Subject: Re: <ambit> what do we want? Date: Sun, 22 Jun 03 17:19:33 +0100 From: Malcolm Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "gair dunlop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An intention foremost in our minds in doing the last couple of issues of Matters - I think I can speak here for my co-editor - was to help generate some discussion around the very issues you pick up on Gair. The Opinions sections of issues 16 dealt with art education and the notion of the ideal art school, and the Opinion section in issue 17, rather mistakenly titled 'Widening the Net' took the opportunity to get artists viewpoints on what has inspired them when they have went to events or undertaken projects abroad, or at least outside of Scotland, which then begs the question as to whay we lack here to make things a bit more happening. In that respect it is similar to the intent of the ambit discussion list (please also note Iliyana Nedkova's article on 'artist-run electronic networks', which could also stimulate some more discussion on this list I think on the issues of terminology around 'artist-run' as distinct from, well, 'not artist-run'). The most pertinent issues !
are still discussed in the pub or similar safe social scenes, but debate is muted in the public sphere and critical instincts moderated by the demands of career (this is not a self-righteous accusation, it is a condition applicable to all in varying degrees, be they curators, gallerists, critics and artists).
I dont think however that its as simple as Gair identifies:
I think there are as ever 2 schools of thinking which nonetheless overlap; whether to > create a
base where our work can be shared and understood and displayed within
Scotland itself, or whether to go with the pragmatic flow alluded to in Neil
Mulhollands' article: that scottish gallerists and curators being a more or
less conformist bunch, the way to get ahead at home is to get around abroad.
The situation is complicated by the political retreat from arts funding in
general.
The grass is always greener on the other side. It is too easy to say that all gallerists lack risk-taking, as many people, artists and facilitators have been struggling to get new approaches recognised, legitimised and supported at a higher level. Whilst I am constantly frustrated at the seemingly limited aiblity of some to look beyond their own axis, there is at the same time a diversity of practice, depth of engagement, and willingness to experiment that is in stark contrast to the marginal position of media arts on the one hand and a critical culture in general. The absence of a magazine for the visual arts which can be critically distanced on the one hand, but partisan on the other has had an effect on practice I think (which is not to belittle the key role for Variant in embracing viewpoints not given a platform anywhere else, but to say we need more forums through the published medium).
I like Julian Stallabrass' analogy (in Hi Art Lite) when he talks of criticism and its aim to �map galaxies or clusters...� - a good reason for a magazine I think.
The Mulholland article raises more questions for me about what it is trying to say rather than clarify any emerging identifiable traits in current art practice... but then is that its point? Look forward to hearing other people's views on this.
Best Malcolm
------------------------------------------------- a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive: http://www.mediascot.org/ambit info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write "info ambit" in the message body -------------------------------------------------
