Another irony here is that one half of A&L, Michael Corris, took my old job when I left my previous institution for my current one. He is Research Professor at Sheffield Hallam, one of the more focused and experimental art departments in the UK and a great place to work. Excellent colleagues at the departmental level. Most of them are still there, so it is probably still a great community of people. The problem was the larger institution; where what had been a brilliant independent art school was swallowed up by a mediocre polytechnic which then became a mediocre university. The ethic that underpinned the art school still functions, due to the hard work of a few individuals. But it is a now small unit within a big machine. Michael Corris is now retiring, so as Rob pointed out A&L arose in an art school environment and ended in one, covering a thirty year plus evolution in how art has been practiced in close association with the academy. I have worked in numerous countries and in various roles, always sustaining my independent art practice throughout (that¹s my raison d¹etre, as anybody who knows me is aware), and have observed that where there is a community of artists there is always an art school and that whilst not all the artists in that community are involved in the institution many are more often than not, the movers and shakers within that community. I have always assumed that they are able to make things happen because the institution offers them resources they would, as independent artists, struggle to forge. Thus those who do choose to be entirely independent benefit from the activities of those who choose to work in the academy. Even in a large city like London (or New York, Berlin, Paris, Sydney...) many professional artists work within art schools. Members of this list do that (like Tom) and so do many others, including many well known names. There are tens of thousands of art students in London, and thousands of art lecturers teaching them. Most of them only have their jobs because of their professional profile, which they are expected to sustain at a high level if they are to keep their teaching jobs.
As has already been argued, what has changed in the last 15 years or so is that such artist/teachers can now gain support for their own practice within the academy. They can apply for research council funding to support their practice, whereas once they approached the arts council. In fact, due to regular research assessment exercises, the institution needs them to be successful professionals outside the academy. Those brownie points (exhibitions, publications, screenings, performances, presentations, etc) translate into hard cash for institutions when the annual research funding grants are calculated. Whilst any patronage will bring a raft of issues to be navigated I do not see anything wrong with this in principle. As Tom asked, what are the other options? Artists surviving in the free market? I am far more uncomfortable with that idea. OK, we could starve and shiver in our garrets? Is that the honourable option? Self sacrifice? No, I am not a capitalist, a Buddhist or self-flagellant. ...and as I argued before, I get a huge amount from working with a range of very smart and creative colleagues from a mind bogglingly diverse range of disciplines. Best Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art [email protected] www.eca.ac.uk Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments CIRCLE research group www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ [email protected] www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Rob Myers <[email protected]> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:34:01 +0000 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Call for Submissions: Multichannel VariableEconomies Screening Programme Deadline 28th January (Helen Sloan) On 09/01/10 11:43, tom corby wrote: > This is a good old fashioned bit of shit-stirring. I can't really imagine Michael "shit-stirring"... > As pointed out by Simon, I found the art and language quotes deeply > ironic given that their practice was largely nourished (and financed) > within the University of Leeds. Ahem. > There's more irony to be had in the quotes, that's why I posted them. That and, as Michael points out, they are funny. Art & Language are anti-academic but started and have often ended up in academia. They are politically committed but show at a gentrifying, market-leading gallery. Despite protests to the contrary they are radical artists who have artworld careers. I like them. It's very easy to criticise academia, artistic careerism, the art market, politically/socially committed art etc. from the security of one's own, virtuous, position outside of them. But there's no point outside the world where we can stand and point and laugh at it. We all need to be careful about glass houses, or at least work on smashing our own windows, whether our teaching means we are objectively in academia or our radical socially committed artistic practice means we are objectively part of gentrification. The most important criticism is self-criticism, although this may sometimes mean that we have to admit we are not criticising others enough. ;-) I've taught, I've wired up abandoned warehouses, I've attended private views, I write reviews for a techno-art-and-society web community. We are all guilty... - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
