I forbindelse med biennalekonferansen i Bergen gir Ctrl+Z Publishing ut boka Lokalisert, eller Localised som den heter hvis man begynner å lese bakfra (eller forfra, alt ettersom). Gå ikke glipp av lansering på Hordaland Kunstsenter førstkommende fredag (9/11) kl. 20.

Mer om utgivelsen er å finne på på Ctrl+Zs webside.
Ytterredaksjonens bidrag til boka er også lagt ut her.

Tekst: Anne Marthe Dyvi
It takes time to understand an art institution. And parts of the art institution tend to be a bit anonymous. For instance the Fellow Researchers. What do they do?
I know of the description done by the institution, and by The National Norwegian Artistic Research Fellowships Programme. But I wanted to know what it is like from the inside.
What is artistic research? What does a Fellow Researcher do?
Pedro Gómez-Egaña is a researcher in art at Bergen National Academy of the Arts, and he has kindly answered some of my questions.

How is the everyday for a researcher? And how does it differ from your everyday as an artist?

It isn’t very different to what I’ve been doing for some years now. My practice often seems to have an academic setting, and, even when I am not a student or researcher, I seem to try to establish some sort of a reflective environment from which to operate. But then again, I think that there is generally a misconception when it comes to what research in the arts means. People think that being a researcher means that you are reading and writing all the time, doing  things different to making art itself. This tension between a student’s idea of what art-making is and his/her idea of what research is seems to be present all the time in academic environments lately.

When this question comes up I tend to focus on how things like «text» or «reflection» appear within my practice already, so that research is revealed rather than summoned. So that I don’t feel like I have to take some model and adapt my process to it.

How do you see the idea of research being presented by this programme?

The thing with “research” is that the term appeared from an academic institution standpoint, not necessarily from an artistic one. Research has become a key way for art to be part of the university universe. It is a tool that provides accountability, a way for artistic process to be accepted as a tangible product of knowledge, and to make it work with the mechanics and bureaucracies of an institution.In a way this is cool because it means that artists may have other ways of finding sources and resources (an academic status often leads to better pay when you teach, and/or more project funding, etc), but I do think that it becomes problematic when research is presented as the only way to legitimise art practices in the Academy. That art is only of a high standard if it is encapsulated in some sort of research context. It’s a similar problem with the gallery-based art market, there is this absurd assumption that selling a lot means that you are a good artist.

In any case, each research programme has its own particularities. The one I am in now uses the notion of Critical Reflection as one of its main paradigms. I translate that to an exercise in which I evidence my process and the connections that appear around and through it. I write about it, I write in my work a lot anyway so it’s not so different to just doing my thing. The programme also has strategies for motivating us to reflect and share the state of  our work, like asking us to do presentations. There is a main platform for this, a seminar where we give presentations and engage in discussions with out colleagues.

Who is your audience at the seminars and presentations organised by the research programme? And how do they relate to your work?

There are bi-annual seminars with everyone who is a part of the programme: the fellows from all the different disciplines (music, theatre, arts, etc), their supervisors, the steering committee of the programme and some guests. It’s a very nice idea to bring a lot of people together under the umbrella of an interdisciplinary research programme, which was one of the reasons that I was attracted to this programme. But at the same time, there is something about the way that these seminars get executed that I don’t find so useful. I mean, it is extremely well organised, and it is very generous in terms of the idea of concentrating everyone in a place where they can focus. But both times I’ve been to this seminar I end up with a feeling that nothing was really covered. The time is so limited and the agenda is so full that it is impossible to reach any substantial depth with any of the projects. It is more or less based on an immediate response to someone’s presentation. And since art practices are so layered and complicated, and since research projects are so specific, it is hard to assume that 45 minutes will allow for any kind of discussion that can really touch up on important things. The other thing is that the discussion groups are indeed interdisciplinary and it means that the theoretical language is not always compatible. I guess you need time and a more constant dialogue with people from different reflective worlds in order to make these discussions substantial. You need to establish a common ground before opinions are significant, and that takes a while.

I think that the best way to have these kinds of meetings is to use the tutorial format, you know, one on one. Or a small group of people who follow you through. This is the kind of set-up I am trying to aim for in my project. It makes sense to have follow-ups.

The other problem with these seminars is that some of the questions are very product-oriented. Questions related to what you will end up with, and even to how you might use the money. And then it feels like they just want to hear that you have a structure and a plan for spending the funds…

So it helps to show the Programme that your research has a structure, for them to have trust in your way of working?

Yes, it makes sense doesn’t it? For them to make sure you are working and developing what you said you would do. Ultimately, to show that you’re using the institutional support and the funds they give as well as possible. But this simple idea can be difficult to realise. I believe that in art projects structure isn’t found, it appears. It is in the midst of experimentation or whatever operation you engage with, that you find a need to either make a video or make an installation, to buy a little motor or to hire a huge truck. And these decisions can really only happen when you are immersed in the process. So it is very difficult to generate a reliable structure beforehand, especially when funds depend from it. It is very similar to what happens when you apply for a more conventional grant, you need to come up with ways to show that you will spend the money in a structured way.  A good percentage of the approval of a grant lies in this ability to show a proper spending of the funds offered. So everyone just tries to come up with approximations that are usually an equation between what the institution seems to be willing to give, and an ideal amount for you. This is how grant applications work for artists. The revolutionary thing about these research programmes should perhaps be to break free from that model.  That after an eight–month selection process in which every bit of your artistic and professional life has been evaluated and approved, you just get carte blanche. And that means that you find, along with your supervisors, ways to evaluate the project based on its own terms.

But so far, at least for me in my first year, showing a structure—financial and operational—seems like an important thing to deliver.  Another difficulty in this fellowship is that the administrative nature of it makes this structuring very tricky. What I mean is that the programme works through the different institutions involved. So, for instance, there are policies from the programme in relation to spending and budgeting, and then the funds go through KHIB where there are also a whole host of policies, procedures and rhythms, and then each project has its own way of finding a structure as I said before. So much gets tangled and confused in this three–way administration.

How does being part of, and being present in the institution inflect your work?

Bergen National Academy of the Arts (KHIB) is especially good at making life easy. And I come from other institutions where you can really see how it can be difficult to administrate a place for artistic work. I really like the trust that KHIB the institution gives to their staff; there is an administration that seems to  understand the nature of contemporary art practices and doesn’t really force us to make projects that are easy on the operative side. . What is difficult to deal with for me, as I explain above, is that I have one project within two institutions. But I love that KHIB seems to have an attitude of «what’s important is that you do your project the best you can».

It is reassuring, and it allows for a good working environment where you feel that we are all trying to actively understand how art fits in with all this institutional stuff. It feels like being part of a team that is asking a question, rather than being trapped in a bureaucratic machine.

What is the purpose of your research? Both from a personal aspect, but also from the view of the institution, or society as a general?

The purpose of my research is to make better work, to be able to focus on specific notions that are present in my work and to have resources and a network that allows for this focus to develop as effectively as possible. And also to question my artistic practice as much as possible without it meaning a breakdown in my career.

As far as the importance of research in a society, if we define research as the academic space where teachers can be dedicated to making new connections between the information and ideas available, then I think that it is an absolute necessity for institutions to have them. I know of universities where a teacher’s work would be divided between a percentage of teaching time and a percentage of administrative work. This kind of approach to university staff renders their teachers irrelevant very quickly. And as universities become more and more businesses for making money from students—as is the trend right now—then this kind of intellectual stifling will become more prominent. This is why I totally support research initiatives. I do emphatically believe in institutions actively making spaces for their members to exercise their own operations, you can call it research, or art practice, philosophical endeavour, scientific dwelling, or whatever.

Do you see your research as something that can be used by for example MA- students  and others in the same way that theoretical or scientifically thesis is used to build upon in an educational context?

Absolutely. As I said before, it is a different way of connecting information, and as such students and other people can benefit. I think it is always very interesting to see an archive, texts or documentations of someone who is totally enveloped in a very specific topic, you know?  I think it could be interesting for someone to see what I have chosen to concentrate on — the exploration of motion and accidents—accumulate in the three years of work.

I think it will be interesting for people to see a kind of map made out of works of art, but also with other references, writings, images, etc.

So you are not limited by one form, like having to write one book, or to make one piece within the programme?

No, and that’s great. It makes sense for artists to be able to present their reflections in ways other than a thesis model. It makes it difficult perhaps because, as I said, research has a legitimising tension, there is a pressure to prove a rigour, and then the scientific model seems a strategically sound option. But in principle I like the challenge of trying to stay in the field of art even if we all know that the only reason that this «critical reflection» exists as a requirement is because it is the only way to make art exist in the University.

But it seems you have an open-minded relation to what kind of tools you will use to present the final result?

Yes. Now I am trying to circle in the areas I am covering, and choose were to go deep, but I do not know what format it could take at this time. I am getting very interested in lecture-performances, precisely because they inhabit that space between the discursive and the poetic, I guess.

Can you say something more about your expectations from the programme?

A lot of my expectations from this fellowship have been met.

I have worked very much this past year and I have done it in a way that would have been impossible otherwise. Basically everything you may hear as a rumour is true: the money is great, the spaces are usually great, and the disposition of the programme is fantastic. It is a young programme that is virtuosic in its operation and always open to change. The best thing is that I find the programme leadership to be both confident and self-critical. That’s to me translates to a promising future for this fellowship scheme.

If I had to express a particular unmet expectation,  I would have to say that it has to do with the artistic input initiated by the programme itself. I expected to find a better and more active search for people who are working in the art fields right now and who might have a say in our work, not in the world of academic research, but in the world of art. I would love it if the programme arranged for top–notch art practitioners from all over the world to come form time to time and check us out, do studio visits or give in-depth lectures about problems of contemporary art. I think that there could even be strategic relations with places like OCA, Bergen Kunsthall or other international programmes whose aim is to have the «finger on the pulse» of the art world so that we expand the network and exposure that we bring to the fellowship. The programme is very emphatic on us having an international level, and many of us do have an international network, but it would be great if the network the programme supports itself with, was not so insular.

More about Artistic Research in Norway:
http://kunststipendiat.no
http://khib.no/khib/KU-FoU/Stipendprogrammet

Pedro’s website: http://www.pedrogomezegana.com

Text: Anne Marthe Dyvi

Julie: Could you explain the starting point of the GI festival, such as who initiated it, on what background, and what were the strategies to make it become successful?

Francis: GI grew out of the Glasgow Art Fair. There is an annual fair in the city around April which predominately sells traditional paintings, nothing contemporary or that would be recognized as such in the contemporary art world.

The organisers of the art fair thought it would be good to start a small associated festival that would encourage the visitors to the fair to go to the local galleries and museums as well. I was hired as a freelance curator and given the job of creating the first festival.

It was clear to me though that the contemporary art community in the city and the various galleries such as Transmission, The Modern Institute etc wouldn’t want to take part if it followed the pattern of the Art Fair.

I instituted a policy which said that everything would be curated and I cut the link to the art fair, creating separate marketing, brochures, posters etc. Galleries could only take part if I invited them to be in the festival and proposals could be submitted but could only happen if I permitted them. This ensured that there was a standard for the work from the beginning. For me, the art fair had failed to gain contemporary art credibility by diluting the mixture of galleries and levels of art. If everyone could see there was a clear standard being set then the best local groups and organisations would be willing to take part.

The other key decision was to then give the local galleries and groups funds to spend on their own projects. They would submit proposals and then they would receive funds directly to go ahead and curate those projects. The key curatorial decision for me then was to select the organisations and proposals that would be in the festival. After that many of them would be curated separately. I was relying on the fact that it was those galleries like Tranmission, Modern Institute, Sorcha Dallas, Mary Mary and others that had created a reputation for Glasgow in the first place. It seemed to make sense to draw on their strengths and showcase what they normally do rather than take everything over and drop projects into their spaces. Supporting their proposals also meant they felt more ownership over the festival and wanted it to work.

Julie: How would you as the director define your relationship between working with artists involved versus working with sponsors, decision-makers, politicians in the council, etc?

Francis: Two very different experiences. While you always find some politicians, funders or decision-makers who like art you also have to deal with a majority who don’t know much about it. Working with this sector you have to remember that their interests are different and that is not necessarily a negative thing. The city council for instance wants a festival that is good for the city’s economy and also good for its cultural image. Its about bringing visitors to the city who spend money and creating a reputation for the city as a cultural centre as well as commissioning new art. That’s all to be expected – a council generally thinks of the city’s economy and wants to invest in it, especially in a city like Glasgow where something has to replace lost industry and jobs. As long as you can recognize this and create a festival that meets those needs as well as remaining credible as an arts festival that’s not a problem.

I was lucky in Glasgow as the council has been working like this for some time. They are now quite sophisticated in their approach to the arts and mostly they realize that it’s best not to interfere, recognizing that the various organisations and artists in the city have gained an international reputation for their work. I found a lot of support among funders who gave me great freedom to programme what I wanted and let me organize the festival as I wanted. This allowed me to build a model based on grassroots organisations and groups in the city, creating a very different feeling from more ‘glossy’ festivals. Even when I ran risks – a dangerous high wire walk, controversy over various works – the council remained supportive and understood that the audience was mature enough to cope with such things. That support was crucial.

Working with artists was very different. It was important to distance them from the bureaucracy of dealing with funders and councils and to focus on the commissioning of art and supporting that process. To bring that bureaucratic language to the art community would have killed the spirit of the festival. At the same time, the bringing together of so many organisations did allow the art community to see just how large it was and to discover corners of their world that even they did not know about. Art is tribal in Glasgow and so many organisations didn’t have contact before the festival and I think it helped make everyone more aware of each other. It also allowed several organisations to see the possibility to grow and become more established. Basically, though, art has to be the focus of everything when talking to the art community, the curator/director’s job is to shoulder the administration and leave artists free to concentrate on work.

Julie: Do all of these parties have the same goal for the festival, do you think?

Francis: Not necessarily. The city’s policy of creating a ‘creative community’ is very much influenced by the ideas of Richard Florida in the ‘90s and at times can come close to instrumentalising art, employing it as a tool of urban regeneration. Many cities have taken this approach. Arts organisations do see the advantages of some of this too – I think, for instance, it also benefits the commercial galleries to have the city promoting the artistic and cultural profile of Glasgow if it’s done well.

Artists personally are less interested in this and find themselves occasionally at the mercy of the process – as areas become more popular they are moved on to another less well off district. Or in Glasgow’s case, the creation of a ‘cultural quarter’, which redevelops artistic spaces, is greeted with some ambiguity as the upgrading also raises fears of homogenization of the arts scene.

It’s important to recognize that everyone looks at a biennale selfishly – the improvement of the city’s cultural profile for the council, the acceleration of momentum for private galleries, the kudos of high profile shows for curators and the international exposure and commissions for artists. That can all be harnessed to create a successful biennale though that doesn’t have to be a commercial orgy!

Julie: Do you feel that you get a balance between the art community in Glasgow and the international art scene?

I think that the last GI did do that. The first two were on much smaller budgets so there was an attempt to represent the international scene through works that could be introduced to the UK for the first time. As they were annual festival with a smaller budget there wasn’t time or money to commission larger scale works from international artists as typically there was six months between commissioning and opening the festival.

It’s important to remember though that a significant number of artists with an international reputation live in Glasgow itself – perhaps a larger number than a city of that size should be able to claim. There is a very large artistic community (with a very international mix in its population) and the city punches above its weight in that regard.

With the move to bi-annual festivals and a significant funding increase it became possible to credibly commission art from the best known artists.

Julie: What ideas do you have about the biennale concept, e.g. how broad, open, new, bold or how controlled, curated and safe?

Francis: Personally I have favoured a very broad and open approach with a very loose curatorial style. I think this is not very often used because reputations are more easily built on total control and curatorial branding. I don’t think Glasgow would take too kindly to this approach however – it is founded on independent movements and communal actions. Moreover, the curatorial brand model is tired and redundant – even more so in the post economic crash of the art world. There is an opportunity now to rethink the biennale model radically. In fact this is more than an ‘opportunity’. I think it is a necessity if something viable is to emerge. The old models don’t work any more.

Julie: How involved are local artists in the festival?

Francis: Local artists have been very involved – their commitment to the festival is one of the reasons for its success and for its different ambiance. If that is lost then the festival becomes an alien thing that will be rejected by the art community and the city.

Julie: How is the cooperation around decision-making within the process of what is a successful biennale? What are the “criteria” for this success? What is your advice?

Francis: I think the criteria may be different for each festival. What works in Glasgow doesn’t work for Venice, Liverpool or Sao Paolo. I think open minded, supportive and imaginative funders can help enormously. It also helps if they allow the creative directors freedom to follow their vision.

Each biennale has to look to its own circumstances to see what it can create that justifies its existence. This is particularly important in more marginal cities such as Glasgow. Why should a visitor go that extra distance to see artists and work that could be seen in London, Berlin or New York. For marginal places the answer is often in the local ambiance – the extra bonus of the culture surrounding the exhibition which is different from the homogenized feeling of larger cosmopolitan cities.

Equally, a fresh approach to the presentation of contemporary art can be the justification. So many exhibitions, art fairs and biennales are stale repetitions of tired formulas. The art world is very fashion conscious and, paradoxically, this can make it very conservative. Everyone wants the tried and tested product because they want to be seen to make the right choices. This makes many organisers afraid to be different.

It is also useful to remember that biennales are often mass events and although they have to attract the international art world’s attention on the opening days, they also have to appeal to a broader public throughout the remainder of their run. That doesn’t have to mean compromise but it does have implications in the way in which the biennale is talked about. Language from the extremes of theory, for instance, can be off-putting and incomprehensible to the majority of art visitors but then, anyone intelligent enough to understand that theory should be intelligent enough to make it comprehensible to a wider audience…

Julie: How have you been successful in continuing the festival- why have you decided to have a biennale, and does the biennale construct an identity for Glasgow?

Francis:The festival has been successful because the art community and the funders have all given it their blessing and they all agree it works. I argue below that Glasgow’s biennale works because it is more than city branding – there is a vital, large, arts community that is producing significant work that is recognised internationally. The funders, of course, see the various economic and city branding opportunities but they are sophisticated enough to let the festival develop in its own way and not to force its direction. Equally, visitors sense that the festival is built on genuine local activity and the claims for artistic activity in the city are not exaggerated. That makes it credible amidst a stream of artificially induced biennales across the world.

Julie: What is the gain for the art community in Glasgow?

Francis: The art community which works so hard all year round, gets a platform to present itself to an international audience and, hopefully, with additional funds to be more ambitious in its presentation. There is also a vital networking opportunity as the arts council invites a series of international curators to visit Scotland during the festival – so local artists, whether they’re in the festival or not, have an opportunity to present their work to curators and the curators have a chance to get to know some of the art landscape of Scotland.

Julie: Why does it work for Glasgow to have a biennale?

Francis: That’s a question that has to be asked at regular intervals – I don’t think any event can assume it remains relevant. If it can regularly answer the question in the positive then it can continue (Edinburgh arts festival, for instance, has changed its function dramatically from its original form and it arguably exists for different (but good) reasons now).

I think at the moment Glasgow has such a large and active arts community (and so many of them internationally recognized) it makes sense to celebrate the activity in the city. I think Glasgow has the largest visual arts community outside London and perhaps a closer knit community than London itself. That creates a great sense of common purpose and it provides a great basis for a festival – there is something genuine to celebrate at the moment rather than creating a biennale just for the sake of city branding.

Julie: What is a successful biennale do you think?

Francis: A biennale that exists for a genuine purpose can be successful. It needs to know what it wants to achieve and there needs to be a good reason for its existence. If its simply inspired by a desire to look chic or to compete with other cities, it can quickly look shallow and visitors can spot this easily. A biennale is really a celebration so there needs to be a genuine reason to celebrate. It doesn’t always need to be based on local, geographical, arguments – Venice Biennale doesn’t work because there is a great local community of artists, in fact everything about Venice should work against a festival as it is a logistical nightmare. But it provides a unique backdrop and culture that gives it character. Other festivals in some cities seem nothing more than an event promoted cynically by a conglomerate of local commercial interests.

Text by Julie Lillelien Porter

wood, plexiglass, 2009

Monument to a man who survived a nine-storey fall in his underwear
after attempting to build a bridge into his neighbour´s apartment

wood, plexiglass, 2009


Two Black Holes with Feather Duster

Wood, paint, leather, feathers, 2008

Drinking table for Franz Kafka, circa 1923

Wood, glass, beer, 2009

Device for Becoming One with the Sun

Nylon, polyester, 2009

More works at www.lewisandtaggart.com

Photos by Anngjerd Rustand

http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-06-28-peck-en.html

Recording mp3/1:33 min/43 MB/English

With permission/© Susanne Jaschko