The Group Process
Abigail Reynolds, Mar. 2005
City Breaks begins with two related questions;
Q1
How can our individual relationships to the evolving cities of Helsinki
and London be visualised?
Q2
How can the two processes (of the group and the individual) in considering
this question be represented?
The point of this text is to look critically at the
aspects of the paths taken in the show and to speculate on some
of the factors influencing the decisions taken by us individually
and as a group. Exchange is built into the project on two levels
- an exchange of views as in a re-location of site and an exchange
of views as in a debate/discussion between artists from two European
centres. This text is written in the spirit of Q2 (above)
and is a partial attempt to offer an answer to it. The rest of this
leaflet offers individual reflections on process. It seems useful
to explore the questions that have been raised by our journey to
this point and also the ideologies and structures that have prompted
certain directions taken across the terrain of time and space that
all of us have shared.
Q1
We all set out to respond to the very particular nature of the two
cities; one that we knew well, one that was unfamiliar. One first
point to notice then is that none of us responded fully to the inherent
difference in our experience of the two cities in question. The
intimacy that we have with one, the lack of intimacy we have with
another is not an aspect that seemed to open up in the work.
Our works remain to a large extent inside the walls
of the gallery. There were three notable exceptions to this, but
they all remain as adjuncts to the main work inside the gallery
space. This is mainly due to the pre-existence of a gallery space
as the known final destination of works made from the very start
of the project. The gallery privileges the production of objects
that can be shown in them. This pull as an artist is very hard to
resist, and maybe should never be resisted as the gallery is, I
believe, a very efficient means to generate a discussion/set of
thoughts. As a group of artists we are far more familiar with the
specifics of gallery showing than any other set of conditions and
it makes sense to work with what you know, especially in the face
of so many risky factors of responding to place so speedily.
Q2
The nature of our researches into the city has resulted in each
of us making very individual works. We have, in a sense, not worked
as a team, and this perhaps was never fully intended by the project
outline, or fully grasped by the participants of the project. As
artists we are trained to work in very individualistic manner. There
have been of course numerous challenges to this model of the artist
throughout the twentieth century, but it remains remarkably tenacious,
as this project has shown. The very strong tradition of studio practice
does not privilege exchange and collaboration. As artists we are
trained to spend time in a private space producing objects and images.
The studio itself (which is portable, as an attitude) is often fetishised
by artists as having enormous ideological value in terms of a sense
of worth/personal freedom. It becomes a space saturated in the self,
and is often the only non-shared space in a life full of compromises.
This structure, promoted by art schools, means that as artists it
is hard for us to privilege 1) exchange and discussion over the
production of objects and 2) group work over private, individual
work.
We are able, as a group, to meet to very effectively
and supportively critique the works being made by the group members.
This was done quite formally as a stage in Helsinki. As a group
we were much less good at thinking through the two research questions
in a more general pre-production focus. The nature of artistic research
is that questions and problems remain in the personal domain of
the maker. While Q1 is very adequately addressed by us as individuals.
It would be impossible for Q2 to be addressed without sustained
group thought over time. This is because Q1 can be addressed from
inside very familiar patterns of autonomous artistic practice whereas
Q2 has no ready models to draw from. While sporadic attempts to
address the issue of Q2 were attempted by fractured members of the
group, the solutions proposed remained unconvincing. Also it would
not be possible for a single member of the group to resolve Q2 without
it becoming a work.
Q2 then remains as the most challenging aspect of
the project. To address Q2 fully would mean an agreement, across
the group, to spend the same amount of time resolving it as spent
individually on Q1. The demands of making a work in response to
a brief demands considerable time and focus from the individual.
To extend this to be able to also encompass Q2 as a group would
have demanded equal time in making plus added time to try to dismantle
our established ways of thinking and working as determined by the
studio/gallery structure. While then this City Breaks experiment
has not entirely succeeded in its address to Q2, it has clearly
flagged up the structures which govern artistic practice. City Breaks
at the Whitechapel Project Space is still only one stage of the
exploration of these questions, which is an ongoing process. It
operates as a platform from which to survey this terrain, by what
has been realised and what has not been realised.
Abigail Reynolds
|