I’m going to see Tim Etchells’ first solo London exhibition at The Gasworks, Vauxhall this weekend. You might say, in response to that, ‘Ah, Tim Etchells!’ or alternatively, ‘Who’s Tim Etchells?
Newspapers always seem to need to introduce him as the Director of Forced Entertainment and spend the first half of any article explaining the significance of the company’s 20 career in contemporary performance. Once they’ve set the colour and context, they then move on to describing whichever solo project at hand but quickly realise they’ve run out of space to say much at all. It’s like he’s a member of Atomic Kitten or Hearsay, embarking on a solo career, but who always needs to be referenced as ‘the blonde one.’
I’m going to see the exhibition. I’ve always enjoyed Forced Entertainment’s shows and enjoyed going to see Spectacular at Riverside Studios in 2008. I respect the contributions they’ve made to contemporary theatre, I like his writing and even now, I enjoy the way they seem to divide audiences. At Riverside, despite the show’s great reviews, the performers were heckled with ‘you’re rubbish!’
I like how Etchells has diversified over the last few years. He’s written a novel and been published, he’s done sculpture, book art, poetry, online art, installations and now video art. In terms of spreading his eggs between the baskets – I could only hope to achieve as much as he has. However, there’s still a niggling question which I think applies to almost all his work, and that is the question I pose to you today.
He’s all about presence and liveness, the theatre and deconstructing the art world itself and so I wonder – how can art get away with being all about art? In this world where we’re supposed to make accessible, unpretentious, work which is all about out reach, how can a video where an ice cream maker turns contemporary art forms into new flavours of ice cream ‘appeal to the masses’ etc?
What is outreach anyway?
How can art reach out?
Out of what?
Should people just be left to make what they want to make?
Does all art have a duty to the public?
These are just some of my many questions people – get reflective!
This blog was written by Peter Reed, our international artist liaison. So come on festival followers, whats your opinion?
what do you mean by duty to the public?
I think it’s dishonest to pretend that art can be a one-size-fits-all thing. Many art pieces can reach a wide variety of audiences, but rarely all, especially if it tries to innovate or deal with a controversial/touchy aspects of life. This is fine!
Why is it that artists don’t often list ‘Wicked’ as their favourite theatrical production, or why do many artists accept Franko B’s work while many non-’artsy types’ find it distasteful, bizarre and sometimes down right disgusting thing?
I am not commenting on either of these forms of performance as valid/unvalid, I’m simply making an obvious point. Making art, reading art theory, absorbing oneself in a certain ‘art-culture’ inevitably changes ones artistic tastes. Certain audiences cringe at nudity on stage, while others seem to accept it as a norm – completely desensitised to the naked body (or even blood, sex, pain) in performance.
Is it wrong to make art with a certain audience in mind? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, I don’t think it can ever be done any other way. The play that impresses the sixteen year old and encourages them to pursue a creative life doesn’t have to be the same one that intellectually stimulates a art theoritician.
We say ‘aaaaawwwww well done!’ to ‘outreach’ or community art (i agree, what does outreach mean?) that is targeted at giving young people confidence/education/inspiration/tackle issues in the community – we inherently accept that a PhD theatre student is not the target recipient. But to have something ‘prententious’ (what does pretentious mean?) at the Chelsea Theatre during Sacred Live Art season is dreadful – because it is aimed (maybe???) at stimulating people who are literate in more unusual forms of art, and probably value arts self-referential nature.
And what’s more – if this debate really matters (eg who art should be made for and how) surely the best thing to do is to look at art administrations, institutions, and artistic norms, and deconstruct the art world? This debate, I would say, calls for more, not less, art-centred-art.
Or does it? who knows. im tired.
i just realised that i left my name above as ’sianyxxx’.
those were meant to be adorable kisses to my peers, not like ’siany – triple X’ porn connotations. sorry kids.
I guess I mean, does publicly funded art in particular need to remain completely accessible, ernest and good for a first time or newer audience member?
Or would this just make it unexciting, unchallenging or unadventurous…
(turned out when I went to see the exhibition, it was quiet easy going and I think many people with many different art or non art background would be able to enjoy and take away. Despite being what many might describe as ‘wierd’ – the series of writing ‘City Changes’ was beautiful, funny and full of nuances which I think resonate with modern day life and the video actually showed an italian ice cream maker STRUGGLING but then OVERCOMING his fear and rejection of contemporary art ideas.
Worth a look, well done Tim Etchells
i love wicked.
Sian- re your nudity on stage- apparently “naked” isn’t artistic, “nudity” is. apprently there is a difference (i am not sure where the division is, to be honest). anyway, the other week, i saw “Naked Boys Singing!” at teh Arts Theatre. basically a musical comprised of naked gay men singing and dancing. artistic? not really (the meldodies were very good though!), enjoyable and memorable? hell yeah!
It is also notable that I received free tickets from a lastminute.com competition, as i decided to go see it as it’s not something i would have normally picked (shocking, i know), so in that sense, i think that the availabilty and chance to open something that has a 90% audience of gay men, as a straight girl, it wa something different, and i welcomed the fun, frivoulous accessibilty of quite an extreme aesthetic (one of the reasons i love british theatre’s lack of censorship).
x
Surely any ‘outreach’ in the arts should be about raising awareness of, and increasing access to work.
Not some patronising notion of making accessible work.
Traditional critical methods remain a strong way of reading work (not, I feel, the only way) and an ‘outreach’ could be geared towards demystifying jargon.
In this respect, then, Etchells’ project Art Flavours can be seen as extremely relevant.
Now, I’d have loved to see (and, of course taste) the results at Manifesta, but this video being shown in a small, tucked away space that requires a doorbell to be rung for access… that could be seen as an issue in itself.
Max