see if it’s saleable. Sometimes, for people who didn’t study art it is even better because they are not tormented by their creative past - with the need of conceptual explanation about the works they have done. Photographers, video artists, painters, sculp-tors have more to explain about their works of art than designers and architects - although this is more crafts than art. It prompts the question – do you want to show your personality and get into art projects and dis-cussions, or do you want just to live a calm family life and sell some nice creation of your own?

I’m not sure if I have got everything right, but I tried to answer as I under-stood.


Pernille Fjoran NORWAY Unanswered

From: Marit Kristine Flåtter NORWAY ([email protected]) Sent: 08 December 2009 17:52:46 To: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected])

In my opinion the diversity the network society has brought with it, by shar-ing intellectual knowledge, art, commercial, propaganda etc. among all and everyone connected to a computer, is mainly a good thing.

Regarding intellectual property rights, the network society might hope-fully force us to look at collective rather than personal property. Does your written word really belong to you? When you have created a piece, who owns it? Is it too controversial to answer everyone? The anarchistic sharing, if it opens up and changes the infrastructure of the distributed and shared knowledge be it art, spam or propaganda, it definitely has the potential to change economic and artistic power structures. For me I hope that the hyper reflective network society doesn’t lead to more pro-tection of property and ownership, but maybe that is what happens...I wish it would rather keep developing intellectual and democratic sys-tems for sharing. The second question about the rise of the amateur. I have never seen amateurs as competitors to professionals. Be it on solid ground, or in virtual life.

48

Best Marit K. Flåtter


From: Kim Kilde DENMARK ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 12:12:32 To: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected])

With the network society and the free flow of information there seems to rise a differentiation between mere information quantity (true or false) and information quality. By this it becomes obvious that the gathering of information has nothing to do with education, and that the property of information is absurd. The inflation of information increases and ap-pears to be without intrinsic value. The quality of knowing is important; the quantity of knowledge is useless. The network society will bring a re-freshed focus on the experience of the body, since the quality of real information and energy is felt through the whole body, not the brain.

New question asked. See page


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhgfz0zPmH4

Google Goggle – where should the boundary be where such techniques shouldn’t go? You can look with Google Goggle at a stranger’s face and it tells you which person it is. Where does the moral part begin - what should be not allowed?

From: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected]) Sent: 11 December 2009 17:56:43 To: Juste Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Hello,

Here is my answer to your question. Thank you very much.

49

Best,Eray

The problem I see when I encounter such technologies is often not only related to the technology itself but to the larger paradigm it is a part of. What I mean is that I think technology is often a manifestation of the zeitgeist. To be sure, it can speed certain processes up and slow others down, but I tend to think that technology itself should not be the centre of the ethical debate.

Let me explain what I mean in the context of your question: from the In-dustrial Revolution onwards, “time” has emerged as the most important asset that a human being owns. What humans have since been doing is actually to make a living by trading their “time” as labour, in one way or another. Upon the emergence of “time” as the most valuable com-modity, the scarcity thereof was thus inevitable (just like any other type of commodity).

Therefore, since mid-1950s, there is a sub-theme that underlies most so-cial experiences, which is the “scarcity of time.” Call it individualism, con-sumer society or safety-freakness, people in the Western culture have been finding it increasingly difficult to “take their time” with things: to get to know people, to understand a culture, to really digest a theory, etc. This is how we, as the Western culture, have come up with innovations such as “Introduction to” books, “speed-dating” services, among many other things.

The social scientist Richard Sennett suggests that many young people dismiss so many experiences without even making the effort to actually have them, thus missing out on a lot of opportunities for personal devel-opment. He says that preconceived possibilities of risk, threat, conflict, etc. tend to scare people off, as they prepare to embark on the journey of their life as adults. Whereas, he argues that these possibilities are to be made use of, for it is thanks to them that a person has his/her most life-enriching experiences, which later help him/her develop a strong char-acter and personality.

So what we actually witness today with the “Google-search paradigm” is just an extension of this several-decade old process. Today, we in the Western culture lack the patience to take our time with people, ideas, places, etc. What we do is to Google them, with the motivation of get-ting to know them immediately, albeit only superficially. This is briefly why I think such innovations are just reflections of the current cultural condi-

50

tion, and not in themselves the menace or the source of the problem. To go back to the ethical question: a process which was initiated by our fears of risk, threat and safety (following Sennett), thus leading us to be increasingly superficial in our social relationships and experiences, is now ironically converging towards a point which is not safe, risk-free or threat-free at all - with the aid of various ways of google-ing.


From: Marit Kristine Flåtter NORWAY ([email protected]) Sent: 08 December 2009 20:10:47 To: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected])

“Finally, I decided to study something else than art”, taken from the brief introduction about you, is interesting. It raises questions. Can you describe further what led you to that decision, and maybe answer if de-spite of this, you consider yourself an artist?

Best Marit K. Flåtter

From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 09 December 2009 23:27:38 To: Marit Kristine Flåtter NORWAY ([email protected])

Linas’ answer (and I apologise for a messy answer):

I left art education:

1) Because of contradictions I encountered: e.g. art as an establishment of relation/communication among people; the separation of the artist and the viewer; professional/mechanical production of the art objects and their pretentious presentation as something meaningful, important, personal; between individual creativity and the organisation of cultural signs as creation; and others.

2) I felt the period of study was too short to find or crystallise some artistic practice. What kind of artistic practice could I focus on if to the art edu-cation I came straight from the school, without any experience and any understanding of the world that I was about to enter or participate in? It may be for this reason, that one of the major targets in the university

51

is shaping one’s own style or direction for further research. However, the style doesn’t warrant understanding, creativity, reason and meaning of your practice.

3) As I’ve been studying video arts and film (with a tendency to experi-mental filmmaking), there are not that many technical things you have to learn before you can actually start filming, it’s a question of a few workshops. And you don’t have to learn all the techniques as people traditionally do in e.g. drawing, painting or sculpture. Thus, the main learning of filmmaking is by practising and then analysing your practice. Of course, you may spend some more time learning traditional narra-tive filmmaking. And so, if you want to experiment, you don’t necessar-ily need the knowledge of traditional films, because that would be the knowledge of their traditions and conventions, not the filmmaking.

So if you are not targeting filmmaking, instead based in the craft of knowledge of cultural conventions, do you still need this education? The other question may rise when concerning the notion of the term ‘experi-mental’. What does it mean? If we are still talking about experimenting, which only requires the ability to control the filmmaking machinery, then what is the education in this field about? Isn’t it about practising? If it’s about practising, why does one need to go for such an education? Well, the reason may be: concentrated resources, both technical, and those for research, tutoring by professionals and experienced people in the field, their feedback, the environment of like-minded people.

Now, let’s look at all these things one by one. Firstly, technical resources give you an opportunity to get to know an inevitable part of film/video-making. Researching resources can help you in this as well: educational videos, manuals and etc. The other side of the resources, then, is de-voted for your research into the field of film/video-making from a con-ceptual, cultural point of view. So, it’s for you to see how the others used the medium for their ends, and to get ideas how to use it for yourself. In a way, it is a culturisation of your use of the medium. Which may be useful and may be harmful.

Further, the tutoring of the professionals and their feedback may be seen as one of the most important things in education. Most of the time the professionals will give you good advice because of their experience and knowledge. However, professionals’, advice can have priority only in their field. If, let’s say, you have an aim to reach some people, some par-ticular audience, the best feedback would be from that audience. Only then, when you already know the audience, the professional can come

52

and help you with advice on how to employ the medium to achieve what you want the best. So, their professional point of view is quite de-scribed and not all embracing. You have to ask them (as professionals) clear questions about their field to get the best answers. But if you have nothing to ask about the things they are teaching, their role in your edu-cation naturally diminishes. Thus, what are they supporting you with? This could be lectures and their presentations that might serve as an explora-tion of the field of studies and might become some inspiration. But that is just another form for delivering the information e.g. reading books could be an alternative.

I suppose, I simply don’t like the idea of becoming an artist because this status doesn’t matter for me and I don’t feel helpless in the other fields. So why should I reach for this status if I don’t need it? If it doesn’t make anymore difference to me than the other things would make, except maybe my social role?

Do I consider myself an artist?

Actually, there is a split of the conception of the artist in my head. There is an artist that is working in an art tradition and there is my own un-derstanding of an artist. Actually, now, when making some piece of so called art, I feel pretty much the same as I used to feel before going to university. Anyway, I continue making videos and other things that are, I suppose, described as art. Art is a wonderful way of expression and ex-change. Nonetheless, I’m neither chasing ‘artness’ nor trying to make a more interesting thing than the other artists have done. I don’t want to be occupied with cultural production. If my activity is classified as art, let it be, but I still don’t have any intention of getting into some class, and getting classified as an artist.

No, I don’t consider myself an artist.

Best luck!Linas


53

From: Eray Çaylı SWEDEN ([email protected]) Sent: 11 December 2009 17:56:43 To: Juste Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

As a creative individual (artist, designer, craftsperson) do you feel that you’re able to engage in social/public conversation through your work (start a discussion, persuade people’s opinion, stimulate new ideas, etc.)? What is the venue where you think best facilitates such conversa-tion: the gallery, the street, the studio, the cyberspace, the art/design school, etc.?


Hello,

There is not so much time that I could answer to your question properly – everything must be answered in a few hours time. I like how you answer the questions – I get informed and some more questions to think. So I want to give the same feedback – not to answer just superficially.

As a creative individual I feel that I can engage with my artworks in social/public conversations, but I feel that to engage with the ordinary public my artwork should be connected more with a political situation or some cultural actions. The best facilities for doing this in my country would be the street and cyberspace, because a larger amount of people can be accessed. It depends if I want to access ordinary or art people, to get into a gallery or to sell some craft works. In my country one of the best ways to engage ordinary people I guess are writings on the wall on proper places – where in a traffic jam all the cars and public transport are standing and people have nothing to do, just gaze though the win-dows waiting for their cars to move. In that time they are very bored and every pedestrian is watched thoroughly as he goes through the sidewalk near where the transport in the traffic jam is standing.

Actually, I don‘t consider engaging social/public conversation as a goal – it means I don‘t think about it, but what I do unconsciously engages in it.

54

Second best space is some video watching Internet sites, like Vimeo etc. As an artist I like to make short funny video clips, which I create for a par-ticular song. The content of it I guess, unconsciously to me, tells about my cultural condition.

I guess designers and architects have to think about how their work en-gages the public, because their work is connected with it strongly. Such artists as photographers, video, multimedia and similar, I guess, don‘t think about engaging with the public, unless they are politically or cultur-ally interested or motivated. If you‘ll have some time I would like to exchange letters with you and after the project, because I have some more questions to ask. Thank you, it was nice and informative getting your letters, Justine


From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 10 December 2009 08:36:21 To: Pernille Elida Fjoran NORWAY ([email protected]) Sally Mumby- Croft ENGLAND ([email protected])

Hi Pernille and Sally!

Would you consider it as a defeat if your political art practice and your attempts to resist the subordination of your works in the professional sys-tem were subordinated anyway at the end?

Linas

From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 11 December 2009 21:24:05 To: Pernille Elida Fjoran NORWAY ([email protected])

Sorry, Pernille!

55

I hope these will be easier to understand :) (they are a bit different from the first one).

Do you think the resistance against the professional/ institutional/ com-mercial/ snobbish etc. art system is meaningful in itself? What if it is impos-sible to avoid it?

Regards!Linas

From: Pernille Elida Fjoran NORWAY ([email protected]) Sent: 12 December 2009 11:34:57 To: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Hmm…

I assume you thought about my introduction about myself - where I talk about politics in different ways and contexts.

I never meant that I work with resistance against professional/institution-al/ commercial/snobbish etc. art. I really think it is impossible to avoid it, at least in Europe. But there is a new “trend” at the moment with outsider art in different ways, but this also needs the institution in some way to get a context of the reading.

It is actually difficult to answer because I don’t understand if you mean this as an open question. It feels like you are talking on behalf of my in-troductory text about myself, which is actually more about the art – the expression and aesthetics of politics I am thinking about. And about art - politics, I am more curious about how we can find a way to be “sustain-able” as artists.

Hmm…I hope this was some kind of answer.

Regards,Pernille

56

From: Sally Mumby-Croft ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 11 December 2009 00:10:21 To: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Sadly this subordination appears to be inevitable. All art appears to even-tually be consumed by the professional system. Is this because there are too few people to maintain an alternative or the desire to remain in the alternative, I do not know. I feel more frustrated by fads in art which sub-sequently dictate what art institutions encourage people to make - spe-cifically art education institutions - instead of being a breeding ground for creativity, they are as Linas mentioned increasingly places where one is encouraged to be a professional and to market oneself with a web-site and a definition on graduation of college. This practice increasingly seems abhorrent to my original ideas of art school being free thinking places of active discussion.

Whilst at Goldsmiths I felt students were frequently shut down for making the “wrong” type of art or for being ill equipped to articulate their in-ner visualisation of the world and their participation. This act of uncritical thinking became increasing apparent as fads or trends changed in the art world - a change which was subsequently felt in what some of the tutors encouraged us to make whilst in the studio.

With regards to my last video, yes I would consider it to be a defeat. In fact, with regards to the film detailing the different perspectives of the residents of East London to that of the Olympics I already feel defeated. Upon showing the film to a person involved in the cultural Olympiad the remark noted was “cute”. The term “cute” was applied to residents who feel increasingly displaced and ignored within the political arena of the 2012 Olympics, in this example the work has been subordinated already, because those people whose opinions I want to address refuse to budge.

Yes I would see it as a defeat, but I would continue to make work to chal-lenge the subordination.

Sally

From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 11 December 2009 12:32:33 To: Sally Mumby- Croft ENGLAND ([email protected])

57

Dear Sally,

Thanks for your reply! I would like to ask you a question, in relation to your answer to my previous question. But first my reflection on your answer:

Yesterday I was in a philosophy lecture and caught one small idea, which may be interesting in our context. The lecturer said that to overcome the scepticism of others, you must go further. You must surmount it and step forward. Thus, don’t you think that subordination is actually an institution’s defeat, not a victory? It is actually forced to take your work and ideas in, to include them, because there is no other non-violent way it could control you. By taking critical practices or gestures in, the institution does not change from the essence; it only widens its scope, its content. But, when subordinating something, that institution interprets it according to its values and interests. Maybe that’s the critical and saddest point in a so thought ‘independent’ activity. Maybe the institution’s major (and maybe sole) weapon is this - power. It is a part of the whole system, is has access to capital, control of history and separation of authors and view-ers and art’s ability to have heterogeneous interpretations. Nonetheless, this institution may kill your ideas in a society, but not necessarily in you. You can keep working further, despite the increasing difficulties. As you say, “continue to make work to challenge the subordination.”

I think you will be defeated only when you stop thinking critically and can’t understand the situation critically - not when your work gets sub-ordinated in some way. One result of your work is only a fraction, a mo-ment of your whole practice, which is continuous.

However, my question is:

Could this resistance against the subordination be the main goal of your artistic activity in itself?

All the best,Linas

From: Sally Mumby-Croft ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 12 December 2009 10:42:52 To: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Dear Linas,

58

From: Sally Mumby-Croft ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 11 December 2009 00:17:45 To: Sille Storihle NORWAY ([email protected])

Dear Sille,

Please expand on your interest in sharing knowledge, how did you find knowledge to be shared whilst studying? Does your art practice contin-ue to share knowledge in your absence? Subsequently what form does your art practice take and what was your experience of art education?

I feel it is a hollow victory for the points that occur further into your para-graph. Whilst the institution is eventually forced to take an artist’s ideas or works in, I feel that it maintains its narrow scope by inserting artists neatly into a history of art, that still excludes the majority of artists working past and present. As you say “power: that it is a part of the whole system, ac-cess to capital, control of history and separation of authors and viewers; and art’s ability to have heterogeneous interpretations.” I feel that the access is still limited to what the museums and galleries want to show us, currently there is too much reliance on the idea that museums and gal-leries are breaking ground in artistic ideas, when more often than not, they are graveyards of ideas of yesteryear. Whilst it is important to un-derstand and know about everything that has gone before, I sometimes think there is too much precedence laid on these great artists of the modernist and post modernist era.

Perhaps I am going off track, with regards to your question to me. I am unsure because of course we are trained for the work to be in a gallery, to be seen by people and yet at the same time we do not want our work to be lost within the discourse of museums. Currently I do not have an answer for you. What I would like to say is that yes, I would like resistance against subordination to be a goal of my artistic activity. Through the videos I currently make I would like to show people that there are other ways of viewing events, that newspapers and the media do not always tell the fullest version.

Many Thanks,Sally


59

From: Sille Storihle NORWAY ([email protected]) Sent: 14 December 2009 15:23:21 To: Sally Mumby-Croft ENGLAND ([email protected])

I guess by introducing “sharing knowledge” as one of the pillars of my practice I do not talk only about the act of sharing, but also the counter-action to the idea of the genius producing ‘unique’ and ‘original’ pieces of art. Whilst studying I felt that the academy milieu reproduced this artist myth and prevented the potential of knowledge exchange. I felt we, as students, feared sharing our ideas to prevent their lose. This idea of the “original” art piece is to blame for this fear of loosing an idea or even the thought of giving it away.

To me, collaboration and dialogue have always produced more than I have been able to produce alone. I have deliberately done - and felt confident in doing - projects that have been done before, but not in the same context or with the same people. I learned to like projects that were similar to projects that I had done. The realisation that people work with the same visions, values and hopes should really provide a feeling of hope and not fear. I guess lots of the sharing is happening at a given time with a set group of people through collaboration etc, but I have also worked on things such as fanzines and websites.

I have done a few talks/presentations as well. I am mostly interested in using forms/medium that is easily reproducible, distributable and cheap to make. But I am also working with a more physical space on the west coast of Norway that can host workshops and be a platform for devel-oping a dialogue. Right now it is only a 14m2 tree house in the forest, but will be a part/host/provide a framework for, most likely, at least two workshops this summer.


From: Sille Storihle NORWAY ([email protected]) Sent: 14 December 2009 15:54:02 To: Sarah Walters ENGLAND ([email protected])

Dear Sarah,

During the European Text Exchange, after reading all the answers and

60

From: Sarah Walters ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 14 December 2009 15:54:02 To: Sille Storihle NORWAY ([email protected])

Dear Sille,

Having read all of the answers I don’t feel that I’ve gained a deep insight into the “art lives” of others like I thought I might have. I have realised that, in fact, our situations are very similar – we each have our localised battles to fight, whether it is the slave labour internships in London or the loneliness of working in Lapland. All the issues we face stem from one Western capitalist society.

Do I have any new ideas and strategies to develop exchange? Good question! With the development of technology it is surprisingly possible (perhaps not easy) to co ordinate across the continent, enabling strate-gies that I had previously dismissed. Ideally in the future I would like to see an international emerging artist community that reflects the possibilities of today – exchange of ideas/works/spaces etc.

As discussed throughout the text many participants are linked to artist run spaces across Europe – these physical spaces may enable us to be-gin creating an empowering network, allowing us all to exhibit overseas, share ideas and benefit from a broader knowledge of contemporary art.

This text provides only primary research – I think the first task will be putting it into context.

Best,Sarah

getting so much input, how do you think this can develop? Do you have any new ideas and strategies to develop the exchange?

Best,Sille

61

From: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 14 December 2009 18:34:17 To: Olivia Bailey ENGLAND ([email protected]); Katherine Mammone ENGLAND ([email protected]); Lina Norell NORWAY ([email protected]); Maibritt Pedersen DENMARK ([email protected]); Viktorija Siaulyte SWEDEN/LITHUANIA ([email protected]); Sille Storihle NORWAY [email protected]); Marie Thams DENMARK ([email protected]); Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]);

Artists groups. Please, express your opinion - what is the main reason for an artist to join/create a group in the contemporary world? Is group ac-tivity still relative nowadays? What could be the future of artist groups?

Thank you,Justine

From: Olivia Bailey ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 08:34:06 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

I feel that the art world in the UK is so much more free than in previous years, for example, when the Royal Academy dominated the artwork being produced and consumed in the 1900s. This has an obvious effect on emerging artists at institutions - rebellion. With the freedom that has come from previously challenging movements across the 20th century it is now pretty much open for artists to create whatever they like. The need for cohesion in an art collective though, I feel is something that will never go away. Artists understand that to make a point or to generate some kind of excitement there is, and always will be, strength in numbers. The UK is far from perfect and there are still many art groups concerned with reflections and rebellions on society, for example the artists working

62

From: Katherine Mammone ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 16 December 2009 21:03:23 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Your question made me wonder- how is the “contemporary” world you talk about different in terms of artists working in groups, to how artists in groups would have worked together in the past? My immediate thought was the increased number of people studying art or creative subjects at uni, this hive of activity that has become a bit like a factory, churning out graduates year after year. With so many enthusiastic young artists want-ing to put on shows nothing seems more obvious than clubbing together, all chipping in and working as a team, putting on group shows and col-laborations. Obviously it would be amazing to be able to put on solo shows, but in London I tend to see graduates working in groups.

Plus, I think we have to be realistic and ask who comes to see graduate shows? It doesn’t really happen so much these days that you get the likes of Charles Saatchi rocking up to snap up fresh new talent. As I’ve mentioned before, with graduate collaborative shows it seems it is often a case of inviting peers and having a big party.

In an answer to another question, Vivian mentioned that we have to set our own rules as emerging artists, and that we should create alterna-tive art spaces (for example in people’s basements) and create another system so it won’t matter if we get invited into the “exclusive art club” or not.

I would like to question what form these alternative art spaces take on; other than empty basements, bars/pubs and similar spaces, that are vir-tually impossible to get people to, unless they are either going for a drink anyway (bar or pub) or hope to find a free drink on arrival (friend’s base-ment). I would like to see new systems arising, whereby young artists’ groups exist and put on new interesting shows in new exciting venues. It seems that rather than setting our own rules, currently we are having to conform to boundaries that already exist. Instead of young artists’ activ-

on X presents… I do feel group activity is relative today, there is some-thing igniting about sharing ideas on political and socio-economic issues with a group of similar-minded creatives, and what can be created can still spark change.


63

ity being determined by these (mostly financial) boundaries I’d like to see a new freedom through the exchange of alternative economies.


From: Lina Norell NORWAY ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 21:23:03 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

In many ways I think it is easier for artist groups today, as the personal imprint of the individual is less important. Along with the introduction of new media’s, artists can easily work on projects together from different locations. In this sense group activity certainly doesn’t seem less relevant than before.

From: Viktorija Siaulyte SWEDEN/LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 18:30:50 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Firstly, I think it is a question of gaining a level of autonomy and avoiding subordinating yourself to already existing structures. But this self-institu-tionalisation perhaps is a very natural thing for emerging artists to do; and however outdated it would sound to talk about certain “genera-tions” and their interchangeability in the scene, to my mind it is still valid way of how “new” things or alliances emerge.

As performativity and theatricality seem to be trends in contemporary art lately, I guess that future artist groups might have much more obscure identities, motivations, etc; as the notion of collective identity is not that naive anymore, and is subject to manipulation. But it also depends a lot on for what purpose collectivity is being used.

Best Regards,Viktorija

64

From: Sille Storihle NORWAY ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 11:11:11 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

I think we create artist groups because we want to overcome the image of the suffering, displaced, hungry artist. I do not think people are made to think, work and be alone. The act of forming group is to me the act of recognising that one is a part of something greater than the individual. It is an act of collaborating instead of competing. To me - the group, the collaboration and the collective - is an investigation of subjectivity and plurality. I am not interested in working under conditions where one is obliged to think and act in a specific way, but in social gatherings where one can explore dissent. The group activity is for sure still relevant, but not in the same sense as before. I think Felix Guattari says it better than me in “The Three Eclogies”:

“It seems essential to me that we organise new micro-political and micro-social practices, new solidarities, a new gentleness, while at the same time applying new aesthetic and analytical practices to the formations of the unconscious. If social and political practices are to be set back on their feet, we need to work for humanity, rather than simply for a perma-nent re-equilibration of the capitalist semiotic universe.”

From: Marie Thams DENMARK ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 09:07:54 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Dear Justine,

The future of art collectives? I hope that’s a bright one :) I don’t believe that artist collaboration will or should suffer in the future. What do you have in mind exactly? Do you see it as a condition of an era, or…?

To collaborate creates a dynamic way to work, unexpected ideas come to the table when people meet and a group’s outreach is a different one from an individual artist’s. I don’t believe it to be a better solution to collaborate than to work individually, but it is a different way and it leads you and the group on new paths. It also opens up questions about authorship and here a shared or perhaps even an absent one. Further-more, a group of people working together, whether it is a collective or a

65

one-time collaboration creates a community around themselves in their meeting and work. This is for me very exciting to think about; the focus potentially moves from the outcome (artwork) to the process and ‘com-munity’ that is happening and developing.

Best regards,Marie


From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 21:58:12 To: Justine Christauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Hi Justine,

To be honest I’m really struggling with this question. Maybe because I’ve never formed a group. So the answer is kind of a brainstorming. Well, it’s quite difficult to get an exact answer as each person may have his or her own reason. It might be friends, similar thinking, and visions etc or some practical things. In other words, for personal reasons. Or maybe some things relating to societal organisation. For example, if we say that the members of society are separated, individualised - there is no ac-tual unity among people and society is not a one big community - then maybe joining in small groups/communities is the way of achieving some greater goals that could not be achieved individually. Or just it is a wish (maybe even instinctive) to form some community and to be part of it.

If people communicate, they form communities of their friends for this communication. So, it may be the same with the artists who have some common thing on which they can base their communities. It may be some political or other ideas and these personal reasons again. As one theorist from Mexico said (I’m not sure if he was the only one to say that though) that for a community to exist there must be some link that joins all the members. The more vital it is, the stronger the community. But it may be anything.

The other thing of course is a trend. Look at how “on the wave” the Futur-ists, Cubists, Surrealists, Dadaists, Situationists, Fluxists and the others are.Is group activity still relative nowadays? Yes, I suppose, it is. When the phenomena are so complex, often including various fields in one prob-lem, and people are mostly specialised in some narrow fields, it is almost

66

From: Olivia Bailey ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 08:34:06 To: Natalie Dray ENGLAND ([email protected])

What sort of group activity have you taken part in, in terms of training and work group projects? Is it crucial to your personal progress as an art-ist/creator?

From: Katherine Mammone ENGLAND ([email protected]) Sent: 16 December 2009 12:55:12 To: Pasi Rauhala FINLAND ([email protected])

New question in relation to my answer to Justine’s question: What form do you think these alternative economies could possibly take?

Natalie Dray ENGLAND Unanswered

impossible to solve such a problem alone. Then comes the need for the help of the others - community.

What could be the future of artist groups? I don’t really know.

Thanks and good luck.

Linas


Pasi Rauhala FINLAND Unanswered

67

From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 15 December 2009 22:19:03 To: Marie Thams DENMARK ([email protected])

Hi Marie!

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you:

Could you describe what a bad art education looks like?

From: Marie Thams DENMARK ([email protected]) Sent: 16 December 2009 12:13:06 To: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Hi Linas,

Hmm that is a tough question. But like you in the previous question, I will attempt to answer it with a “brainstorm”.

Perhaps a poor art education is one that does not allow or encourage the student to discover and develop her/his individual interests and ideas. A bad education is a place that does not count on the student being self-driven and that way demanding self-discipline and enthusi-asm. For example, workshop-based education that is based on a tight schedule of pre-defined projects, issues, and ideas – is in my eyes not a good education. This might be useful in the very beginning of studying, but not in a BA or MA context, where the student is to create her/his per-sonal artistic practice. Not only should an education encourage the stu-dent in their personal work and working process, it should also challenge the student and offer her/him insight in current debates and discussions, and further challenge the student with/in her/his context, both artistic and social context.

An art education should therefore work to create a wide awareness of the possible affects of the student’s work on and in it’s surrounding, and it’s relationship to the artistic field. It should create meetings between various disciplines. Additionally it should not be based on the very doing of the work, the craft, but make all working methods available, and in the education structure the focus should lay on the idea and concept, the process rather than the final result. Finally a good art education does

not promote the idea of artist as genius and solitary, but rather prepare its students to actively engage with society and to be versatile in her/his work and role as an artist.


From: Marie Thams DENMARK ([email protected]) Sent: 16 December 2009 09:08:44 To: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected])

What challenges do you think art education is facing right now? What values are they to protect or renew?

From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 16 December 2009 11:00:14 To: Marie Thams DENMARK ([email protected])

Hi Marie!

What challenges do you think art education is facing right now?

I suppose the main challenge for art education is art education itself. The contradictions within the institution are eating the institution itself. The idea of free expression, amateur art, undefined range of materials used for the production of the works of art, indeterminacy of the concept of an artist and his/her practice leads to a radical questioning of the purposefulness of the art education. So, I suppose that it is only social organisation and cultural hierarchy that actually keeps the art system going. The biggest challenge is the sincerity and open-mindedness of the art education; to stay with a tradition, though not comprehensive anymore, or to take up the ideas that the institution is spreading. To give up the hypocrisy.

What values are they to protect or renew?

It is mostly craft that the art education is teaching its students. Two branches may be separated out: practical things for the actual making of a material work of art, and the path of thinking as the artist in the con-text of the culture and the art world, in other words - mind engineering. The latter may be seen as replacing your own direct experiences and

68

world with histories, myths, theories, culturalising your being and experi-encing. In a way it is putting you in an artist’s bubble.

However, I couldn’t say that both practical and conceptual knowledge is always bad and useless. I would even say the contrary; that in particu-lar situations you may need some background, it may be inevitable. For example, if you are to make some material piece of expression, creation or art, you would still need some knowledge about it’s material side. If you want to draw a realistic portrait you will have to know how to do this, if you want to film something, you will have to know how the film appara-tus works and how to employ it, etc. If you are talking about something, e.g. historical or theoretical things or anything else, you must know what you are talking about. Thus, I would say that art education should be utilitarian and be concerned with giving the things s/he needs for his/her practice without forcing a person to learn predetermined things.

Actually, as far as I know, the Fine Art courses in the UK work in a similar direction. The difference is that in these courses there still are the rem-nants of a traditional understanding of the conception of the artist and it is mostly sustained through the preparation process to become able to become an accredited member of the art world institution. Although there are some problems in becoming an artist in the art world, the stu-dent is at least is given the path and understanding, which is materi-alised in the diploma of BA, MA etc. This follows the possibility for the art education institution to evaluate the students practices and thus to con-duct them and to some extent predetermine their education. And that’s what is to be changed.

Briefly: firstly, the reach of art education should not be restricted neither to some numbers of people nor to some age. It would even be better if people with life experience would come. They should be able to choose practical workshops and theoretical lectures or courses independently. For this, they should be able to reach all the lectures and courses and material that is possible in the universities or elsewhere. It should be a utilitarian learning based on the principles of anarchy.

Best luck,Linas


69

70

From: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 16 December 2009 12:55:12 To: Giedre Zukauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Hi Giedre,

Do you think it would be best if Lithuanian art education followed the path of Western countries art education? Why?

Regards/Linkejimai,Linas

From: Giedre Zukauskaite LITHUANIA ([email protected]) Sent: 17 December 2009 00:46:32 To: Linas Tranas LITHUANIA ([email protected])

Hi Linas, : )

Thank you for the question,

I understand your dissatisfaction about the art education system in Lithu-ania. There is a lot to change. Answering your question, should we follow Western countries, I think we are already doing it by starting to talk about it.

I wouldn’t idealise the Western world art education - there are a lot of good schools, but there are a lot of bad schools as well. I think Lithuanian art education should find its own way, not forgetting our different history. Adapting parts when it needs to. While talking about this, I thought, what about art education, for example, in India or Japan or Australia? It would be interesting to know how does it work there...

Academy of Arts in Lithuania has a lot of relationships in other Europe-an countries, students and professors are going there for visits to open their mind and raise their qualifications. Everything goes step by step. Big changes are ripening in the years. Now, most of the lecturers got their education at the time of Soviet Union so it’s understandable their thinking is different - the generation of professors should change to have a change in a whole system. The beginning is to start talking more and more about what we don’t like and how we want to see it. That’s what

71

we are doing now.

If you have some ideas you want to share, I’ll be happy to hear them.

Take care,Gi

tracing the borders publication, eray cayli

Documents