I regularly engage in dialogue with myself about my work, like most artists I’m sure; dialogue with material, object, concept, place; and dialogue with audiences through showing work in exhibitions. I worked on a collaborative project in 2008 that was funded by NAN which involved much dialogue and was a productive period for the development of my practice. Then from 2009 to 2010 I discussed my practice in the context of making work for the public realm in an ongoing dialogue with artist Benedict Phillips, who I was privileged to have as a mentor. What I realised from this mentor-mentee relationship is that discussing my work, ideas and the kinds of projects I would like to work on with other people who understand and can critically appraise the way I work is vital for making good art and not leaving perhaps unresolved visualisations of concepts sitting in a sketchbook waiting for a rainy day. Talking about my work and ideas helps me to approach them from different angles, to question them and to produce the most relevant artwork for the context.
So, after several discussions about the role of dialogue with other artists (within our practices) we met up. 5 artists in the group in total, a couple I know well and a couple I have met before around the Leeds and Bradford art scenes but don’t know well. This blog is not really a document of our meetings or discussions, more a document of my personal thoughts in response to the dialogical process and meditations on the impact this may have on my practice.
What’s this dialogue all about? you may ask. Well, that’s what our first meeting was about. We mapped and discussed how our shared interest in dialogue had developed and what we want to get out of being part of the group.
As we discussed the idea of initiating dialogue with artists outside of the group (perhaps more established or working in places or ways that we would like to), there was much discussion about the meaning and importance or non-importance of the terms emerging, mid-career and established. It seemed that the one artist who had an issue with these terms (and liked to think of himself as equal to all other artists) also had artists in mind who he would love to meet because they were doing amazing things but he felt intimidated by them because they were so great. For me, it’s not about equality; I am equal to all other artists and all human beings. It is about professional development and research and development within my practice.
This to me is the meaning of a more established artist, also, I think money and sustainability of practice are indicative of the stage of your career (for some artists but not all of course, but I make my living from art/being an artist so the financial aspect is important to me). That is of course, only if you want to make a living from your art. My practice is process led and socially engaged, I make work out of a process of engaging with communities, places, histories and narratives. As such, I make my living from public art commissions and residencies and would like to work on bigger projects over a longer time period so that I can focus on one or two projects at a time (rather than 5!!).
So, back to the meeting:
We discussed what we all want to get out of the group and came up with these aims:
1. to meet on a regular basis
2. to critically discuss our practices
3. to document the process and reflect on the impact on our practice
4. to share this reflection
to establish dialogue with other artists
