Footsteps in the Dark
a per-zine of whispered secretsColouring Outside the Lines: The exhibition. Zine Transcript. The art world and exclusivity
MM: We are aware that gallery spaces, andthe ‘art world’ in general are often spaces in which not everybody feels comfortable or accepted…
‘About half of my friends have never been to a gallery and they probably don’t want to go or they feel like they’re not invited.’ (Enid Crow in COTL zine)
I personally understand and have had experience of this position and wanted our space to be one where a large proportion of people, if not everybody, could feel invited and included.
RK: I guess there is still a question of why use a conventional gallery space at all, why not put the work in say a cafe or a social centre?
MM: Because this work is important – as I believe all of our creativities are. I think that there’s power in allowing this artwork to be placed centre stage in a gallery space rather than it being sidelined. By allowing this art to take over and occupy a whole gallery space grants these female creators the ability not only to be seen by a wide(r) audience, and thus the power to affect audiences on a personal level who are able to actively engage with their work, but also I think there is something to be said for these women being able to articulate their artistic and personal voices in spaces that are not always approachable or penetrable to us. It has always been important to me that the exhibition makes an active comment about the cultural myth that art is reserved for the elite and privileged. By breaking down the barriers between creators and audiences, widening access, and including work in unconventional and/or more domestic and populist forms, we are asserting our belief that everyone can be creative in their own life. By placing this belief centre stage in an exhibition gallery further usurps the power dynamics that may keep women from such spaces, and also allows this message to be delivered direct to the audience due to the full emphasis in a gallery space being on the artwork without distractions, as may be the case in other settings. Furthermore, I have a desire for this exhibition to make a comment about who the art ‘expert(s)’ are. As curators, we did not and do not wish to elevate ourselves to the position of ‘experts’ (if such a thing exists), we wished for a wider, more diverse conversation about art, and what work has the ‘legitimacy’ to be shown, and where. What better than to make this comment from within a conventional gallery space, and with work perhaps not commonly found there? Utilising this exhibition space grants us the opportunity to show work to regular visitors perhaps not accustomed to these forms of art being shown there, whilst also increasing the potential for new audiences to enter gallery spaces. All the while inviting all these different audience to question the use and role of galleries, and the art and artists that are able to enter them. Additionally, gallery spaces provide a fantastic opportunity for displaying and exhibiting work at its finest. I believe this work deserves to be in a gallery, to be at the forefront, utilising the large space, advertising budget, and quality resources that galleries have to showcase and celebrate work to its best. Why shouldn’t that be made available to all? Naturally I jumped at the chance of allowing this exhibition’s work to be allowed those privileges!
RK: Is this art exhibition’s ethos radical and subversive?
‘At the roots of diy culture is a simple act of doing things independently in creative ways. So as to compensate for a lack of finances, infrastructure, professional training and often permission. Diy culture nurtures communities where people share skills, ideas, and creative expression – thereby fuelling creativity.’ Carly Stasko.
MM: There are certain aspects of the exhibition’s ethos that I think holds similarities to the subversive power of diy culture. This is particularly true, I think, when considering that when developing the exhibition we had a keen understanding that it is not only the space itself that affects individuals’ feelings of comfort, viability, or acceptance – to some it is the very notion of Art itself.
‘My society, the culture I have learned, tells me that Art is something special, separate, something that only a few can participate in while the rest stand by and watch’ Ruth Nobel
MM: In questioning the essentialist, hierarchical, and ‘expert’ nature of art within this exhibition, and raising the notion that – without negating the necessity for hard work – essentially anybody can be create, can produce, can be artistic themselves – this subverts the power that keeps individuals at a distance from their potential, contests the belief that art is only for ‘certain’ people, and challenges the idea that authorised permission is required to create. This, in turn, usurps the notion of ‘genius’ – that classification of a supremely talented, special, sole, revered artist – when in truth artistry and creativity is touchable and achievable to each and every one of us in our own lives.
RK: Is this art work beyond artistic mainstream?
MM: Partly. Many of the artists exhibited are established fine artists. The work itself is not necessarily work that could is seen, in whole, as DIY, or outside the mainstream, especially from the viewpoint of the creators. There was a time where I believe craft based art forms wouldn’t necessarily have been seen within the artistic mainstream, and kept solely in the cultural and domestic mainstream of ‘the everyday’ – but a resurgence in craft techniques within art has blurred these boundaries. However, due to the boundaries and schooling around ‘Art’ there may still be some who do not view craft techniques as ‘high art’, and grant it less acceptance than they would other ‘formal’ mediums. I think that these artists are putting paid to that view.
RK: So for you it’s not necessarily something that’s implicit in the artwork that’s subversive, but it is the status of the creator and the methods that they’ve used to create which is disruptive?
MM: I think that there is something to be said of the intention(s) of the artists that places the work in a more subversive position than the work itself occupies. This in itself subversively allows the work to be ‘read’ on many levels. This is why I am such a firm believer in allowing women to have the power to have a firm voice over their own artistry and creativity, and speak of their processes, intentions, and cultural contexts. The female artists exhibited all have control over their means and modes of production, and a power over the discourse of their art. I believe that there is also a subversiveness in the juxtaposition of these artists being in the same space, and the combined conversations that their work creates. In many of the pieces there is an ‘unfinished quality’ – loose ends and threads that haven’t been edited, been made invisible or clinical; drawing attention to the creator and their process, to the wider conversation(s) of the artist, and to ideas of ‘perfection’ in art. Many of these artists appear to me to be rejecting ‘the polished’, rejecting the notion of ‘expert’ or challenging ‘professionalism’ and what these terms imply, or how they can be articulated – and I am by no means saying that this work is not professional, quite the contrary. It is these discourses, and this questioning of authoritative understandings of what and how art should be made that I believe to be subversive. The style of work exhibited here is not necessarily instantly visible as DIY or subversive, such styles are not always recognisable, but it is when individuals’ personal reasoning for creating, or creating in the way that they do that is explored and discussed that the politics of creation begin to reflect subversion and rebellion. Which is why I believe artistic discussion by female artists to be important, as it can be revolutionary to not only hear and see what these women view to be power based barriers to creativity, inclusion, and individual’s access to expression, but also to see and hear how individuals are uniquely accessing creativity, inclusivity, and expression through a rejection of such powers.
‘Knitting is part of the same do-it-yourself ethos that spawned zines and mix tapes. By loudly reclaiming old fashioned skills, women are rebelling against a culture that seems to reward only the sleek, the mass-produced, the male. But every generation puts its own spin on the craft’ Debbie Stoller
