Pablo Picasso - 'Why I joined the Communist Party'

'My membership of the communist party is the logical consequence of my whole life, of my whole work. For, I am proud to say, I have never considered painting as an art of simple amusement, of recreation; I have wished, by drawing and by colour, since those are my weapons, to reach ever further into an understanding of the world and of men, in order that this understanding might bring us each day an increase in liberation.'

I would tend to agree with him. Although, it is specifically when the artist becomes officially aligned with a political entity that it becomes a problem and freedom of expression is compromised. However, I don;t see it as a problem if a political entity wants to use you're work for its gain. To say that this is not possible is to say that neither the artist nor the artwork exists in the world.  ¶ 2:29 PM 0 comments

  Luke Fowler's 'Pilgrimage From Scattered Points' is a documentary about Cornelius Cardew and The Scratch Orchestra. I've put a link to a website that explains what The Scratch Orchestra is, because this explanation won't be clear. The Scratch Orchestra explains the concept that anyone can play music. You don't have to have any musical training to take part in making music, you don't even have to make a sound, you can just perform an action. Basically people get together, some musical, some not and make sounds. The only rule is that every sound or action you make is low key so as not to take focus away from other performers - you should see your performance as an accompaniment to a solo performer. Some performers used visuals to inform the sounds or actions that they make, one performer used a copy of the radio times. The Scratch Orchestra is a political statement. Music is bourgeois, you need to have an instrument and training to play it and listen to it, at least before it could be recorded. Classical music is of the bourgeois, Pop or Folk music is of the Proletariat. The Scratch Orchestra however disregards any music convention and so places itself outside of the conventional musical categories. Which I think is truly revolutionary (in a political sense) and subversive.

Cornelius Cardew is a founder member of the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), he obviously viewed his music as an expression of his political views, the problem being that his political views governed not only his music but also the way in which he organised the orchestra. They began to become a political grouping making political statements rather than an artistic grouping expressing their political position and questioning the political status quo. As a result of this they lost favour with the authorities and members of the orchestra became unhappy and left.

I believe that activism within art is powerful and important, but when artists begin to make political statements and align themselves with political groups they become embroiled in the thought processes of those groups. Generally I think art is most successful when it questions an ideology rather than aligning itself with an ideology. Art should present a dystopia, not a utopia.

Luke Fowler's film is interesting in that it places a documentary into an art gallery. I find this interesting because it attacks the concept of an art gallery from within. It attacks the concept of an art object. It not only appropriates other film makers’ work, it documents another artists expressions. It collates information and makes very subtly, a profound point, perhaps. It also produces beautiful and resonant images.  ¶ 11:47 AM 2 comments

  I went to the Tate Triennial today. I walked into the space, looked around and felt immediately depressed and a little sick. The first object you see is an Eva Rothschild piece; a sex whip has been made rigid and is seemingly defying gravity. There is a man in a Gucci suit crouching down to investigate; his wife standing next to him is looking the women standing opposite up and down. They're doing the same in return. In the centre of the room is a gaggle of wealthy thirty something’s - chatting and laughing, enjoying the atmosphere. I say something and laugh while looking at them. They don't respond well. The gallery has this European, Bilbao Guggenheim feel. A collection of curious objects for the amusement of the wealthy. It makes me very angry, it makes me depressed, and it makes me want to give up. I don't want to talk to these people. They don't want to listen to what I have to say. If they're the only people who look at art, where does that leave me?

And now art.....

Besides my disappointment at how bourgeois it still is to go to an art gallery, the art is bad as well. Someone has obviously decided that appropriation is the sign of the times and the exhibition likes to make this point over and over. It becomes tedious. The paintings are all too academic or contrived and fashionable. The installation too inspired by the window displays of Selfridges. The video too annoyingly good looking. The photography is in the style of Walker Evans or Ed Ruscha (Although I did like - John Stezaker City VII). If you weren't already feeling sick, you get some nasty 70's porn forced down your throat at the end. Oh yeah, and Ryan Gander is supposed to be really, really good- I don't see it, sorry. On the other hand just ignore me, I'm angry.

But Then.......

You go downstairs to the light box and your life is changed by Luke Fowler's Pilgrimage From Scattered Points. It is a documentary, about 40 mins long. I like this, first of all a documentary - is it an art object? It's got my attention, it's already got a f**k the art world under tone, I'm in the mood for this. I liked it so much I will devote a whole post to it....  ¶ 9:05 AM 0 comments

 

Just a picture of me destroying an artwork just to give the point before more gravitas.  ¶ 2:07 PM 0 comments

  I have been reading: 'But Is It Art - The Spirit of Art as Activism' by Nina Felshin. It's an interesting book, there is a sense that to make art with a social or political context or motive you need to be interested in collaboration, community projects and site-specific art. This seems to me to be the most obvious conclusion to make when dealing with politics and art. Basically these artists act as campaigners, but call it art. They are campaigners, which is fine, using visuals, which is fine, but want to elevate themselves to the status of artists - for what reason?

I am political in the sense that I exist in a society, I make artwork, therefore my work is political. If I discover my politics through my art, then so be. However, if I was to choose my politics and then make art to reflect this, I am a campaigner making visuals.  ¶ 1:53 AM 0 comments