[…continuation – see previous post] But I think showing this work in a gallery space can be problematic: articulating the communicative aspects (the most important bit for the artist) to an audience is not straightforward, and requires time and commitment from the viewer. At a public talk at The London Open at Whitechapel, I asked Patricia Vickers (Editor, Art Monthly), one of the selectors, why there was no ‘dialogical’ work in a show that claimed to be about contemporary art practice. She said looking at 1800 submissions meant that this sort of work wasn’t likely to be selected. So how do public galleries show dialogic work?
I think my experience at the Suzanne Lacy show at Tate Tanks was successful in attempting to get across this sense of dialogue. The circular room felt womb-like and the central comfy seating encouraged close proximity, a sense of relaxation, intimacy and listening. I did feel primed though: the ever-busy feedback board at the entrance suggested an openness to evolving dialogue, and the Tino Segal piece in The Turbine Hall had an overpowering sense of flow and connectivity: I felt happy to surrender to the wave and somehow trusted the space would hold me. Although I was a bit peeved when the assistant asked me to stop, while I was making graphite rubbings on newsprint (wonderful enigmatic raised font, text and numbers, chunky iron bolts), saying the noise (I didn’t realise it was noisy) might disturb others. On reflection, I think this was a fair comment – and was in-tune with the sense of creating a shared space, respectful of others. By contrast, the show at SLG upstairs in May, Febrik (Play, I Follow You) came across as a show about accountability (aimed at funders etc?), a show and tell ‘presentation’ of ‘what we did’ that might suit a conference; rather than an art gallery.
Whatsmore, because dialogic projects are not reducible to the visual they can be difficult to critique, and reviewers often fail to recognise the value of the communicative aspects of the work. Or can oversimplify the stated intentions and then simply calculate the efficiency, neglecting the art bit.
Kester goes on to present a new discursive framework – to share insights, observations and reactions. So lots to think about.
I think my ‘summer of love’ is most definitely over now. Thankyou for taking the time to read this.
