This is a rather delayed post I must say.
It’s been an eventful few weeks. Started University, I am currently 80% cleared out of my studio space and I managed to acquire a flat in Manchester after being privy to the dark world of letting agents.
Anyway.
Last week I managed to get over to Leeds to see ‘Black Dogs present Next To Nothing: An Exhibition on The Price of Nothing and the Value of Everything‘
The exhibition is held in an empty level in a modern multi purpose entertainiment centre with a distinct smell of popcorn in the foyer from the cinema below. The show is a great example of collective drive and is an excellent use of empty commercial space. It was good to meet a few of the artists who were involved on my visit. I recommend catching it before it finishes.
One of the works on show is a seemingly low fi printed text on paper. The general content of this text is the artist explained what he would have done for the exhibition if other circumstances hadn’t intervened. It is a clever work. One of the reasons offered for the ‘lack’ of a ‘work’ is being unable to secure leave off work to make and deliver the work for the exhibition from his job. This cleverly constructed text offers us reasons why the artist didn’t deliver a work but presents a meaty critique of the processes employed in the process of production. A nice touch to the work is the high quality paper and printed technique, further at odds with the apologetic facade.
I planned to write a lot more on this piece but having lost my trusty notebook whilst flyering for upcoming event I am working on, I’ve had to go from my rather dodgy memory. If anyone could provide me with any details of the work (mainly the name of the artist) drop me a line and I will add it to the next post.
Tonight’s question that I am working on is ‘What is cultural policy and why should we study it?’ I will leave you with a small exerpt from Tessa Jowell’s 2004 paper ‘Government and the Value of Culture’ and will follow this post up at a later date.
It has been said that art is what anyone who calls themselves an artist produces, and the definition at least does not suffer from being exclusive. But when government spends the nation’s marginal income – taxation – on “culture” in the sense that I have indicated, it cannot avoid, whether by delegating the task to quangos or making direct decisions, the making of value judgements. Why is it right for the Royal Opera House, to receive huge public subsidies? Why do we subsidise symphony orchestras but not pub bands or pianists? Why do we subsidise performances of Shakespeare and Mahler but not Coldplay or Madonna? Why do we spend millions on a square foot or so of a Raphael? Why is the Madonna of the Pinks more important than the Singing Butler? Is it, actually, and if so why? Why is mass public demand not the only criterion of perceived cultural “value” – indeed the lack of mass demand often mocked as the criterion for subsidy?
