Karen Wallis - selected & rejected is a solo exhibition about subjectivity in our choice of art. The first part is about individual choice, in which members of the public will be able to make their personal selection from a retrospective of 30+ years of my art practice. The second part is about institutional choice and will display all documentation and works from my submissions to various opportunities over the past two years.
post 3: 14 September, 2009
I stopped blogging for a while to concentrate on preparations for the show. Now there's a little over 2 weeks to go and things are really busy. Here's a brief update. All attempts at public funding have failed due to "competition for funds". This has certain benefits in the freedom to be totally independent in both action and comment. In the private realm, I am receiving loyal support from people who are joining The Select Few. Workshop bookings are coming in steadily - from primary schools, colleges and art groups. So far no individuals have made bookings to curate - but this has yet to be promoted properly. If you are interested in taking part click here.
post 2: 18 May, 2009
To prepare for the second part of my exhibition, I have been collecting documentation of all my submissions to advertised opportunities. In the past the process of making applications has generated feelings of doubt, frustration and a general sensitivity to being rejected. But, having had to increase my number of applications for this project, my perspective has shifted. Rejection is now less upsetting and, not only have I had a few unexpected successes, but a few near misses have introduced a new ‘short listed’ category. I’m also getting better at judging what work to submit and making better use of my diverse practice to increase the chance of success. Nevertheless, it all takes time away from making work and the costs of so many applications are adding up. I do sometimes wonder why artists have to compete for every opportunity...
post 1: 3 May, 2009
The idea for this project comes from my experience of not fitting easily into any single category as a visual artist - and a recognition of the inherent subjectivity of selection, which spans all choice in art. My practice, although rooted in painting, is diverse - and this has attracted diverse criticism and support from the followers and gatekeepers of the various art forms I use. I am hoping that this blog, and the whole project, will help me to situate myself within the current art scene and offer direction for my future practice.
response by KW: 26, July 2009
Pardon my delay in responding, I’ve been away.
No, the Selection/Rejection process is not art. It has no connection with the work I will be exhibiting. It is simply something that happens to my work when I send it out into the world. Once I have finished a piece, it becomes something that people look at - either as an exhibit for general viewing, or as a submission to a selection process. It will be responded to according to taste, trend, passion or prejudice. As the maker, this interests me and aroused my curiosity. So, yes, you could say I am engaging with it and that it may influence strategies for future production (and may not). The selection structure and process in this exhibition is being used to demonstrate (in the manner of a museum) and to encourage people to see that there are decisions to be made, which is part of looking at art.
comment by Achilles: 6, July 2009
So the Selection/Rejection process isn't or is art? I am labouring the point because I think it draws out a number of issues related to art engagement and strategies. Does the work that you will be exhibiting have any relation to the selection structure and process that will accompany the exhibition?
response by KW: 3, July 2009
I will not be showing the art world rejection/selection notices when people make their individual selections. The exhibition will be in two parts. In Part 1 (Personal Choice, October 3-13) my work will be given up to the judgement of the public. It is only after individuals have had their say that I will show my submission results (and costs) in Part 2 (Institutional Choice, October 16-21. The selection notices are not intended to be anything other than a comment on the submission process we all go through - and a potential stimulus for discussion. I hope that clarifies things.
comment by Achilles: 23, June 2009
Are you not wrestling with a Mephistophilian dilemma? You have made art work that you declare is art and then you initiate another artwork that gives up editorial judgement to the public and you present the art world rejection/selection notices in the same context whilst stating that this isn't about whether it is art or not. Are the selection notices by the art world art? Are these documents as important to you as the art that you have made that will be selected by the public? Is everything that you are presenting in the exhibition art? Is it possible that some people may not know if it is art and therefore may not consider it as part of their selection?
response by KW: 23, June 2009
No need to apologise as I was unaware of any implication. To clarify: I am endeavouring to advocate that people should feel free to choose what art they like. This is not about what is, or is not, art. When you go to an exhibition or gallery, that decision has already been made for you - whether or not the work is any good. In this instance, my exhibition will show work that I’ve already decided is art, because I am an artist and I made the work. However, my work uses diverse media and people tend to prefer one type of medium and object to others. I am therefore providing them with the freedom to select which works they like. To do this, they will have to actively decide which works they don’t want to see in my show and this will, I hope, help them to feel secure in their judgement. We can have no influence over popularity (remember Tretchikoff’s Blue Lady?) or delusional individuals - but perhaps, by helping people to exercise their critical faculties, it may be possible to cause a small shift in their thinking.
comment by Achilles: 20, June 2009
Forgive me if I implied that you weren't aware of the state of the art world this was not my intention nor was I suggesting that you take on a world - never good for the health as an individual! Did I get this right, you are advocating the democratisation of enjoyment that is derived from being secure in your judgements about what is and isn't art? and if this is so how do you feel about people that are delusional about their talents like those on TV talent shows where the majority tells them they are no good and still they don't hear, they can't hear, they won't hear. Conversely is the winner with huge endorsement making good art in your opinion?
response by KW: 20 June 2009
I am aware of this state in art and, at my age, don’t feel like taking on the monumental task of changing that particular world. Rather, I see my job as keeping up production and trying to reach people on the ground. It is all just as confusing, if not more so, for the viewers of art and that is where I prefer to concentrate my political activity - which is what this exhibition is trying to do. If a few people, including some groups in education, enjoy their own powers of decision making and realise that everyone, including the organisations, makes selections that are subjective, then I will feel that one or two grains of sand have been shifted. Alongside that, I will be able to get a taste of people’s perceptions - as well as the satisfaction of speaking my mind here.
comment by Achilles: 17 June 2009
It appears then, that by highlighting the rejection/selection element to being an artist shows where you and the public where you are placed. Paraphrasing Robert Motherwell's thoughts - one of the biggest problems a contemporary artist has is to determine who to connect with. For me this has been exacerbated since he wrote this in the 1960's by the fact that the art world is populated by a vast array of styles and approaches. The liberality of aesthetics makes it harder to occupy a unique territory whilst attracting the support of an industry to develop your work and career and leads many to irony to salve their wounds. The fact that the art world is now international should in theory make it easier to connect with like minds but the practical reality is that it is difficult to convert this to financial benefits without the support of organisational endorsements. A frustration is that you have done all the right things. You have found a voice, produced the academic argument and got the badge, made organisational connections, operated professionally and still feel as if you are operating in a goldfish bowl. Well take it from someone who has done a lot of the wrong things that favela feeling is pandemic and is heightened for me when confronted with art education in schools that goes only as far as Picasso (still). Research scientists and farmers have similar cries and in the current economic climate this negative outlook is infectious. There is a vast array of arts organisations running a gamut of initiatives, often duplicated. This reproduction of programmes is an effect of a free market and on that basis, like many companies, they will stick to products and services that are proven and economically viable. It is hard in times of hardship to persuade folk to take a risk until circumstances force them to.
Might I suggest that if it is political change you are after, you may need to be more overt about what it is you are seeking to change as I think there could be a danger of appearing like the comedian who in the sweaty throws of dying, screams 'Laugh you bastards laugh'. If it ain't funny, this ain't no joke.
You might be interested in Bedri Baykam, a Turkish artist who felt excluded by the gatekeepers around the world and wrote a book 'The Monkey's Right to Paint'. He got himself into trouble with numerous museums and galleries around the world most notably in America. I once invited him to exhibit in Bath but that s another story.
response by KW: 17 June 2009
No, I don't seek to change the minds of the gatekeepers. Any impact I might make on them in the future will only help them to apprehend what my work is about - it doesn't mean they will necessarily appreciate it.
What do I want? Critical acclaim and fame are always double-edged. I would hate to be in a position where people assumed I knew it all and I'm not sure fame is worth the potential financial gain. Of the three on offer, political change would be top choice (in my dreams). Maybe it is possible in a small 'grain of sand' way, by helping to cause a shift or being a mild irritant.
comment by Achilles: 16 June 2009
Ok so a number of questions then follow: Do you want to change the minds of the gatekeepers in the belief/hope that this will bring the greater impact? Do you want fame, critical acclaim or political change?
response by KW: 15 June, 2009
No, I don't want to change my work. But there is always room for improvement and development. Just as one wants the next work to be better than the last so I'd like my future work to have more impact than my past work. I'm not talking about sensationalism either. My aim is always to generate a quiet sense of everyday reality.
comment by Achilles: 15 June, 2009
You are wanting your work to be more effective. So do you want to change your work?
response by KW: 28 May, 2009
That's a nice point - in the real sense of 'nice' picking up on a matter of precision.
Of course I am situated, as in placed, in the current art scene - and I'm not actually seeking to be somewhere else that demands different criteria to what I already do. It is a matter of others' perception of the position I occupy in the current art scene. I don't feel excluded, in fact I enjoy not fitting into any set style or manner of practice. However it would be useful to know where the gatekeepers and followers perceive me to be operating - so that the work I choose to make can be more effective in getting a reaction.
comment by Achilles: 26 May, 2009
You say you want to situate yourself within the current art scene and offer direction for your future practice. Which begs me to ask aren't you in it? What do you want to be in and do you know the criteria that will allow/ enable you to be in it? Is NOT having a direction for your future practice one of the criteria for inclusion into the thing that you have been excluded from?
How will you know when you are in it?
the blog