Staying alive: Collaboration for survival

During a Q&A session, Barbara Stevini reveals the inner mechanics, debates and decisions that drove the Artist Placement Group, which she co-founded in 1966.

Simon Elvins, Julie Hill & Tom Mower from St. Pierre & Miquelon discuss their practice and how collaboration keeps them on track.
Here a few notes on what Simon, Julie and Tom shared with us:

• supporting each other after graduation in order to develop new projects and to share resources was important
• all three continue working individually as well as in collaboration
• all three have a variety of sources of income
• there is no fixed studio space for St.Pierre & Miquelon, which means pubs and other free spaces become make-shift meeting rooms
• the division of roles within the group is flexible
• the authorship of projects is shared, which can be problematic in a world that prioritises individualization

Read one of the texts, which Barbara Steveni shared with us:

#1 Context is half the work

This central axiom, (my manifesto title) developed from APG practice in the 70s, carries today a necessary component for current and future action for art, or for any other activity for that matter, which engages / impacts on an ‘other’.
Constructed to traverse time, place and discipline, this approach does not impose on any context, place or person, but rather suggests engagement between the artist on the one hand and invitation by the potential host on the other.
(APG’s text to the Zentrum fur Kulturforschung Bonn 1980)

Emphasise the following guideline engagement principles for an effective form of association of artists with organisational structures:

1. That context is half the work.
2. That the function of the medium of art is determined not so much by the factual/concrete object, as by the process and the levels of attention to which the work aims. (By level of attention is meant the consideration of human long-term identity)
3. That the proper contribution of art to society is art. (that society is starved of an important ingredient if ‘creative’ individuals are kept out of the working parts of governments/ organisations and institutions. (This is not to suggest that other individuals and specialists are not creatives)
4. That the status of the artist within organisations must necessarily be in line with other professional persons, engaged within the organisation.
5. That the status of the artist within organisations is independent, bound by invitation rather than instructions from authority within the organisations, departments, company, to the long-term objectives of the whole of society.
6. That, for optimum results, the position of the artist within an organisation should (in the first stages at least) facilitate a form of cross-referencing between departments.
7. That the artist’s brief remains open. Negotiations are contingent upon both participants having this understanding and a mutual confidence. This requires intelligence and strength in art and a reciprocal response from within administrations. To these principles/premises for engagement, I add in the context of the ‘greed economics’ of the day (quote Tony Benn Darwin Lectures)
8. That artist and host organisation QUESTION WITH RIGOUR their motivation for engagement. Perhaps Tony Benn’s questions he lists when addressing people/institutions with power apply equally here to artists when considering engaging/working with a potential hosting organisation.

* What power have you got?
* Where did you get it from?
* In whose interest do you use it?
* To whom are you accountable?
* How do we get rid of you?