A response to Richard Taylor...

Kindly or otherwise, the Glasgow based artist Richard Taylor has cited my last post ('Rewind', 15th October 2010) in his article published yesterday on the following art blog: http://cca-glasgow.com/blog/?p=1104.

What follows is my email response to Richard's article, which hopefully raises some further questions around the issue of how to be an artist and an activist at the same time.

"Hi Rich,

thanks for this - and for quoting me!! Very flattering...haha.

So here are some reactions to your piece on the CCA website. I think the question of how artists are supposed to "act" is a very valid one, and one which I struggle over a lot also. Personally, I would be really interested to know a little more about why you consider it a 'diluted' reaction to be part of protest marches and more mainstream public activism generally. Why? Is it not possible to maintain a certain artistic distance/integrity whilst also being a part of a larger activist movement? Is not this balance quite fundamental to the very 21st century concept of "participation"??

What I was saying about Duchamp in my article was that he envisaged the artist as medium, as a part of the artistic journey, rather than as some sort of genius observer (although I'm not insinuating at all that this is how you consider yourself! It's just a fine line, you know?). I think Joseph Beuys might be a good inspiration for how it is possible to be an artist whilst also being a meaningful activist. If it's about not becoming just another drowned-out voice amongst the million others then I completely understand. But surely it's worse not to speak at all? Or to just speak into an empty art gallery?

And I like the way you reflect and reiterate what I was trying to pose too - do we have to rewind? I think perhaps we do. But then, I went to the Gauguin retrospective at the Tate Modern today... why were there hoards of people there? What is so truly fascinating about Gauguin to contemporary audiences? These audiences are ambushed by the cuts, and the war and the cult of celebrity??? Gauguin was a globe-trotting artist...he dealt with issues of God in Tahiti...he caught syphilis...and he did some bloody good paintings...but still, what's the political relevance? I left feeling cold...like the whole exhibition was just about trend: the cult of the white middle class masses who read 'Homes and Gardens' and watch 'The One Show'. Sorry, not only do I digress but am scathing to boot!!!!! Anyway, hopefully the above adds some fuel to the fire...let me know how you get on and stuff.

Soph x"