SGC: Richard Noyce from Disturbed Places Panel
At our request, writer/artist Richard Noyce has been kind enough to allow Printeresting to reproduce the written form of his contribution from the DISTURBED PLACES International Panel at Global Implications, Southern Graphics Council Conference, Chicago, March 2009. I’ll spare the intro except to say it was a strong panel and this a great read. Thanks for sharing, Richard.
Printmakers have a long history – a tradition even – of creating and participating in international competitions, exhibitions, conferences and events. Deep within the nature of the medium that has brought us together for this event is a desire to participate, to share and to learn, and to be a part of another tribal gathering, at another stop on the global pilgrimage route. Printmakers and print lovers are gregarious by necessity and by instinct, working as individuals within a cooperative framework. Working as I do in promoting and writing about printmaking more than in actually making prints (for which I wish I had more time!), I have found this mix to be seductive and continually fascinating.
This conference, which has attracted a number of delegates and speakers from beyond the borders of the United States – and that in itself has to be seen as a good thing – is clearly a strong indication of the power of print. The same goes for other international conferences such as Impact, which this year is in Bristol in the UK and will be in Melbourne in Australia in 2011, and also for the very enjoyable and necessary gatherings that accompany the major printmaking triennials and biennials.
At the same time, I cannot help but wonder if gatherings like this might be increasingly difficult to arrange in the future. There are two major problems that could affect large events, and both are linked to the current international situation.
The first problem that travel, and for most big events that means air travel, is becoming more expensive, and subject to increasing delays for reasons of security, congested airspace or industrial action. We are being urged to reduce our carbon footprint by travelling less, and by offsetting that travel by planting trees to assuage the guilt we are meant to feel.
The second problem is the cost of arranging such events in a time of what we are being told continually is a global financial crisis. This inevitably means that funding for big arts events, which has never been that generous, is being reduced, or even cut entirely. The arts are an easy target. For example, one of the large international print exhibitions has this year had its funding from its national Ministry of Culture cut by 60%; this is a major blow. The expense of arranging major events is rising: administration, rental of exhibition space, publicity, heating, lighting, security, transport of prints and people – all these costs are rising, as is the cost due to increasingly restrictive Health and Safety regulations.
The rising cost of travel and the financial difficulties of large events are negative factors affecting the printmaking world. While they are surely having an effect, my pessimism regarding the future of large events might (I hope) be premature. The inventiveness, adaptability and obstinacy of artists in general, and printmakers in particular, are well known. We are, after all, creative people. While these characteristics might not solve the world’s travel and financial problems they will no doubt lead to a different way of doing things.
And doing things differently is what printmakers have always done – that has been one of the continuing salvations for the medium. I will address this thought through each of the three themes of this panel.
* * *
The Crisis of Categories: A problem always arises at the point where objects (or ideas for that matter) are put into categories. While it can be intellectually convenient to attach labels to everything there will always be borderlines and grey areas in which labels become inaccurate or misleading. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. The problem becomes more acute when people attempt to categorise a style of art or a work of art before the process of absorption and deeper consideration over a period of time has been allowed to happen. The problem becomes even more acute when that incomprehensible new breed of art criticism, that seems to exist solely for the purpose of inventing new and confusing terminology while writing unreadable prose, enters the arena. It is something that goes with the ever increasing cacophony of the media, with Z-list celebrity culture, fast food, fast-fading fashion, and – worst of all – fast art. This new art criticism says, ‘Look – a new piece of art – quick – nail it down, name it, put it in a category, define it, confuse it with long words, but don’t – whatever you do – allow anyone the time to really think about what the work is portraying or attempting to communicate, because there’s always another newer, fancier, brighter, piece of art of the way and we don’t want to miss that!’
Categorising can create friction. Think about what happened when serigraphy entered the printmaking fray. A technique more prevalent in commercial art (that is, the sort of art that makes money) was harnessed to produce fine art prints powered by and in turn powering the emergence of Pop Art in the 1960s. The exponents of the traditional forms of printmaking – intaglio and lithographic – were horrified, lengthy arguments ensued about validity of the medium, its acceptability in competitions and so on; hands were raised in horror. Now, of course, serigraphy is no longer a contentious medium, except for the diehards steeped in acid. Further back, of course, the emergence of lithography caused a similar furore, and the appearance of photography in the mid-19th century signalled – it was claimed – the death of painting. And yet, painting is still not dead. Closer to the present the rise of digital print has caused a similar crisis – for those who like to create and maintain crisis as a means of validating the status quo.
Printmaking – let it never be forgotten – is art, and contemporary printmaking is contemporary art. Printmaking is not something else, it feeds on and feeds the same things as other forms of visual art, it is just another medium through which someone’s ideas, passions, fears, desires and emotions are expressed in a visible form to be shared with others. I do not think that printmaking has been transformed – if it has, then who carried out the transformation, and why, and what criteria were applied? Printmaking continues to change with changing circumstances and changing technology, as it has done for centuries. I believe that we are in a most fortunate position, one in which all mediums of printmaking, used singly or in combination, can be equally valid, and equally respected. The commercial world of art has also changed, and will change further as hard-pressed investors who saw contemporary art as a fast buck machine recognise what should have been apparent to them all along, that much contemporary art is like the Emperor’s new clothes. Meanwhile, works of art – in any medium, and including printmaking – that are made with integrity and skill will continue to be exhibited and bought.
Printmaking and the International Art Biennials: The role of the biennial (or triennial) in the past has been of crucial importance in the establishment and development of the international printmaking community. This role continues, shifting shape perhaps due to a number of factors, but continuing to evolve. I alluded to two of the factors in my introduction. In addition, as in any other organic process, some events have come to an end and others have been started. This process is partly due to the influence of globalisation. While some events in Europe have ceased to exist, others have started – in 2008 new events began in Thessaloniki in Greece and Cuenca in Spain. There are other recently established events in China, Siberia and India, and more will emerge elsewhere. Other events have changed form because of the changes in printmaking processes: different techniques, larger prints, installations, three-dimensional prints, multi-media works – all these demand different approaches in selection and exhibition. At the same time there has been an increase in the number of events where there is a size restriction, of mini-print events, and so on. All of these challenges promote innovation, and responding to challenges is a sign of good health. A lack of exercise can lead to obesity, and life-threatening disease.
The impact of print events on local culture and host cities will vary, but one thing is certain, and that is that cultural tourism in whatever form it takes, is a major contributor to local and national economies. A well-organised event can also help to stimulate local creative activity, to encourage a new generation of artists to think about print. Major events have to change with the changing times if they are to survive, and new tactics of engagement may be required. The justification for self-defined cultural exclusivity is shrinking fast, and its loss should not be mourned. But, to return to one of the factors in my introduction, the costs of large events are rising, and the organisers of such events will have to be light on their feet, adopting new strategies, if their events are to survive. I believe we will see considerable changes in the near future.
The role of biennial curators in establishing such events as a space for legitimization is crucial. Such individuals, or groups, can make or break events. They need to be fully aware of the diversity of print and its potential for engagement with social, moral and political matters. They need to see their events as being celebrations of the creative aspects of the human spirit, to inspire and encourage, embracing change, to ask awkward questions and to propose radical solutions. Daring to be different is good, but curators and organisers must always consider their audiences if their events are to survive.
Their work, like their events, is part of the evolving networks of printmaking.
Printmaking and Networks:
In 1962 Marshall McLuhan wrote (in ‘The Gutenberg Galaxy’) that, ‘The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village.’ In 1962 there was no digital technology, there were no home computers, there was no Internet, and so e-mails, websites, and social networking sites existed, if at all, only in the imaginings of science-fiction writers. In the intervening 47 years we have gained all these things, and our lives are now more connected than ever before. And yet, in some ways, we are now more distanced from the real world than ever before.
The following quotation comes from the February newsletter of ‘Art For Humanity’, based in Durban, South Africa: ‘Many indigenous groups (and their big-league representatives) have rejected the income/consumption definition of poverty on the grounds that not all people value wealth, TVs etc. One thing that everyone values worldwide, across cultures, is art. Wealth for these people is not measured by a bank account, but by cultural knowledge, the right to enjoy life and express their beliefs and emotions, the right not to be controlled by others.’ This is as provocative as it is powerful, but it does suggest that not everyone aspires to the same level of materialistic wealth and glut of possessions. It also points up the necessity of cultural knowledge and access to the means of expression. Art For Humanity defines art as: ‘that which is created to inspire all of humanity with freedom of expression, the quest for excellence, pride, dignity, and respect for individual rights, reflection and heritage’. Printmaking is a medium that is capable of meeting these criteria, and is uniquely accessible and open to exploration at all levels of skill and knowledge – hence its quintessential democratic nature.
Printmaking networks have evolved: the paper lists of addresses for mail-art and copy-art projects have been replaced by electronic address lists that render paper redundant; film-based photographic images have been replaced by digital images, and these can be exchanged in a instant across the Internet. We are becoming links in a vast global network, synapses in a planetary nervous system. Shakespeare had Ariel say (in ‘The Tempest’), ‘Round and round the earth I fly, in the twinkling of an eye’. That flight of poetic fancy is now an everyday reality. But are we not in danger of reaching the point where we know less and less about more and more, and of becoming avatars in our own cybernetic half-lives? How we deal with the expanding electronic galaxy is a matter of choice and a matter of keeping things in proportion. Trans-national networks have a tremendous potential for enabling the doing of good things, of reaching out towards others, of sharing ideas and dreams, and of encouraging others to do the same. But it should always be a matter of choice, and with an awareness of the spectre of Big Brother looking over our shoulders.
Without the Internet I would have found it very difficult, if not impossible, to complete the work on ‘Printmaking at the Edge,’ or to pull together the widespread group of contributors for the ‘Grapheion’ project; and the ongoing work on my next book would be even more difficult. The amount of information that I can share through the Internet is astonishing. Contact is generally so much easier and certainly much quicker. I have yet to add video-calls into the mix, but might do so before very long.
Social networking sites such as Facebook can be fun, and can allow the sharing of serious information, even if their main function seems to be the creation of informal communities, and encouraging a sense of belonging. The more specialised sites, such as Inkteraction, offer something more complex and potentially more useful, provided that users develop new ways of working. To spend some time exploring Inkteraction is to come to a fuller and continually developing appreciation of what is happening, and the steady growth of members will continue this process.
Electronic communities can lead to a stronger sense of belonging, but there is also the risk that they can lead to a sense of alienation and exclusion, of not quite feeling to be ‘a member of the club’. Used responsibly however they can provide a very powerful set of connections that can be used to set up and maintain real-world working relationships. The currently available technologies will spread and enable greater international access. New forms of electronic communication will continue to develop and the connections available to us will increase for as long as the communication satellite and fibre-optic networks are available for our use.
But for all the wonders of the electronic world and the growing potential for sharing images, I do not foresee that paper will disappear from use – not yet anyway. The tactile pleasure of handling and working with paper is deeply-rooted in our genetic constitution; mark-making is a time-honoured and ancient need; and going to exhibitions – especially to openings – can still be a social pleasure.
We must never forget that, as artists and writers, we need other people, not just at the end of a wire, but in the same space and at the same time. The title for this panel is ‘Disturbed Places’: it is a challenging title that could suggest something to be wary of, something to avoid. On the contrary, I believe that we should welcome and explore the disturbances, questioning what we find there and rising to the challenges that we encounter.
Richard Noyce
Wales, March 2009