Tuesday 20th November. Mass Audacity.
Started my 4th visit to the Tate Archive by chatting to one of archivers who was at the Raven Row event last night-was interesting to discuss it with him and formulate my questions for Barbara Steveni, especially exactly why it was that the industry bosses said yes to the artist placements, and yes to the idea of the Open Brief which is so far from the expectations of the production of tangible artworks?(Not answered last night I thought)- Or is it now a period so different, when it seemed like anything was possible, that we can’t get into that mindset ??- Someone last night said it was an “audacious time” , a time of “mass audacity” and Barbara was audacious.Time also when industries were employing psychologists to improve communication and profits.
Questions I would also like to ask Barbara:-
Is there a place for artists working today in industry on an Open Brief/”Not Knowing”, working in the “Incidental Person” role, a creative problem-solver? I’m working on the possibility of restaging a placement at a factory, and testing it out in the 21st century.
Is there a place for negotiation and exchange? My ‘Slow Burn” approach- not education but exchange and mutual respect.
Did the placed artists manage to bridge shop floor and management, as an impartial person as hoped, outside of management and outside of the shop floor, bringing a fresh vision and a new voice into management decision-making and the life of the shop floor? What evidence has survived and are there any models of practice which were adopted?
If it failed, what were the reasons?
Who benefitted and how basically?
Speaker from ICI Fibres, Peter Byrom said something really interesting-that the lives of the workers were not all drudge and that they were intelligent people often with rich cultural lives-Is there a prejudice here in assuming only management would be able to respond to the bringing of culture into the workplace?
Interesting quote by Spinning Technologist from ICI Fibres about artist Leonard Hessing’s placement:- “..During the course of our work we are able to see many beautiful phenomena-for example crystals, wax etc, illuminated by polarised light under a microscope;electron photomicrographs of various structures; etch pits in metals and semi-conductors; standing waves and fringe-patterns of various kinds.This does tend to make us a little blase about ’pop’ art.I mention these things to illustrate that the people who were concerned with the exercise have some culture of their own and are not deprived work-units waiting to be catalysed.”
TGA 20042/4/1/14/1 Printed material-Report on APG by Graham Hancock 1975 (Draft version 1)
From interview with Peter Byrom, Head of ICI. No date or details given.
BS talked about the artist in industry being a “Carrier from another discipline” which is really interesting.
Worst example I’ve seen not from APG but a later Artist-In-industry Residency in “Aspects” magazine from early 1980s was a sculptor carving on the factory floor, apparently oblivious to his context, just carrying on his usual work , a performing monkey with novelty value.I can see why Barbara Steveni was so incensed by this approach and wanted none of it.
