This is a reply to Carol Ramsey’s comment (in italics here) in my previous post – mainly because it prompted some thoughts about pop-up events and because of that old friend – word count.
I agree, The Art School is a Vital part of Liverpool though the standard of work in last few years has worried me, I always felt it was just a blip because of the move to new premises. Liverpool (Merseyside) does have a lot of talent waiting to be found but I think some of the artists are quite provincial in their thinking and if that’s what they want then that’s great but the chances of being ‘found’ here are slim, waiting around won’t work.
The quality over the last few years has been a bit worrying indeed (although I have only seen shows since 2007, so I only have the last few years to comment on!). ‘Waiting to be found’ is a big problem and I meet a fair few people who don’t seem to have ever been told that their work might not be quite there yet. It’s like X-factor when friends and parents convince their dearest to pursue their singing dreams, without acknowledging they could improve. In my opinion, there is a lot to be said being brutally honest as a tutor, it may be easier not to, but it gives people false expectations.
I think it’s important for the studio groups in Liverpool to connect more.
I completely agree with this, but I have also recently realised – by spending a bit of time in other regional cities – that Liverpool is pretty well connected, both between studio groups and also between them and the institutions. Maybe the latter more so?
The Co-operative project for the Biennial was a real success and I think more of this kind of collaboration is needed. We who do stay need to work together to make the Liverpool art scene great again, so that those artists moving on will still return to us.
Here’s the thing. I took part in the Coop project. It was a great project, but I don’t think it was entirely successful. I will also confess at this point that I didn’t send feedback because I was swamped with work – so I should have already said this. My bad.
It was awesome on paper and I think that performance programme and music delivered as it was on the tin. But, looking back, I think the art fell short. Why? There wasn’t a big enough budget to support the making of new or really ambitious work. So we ended up with people operating in pretty much the same way as they do within their studios (me included), because more just wasn’t really possible. A couple of works did seem to stand out, but these were described as commissions, so they may have had more funding. I don’t know what people got paid as there was very little transparency about the finances, but I know some performers did get paid and some didn’t. Some artists (me included) who applied for the one-week slots, got £100.
Also, more fundamentally, it didn’t operate as a Coop. This is because (as always), a few people put in all the work and others want to join in, but without working. It was the first one however, and now I have more of an idea about how it might operate, I know to be involved in a different way: I would rather help out for a few days than try and make new work under these conditions.
I think that we need to be honest about these things (Coop and others); otherwise we look at the documentation and say ‘wow that was amazing’ and everyone pats each other on the back. In reality, there were some real issues that need to be resolved before it is done again, specifically in the communication (I can’t get involved properly if I don’t know what is going on), money (it makes bad feeling if everyone gets paid differently) and the art (quality over quantity next time, please).
I’m sorry organisers; I should have said this earlier.
