Wednesday November 21st Industry placements-success and failure
More thoughts from the “UK Industry in Transition” event at Raven Row on Monday night.
APG are talked about in radical terms, but the evidence for their achievements is elusive. Words like “suppressed” (Barbara Steveni’s own words), underground, overlooked, even invisible are used in reference to them.Why is there so little evidence? So little critical writing (mainly unpublished post-graduate theses and magazine articles ), scanty catalogues and printed material? So few images, a small bank of the same images, a few shows.
Some of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of APG itself. They were not about producing things, or grand gestures, or even documentation as part of the process. They were not interested in glossy catalogues as validation for their aims and ideals. By its very nature, what they were about IS ELUSIVE-but the ideas and principles-which are pure, uncompromising and truly radical-were seen through, transforming and transmutating as the placements moved from heavy industry through to government organisations, (where the “Incidental Person” idea fitted in better.)They refused to compromise on what the artist should do or be and this is why it has survived and why it is being reappraised now.
Barbara Steveni says that “Context” has now moved from the placement context of the factory or government organisation to “the issues of the day”.
There was some discussion as to why there is a massive resurgence of interest in APG, why all the Raven Row events are a sell-out with people sitting on the stairs, and many young artists and students in the audience. APG raises important questions about the purpose of art, radical ideas which are relevant now, and a renewed reaction against the commercialisation of art and the art market. This coupled with a huge nostalgia for the period, now removed from us by time, when it must have seemed that anything was possible and the world could be changed .
I have recently been in contact with the organisation “Littoral” run by Ian Hunter and Celia Larner, based near Rochdale. They are a very interesting and innovative organisation who have connections with early APG and have adopted some of their principles.They have also done some very interesting work with Kurt Schwitters “Merzbarn” in the Lake District .Coincidentally, they are proposing a Conference next year, where APG and their influence will be discussed so I hope to get involved.This is their website:
My Tate Archive research today focussed primarily on 1 document- A report written by Graham Hancock, a sociologist, in 1975, which is a very thorough review of the early industry placements, including some new material from interviews with industry bosses. I also looked at statements by Stuart Brisley and Garth Evans.
Most interesting bit of Graham Hancock’s Report are the very detailed descriptions of Stuart Brisley’s placement at Hille and Leonard Hessing at ICI, with graphic details of failures and successes-I’m very keen to access info on what the artists did and their relationship with the factory at every level.
Stuart Brisley did 9 months at Hille (Furniture) Company. Made sculpture from chair frames as a means of doing something tangible (always a pressure), ‘proving’ to the workforce that an artist is not a lazy layabout!! Got involved in the politics of the organisation and found it difficult to remain ‘neutral’.
Management said at the end of his placement..
…”I don’t see any reason why I should overtly pay for somebody to come and destroy the thing I think is worthwhile”. TGA 20042/4/1/14/1
Reveals the APG paradox that if they are subversive, directly, politically subversive (or even seen to be subversive), then they are powerless.
The flip side to this is if it is not subversive, it is unimportant, as revealed by Hessing’s placement which was about him using the ICI technology to produce his own work without communication or any sort of involvement in the context .The factory just functioned as fabricator for his ideas and he spent very little time there, etc-Throws up the whole question of the artist’s ability to be a good communicator, the importance of their personality , the necessity of them not appearing superior or arrogant or in position of a patronising educator. No one was told about the APG ideals or why Hessing was there-seems to have been a real breakdown in communication-they found his language difficult and too technical- Hessing was found to be isolated, walking around ‘in a world of his own’. APG expected a lot from their artists-Just because they had good reputations as artists, didn’t mean they could just go into this situation and do great things-some kind of preparation or training might have been useful, or a very careful choice of artists.
APG’s contention was that the artist, by his presence, could change things.
They prescribed a grand role for the artist which could not always (if ever?) be filled.?
Did their role become educative rather than ‘manipulative’?
Were the changes the APG artists (in industry) brought about in the realm of ideas, not material things, ie, changing people’s perceptions by opening them up to to things they would not otherwise see or hear, new languages. Material change is not up to the artist?????
George Levanti’s placement on ships was also not understood. He believed his role was to show people on board a ship, who are not artists, how the artist confronts the external world, and what they do with it.He had to deal with a lot of preconceptions, eg that his role was to be an art tutor.
Basically it seemed as though all the industry placements basically FAILED to some degree in the eyes of the artists and host organisations.There were complex reasons for this.
Failed expectations (on both sides)
Lack of communication about APG ideals and artist-workforce-management.
Individual artists and their practice were considered inpenetrable.
Lack of any briefing/training in the mechanisms whereby artists could infiltrate and influence decision-making at highest levels
Resentment from workforce at lazy artist doing nothing and getting paid-general prejudices and misconceptions about what artist does.
