Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...

incidental people
APG exist to create mutually benefi cial association between artists and
organisations in industry, commerce and the public service. Their intention
is not that of the traditional relationship of patronage. Rather, they
seek to have an artist involved in the day- to- day work of an organisation.
The latter may be expected to benefi t in a variety of ways. These
may vary from contributions to the creation of some concrete object to
new ideas about work methods . . . APG’s aim is an attempt to bridge
the gap between artists and people at work so that each may gain from
the other’s perspectives and approaches to an activity. 6
Of course, the procedure was more complex than this summary indicates.
The host was expected to pay around £2,000 to £3,000 per artist depending
on their age and experience – a generous fee, even by today’s standards,
especially when we consider that there was no contractual commitment on
the part of the artist to produce a work of art. The project would ideally
proceed in three phases. Firstly, a feasibility study, which would last around
a month: the company would pay a fee to APG, who would put forward the
names and CVs of three artists, who in turn would visit the organisation
and report on the possibilities for their placement. Phase two comprised an
agreement between APG and the organisation regarding practical and
legal questions: the artist’s brief, the length of contract, the artist’s fee, the
amount of commission received by APG, the ownership of any works
produced, and so on. The third phase was an exhibition, although this was
not viewed as necessary or essential to the placement.
APG’s status as an art historical object is therefore extremely complex,
since it requires that we confront multiple authorships in specifi c contexts:
fi rst, the theoretical frame of Latham and Steveni; second, the practice and
inclinations of the artists they placed; and third, the character of the businesses
and organisations in which these placements were held – each one a
constellation of specifi c individuals more or less open to collaboration.
By 1969 the fi rst placements were underway. Many of the artists involved
are well known within the British context of the 1960s and ’70s, but only a
few have reputations with international reach today. The video artist David
Hall was placed at British European Airways and Scottish Television; the
performance artist Stuart Brisley at the Hille Furniture Company; Lois
Price at the Milton Keynes Development Corporation; John Latham at the
National Coal Board, and the hospital of Clare Hall, Cambridge; the sculptor
Garth Evans at the British Steel Corporation. 7 Subsequent placements
included Ian Breakwell (who worked in fi lm, drawing and diary- writing)
at British Rail and the Department of Health; artist and musician Andrew
Dipper at Esso; artist and musician David Toop at London Zoo; and the
sculptor Barry Flanagan at a plastics producer (Scott Bader). From this list
it can immediately be seen that the choice of organisation tends towards
heavy industry and nationalised companies, and that the artists are all male,
165