An article by Anthony IlesOreste meeting at Democracy!, Royal College of Art, London
From: Anthony Iles <a_529@hotmail.com>
Oreste meeting 11th - 12th May 2000
The Italian artist initiative Oreste were invited by members of the Royal College of Art Curating course to participate in the exhibition Democracy!
Artist groups, representatives from artist-run spaces and individuals were invited to take part in a series of discussions over two days, with the aim of promoting discourse, gaining access to the activities of other groups and initiating future collaborations.#1 See accompanying list of attendants. 2#.
"Oreste is not a group: in fact there is not a list of individuals who belong to it, or, vice-versa, a list of people who do not. You will never know who is part of it and who is not. Oreste is not simply a container for (or the sum of) initiatives because, although not a group, it is made up of the enthusiasm, the ideas and the characteristics of those persons who, in different moments and in different contexts, represent it as a collective entity."2#.
This text seeks to essay upon the artist network Oreste and the meetings it organised at Democracy! Royal College of Art, London. Rather than a straight report on the event or a feature on Oreste I would to read the two phenomenon through each other, the possibilities that Oreste's practice alludes to, and its mediation through the context of current artistic practice in London. I intend to introduce Oreste's practice in a manner that continues its ambiguities but also challenges them by proposing a deliberately partial idea of what it is, what it might be and in many ways my hopes for what it could be.
One of the reasons that makes engagement (ergo participation) with Oreste's practice/process interesting is that it makes fixed positions unstable; # It was virtually impossible to assume the position of an objective observer or listener at the meetings; the debate led nowhere and meant nothing without contribution; a position characterised by Oreste's publicity material as one of "radical discontinuity"....3#It is from the position of a participant, a critic but also a self-confessed fan that I respond to Oreste's activities and their implications for art practice elsewhere.
The fact that Oreste operates within established art institutions (such as the Venice Biennale) without following the given rules of exhibiting (in fact they do not exhibit anything) or designating their activities as art, makes their work a little difficult to understand. Instead they use invitations to exhibitions to produce meetings, discussions and above all to develop relationships with other artists and groups. As such all their activities are temporary and involve a large and ever-changing number of participants. They organise as a network, that is horizontally, sharing communication, resources and workloads through spread connections.
The meetings at the Royal College of Art left me with many questions about where the model Oreste offered might lead and how it might initiate thought on a range of issues crucial to current art practice. The most immediate and compelling question asked me what it might mean to do cultural work within a context that accepts and in fact depends upon conditions of fluidity and effacement. A space that promotes collective endeavour independent of bureaucratic order but, fundamentally does not prescribe to how or what end this space is to be used or who owns it.
"Oreste do not correspond to any already existing model; it tries to experiment a new one, that could be defined (as) that of a network-organism whose main characteristics, at the moment, are self-organisation; openness; multiplication."4#
Oreste do not have an agenda beyond those of "self-organisation; openness; multplication" leaving us to fill in the gaps ourselves. This has negative consequences, it is easy (for those with shorter attention spans) to dismiss Oreste as confusing or unclear. However, the desire for answers or clearer definitions can propel one to answer questions oneself, or at least ask them of others. This in the end is the endearing and radical quality of these meetings (and presumably others Oreste have held), that they provoked questions and desire for action more than they satisfied them.
My first direct encounter with Oreste characterises some of the contradictions it produces within the viewer/participant: Upon entering the lecture hall at the Royal College I was greeted by the question (thrown from behind a clipboard) "Are you a group?" Do I look like a group, I wondered ? Will I be denied access if I admit to being an individual? Should I be in a group? Would I be more powerful/acceptable/ authoritative if I was? Grateful to have the oppurtunity to clear the dispel rumours and gossip surrounding my knowledge of Oreste, I continued my quiet crisis of subjectivity whilst the meeting began.
An introduction was made by representatives of Oreste, quickly cut short by artist/activist Gustav Metzger who insisted that rather than hear any more about Oreste (they had made a short presentation during the opening of the exhibition), we move straight to presentations by, and discussions with, the artist groups, independent spaces and curators invited. Although the list seemed limited considering the number of groups, collaborative practices, artist run spaces in London let alone the UK, the practicalities of collating such a list, motivating and housing all the groups did not really make this valid a point of criticism. Throughout the meeting I did have the feeling that so many people who occupy positions within the "independent" /"alternative" scene could have benefited from being there.
Two problems appeared immediately in the form of re-occuring issues and actual barriers to the development the discussions. One was the sense of urgency (highlighted by Metzger) to use this valuable time constructively, to realise the "importance of meetspace"4 the second was others confusion over what we were actually there to do. There was a tension between those who understood Oreste's offer of a radical alternative to the "star system", and wished to seize upon the time to discuss, develop ideas, collaborations and those who, a little bewildered by the discourse surrounding the event got out their slides and tried to promote their practice (perhaps in the hope that they would get a show in Italy out of these tired gestures).
As corresponding issue was the self-evident cumbersome nature of group structures and "democratic" procedures. This is almost certainly a necessary evil, one Oreste successfully bridge in their practice and approach, oscillating between anarchic humour and critical contribution. It was gratifying to see how Oreste's representatives remained relaxed even as the discussion appeared to be going nowhere and time slipped away without any productive contribution to the possibilities the situation offered. Crude comparisons were made between the situation in Italy and the UK, old wounds between the centricity of London and the rest of the country were opened, examined and given what felt like a very temporary dressing. Debates about what the current definition of "alternative" space was, whether it was shared notion at all, felt laboured and always seemed to lead to dead ends. Discussions lurched from reports on individual practices or histories to questioning Oreste's internal structure or means of communication.
Rather than develop dense theoretical debate about group structures and organisational strategy (that, although often important, frequently slow up and eventually trap many small politically grounded organisations) 5#, Oreste maintain a fluidity and flexibility which is self-reflexive and importantly allows for mistakes, diversions. If indeed what Oreste is doing is in any way radical then it is to be radically slow, more meaningful and effective for its convoluted route. In this way difference (whether of politics, economics or geography) is maintained and can be negotiated rather than eliminated. The confusions, crossed wires and opposing agendas that appeared at the time frustrating and destructive actually communicated a diversity of opinion and approach in the UK and challenged established positions. (My own and those of others). This chaotic atmosphere felt at odds with the smart and orderly setting typical of the British art establishment. The art world thrives on fashion, on the making, marketing and selling of commodities on a transnational market. Whether this be the marketplace of ideas, institutional images, discreet objects or city-break tourists, like all other operations hooked up to the flows of the spectacular economy it is motored by a superficial speed of transaction and circulation. This process actually supports a kind of stasis, the illusion of movement necessary to maintain the status quo. Oreste counters this superficial speed with its own intensity of movement.6#. In the current state of capitalist exchange based on alienated labour and distance the emphasis on real meeting between people in time and space takes on a critical light. Human exchange and contact with all its problems; inconvenience and difficulty begins to define itself in opposition to the dominant realm of production; the virtual, and begins to develop new resistant and meaningful forms of contact and modes of social production. As such, whilst Oreste's (and other similar networks) existence has been dependent on the widespread availability of e-mail, Oreste have learnt from the critical culture that has developed in tandem with the use of the internet, a phenomenon epitomised by the mailing list Nettime.
"Now that the varieties of virtual communities are growing, it is no longer enough to merely announce their existence. People demand substance < not only outsiders but, most of all, the members of the groups themselves. The best way to speed up the process of production is to meet in real space, to confront the loose, virtual connection, to engage in the complex and messy circumstances of real time-space, and to present the audience (and possible future participants) with actual outcomes."7#.
Oreste open spaces for contact and exchange. Whilst remembering similar experiments in artist organisation in the 19160/70's (notably Art workers Coalition and Artists for Cultural Change based in New York, and Artist Placement Group based in London) they do not prescribe utopian aims or explicit political goals. I believe that the will to organise on this level is political in itself and that since any cultural agenda is subject to the overarching agenda of capitalism the refusal to prescribe direction or representation at this stage is a necessary strategy. Discussion of how to create new forms of collective action and creativity are much needed at the moment, in the UK we have seen an increase in the numbers and sizes of spaces in which to experience art. Contemporary art is apparently engaging with wider and wider audiences each year, yet the public conception of the artist remains rooted in nostalgia and the assymetry of power between the mass of artists and the minority of dealers star artists and curators remains. The designated spaces in which artists can operate remain what can be put in a clean white room or between the pages of a book. Despite the drive throughout this century towards the closing the gap between creative endeavour and everyday life and needs, art remains in the service of a cultural and political elite.
Oreste have initiated an artistic practice that is based on producing new oppurtunities for discursive creative expression. Whilst I think this is extremely important, if Oreste and other similar initiatives are to move forward into wider fields of operation there may be some problems. The promotion of open structures and network-organisms aestheticises politics without any direct political content or action. There is a danger that at the heart of the networks as with other labyrinthine meaning systems is not radicality, but vacuity. The promise of communication is hollow unless people have something to say. This was perhaps the paradox of the meetings at the RCA, for me what felt like urgency to others probably felt like ennui. Unfortunately like other forms of self-organisation and "independent" cultural work it, networking (politicized or not) amounts to free labour and can eventually serve the interests of the dominant elite; the market, institutions, developers, government, corporations etc. Cultural work with e-mail lists whilst empowering and connecting people, explicitly beurocratises art practice, and as beurocratic work goes it is probably the least well paid in the world. Attention must be directed to the fact that whilst these are useful tools for artists and activists they are also useful tools for those with vested interests in streamlining labour, flattening difference and removing the divisions between work and leisure. There is a need to re-think the modes of production and sites of distribution that apply to art and Oreste make an important contribution towards this process. Their network-organism could be a useful model through which to do this, but there remains a lack of understanding of what these new forms of organisation are and what they might mean for artists. On the last afternoon of the second day of meetings a new shape was created; people broke with the formality of the lecture hall and gathered at the front in a circle, the dynamics changed. Just as it felt like critical ground was being gained a question was thrown from the back of the hall from outside the core of discussion.
"What is a network?"
Perhaps something...
".very close to communicating, communicated and able to communicate".8#.
.but then,(at least on this occasion) perhaps not.
Anthony Iles, 16/7/2000
LIST OF ATTENDANTS TO THE MEETING (see 2#)
The Annual Programme (Manchester)
Arthur R. Rose (London)
Attitudes (Geneva)
Common Culture (Stoke on Trent)
Volker Eichmann
Foreign Investment (London Switzerland etc)
Ella Gibbs/Belt (London)
Gustav Metzger (London)
Inventory (London)
Ana Laura Lopez de la Torre
Konstakuten (Stockholm)
MSDM
Sali Gia Gallery (London)
Sunday School (London)
Szuper Gallery (London)
Alun Rowlands (London)
Martin Clark (London)
Work and Leisure International
Caroline Bachmann (Rome)
Pino Boresta (Rome)
Emilio Fantin (Bologna)
Meri Gorni (Milan)
Giancarlo Norese (Milan)
Cesare Pietroiusti (Rome)
Anna Stuart, UnDo.net (Milan)
FOOTNOTES
1# Precied from e-mail press release for Oreste at "democracy".
2# Note the participants were invited directly by Oreste and on behalf of Oreste by members of the curating course. the meeting was open to the public and therefore many of those who attended (myself included) were not invited, likewise many of those invited, did not attend.
3# Giancarlo Norese and Cesare Pietroiusti. Introductory text about Oreste, Handed out at meeting 11-12th May, 2000.
4# Geert Lovink, "The Importance of Meetspace: a manual for temporary media labs" from Oreste alla Biennale. Charta, Milan. 2000.
5# Giancarlo Norese and Cesare Pietroiusti. Introductory text about Oreste. Handed out at meeting 11-12th May, 2000.
6# For criticisms of this tendacy see Anon. "Evacuate the Leftist Bunker", Break/Flow no.3. Lucy Salahuddin "Drones of Autonomy" Transgressions: a journal of urban investigation. Issue 4, 1998.
7# For discussions of movement see D & G. or Virilio
8# Geert Lovink."The Importance of Meetspace: a manual for temporary media labs" from Oreste alla Biennale. Charta, Milan. 2000.
9# Riccardo Held "Fantasy About Oreste" from Oreste alla Biennale. Charta, Milan. 2000.