Add In (BLUNT MIX)

Not only is the image unable to convey certain complexities (the constant flux of the environment within which the activity took place) it is also unable to convey other subjective qualities particular to the activity, for instance the fun, pleasure, mischievousness, camaraderie and spontaneity that prevailed and informed this activity. These images (The images printed in the publication Add In, see below) are an anesthetization, they contain little relation to anything that happened, they instead perform another function, they constitute a new work, one primarily concerned with the subsequent discussion that may take place in relation to this material. This document is also a point of reference / recollection for those of us who undertook the activities. The pleasure of engagement must be experienced first hand.

We coined the term add in describing the act of placing something into a space, in this case retail spaces, places that are predicated on things leaving the store. These spaces, while certainly not public are bordered by, accessed via, seen from so called 'public space' (so called as we were informed early in the day that the footpath kind of isn't public space as such when an interested party has reason to mediate the activities that happen in front of their space) our add in targeted window frontages and could therefore be accessed without the need to enter the space.

The intent of the interventions was primarily to engage in activities for our own amusement, to carry out a collaborative experiment as to the scope and limitations of this particular tactic. The secondary concern was to provide a point of amusement / confrontation to those who entered the space and noticed the add in. The work was on one level unapologetically blunt, the language was of critique, a cue to consider (however fleetingly) something particular - capitalism, we were therefore well aware of the antagonistic content of the work and it's probable result. This of course is only speculation as there is no real way of ascertaining what impact this particular work had, but that is indicative of work that doesn't participate in the elaborate framework such as found in the art world where there are mechanisms for reflection / critique and validation. There is nothing particularly significant and certainly not paradigmatic in this work, it was simply an experiment.

Engaging in a practice that situates itself within the realm of everyday experiences is an engagement which seems undervalued and underrepresented in the world of creative practice. The problem is simply that by divorcing creative practice from everyday reality we create abstractions and constructs that whilst being informed by everyday experience do not necessarily result in a re engagement with the everyday itself. Rather than seeking a general engagement we opt for a specialized discourse, one which is bounded by a cultural framework. These cultural 'ghetto's' whilst certainly contain meaning, significance and validation are spaces characterized by limitations, the terms of inclusion / exclusion are evident in the embrace of specific knowledge, by the utilization of codified language. Anyone who believes these spaces are freely accessible are kidding themselves, they are spaces for the exchange of ideas / resources and values between people who share a particular empathy.

In the light of the apparent need to synthesize creativity / social consciousness / activism the ghettoization of creativity can be read as a short coming. Artists by and large seem to be socially empathetic but by and large we seem to opt for an anesthetization of life. We comment, we critique, but who the fuck is listening? We refuse to accept that all we are doing is talking to our peer group, we refuse to ask in any explicit fashion what is it we are really doing and for whom are we doing it?. Why bound creativity? why make gestures that are so readily appropriated by that which we purportedly detest? why make everything so convoluted that only a small minority can access the experiences that are generated? This is not a case for providing access for everyone at every instance rather it is merely a query as to why start from a point of exclusion?. Why not experiment with what our creatively can contribute to the actuality of our everyday lives and to the lives of others?

If the word rant comes to mind then lets qualify the basis on which this rant takes place. The concerns aired here stem from a directness that is predicated on critical reflection not on dogma. The desire to engage critically certainly doesn't guarantee that any clarity will be achieved but what it does do is focus our attention onto the here and now, we attend to the actuality of what we are confronted with. Anyone can engage in an exploration of consequences. Critical reflection can make us aware of our own complicity in problematic relations. Dogma on the other hand wants nothing of responsibility. Dogma is the projection of an idealization, it is a refusal to see and reflect upon what is apparent, dogma refuses to see root causes, it does not address the consequences of actions, motivations, rationale it responds but without due consideration of wider issues /rights / dignity etc.

The gallery / festival / artist run space are all variations on a theme, a source of meaning no doubt, but a self imposed marginalization where we end up either preaching to the converted or worse still pander to aesthetes who deny the existence / relevance of any critical content. Creative practice has a broader potential, we have more to offer, we will only discover the repercussions of this offering through experimentation.