"I am interested in the comment about the difference between community art and socially engaged art, which is something I am looking into at the moment. The obvious question is, is there a difference, and I suppose it maybe depends on what the outcome of the work is. If its made for a gallery, can it still be called community art? It would be interesting to hear peoples thoughts on this. 

Attached is the next text. It is 'Becoming Common: Precarization as Political Constituting' by Isabell Lorey, and can be found here as part of the eflux journal No. 17. This essay looks at the issues of precarization through labour. A definition of Precarisation as put forward by theThe Frassanito Network is 'Precarious work refers to all possible forms of insecure, non-guaranteed, flexible exploitation: from illegalised, seasonal and temporary employment to homework, flex- and temp-work, to subcontractors, freelancers, or so called self-employed persons.' 

Precarization is something I have started to become interested in, especially in terms of how artists work and live. It can be seen as an example of how alternative ways of working become part of the system. Working freelance, flexible hours was seen in the 1970's/80's as a way of working without the confines of the Monday-Friday, 9-5 office contracted hours. Is was seen as an alternative away from the structures and rules of the capitalist system. However, as is always the case it seems (see Avant Garde Art, such as Dadaism, Fluxus etc) these alternative ideas are consumed by the system and manipluated so to meet their needs. This way of working is now being questioned, as artists fight for pensions, contracts and artists rights, (see [a-n].)"

The text by Dave Beech, 'Art and Participation' is short and sweet and is actually a blog post concerning the the panel discussion 'The Ethics of Collaboration...' at the National College of Art and Design (NCAD), Dublin on 11 March 2011 which raises questions on authorship. It does not necessarily discuss self-organisation but the idea of participation in art especially in relation to the work of Artur Żmijewski. Discussing how the value of participation is never challenged and how 'People in the artworld seem to have subscribed wholesale to the idea that participation or collaboration is an athletic sport in which artists must compete for their form of participation to be deeper, stronger, faster, longer and purer.' That 'In the vibrant public sphere we crave, we would not hope for fewer authors, but for more.' Of particular interest to me is the final sentence 'Participation is the solution for the ethically oriented, but for the politically oriented, it is the universalisation of authorship that holds more promise.' Therefore to create the possibility for self-organisation do we need to consider what exactly we mean by participaton and understand authorship as possible for everyone. I would like to ask can authorship in this context be seen as a replacement for self-organisation and would the possibility of the universalisation of the author create a space for self-organisation and action?

More information and a full audio of the seminar can be found herehttp://www.firestation.ie/projects/project/two-monuments/

"Maybe this topic [self-organisation] is argumentative as it obviously, from where I am coming from, draws on a lot or marxist thought and can be seen to be very pertinent now, I feel, with the threat of cuts to services, the possible dismantling of community initiatives and voluntary services. As well as the governments vision of a 'Big Society' which brings up so many questions on what do they mean by society and the problematic issue of placing communities against one another to gain funding and support from one pot of money, which will inevitably lead to privatised services. With the recent cuts to the arts in England (I am not sure what exactly has taken place in Scotland, maybe you can enlighten me) it seems a lot of community based organisations, especially those who work in digital media have been targeted (Isis Arts, Folly, Access Space, Mute magazine etc.) with the idea that larger organisations will take over the work they were doing. Is this a deliberate strategy to increase the institutionalization of socially minded art? What is to be Done?

With this in mind attached is the next text Communities of the Question or Who Wants to Know? by Susan Kelly. This text asks several questions, 'What is the ‘self’ that constitutes and seemingly generates self organisation? What is the nature of the collective or community produced in this way and how might a mode of self-organisation encounter other forms of organisation? Does it take any specific form?' Taking ideas from two exhibitions Susan Kelly was involved in, the essay will 'set up a framework of concrete practices through which to trace what I believe are the central issues at stake in the concept of self-organisation – that is, the question of community and potential forms of political organisation.' (Kelly, 2006, p233). 

This essay can be found in the book ‘Self-organisation/ counter-economic-strategies’, edited bySuperflex, Sternberg
Press (2006) p. 233-253. I found a free downloadable pdf here of the book on Kevin Flanagans blog."

"The next text is 'Anti-hierarchical artifices for groups to use' by Elena Jordan & David Vercauteren and is taken from a series of workshops and discussions on self-organisation and non-hierarchical work practices currently taking place in London. The workshops aim to 'bring together practitioners and theorists of forms of organisation that eschew hierarchical modes of division of labour as part of a critique of the imposition of work and productivity for profit to share working practices and collectively address their problems, obstacles, successes, and aspirations.' The text discusses how we can self-organise without creating a level of hierarchical structure, or even if this is possible. Looking at past issues and problems that have arise as well as seminal texts such as Jo Freemen's 'The Tyranny of Structurelessness', Jordan & Vercauteren try to understand if its possible to keep structure whilst not caving in to hierarchical artifices"

A warm welcome to our new curator Ben Jones. Ben is currently undertaking a PhD at the Culture Lab, Newcastle University. His research looks into the possibilities of ‘collective action’ within a community through the use of digital media. A topic which is, amongst others, very relevant to the art practices of Huntly.

Ben will curate the next 8 sessions under the title of SELF-ORGANISATION. 

Ben wrote: "I would like to frame the texts around Self-organisation looking into collaboration, collectivism and cooperation. The text is 'There is no alternative: THE FUTURE IS SELF-ORGANISED' by Stephan Dillemuth, Anthony Davies and Jakob Jakobsen. It's read like a manifesto and quite easy to read but thought it would be good as an introduction to the topic."

http://www.ben-jones.org.uk/

http://www.nolayout.com/asher-penn/institutional-critique/


This is a link to an online presentation of a 'Zine called Intitutional Critique, published by Asher Penn, 2007.

Made me think about some of the methods of exhibition I have come across in recent years - such as the brilliant and professionally produced Printed Project ( http://visualartists.ie/publications/printed-project/ ) and Edinburgh's Bareface Magazine ( http://www.barefacemagazine.com/ ) which begun as a bespoke, homegrown 'zine and now embraces online publication.

Both examples respond to a decided theme and combine an open call for submission with sensitive curatorial construction. Printed Project in particular seems to take advantage of the medium by producing printed exhibitions that would perhaps not work in any other circumstances. Does this mean to say that good exhibitions and good art may sometimes only be produced outside of an institution? How 'outside' is this method (institution)? How effective are the more grass-roots 'zines which are closer to being outwith the defined institution of the artworld: I recently produced a work for Bareface Magazine and since publication I have only hoped that the work of myself and the other artists involved would be engaged with. Perhaps this is a hope based on assumptions and criteria designed by my own engagement with the established institution of the artworld.

Comments are welcome on this topic, as well as responses to the 'Zine linked above.

Andrea Fraser: Litte Frank and His Carp, 2001, DVD, 6mins

Michael Asher: Caravan, 2007, public installation

Hans Haacke: Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holding, A Real Time Social System, as of May 1, 1971, 1971, Installation

Santiago Sierra: 250cm Line Tattooed on Six Paid People, 1999

                                                                                                        


Institutional Critique, as an artistic practice, has developed a well-known canon of work, often polarizing artist and institution. The tradition has involved artists making direct criticisms regarding the institutions in which their art is produced, exhibited, sold and distributed, presumably to lay bare these mechanisms for open, democratic analysis and  greater change. In the coming readings and discussions, I would like to locate Institutional Critique in contemporary art practice and theory, while considering it's trajectory in terms of ever-changing expectations and criteria emerging within the art-world.

There are some problems which are worthwhile considering in coming to an understanding of these developments: 

Accountability and what Franz Kafka referred to as 'central exchange' is a topic I would like to bring up in considering Institutional Critque. Kafka's endless labyrinth of administration in 'The Trial' produces a network of individuals unable to accept any responsibility, due to the nature of the system of which they are a part of. The complex framework at work here is familiar in it's resemblance to modern dealings with call centres and political debate, primarily because these impotent figures have no exchange themselves with a central authority - they have merely the system within which they work, live and communicate according to a specific criteria. This brings me to the notion that 'there is no alternative.' Margaret Thatcher's statement admits a contemporary situation in which a particular system is so deeply embedded, that all operation and activity at present may only take place according to the criteria of the prevailing system. So, what is the logical trajectory of Institutional Critique and what exactly is an Institution? Should the institution be regarded as the over-arching status quo, or an atomized network of individual institutions? Institutional Criticality, in its early relation to Avant-Garde activity, once articulated itself as an aggressive and antithetical force, mirroring the digestive momentum of capitalism and recuperation. Another thing I would like to discuss, is the development of Institutional Critique since the collapse of Modernity, throughout postmodern times and into whatever we may call the current climate, whether that be Altermodernism, or some kind of paradigm shift. Is there a Hegelian model at work, producing a synthesis of Institution and Criticism? And does this perhaps entail a degree of complicity which undermines the work of artist and institution, or has recuperation been re-appropriated and radicalised?

There are a number of tangents offered here, mostly unfinished thoughts. But this is precisely why I have chosen this topic for the first Huntly Art Reader - it is bound to be a far-reaching theme involving various disciplines, while Institutional Critique has itself reached a point of Institutionalisation. What I mean is that, the fact that we are discussing the topic, the fact that we are prepared to delve through a wealth of texts on the subject, suggests that it is well and truly established - but is it stagnant? Andrea Fraser's essay, 'From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique,' in some ways, uses this thought as its starting point. Rather than trawl through the established canon, I felt that it would be enriching to begin with a recent text, which looks backwards and around at the current state of things. Additionally, this is a subject which I am only scratching the surface of myself, allowing me to learn about it as I go along with the weeks' texts and vibrant discussions.