Funded Art Shows
Tracey Eastham |
||
Art shows that receive funding as a result of pre-planned conceptual briefs are a way for exhibitions to occur and seem suited to budding artists who are eager for experience. These shows that have specific aims and ideas seem like a good opportunity at first, however often end with funded leaflet campaigns that result from an impetus to show-off a politically-correct concept, say Cross-Cultural Exchange, or Community Involvement. There is nothing wrong about these thematic exhibition forums in principle but one is led to wonder how relevant contemporary work is to these occurrences and what place the artist has in cooperating with the curator/coordinator. When funding is so difficult to achieve, and when many boxes have to be ticked -where is the artists practice amid the pre-occupations and specifications of a funded art show? Is the role of said artist as Ideas Merchant (coming up with ideas to facilitate their working practice in a mock-up of the curators conceptual idea), as Artwork Fabricator (just tell me what you want and I’ll make it), or simple Lip Service Please (look at all these local artists we have/please put me in your exhibition I need a CV entry)? No-one can deny that an artist needs money to work, no matter how much is said about innate practice being the important thing and, oh sorry, we’ve spent the art funding on this fantastic leaflet, but doesn’t it make us look good? But curators and organisers must get their priorities right if they want shows that are decent, and this marks the different meanings of ‘a good exhibition’. Good because it ticks the right boxes, or good because it is decent, i.e. not founded on PC preoccupations, but sympathetic to the artists/artworks on show. Creating an exhibition/art organisation that is based on good practice is a long-term investment; artists that are looked after and supported create more good work, more public interest – which can only be good things.
|
Of course, this is a binded situation; without money nothing would happen, without a sacrifice from artists no opportunities would be grabbed, without guidelines, briefs, boxes, and exhibitions with briefs and conceptual strategies no funding would be received to make glossy interactive leaflets with buzz-words a-plenty. But please, let not the line be crossed into ‘pre-formed’ exhibitions that, like a common pre-fab timber built house, have all the pretensions of a traditional hand-built home by experienced and decent craftsmen yet actually arrive in a box and are accompanied by a colour catalogue that advertises ‘all that could be wanted’ from culturally vigilant persons. This reaction is from ill-advised, mis-informed exhibitions that don’t work because the artists simply aren’t involved enough and the curators turn into Organisers and Managers. These exhibitions look awkward and stagnant and are a mile away from conceptually relevant ‘thematic’ exhibitions (and also exhibitions that are bad, but don’t pretend to be anything else). The former can be looked at simply as bad shows, but this critique tries to bring attention to the worrying trend of culture as appended onto successful marketing campaigns and the distance this creates between the artist, their exhibitions, and culture.
tracey_eastham@yahoo.co.uk
|
|