Rant 68: Pop-up and Pop-down?

I agree, extreme vigilance should be exercised when embarking on these endeavours. Necessity and spontaneity are paramount. However when something does develop from responding to or occupying or simple displaying in such a space then what, move on and like so many other things leave it to become a one hit wonder and instant gratification? The key lies in this is financial gain, as always. How do we keep ahead from the monatairy tainting?

I think that the very term 'pop-up gallery' places any such endeavour within a commercial framework. There are many ways of occupying spaces and of situating cultural actions within those spaces, without using the idea of 'gallery' as the defining concept. There is nothing wrong with 'galleries' as such, but it is pretty clear I think that they are part of the institutional site of art, which is inextricably bound up with the art market. People who are trying to do something different, trying to work with a different set of values around art and art practice, have to choose their terms carefully.

It all boils down to sustainability and the 'human' rather than artistic endeavor to build on what you have begun, that fuels these DIY enterprises. Within the framework and term 'gallery' – as FW addresses – there is always that innate ambition to stand with the big-gun galleries but also retain a sense of the "DIY ethic." We already know that the structures that artists work within are limiting. But this is how art generally functions, within a very conservative set of parameters. Well that is the general opinion. SO, the question is back in the court of the artist rather than the consumer: do artists want to make art or get noticed, or both? Artists like Thomas Hirschhorn work within two sites. Just take his Musée Précaire (precarious museum) 2004, in which he ‘borrowed’ significant twentieth century artworks from the museum collection to show in a “makeshift museum” in a Paris suburb. This could be viewed as a "pop-up gallery." The only different ingredient is the artist is established. We could argue that Hirshhorn, as an established artist, is taking greater risks than the 'not so visible' cohort behind these temporary DIY structures to display art. On the other hand we could argue that Hirschhorn's precarious museum has the same market driven purpose as his gallery work? 

It might be worth me clarifying that I'm not suggesting that artists be unceasingly itinerant and endlessly broke.  Longevity and funding don't have to amount to exploitation and conflicts of interest. As you say, Vanya, it's about a type of vigilance and awareness of what is taking place, what is being produced, in these spaces.  For the most part these 'pop-up' projects are ephemeral, but long-standing artist-led initiatives such as Transmission in Glasgow have devised management structures based on transient, alternating committees, which aim to resist the restrictive nature of 'ownership', and avoid the hierarchical models which dominate under capitalism.

I think you make a very good point James; the issue of commercial recognition/ success, and how artists negotiate their position based on their proximity to the art market.

Historically, art collectives such as General Idea made work in direct opposition to the corporatized art market, which promoted the work, careers and lifestyles of the solo artist. Issues of classification and authorship, even to this day, have proved too problematic for buyers.  They challenged the modernist legacy of the 'art object' and the artist:- an imaginary persona; colourful, bohemian, with 'mysterious appeal for the working classes'..

Shifts in art practice since the 1960's have placed increasing emphasis on societal relations and the 'collective imagination', and there has been a recent re-incarnation of the 'liberating potentiality' of the group format.  I suppose my text aims to articulate my concern that artist-led activity such as the pop-up gallery is in danger of becoming a fashionable, superfical version of its former self.  As Fiona quite rightly pointed out, the term in itself is problematic, as it almost suggests a willingness to be re-cooperated into the mainstream from the outset.  As we have seen over the last few years, institutional curiosity about collective practice has become an exhibtion spectacle.  But most artists wouldn't turn down a chance to exhibit at Tate Modern, and why should they?

To return to your reference to Thomas Hirschhorn, there is, of course, the potetial for dual or multiple spaces to be carved out within an artist's career, but this must be mediated with a capacity to reflect critically on one's own means and methods of production.

In Claire Bishop's text on Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics, she states that Hirschhorn "provides a mode of artistic experience more adequate to the divided and incomplete subject of today".

HI! It seems that many artists (myself included) are struggling with the (im)morality of our human condition, so that the underlying issue is the question of being able to maintain moral integrity as an artist(person) in the face of the immoral capitalist 'system'. The article reinforces to me, that the artist needs to stand pure as a vessel of inspiration and/or questioner who reminds us of values that are better for our 'souls' than out and out greed.

The question how do we keep free of "monetary tainting," suggests that we all know how easily our egos succumb to the tinselling, tinkling of fame and fortune - luckily most of us are not landed with the responsibility!  But, money is not inherently evil, it is the use that we put it to, and the greed for more than we need that has led us insatiably to the brink of disaster. I think everyone can see it now.

Self-vigilance, and the honesty to look at ourselves in the mirror and speak a word of justice to our own tyrannical self, is an essential part of keeping us out of the confusing realms of false-gods and tempting demons. May we be successful!

blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/2011/10/19/occupy-wall-street-movements-declares-war-on-nyc-museums-as-temples-of-cultural-elitism/

 'commercial success is spiritual failure' ? Any other thoughts on this?

 'GOD', Occupy are a little late to the Institutional Critique party: close to 50 years late! Regarding  'commercial success is spiritual failure'. Well if you believe that art is a bohemian site of long grass and daisy chains. Why the art world is so fascinating is because it is built on unequal oppositional  relationships: the poor artist/the rich collector; free/commercial; careerism/truth; language/art object; temporary/ museum; the art world is bad but good!

 Re: commercial success/spiritual failure. May be it’s been done already but it migt be interesting to have a study of the correlation between the commercial success and say the ‘creativity’ of artists and writers since the early 19th century. Off the cuff most of the artists I can think of where commercial failure when they were the most creative and only achieved commercial success (if they did) when they weren’t that creative anymore. And I’m only thinking of the so-called ‘canon’. but i am prejudiced.

The interesting part of that link to Occupy the museum was reading the comments after the article; many complained about the cliche of the museum as an instiution of 'creative capital', and generally echoed the 'directionless' mood of the movement as a whole to date.  I'm finding it increasingly difficult to watch the footage of these occupations;- repeat after me: 'we are free to do as we choose!'

To steer the discussion back on track, the main concern of my arguement centres on the artist led scene as an autonomous platform.  With the ubiquitous 'Pop-Up' gallery, the D.I.Y ethic, in many ways, is becoming a site of dubious intent; more available, less oppositional, more prescribed and less reactionary. 

Many things are defined by the processes they seek to oppose.

As stated by James, much of the art world exists within (or because of ) this polarity and agonistic tension.

Without commercial galleries, museums, and the art market, D.I.Y has no function, meaning or purpose.

jamming the gentrification machine: a manifesto

www.signandsight.com/features/1961.html