‘Dialogic art practice’
Came across this term in ‘Conversation Pieces’ (Grant H. Kester, 2004) and very excited about how it’s re-framing my world and thinking about what art is, and can be. It’s a brilliantly heavy read – well-researched, without being dry or coldly academic.
My early work at art school was quietly political. Relational aesthetics sounded great – but became an unachievable ideal to sit around reading/talking about – rather than relating meaningfully to the ‘outside’ world. So two years later, and with some real experience of the ‘outside’ I’m ready to reflect and re-engage with theory to perhaps make sense of my own experience and re-look at my values as an artist in the world as it is now. I’m keen to look at the work I do with people – as an adult Learning Support Assistant at City Lit, and Workshop Leader at Westminster Mind – and questioning how this sits with my own sense of an art practice. And questioning what defining myself as an artist means? Do I need this label or is it sometimes a barrier? Thinking around the term ‘dialogic art practice’ is helping me to explore this.
Dialogic practices in art are unashamedly complex and connect to the socio-political world beyond the gallery walls, in contrast to the immediate/shock short-term approach of the avant-garde. Projects unfold through a process of performative interaction or intervention. Through this cumulative process of dialogue and exchange, stereotypes are challenged to generate new perceptions. The emphasis is on interaction rather than a product/object, so meaningful conversation/listening over a significant period of time is essential; connecting historically/socially and understanding our sense of self and others. In this role, Kester describes the artist as being in a state of ‘vulnerable receptivity’ (really love this description) and talks about intimacy of all participants involved. This takes my four words (access, hierarchy, equality and exchange) to a completely new universe of understanding!
Kicking this phrase around for a while, distinguishing what is and what isn’t a dialogic practice might help. Artists mentioned on this blog who have a dialogic approach include Stephen Willats, Suzanne Lacy and those showing at Peckham Space (Sonia Boyce, Barbe Asante, Gayle Chong Kwan). Whereas Rachel Whiteread’s ‘House’ (1993) approach was classically avant-garde; based on shock, disruption and ambiguity. The pouring technique, used to create the caste of the interior space of this Edwardian terrace house, had been used in earlier works to explore the significance of domestic and interior space. So she was taking a studio-based technique out into the world. It was not location-specific (Whiteread had considered houses in North and East London and Islington before the Bow site became available) and the work didn’t involve community consultation as part of the process.
Essentially, the starting point for a dialogic artwork is dialogue, as opposed to a pre-planned idea hatched out in the quiet of the studio. The particular idea, object, image or experience then emerges from this situated dialogue [Continued… in next post]
