cultureversusart

A working document for the forming process of cVa.

Is it worth reconsidering the radical assertion that ‘Art’ aesthetically articulated within and from an identified social function, is in fact, not art but ‘culture? Thus in this sense, the position that Art is and must be reserved for processes that are far more fundamental and linked to the social biology of what it is to be a human as body. One that arguably expresses a deeply felt necessity, and one that relates to fundamental needs if one reaches out for a robust and creative economy. This rooting of creativity in the idea of the human as body is, as Herbert Read pronounced in ‘To Hell with Culture’ back in the Britain of the 1930s and 40s, is observed as an essentially missing part, that in the “immunizing of the artist from the effects of capitalistic and other forms of servile patronage” we all lose out if we don’t watch out. We should also observe the body seen as electrics of the nervous systems of space-time extensions within organic and non-mechanical multiplicities, taking note thus of parallel global extensions of technology.

Is this the something that is going wrong in contemporary culture? Do current and identified forms of servile patronage and to-boot the threatened cuts, promulgate against the free development of the more experimental art forms and are social and educational issues being stifled by a dysfunctional funding environment? These are questions referring to an idea that something might be ‘going wrong’ in the arts based on present day culture, and if this is so it would be interesting to take a look at these possibilities in a creative spirit ‘dramatized’ through the Law Courts. Negligence on the part of artists and its public or other agencies could be one of a number of reasons why such a thing might be happening. However, wherever they may stem from or for what reasons, we can be sure that this will bring an argument around fundamental issues on the arts in education, the social and art in everyday life to the fore, particularly where there are disagreements, as inevitably there will be. A court of law in the arts in a dramatic and theatrical structure is a form that with its Witnesses, Prosecutors, Judge and Jury will inevitably arouse interest both in the art world and general public. The courtroom structure as a device cannot be overemphasized in its importance when it comes to keeping the focus firmly in position in order to enable this to happen. In this respect, educational as well as social implications would be encouraged as being essential in exploring cultural ideas and the advancement of knowledge and a development of new ways of seeing and thinking. It is essential in how this project evolves, to have the public as participants as appointed and sworn in members of the Jury, something to be emphasized in all publicity documents, hopefully encouraging more participants, and to bring a wider audience into the investigative court scene.

• It is assumed that a performance event will take place to set the scene in order to publicize, promote and disseminate information to the public through press and other agencies. A prequel, that is.

• Taking the structure of a Court of Law is to enable artists, writers and creative people generally to contest views as witnesses wherein art might be considered to have a lower place in education and people’s lives or whatever. In a sense this could be seen as a thing between live debate and conference, one that in its firmly structured form focuses and arouses the spirit to attention in its dramatic presentations and theatricality of the visual and colorful installation.

• ‘Lawyers’ would be appointed as defenders and prosecutors. Present-day writers and artists would be invited to present their views as installations or performances with regard to the current cultural climate as witnesses and/or prosecutors or defenders of the current practice.

• These presentations would be in the form of performances, talks, installation, paintings, drawings, to other more unlikely innovative forms.

• Heckling and interrupting at any point in the proceedings should be considered the public’s duty. They also, and this is of great importance, would play their part as being the Jury. It would be interesting to have this Jury as one that in its interruptions is seen to be gullible or not to cultural tendencies of the day.

• A Judge or Interlocutor will oversee the proceedings to keep evidence on track, but in this case not to pass judgment.

• The programme of events with speakers and performers would cover all aspects of creativity in terms of the jurisdiction of the court.

• Participants will have the freedom to express themselves as they wish with prior consultation with ‘Culture versus Art’ in order to keep the narrative progressive and to the point.

• Documentation of a kind that in application looks forward to publishing a book on the conclusions brought into light by the Court’s Hearings is necessary where after thoughts and developments can also be evidenced. This would be a document that over a period could grow in importance because of its context in relation to social/political implications in education and culture. Apart from the present, it would be necessary to go back in time to various writers and artists who at one time or another where there was awareness of the same situation of perhaps an over-materialistic society.

• Appointed ‘Lawyers’ would also function as part of a curatorial team responsible for bringing together and developing a database from which, documentation will be sustainably targeted and conveyed to the ’press’ and others.

• An archive would be set up to contain relevant information from the past where a friction in culture and political control can be seen to be active. This archive would be in an anti-chamber to the Court.

• People from overseas will be contacted to come and make their views evident in order to universalize and internationalize the event as something beyond Cornwall and UK.

• Funding will be sourced from the usual agencies, But an important experimental system will be set up with a website to explore the possibility of a ‘grass roots funding operation’. This would be based on individual donations of at the least 25.00 pounds. Each person having the information of Culture Versus Art would then be asked to pass on the information in order to procure other donations of the same value. This process in its succession of passing from one to another as a chain of connections, would hopefully build into large proportions, gathering large amounts of cash towards the project. All sorts of peoples organizations from NWNW – Facebook, and other internet-lists, etc, etc - and other web based social groups and so on. Our website would be where donations can also be made. It also would be expressive of using these internet-groups for a purpose other than just chatting.

• the website address of the project: http://www.imaginativeeye.co.uk/cva/cultureversusart.html

• Obviously the whole project could not take place without a team of professionals involved, from accountants, sound, video and photographic operators, writers, philosophers, researchers, and technical people and artists, performers, publicists and lawyers and computer experts.

• A press handout will be written some weeks before the event. In a way this project could be seen as a fictional story that has a meaning beyond its theatrical and dramatic presentations. In this way more freedom in expression would be forthcoming. Building a narrative also would enhance the final book as something of a work of art in investigation of art as a vital part of culture. This book, to hasten its publication, will be begun during the first stages of the event.

14th January 2011 KT

21st january 2011 JW

CULTURE VERSUS ART ©