The exhibition tour was made up of people up of who knew nothing about Beuys and wanted to find out about him and his work. We began by looking at the way he created a public persona and compared it with that of Warhol. They seemed to have much in common in terms of creating a public face yet the societies in which they operated were quite different and led to the creation of very different types of art. We talked about at the way Beuys used materials in often simple yet direct ways and how they were laden with symbolism and meaning which he alternatively wanted interpreted and didn’t. We touched on his role in the war and how much it informed the direction his political and social views took as well as directing his actions and teaching . Towards the end of the tour we looked at how big his ambition was in terms of wanting to change society through art, and talked about whether he was idealistic ,arrogant or just very single minded –or, more likely, a combination all of these !

At Speaker’s Corner today Milan Rai, author of Chomsky’s Politics and co-editor of Peace News, focussed on the relationships between different types of society and their individual tendencies for aggression, war, the worship of war and conflict resolution.
Milan defined war as a relatively impersonal form of lethal aggression resulting in death or injury, inflicted by the members of one community on another. He then posed 3 questions about the origins of war -

The first question was ‘Is war as old as humanity?’ and Milan described how archaeological indicators (settlement design and the existence of weapons in burial grounds) point to the existence of the hominid line over 200,000 years yet traces of war-like activity don’t exist much beyond 10,000 years.

Current research shows that societies with hunter-gatherer modes of existence, that is semi nomadic with fluid relationships, lack of authority structures and largely egalitarian in character, are not inclined not to make war – they prefer to run away from any perceived danger. War is more likely to be promoted or carried out by societies which are highly stratified with strong authoritarian organisations and a defined class structure.

The second question was ‘Is war eradicable? Milan explained how the popular belief that wars arise from our aggression is clearly wrong. We have all felt angry or experienced rage but these experiences do not lead to war. The activation and implementation of the war machine is a cool, logistical and methodical process which involves the design, construction and mobilisation of ships, planes, nuclear submarines, warheads and missiles – none of this has anything to do with anger or rage. War requires dispassionate obedience and technology above all else. The current situation in Afghanistan shows clearly how the British state and British society are not in agreement over Britain’s involvement – there is a divergence of motivation. This idea was further explored by Milan who made the point that during the Crusades the two motivating factors were greed and materialism, the state, and piety and strong religious belief, the people and the crusaders. This led to a discussion about our ability to live without war, which ideally would mean a move away from rigid authoritarian structures with obedient and compliant populations, but it seems highly unlikely that we could return to a complex pre-industrial state without authority in order to stop making war. Referring to Afghanistan again, Milan explained how in the past wars were about things like territory, resources and ideas, but in Afghanistan it is their interpretation of democracy that we in the west are fighting about. A member of the audience explained how his friends in Afghanistan upheld their kind of democracy through the tribal systems, a method rejected by USA and UK.

The question ‘Why do human’s worship war’ came next and Milan outlined how changes in our thinking about ‘man the hunter’ and ‘man the warrior’ have shifted in recent years. He suggested that there is no evidence to support the idea of ‘man the warrior’ as a typical human characteristic. War fever, rallying around and the exultation felt by those about to embark on the First World War is a universal worshipping response to a threat. Yet the language of war and the respect that warriors hold for each other suggests that the underlying feelings are not ‘how great it is to kill’ but rather ‘how great it is to give your life for your community’.

Questions from the audience about the need or necessity for bloodletting led to a discussion about the comparisons between humans and Chimpanzees and Bonobo monkeys. Both types of great ape are the nearest extant relative to human yet each group has different ways of behaving – The Chimpanzees are prone to violent interchanges between groups whereas the Bonobo is recorded as non violent and uses sex as a means of greeting, conflict resolution and reconciliation. As humans therefore we have the potential perhaps to act either way but Milan suggested that is a political decision to go to war rather than an individual one. He went on to further say that the British state has evolved (since the middle ages everyone has paid taxes which in turn pay for war) to have the financial capacity to conquer or defend.

The audience asked questions about the prevention of war and Milan described some ideas about conflict resolution techniques– the serial killer who is eventually killed by his own family (taking the ‘law’ into their own hands perhaps something we wouldn’t believe possible today) in order to prevent harm to others and further creating a feud which would harm the larger group. Secondly the idea of ritualised conflict such as that found in ancient wall paintings – two lines of warriors with swords lined up on opposite walls with the aim of each taking a turn to aim an arrow at his counterpart until blood is drawn and then the conflict is ended. The Greeks used the heroes of opposing factions to fight against each other thus acting out and ritualising conflict without the need for mass slaughter. However it does seem that however reasonable these techniques might appear it is hard to see how they could be applied on an international scale.

Lastly, and perhaps on a more positive note, the audience discussed how changes in the hierarchy can be made to lessen the likelihood of war. Milan talked about the rolling back of oppression – how if we take the long view of history things look much brighter –in many parts of the world slavery has been abolished and feudal systems no longer exist. Also many oppressed groups eg women, children, members of ethnic/religious groups now have greater rights and freedoms than ever before – so if we project these accelerating changes into the future - it doesn’t look so bad.

For those interested in further reading the books Milan referred to are :- …. Beyond War by Douglas P Fry and Blood Rites by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Art School Beuys

Last Saturday was a day full of questions, some answered more easily than others. The first came as I struggled to find a place to park. All roads around the DLWP were lined with eager locals and there was a large group of kilted men standing patiently in the main shopping area. It took me a few minutes to work out that Bexhill Carnival was about to start and that the gallery might be a little quieter than I'd expected.

Still, there were plenty of visitors to Speakers Corner, where we were very fortunate to have Matthew Cornford exploring Beuys the teacher and his Utopian ideas for a Free International University. Matthew is an artist, part of the collaborative team Cornford & Cross, and Professor of Fine Art at the University of Brighton. He began by looking at the impact of Joseph Beuys, not in isolation but as part of a whole movement which challenged the orthodoxy of American art of the time. He made reference to Beuys critics and in particular to the article Beuys: the Twilight of the Idol, Preliminary Notes for a Critique in which H. D. Buchloh confronts the cult of Beuys, mythical aspects of his persona and his artistic production.

We know from written accounts that Beuys was a very unconventional tutor, at times forceful and confrontational. He would dramatically alter student's sculptures in order to challenge their thought and process. Matthew wondered if students would accept this kind of interaction today and why was it, despite the chaos and disorder of Beuys methods, that so many seminal artists emerged from his tutelage?

In 1972 Beuys tenure at the Academy ended in spectacular fashion after he challenged the official entry requirements, offering all rejected applicants a place on his course. Unsurprisingly, there was a photographer on hand to capture Beuys forced eviction from the building. Matthew directed our attention to the posters in the current exhibition as documented evidence of the different aspects of Beuys: already professor, sculptor, shaman and boss, now the role of victim would be added to his public persona. Could it be that this was the greatest gift Beuys gave his students: a role model for how to look and behave as an artist? One speaker pointed to a parallel today with in the work of artists such as Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin. They deploy similar tactics in creating auras which suggest both distance and proximity. No doubt their success is also extended by the endless publicity material produced.

The continuing need for institutional critique was discussed. What might be valid for artists to explore today, when there seems to be no real orthodoxy to resist? One speaker wondered if we are simply in another iconoclastic period and as a reaction might eventually see a return to a previous orthodoxy, with production rooted in the traditional abilities of the artisan. Matthew made reference to the writing of Eve Chiapello, in particular her article Evolution and Co-Optation. The "artist critique" of management and capitalism in the journal Third Text (vol 18 2004). In management literature much has been written about the positive aspects of the artist's work model with it's unconventional framework and fluidity, and how this could be applied across the general workforce. However, more concern needs to be given to that fact that many artists also experience a lack of financial and psychological security which can have a very negative impact.

Our discussion moved on to the practical aspects of art education. Should drawing and traditional skills be a prerequisite of entrance to Art School and what is the function of a qualification in art if it does not automatically guarantee a job? Some were concerned with a perceived de-skilling of students and questioned if art could be taught. Any good college would tell its undergraduates that they will have to juggle work when they leave, but I agreed with Matthew when he called for an end to the fantasies surrounding art education, which although inherently useful and valuable in its own right, may not necessarily lead to a career as a successful artist. On many other courses, such as Law or English for example, there is no sense of failure if the graduate chooses another career path. Surely three years on an Arts Degree can also have merit, without the student experiencing a sense of loss if the course does not lead him or her on a linear path? Art students develop critical and creative skills which have both a positive impact on their private lives and which are transferable and desirable to many professions.

We talked about the age old problem of how a graduate 'gets the first break'. Because of the increasing number of students and volume of pieces produced as a result, good work can easily get lost. People concluded 'who you know' still mattered, probably now more than ever, which perhaps is why it is important to create an aura, like Joseph Beuys or Tracey Emin. This led us to the meaning of artistic success and its context; ability, celebrity, historical, financial, personal. Who decides that an artist will be successful? In the past, wealthy patrons would have enjoyed such power and even today buyers can still create a successful career for an artist. Matthew talked of the ever narrowing choice of artists destined for this kind of success, brought about not just by financial backing but also by too much intellectual investment for the artist to fail.

We ended thinking about the kind of environment a student needs to thrive. One speaker described the tutor as an enabler. Teaching, like art, is a method of articulation for Matthew and he believes his role is to excite, inspire, throw ideas in the mix. A well served undergraduate should enjoy their time at art school, hear many voices, deepen their sense of history and the place they occupy within it. It was agreed that art college should be a supportive environment which facilitates learning; a safe place where students might develop their ability to engage intellectually with art, expand critical faculties and experiment before going out into the world.

Afterwards in the Gallery 1 I enjoyed talking with Orla, a 13 year old from Lewes who had sat in on Speakers Corner. She said she had felt a little shy about speaking up, but might post something on the blog later. She told me that although she could work out the meanings of materials quite quickly, she preferred the simplicity of the Braunkreuz paintings and liked to think about the relationships within them. Upstairs looking at Scala Napoletana, she felt the success of the piece was dependent on the accuracy of angles, but also talked about their possible emotional significance. She said it made her think about her own sculpture in school and what modifications she might try another time.

Thanks once more to Matthew Cornford and all those who took part. Apologies for any omissions. You are very welcome add any comments if you weren't at the discussion but are interested in the themes.

Approaching Being Together

There was quite a steady flow of people in the gallery last Saturday at the Beuys exhibition. Some visitors were visibly enjoying studying the posters and someone told me how much they liked looking at the Braunkreuz drawings.

One question raised was how did Beuys get started as an artist? It turned out that the questioner wished to know how his career was able to take off, not how did he become an artist in the first place. Interest was also evident in Beuys’ materials, specifically felt and why he chose to use grey felt so often in the work. “I like America and America likes me” – the piece where Beuys lived with a coyote in a gallery in New York - was another work that people were keen to talk about, evidence that it has a special place in people’s enthusiasm for Beuys.

One visitor, who told me that she had spent the last twenty-five years researching Beuys’ work, when approached with an invitation to come along to Speaker’s Corner questioned the validity of the idea of this event in relation to Beuys. She found it rather ‘peripheral’ to his oeuvre and saw little connection to Beuys’ own practices of encouraging dialogue amongst people, choosing to describe his Office for Direct Democracy, for example, as ‘educational lectures’. I wondered at this and was interested in her take on his approach, having always interpreted these particular Documenta happenings as much more about a process of exchange than as lectures. I disagreed with her about the relevance of the Speaker's Corner aspect of the gallery interpretation programme, seeing it as a lively happening with the potential to stimulate debate. When I put this point of view across I was informed quite emphatically that “Beuys was a shaman!” and felt by this instruction rather shamed myself, as if I had completely missed the point. It was a difficult, if thought-provoking exchange.

Each and every encounter with another person can be an attempt at democratic living and deserves one’s best efforts.

Eventually, I have come to realise how hugely I have been affected in my own practice by Beuys’ ideas, whilst largely – because of my own mistrust of anything deemed mystical or spiritual - being able to ignore the shamanic aspects of his persona, whether real or projected onto him with hindsight by those who have been involved in the interpretation of his work. That this has been possible speaks volumes about the concentration of concepts operating within his practice and of the approachability of his work to such a wide range of people. These ideas have made me think further about the reception of an artist’s work and how this is beyond the control of that particular artist, particularly after their death, and beyond the control of those who keep the work alive through exhibitions, interpretation and its influence in their own practice.

Speaker’s Corner, which on Saturday took place on floor 2, was an intimate affair with an audience who drifted in and out and which was eventually added to by those coming out of the Beuys ‘in context’ talk. Jane Marriner, an artist and felt-maker spoke very knowledgeably about the history of wool, giving lots of additional fascinating insights into felt: for example that the expression ‘mad as a hatter’ comes from the poisoning effects of mercury upon hatters using it in the felt-making process. Jane spoke about the significance of hand-made processes in the spinning and weaving of wool in different cultures and how, with industrialisation much of this got lost but that people are always keen to try to recover these craft skills.

Jane struck a balance in what she said, pointing out that increased globalisation was a phenomenon that we had to work with and wished to distance herself from any suggestion of being a luddite. The latter part of the conversation saw us drawing our chairs closer together in order to hear each other better over the noise from the café, which had the effect of creating a special, intimate atmosphere, which I sensed everybody particularly enjoyed. The ‘corner’ aspect of Speakers’ Corner seemed more like the cosy corner of a room, where people gather, trusting in interested conversation and each other.

Speakers Corner

Whilst walking around the gallery on Saturday talking with visitors, I was struck by the variety of the responses to Beuys and maybe that's as it should be.  There were quite a few people familiar with the philosophy of his work and though I got the impression that for some, Beuys is Here felt like visiting a foreign land without a phrase book, still there were others who were intrigued enough to find their own way into his ideas.  When people wanted a definitive answer to what I feel to be the near impossible question "What is it about?", my response was that this exhibition really forces me to think and that is what I think it is about.

There was plenty of robust exchange at Speakers Corner and I'd like to thank everyone who took part, especially our guest speaker, the homeopath Alex Wear. Alex explored how we engage with nature and the disastrous impact he sees in our continuing abuse of the environment.  He discussed the connection between our actions and the world as it is functioning(or not) and how pollution and excessive use of chemicals can have a devastating effect upon our health. He is concerned that future generations will inherit a sick and dangerous world if we do not make radical changes to how we think and behave.

The discussion opened up to the floor and there were many responses to the issue of how we begin to think differently and change for the better.  Many expressed the view that change is necessary, but for a while it seemed like there were more questions than answers. Initially, people expressed a lack of faith in those who hold power and their motives, on the negative impact of the media.  The debate shifted to the idea that we waste valuable energy and time apportioning blame - far better to take personal responsibility for the solutions we must find than to distance ourselves from the problem.  Though intellectual solutions alone are not the answer, neither is responding in an entirely emotional way - balance and proportion were valued by many. Talk to each other, think about changing systems, lobby your MP.  

One speaker felt that there was a quiet revolution happening; that the general public seems to be turning to alternative therapies much more and she felt this had a positive impact on the collective consciousness.  There were others that wanted to see practical solutions to the issues we face: leading by example, opening up debate and organising change at a local level, making ethical choices as a consumer - again returning to the need for personal responsibility.

It was widely agreed that the time has come for people to direct their  focus away from personal gain but the problem lies in how best to do this. How do we harness individual creativity and experience, not just within the education system (though that is essential), but also within the community and across all ages? 

What I took away from the afternoon was the importance of thinking with your head and heart in equal measure.  "Get involved" seemed to be a recurring theme along with the need begin the change with oneself, all very much in keeping with the spirit of Beuys. 

 

 Thanks once more to those who took part.  Apologies for any omissions, please feel free to add any contributions you may have or expand on any of the themes noted.  

 

Speakers' Corner

Thanks to those people who participated in the discussion in response to Martin Goldsmith's presentation on Sunday.

Martin has documented Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park over many years. His aim, he said, was to represent the variety of the people participating in these events - speakers and crowd members. In particular he is interested in representing dialogue and democratic forms of interaction. He uses an older type of camera where you stare down into the viewfinder and this seems to be less confrontational for his subjects. He feels like he is part of the crowd, not a detached observer although he admits that the photographs are the result of a series of edits, including the moment he chooses what/who to shoot.

Some people who came to Martin's talk had personal experiences of Speakers' Corner and were taken there as children.

The conversation ranged quite widely. Points covered included:

• How Speakers' Corner had changed over the years - discussions now seemed less serious, more a form of entertainment than serious political engagement.
• The origins of Speakers' Corner seem to be connected with gallows and public executions. Crowds used to gather at Tyburn as a form of entertainment and to listen to the condemned person's final words.
• Political positions were perhaps more polarised in the '30s - now communities are atomised, people feel smaller in relation to the big issues. There is more freedom but paradoxically people feel less powerful. We used to do things collectively but now children are kept indoors and separate.
• We live in a surveillance society but new technologies also offer new possibilities for information-exchange and political action - e.g. use of twitter in Iran.
• Rights (free speech for example) are not just given - they need to be maintained. There needs to be a soap-box in every town.

Apologies for admissions: if you were add the discussion, please add the topics you remember. You are also welcome to comment if you weren't at the discussion but are interested in the themes.

Thinking about Beuys, we could continue to discuss the relationship between art and politics and the nature of 'genuine' participation...

Beuys Is Here

Joseph Beuys at the De La Warr Pavilion

From 4 July - 27 September we will be showing the work of German artist Joseph Beuys (1921-86), as part of ARTIST ROOMS on tour with The Art Fund.

As part of our interpretation programme we are working with five artists to explore, discuss and interrogate Beuys's work and ideas: Susan Diab, Sharon Haward, Kevin Graal, Bern O'Donoghue and Michaela Ross.

You can:

• Engage with our interactive Information Booth.
• Join one of our artist team for a personal perspective of the exhibition (alternate Saturdays at 2pm)
• Participate in the discussion in Speakers' Corner (see below)

See our website for full details of events and activities. http://www.dlwp.com/
Weekly summaries of conversations and discussions generated by the exhibition will be posted here.


Speakers’ Corner, near London’s Marble Arch, is the spiritual home of the British democratic tradition of free public speech and soapbox oratory. During the exhibition Beuys Is Here at the De La Warr Pavilion, we will be creating our own Speakers’ Corner in recognition of Joseph Beuys's use of dialogue and discussion as part of his work.

On Saturday afternoons at 3.30pm during the exhibition, you are invited to hear speakers from a variety of backgrounds and interests, inspired by the ideas of Joseph Beuys. The speakers will have the floor for 15 minutes then the discussion will open up. A full list of speakers will be available on our website.