Minutes 4th October 2011

From Critical Practice Chelsea
Jump to: navigation, search

Minutes

DATE Tuesday 4TH October 2011
LOCATION Royal Festival Hall, Southbank

THOSE PRESENT:Charlotte, Kuba, Marsha, Metod (via Skype), Neil, Scott, Sharon

APOLOGIES:Cinzia, Karem, Phil

CHAIR:Neil

MINUTES:Sharon

Metod was welcomed via Skype and Neil took on the role of moving the laptop to face the speaker so that Metod could participate fully in the meeting.


Item 1: MICROSILLONS

To discuss: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A SYMPOSIUM 9TH AND 10TH MARCH 2012

CP have been invited by Marianne and Olivier (who took part in Parade) to participate in a symposium in Luzern, Switzerland on new practices and orientations in art education. The workshop will focus on the idea of horizontality and on tools to challenge that notion. The invitation is for 2 CP members to host a barcamp type of workshop. Travel expenses and accommodation are covered along with a fixed fee of 300 Swiss Francs per person.

There is much interest amongst CP members. Neil mentioned that should others want to go, we still have some funds we could draw on. It was decided to form a working group on the wiki where we can express interest.

Neil will email them to ask if more people can go. Maybe it is only appropriate for 2 members to host the workshop but if there is more interest, there might be an opportunity for CP to participate in other aspects of the symposium.

Action:
  • NEIL TO SET UP PAGE ON THE WIKI AND START A WORKING GROUP
  • NEIL TO EMAIL MARIANNE AND OLIVIER TO ASK IF THE INVITATION IS ONLY FOR 2 PEOPLE OR COULD MORE MEMBERS OF CP PARTICIPATE?
  • CP MEMBERS TO EXPRESS INTEREST ON THE WIKI


Item 2; THIS IS NOT A SCHOOL


To discuss: PROPOSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN FIVE YEARS' THIS IS NOT A SCHOOL

Sharon explained to the group that the proposal for This Is Not A School has been sent and accepted (a cheer!). Edward from Five Years gallery has confirmed that we have been given the 12noon - 1pm slot on Saturday 29th October. Sharon has to confirm to Edward that this time is ok by 12noon on Wednesday 5th along with any final tweaks to the proposal which will be made into a PDF on Wednesday, after which no more changes could be made.

A discussion followed about whether we should establish a theme for our proposed session "Speed-Tipping".

Neil things that it would be good to have a theme. Charlotte reminded the group that not only is CP a resource but we have to be resourceful as well. We decide to theme the session around resourcefulness. We could give examples in the proposal of a range of resoursefulness, financial, emotional etc.

Sharon and Charlotte to expand the proposal and send it to Five Years. Metod confirmed that he is also available for the 29th.


Action:
  • SHARON AND CHARLOTTE TO EXPAND PROPOSAL
  • SHARON TO SEND UPDATED PROPOSAL TO FIVE YEARS AND CONFIRM 29TH OCTOBER.
  • SHARON TO ASK FIVE YEARS ABOUT THE AUDIENCE/PARTICIPANTS. WHO ARE THEY? DO WE NEED TO INVITE OUR OWN? ARE THE PARTICIPANTS MADE UP FROM THE HOSTS OF THE OTHER SESSIONS?


Item 3; BERLIN BIENNALE


To discuss:THE SUMMARY OF SKYPE MEETING MARSHA AND KUBA HAD WITH BB


Marsha and Kuba told the group about their Skype meeting with Zdravka and Asia from BB. It was a positive meeting and they seem interested. Their main question is about practicalities. What are we going to do? AZ wants to get beyond theory and theorising and get to practice.

They seem keen for us to present our project (whatever form it may take) at the Krytyka Polityczna club which will be at the BB. They are looking for us to clarify that we are going to go beyond research and mapping and they seem to be open to us 'tweaking' the structure of the BB bearing in mind that there are internal rules that even the curators have to abide by.

Following the Skype meeting they are going to get back to us with an overview of the organisational structure of BB, also letting us know about potential opportunities to work within these structures and the limits within which we can manouver.

In turn, we have to prepare and take to them a set of questions that we need to ask about the organisational structure. The answers to these questions will inform the development of our project. It appears to be a Catch 22 situation. We can't tell them exactly what we will do (ie what form the project will take), without being able to have access to the information that we need to carry out our research and they don't want to give us that information without knowing what we are going to do with it.

A long discussion followed about possibilities, what could happen, things we could possibly do. Here is the summary of the main questions and points.

- How do we create/implement these 'tweaks'?

- Is there an expectation of return? What is going to be the measurement by which we quantify how successful we are/have been? Interviews? Collecting feedback from the audience? Maybe we could perform an action, collect feedback that is then re-circulated and informs other initiatives?

- There are different types of economy and capital. Not necessarily monetary. The people who work for low or no wages, guides, interns, cleaners, they are hoping to get something other than financial gain. This is symbolic capital - prestige, legitimation, approval - these are intangible assets. How could they transfer to financial gain? The art market is competitive, can we change these intangible assets to be tangible?

- How to deal with commissions and other artists. It would be interesting to explore intellectual property rights and authorship. Ask artists about their inspirations. What or who was around at the point of creation of the work? Do these other factors become part of the authorship of the work?

- Taxation systems. People pay entry based on a percentage of their earnings.

- Do we want to provide some kind of service that is tangible and has a clear outcome at BB or something that resonates beyond BB, in the art world in general?


The discussion kept coming back to the same points. There is a tension between the need for research to know what structures we want to intervene in and the requirement for us to be concrete about our actions now. All ideas are just theories, and general ones at that, without us knowing the specifics of the BB. If the project is to be successful then it has to be specific to BB and without that information, we can't write a proposal. It was agreed that a carefully considered intervention, based on real knowledge and research would be more effective and powerful than lots of general ones. They are going to have to trust us at some point, that following a pre-determined research period, we will propose an interesting, exciting and challenging project.

After a long discussion (and a short drinks break) the group decided to call it a day on theorising about possibilities and decided on a series of actions. These are as follows.

Action:
  • KUBA TO EMAIL BB TO PROMPT THEM TO SEND US THE OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
  • KUBA TO START A PAGE ON THE WIKI WHERE WE CAN FORMULATE A LIST OF QUESTIONS TO ASK THEM. DEADLINE IS TO HAVE 10 QUESTIONS BY FRIDAY AND VOTE FOR OUR FAVOURITE 5 OVER THE WEEKEND TO SEND TO THEM NEXT WEEK.


Item 4: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

To discuss: FRIEZE ART FAIR

Scott proposed that we hold an impromptu, participatory action/event at Frieze art fair which is next week. This could possibly be held in the Secret Garden in the park. Ideas were discussed around the theme of secrets, keep them, telling them, whispering them to the art works. There is interest from other members of the group.


Action:
  • SCOTT TO START A WIKI PAGE (USING MARSHA'S ON-LINE TUTORIALS TO HELP!)
  • CP MEMBERS TO EXPRESS INTEREST ON THE PAGE AND START THINKING ABOUT IDEAS.


A very successful, fun and interesting meeting wrapped up after we said goodbye to Metod, live from Slovenia.

Next meeting Tuesday 1st November 2011.






Link to The Market of Values

Link to How To proposal for This Is Not A School



return to minutes