Axisweb Research Validation beyond the gallery | Page 20

16

Phase two: conclusions

Overall Conclusions

1. There is no singular route to validation/success
for artists working outside of galleries, and a range
of routes are described. These appear to differ
over time. Adaptability, diversification of practice
and perseverance are frequently cited attributes
required for the artist to develop a career.

6. Artists frequently reject/mistrust institutionalised/
bureaucratic definitions of success. Many stressed
alternative value systems which are less obviously
measurable/quantifiable. There was a perception
of the gallery system as one more suited to the
measuring of work.

The research set out to discover how artists operating
mainly outside of the gallery system gain traction
and visibility within their chosen idiom or field. We
interviewed commissioners and producers in phase
one of the research and artists working predominately
outside the gallery in phase two.

2. (Appropriate) structures to validate and champion
art outside of galleries are lacking. Most artists do
not question their responsibility to self-promote,
although few expressed satisfaction with the
current situation for artists who do not produce
marketable objects.

7. Although specific training opportunities are rare,
many artists express a preference for “learning
on the job”, independently identifying areas of
weakness to address through training outside of
art institutions. Several interviewed expressed
concerns about the standardisation of education
for artists outside of galleries, suggesting that it is
based on mercenary ideas, and would hamper the
process of artists.

The findings from the two groups concur on the
majority of points. They reveal that there is no
uniform approach to validation for those working in
non-gallery contexts and that continually building
and maintaining networks and relationships with
peers and supporters is absolutely crucial for artists
working in these ways. Though interviewees from
both groups believe that support from different
organizations is essential at different stages in an
artist’s career, they also agree that the responsibility
for gaining and maintaining validation falls largely
to the artist at present. This was accepted as the
norm, but also queried, particularly amongst the
artists. Artists are keenly aware of the lack of
support available to help them achieve and maintain
validation.

3. The professionalised art world is a hierarchical
space, and while some improvements are being
made, gallery backing is perceived as the key
to success and visibility for most artists. Art
produced outside of galleries is often perceived
to be of lower status, and can be “tainted” by
art conducted by those who are not professional
artists (sometimes referred to by interviewees as
‘community art’).
4. Artists working outside of galleries are not a
homogenous group. Language used to describe
such work is highly contested and often leads to
misunderstandings. Some artists choose not to
work with galleries for ideological reasons, some
do not feel their work is appropriate for galleries,
others that their work would not be accepted
in galleries. Some work between galleries and
outside of galleries. Some work in the educational
departments of galleries, but do not show objects
in the gallery. However, most believe that public
gallery commissions command higher status than
the majority of “community” commissions.
5. Artists display different attitudes towards the
documenting of their practice, and the status of
such documents. A binary is sometimes drawn
between object makers and non-object-makers, but
artists working predominately outside of gallery
contexts did also report producing art objects on
occasions.

8. Although most artists felt that established art
world channels need to open up to work produced
outside of galleries, most were concerned about
creating a sequestered space for socially-engaged
art that segregates it from other kinds of art
making. Most want the work to be recognized as
part of the wider art world, with its own specific
contribution. At the same time it is not easily
measurable by the same criteria as object-based
art making.

The main difference between the two groups
concerns their satisfaction - or not - with the current
routes to validation. While most producers and
commissioners believe these routes are gradually
improving, the artists, with some qualifications,
are universally dissatisfied with how things stand.
They cite various gaps in the structures of support
as problems: lack of critical writing, art reviews,
mentoring, websites, commitment by organizations
to artists as opposed to commitment to shorter
term projects, and funding streams. Many of the
improvements they suggest come with the caveat
that these should be responsive to artists’ need for
self-determination, given the diversity of practices
that make up the field and artists’ requirement to
ground or embed continuation, learning and change
within their individual practices.

The strongest message to emerge from the research
is that the majority of artists working in this area
are motivated by different value systems from those
they see underpinning mainstream galleries and
the work shown there. Many chose non-gallery
contexts in order to ask critical questions about social
worlds, rather than to make saleable art objects.
This choice can result in what is experienced as
a form of “second-class citizenship” in relation to
the mainstream art world. Despite some fluidity
between galleries and non-gallery contexts, artists
may experience their practices being side-lined
when positioned in gallery and museum education
contexts.
To conclude, we suggest that the diverse values
artists bring to their work in this field must be
carefully listened to and taken account of if there is
to be a rethinking of systems of validation for those
working outside of the gallery system. Any new
provision should be artist-led and/or developed in
close consultation with artists who have achieved a
range of different kinds of validation already. Without
this, artists could be disenfranchised through external
values being imposed upon them in “top down”,
regulatory ways. This in turn might undermine the
existing qualit 䁅