Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...
Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...
Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
incidental people<br />
article by Graham Stevens that also argued for <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> APG’s<br />
activities by listing <strong>the</strong> new museum in Peterlee as a direct result <strong>of</strong> Stuart<br />
Brisley’s placement, <strong>the</strong> conservation <strong>of</strong> monumental industrial sites in<br />
Scotl<strong>and</strong> (by John Latham at <strong>the</strong> Scottish Offi ce), <strong>and</strong> two local resident<br />
associations in Birmingham (developed by <strong>the</strong> fi lmmaker Roger Coward in<br />
a Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment placement at Small Heath). 53 In short,<br />
although APG rightly sought to redirect <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> art away from fi nancial<br />
outcomes <strong>and</strong> concrete indicators, it ended up resorting to <strong>the</strong>se in<br />
order to justify public investment in <strong>the</strong> organisation. The latter was a sore<br />
point: as a direct result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> exhibition ‘Inno70’, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Art</strong>s Council <strong>of</strong> Great<br />
Britain withdrew its funding for APG on <strong>the</strong> basis that it was ‘more<br />
concerned with social engineering than with straight art’. 54 To <strong>the</strong> chagrin<br />
<strong>of</strong> Latham <strong>and</strong> Steveni, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Art</strong>s Council <strong>the</strong>n took over <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> artist’s<br />
placements, claiming in 1973 <strong>the</strong> sole governmental right to be funding<br />
artists. 55<br />
It is ironic that <strong>the</strong> UK government between 1997 <strong>and</strong> 2010 rendered <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Art</strong>s Council explicitly beholden to social engineering, using culture to<br />
reinforce policies <strong>of</strong> social inclusion (see Chapter 1). APG’s argument that<br />
artists can have long- term effects on society has been realised <strong>and</strong> acknowledged,<br />
but perhaps not quite in ways that <strong>the</strong>y imagined. The Delta unit<br />
prefi gured New Labour’s preferred method <strong>of</strong> assessing cultural value<br />
through a statistical analysis (audience demographics, marketing, visitor<br />
fi gures, etc.) ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> more diffi cult terrain <strong>of</strong> debating artistic quality.<br />
APG could be said to have pre- empted <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> artists by management<br />
consultancies, <strong>and</strong> to have ushered in <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘creative industries’<br />
as a dialogue between art <strong>and</strong> business in <strong>the</strong> wake <strong>of</strong> heavy industry, not<br />
to mention <strong>the</strong> centrality <strong>of</strong> artist residency schemes to <strong>the</strong> regeneration <strong>of</strong><br />
inner cities. 56<br />
The challenge, <strong>the</strong>n, is to identify <strong>the</strong> specifi cally artistic achievements<br />
<strong>of</strong> APG. Despite <strong>the</strong> highly administrative character <strong>of</strong> its practice, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
quasi- corporate greyness in which all documentation surrounding <strong>the</strong><br />
project seems to be saturated, its achievements were primarily discursive<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretical. For example, it defi ned a new model <strong>of</strong> patronage organised<br />
around <strong>the</strong> ‘open brief’, even if <strong>the</strong> power balance <strong>of</strong> this relationship<br />
remained open to question. It contributed to a broader post- war effort to<br />
demystify <strong>the</strong> creative process – replacing <strong>the</strong> term ‘artist’ with ‘Incidental<br />
Person’ – even if this mystifi cation returned via <strong>the</strong> back door in <strong>the</strong> elusive<br />
Delta unit to measure artistic effi cacy. It provided windows for open-<br />
minded organisations to rethink <strong>the</strong>ir hierarchy <strong>and</strong> basic assumptions,<br />
<strong>and</strong> in so doing was more provocative <strong>and</strong> adventurous than <strong>the</strong> ‘artist in<br />
residence’ schemes subsequently <strong>of</strong>fered by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Art</strong>s Council. Curatorially,<br />
its contribution is central: <strong>the</strong> inclusion <strong>of</strong> a discussion space within<br />
‘Inno70’, <strong>and</strong> APG’s subsequent decision not to use an exhibition format<br />
but to present its projects through panel discussions throughout <strong>the</strong> 1970s,<br />
175