Artists’ and Cultural Workers’ Dinner: Cultural Work and Urban Displacement

photo(5)

During the ArtLicks weekend, alongside Nomad School and Houserules’ new project The Guided Tour Daniella Valz Gen and myself hosted Artists’ and Cultural Workers’ Dinner at the Field, a community space and a social centre at New Cross that I have been involved in since summer 2014.

We have cooked together dahl and a crumble. Admission fee included bringing drinks and fruit for pudding. Above is a photograph by artist Donna Riddington inscribed “Artists’ hands preparing communal grub at The Field while discussing displaced communities across Peckham.

The programme of the dinner started from a walk beginning at Holly Bush Shrubbery at Peckham that was led by Daniella. 17 artists and cultural workers attended a conversation that started shortly after a walk, cooking and having a dinner together. Different opinions were raised and heavy disagreements emerged. Further I would list questions and statements that I have noted down during the conversation.

Statements:
Developers are not interested in artists, but creative professionals and their disposable incomes who come alongside.
Cutting though social classes artists have access to different people and spaces or know how to get it.
It is planned that by 2033 there would be no council estates in London.
Problem is the undemocratic planning policy that is not controlled by people who live in the city.
Regeneration is about moving social problems to other places.
Community is about sharing space.
People who make change are desperate.
All areas of London have community hubs, this is how local communities can be joined.

photo 1
Questions:
Why are we [artists] attractive to developers?
Is this about blame or rather accepting our position as artists?
Maybe gentrification is not a bad thing really?
Do we have a choice?
Do we have time for political interventions?
Are there better ways to create?
What are different communities around us? How to engage with local community?
What can artists offer to local community that faces displacement?
Would artist become a social worker?
Is artist the one who points at things?
Should artist jump a fence and become a community activist?
Is being ethical a hard work?
Is that a question of having to go and find community? Building relations with the community?
Are art practice and social work polar opposites?
Is there a  drive to abandon aesthetic practice and take art practice into different direction?
Can our practice include all several aspects, being socially responsive and self-reflexive at the same moment?

I am so very grateful for the contribution of ideas, time and presence of artists who came to share food and space and be open and honest about their positions and knowledge about processes we are living though. The Field became instrumental in opening this conversation that brings together artistic work and political. Hosting a dinner there reassured me again that working alongside community activists and caring for the space is somehow unarguably important for my understanding of my own practice, and to some extent of roles that artists could have in the community.

There were multiple calls to continue conversation that had started that evening, we’ll have to see what we can do.

Lecture about Lenin

video snapshot2video snapshot1

Lecture about Lenin is a site-specific performance and sculpture work made for presentation in the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the lobby of its London office. The 15 minute speech focused on the difficulty of the representation of the revolutionary and actuality of his image in relation to today’s world. The project was documented as a commemorative plaque that was displayed in the bank lobby for the duration of the exhibition.

Thank to kind support of EBRD and Pushkin House in making this project possible.

Curated by Elena Zaytseva and Julia Solovieva.

Video documentation

Invigilator’s revolt

25 Aipril – 26 July 2011, GCCC Moscow, intervention.

The project was carried out in the Garage Centre for Contemporary Culture in Moscow where Tatiana Baskakova held a position of an invigilator from 25th Aipril till 26th July 2011.

In this three-month performance matters of institutional critique coincide with practice of experimental exploration of Russian society and creative industry’s labour conditions. It largely relies on social and communal relations of gallery staff, their understanding of hopelessness of the current situation, and disbelief in the possibility of a positive change in their life, working conditions, or society in general.

The performance piece runs though three gradual stages of change in invigilator’s attitude – from happy enthusiasm and patience to “revolutionary” moods and attempts to organize a trade union. The climax of the performance happens when the artist performing an invigilator is fired from the gallery for “sabotage” (quote from an exhibitions department manager), due to sharing the legal rights information with fellow colleagues, which is understood as a pure subversive action.

Through the process of overidentification with an idea of contemporary art gallery and legal rights, the performance brings attention to power relations that are representative of the current condition of Russian society and attempts to shift it. It talks of the institutional structures that are run with big international budgets, but perceive their underpaid and undervalued workers as a mere consumable material for the beautifully presented causes. It brings one back to what was Soviet Union’s utilitarian perception of its people, for example.

We see that pretence of the Moscow gallery space to carry contemporary art ideology does not coincide with its workings on the level that goes few inches behind visual presentation. The ethics of Moscow’s private “equivalent of Tate Modern” depends on impulses of those in charge at the moment, and this makes an institution function in the permanent state of exception, as a structure of no rules, but servitude.

For those who observed the process of the performance in its subtle development for the whole three months, some gallery staff and other participants, as instance, the action was intended as something bringing in an alternative narrative and brighter look into the future. The naivety and goodness of an actor-outsider is tactical, however fails to bring anything but the dream of politically organized labour. Due to the failure of the piece to develop more positive scenario, this socially engaged work could also be seen as a live paraphrase of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Idiot”.

The documentation of the performance is presented a set of internet-sourced private view images that document presence of the artist at work.

baskakova-invigilators revolt