Week 7: Artist Placement Group
[0:00:00]
Speaker 1: How does it work for – I mean I’ve worked for every single one of them. I mean I went through the thing exhaustively and they’ve tried to – so how does it work if you’ve only booked for [0:00:16] [Inaudible]? Doesn’t that stoop over to your fax number or – I’m serious more than the usual – okay. We’re going to be probably like 20…
Speaker 2: You know the show is one aspect of this process, [0:00:38] [Inaudible].
Speaker 1: But that’s not have we’re doing it.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we ask people to go about at least 25 or as many as they want. Now if you believe that there is a commonality between all these good proposals and that’s even – like we’re not fully – like your phantom writer could be similar to somebody else into the larger [0:01:11] [Inaudible] then it works because each one gets about 27 votes.
Speaker 1: Okay and it never happens that there’s one that doesn’t get any votes just because we wouldn’t talk to them.
Speaker 2: It can if the script won’t bring anyone or won’t make it to the top to make sure we’re all getting the same number of votes.
Speaker 1: Okay, that’s an interesting algorithm. So it’s like okay, it’s like just random actually. It’s like it’s random but its [0:01:41] [Inaudible].
Speaker 2: I think so yes, if it’s part of the scrip but I think it’s rarely because the ones that are going, “Wait, wait, wait” – that’s perfectly fine. So I love the process because I don’t know if you noticed but they’re turning into creative artists.
Speaker 1: I was surprised for the fact that they were able to use four images instead of – I was like the [0:02:11] [Inaudible] proposal because ideally it was image first.
Speaker 2: [0:02:18] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 1: I don’t think it added – there was one occasion where I thought I’ve added something, very humorous one where the person wanted to point it out that there had been an error in the map maybe of Berlin; a town that didn’t actually exist. Somehow it was out on like – and in fact it was shown that [0:02:37] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 2: I think we still have to let some of the jury [0:03:11] [Inaudible] are invited for the wrong reasons.
Speaker 1: And you we would never know with the jury what they would bring to the table because they would have to exercise it as well because there is a kind of – unless you’re a really obnoxious character – everyone plays the game. You have different points of view but it’s kind of consensus though. But you’re all to yourself, there’s no reason not to be consensual – fuck that.
Speaker 2: If you want the full integrity of the jury, you can’t let them talk.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 2: There’s always a dominant personality or somebody who’s going to be – yeah are you going to be around for a little bit – they just sort of turn up at the – hey Greg!
Speaker 3: Hello.
Speaker 2: So we can actually hear that ourselves; I’m thinking our mics might be too sensitive.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me Greg?
Speaker 2: I’m sure he can.
Speaker 1: Yup, no problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah we can, I think we’re just given with a mild echo so if – not from me but from us. I guess we’ll just have to ask you to speak up a little bit when we deal with Greg, I’m not sure what else we can do because if we turn up our mic we hear ourselves. It’s just extraordinarily sensitive, I’m not sure how…
Speaker 3: Is the microphone on, am I on speakers or are we all on speakers or…
Speaker 1: It’s on the table in front of us but…
[0:05:05]
Speaker 3: Try to turn on the speakers in front of you that you can feel it in front of you and not behind the speakers…
Speaker 2: Yeah it is actually, the speaker is like kind of facing the other direction in the other side of the room. Yeah I’m just going to see if I can get one more – so actually am I in…
Speaker 1: Do I need to contact with Greg?
Speaker 2: No I don’t think – if you want to join the chat on the basekamp website.
Speaker 1: Okay I just go to basekamp – I’ve never been to basekamp before, would they pick me up?
Speaker 2: Oh you can, you can actually just say hi to the basekamp because Greg is on the basekamp channel.
Speaker 1: Okay thank you. But I don’t see that you’ve added me because I think the chat hasn’t started yet that’s why.
Speaker 2: Yeah there is actually like a little drawer if you click – let’s see – there you go.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, thanks a lot.
Speaker 2: If you click on the area you can see all the people in that as well. By the way if you would like, you can set your preferences to us under city Skype on your friend’s list. Under let’s see notifications, you can click – you can type on the – oh wow it’s a little tricky isn’t it?
Speaker 1: So what do you –sorry I was not – what happens if – place sound did you say?
Speaker 2: Yeah just uncheck the place out and then you just close that out and then whenever someone wants to talk to you there would appear a blue opinion mark.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: [0:07:40] [Inaudible]
Speaker 2: You can turn that back on later but if you want that to – that would keep on blinking….
Speaker 1: Yeah we’ll go ahead and I’ll be fine.
Speaker 2: Or maybe not, that kind of was actually working. Yeah as long as we’re solid with the – it seems that we generally are, except for the fact that they have to keep their volume relatively low – you know one thing that you could just actually do if you want to turn off your audio…
Speaker 1: Completely up, yeah maybe that was what was causing the problem.
Speaker 2: Not really a problem it was just – you can just hear from the bleep – I just did that recently in fact almost all these time, it’s like five years of doing Skype here, I’ve always heard the bleeps and I was just recently checking that one. What do you think, does that sound okay Greg? Okay maybe just tell them to hang tight for just a second, are you on the audio tract or no? Okay is Mike there?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Oh no, really? Oh I’m sorry to hear that, oh okay. Do you have a Skye account?
Speaker 4: [0:10:33] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 2: Would you mind just going to Skype to kind of validate that, that way all we have to do is set it up real quick?
[0:10:40]
And just people know – you know like they can hang out and we’d be just running a few minutes behind here and then we’ll kind of start? Yeah it will say add contact if you just click it, it will pop up in your contact list; and then you will be able to search for a contact. Just click add contact – very cool –so now yes and now do the chat – excellent. Yeah just keep looking – great.
So great, can you hear me okay still? Yes I just need to listen for you that’s all because if I turn this up too much you’ll hear – it will start to get like crazy feedback. So do you think this is going to work okay Greg? So we’re going to get started in just a moment, I think it would be – we’ve been trying to set up the audio but the thing is our mic is actually very sensitive so we have to keep our speakers on. But the thing is if we keep our speakers on that line, we can’t hear that so I’m just basically just distracting everyone. I think we have to flag them down before they say something and then we can move ahead and get our audio from there and turn the speakers up. I guess we just haven’t used this high-tech microphone before.
Speaker 4: Actually we just haven’t been checking. You know how this goes, you will say what you want.
Speaker 1: [0:14:55] [Inaudible]
Speaker 2: Absolutely, definitely.
[0:15:30]
Speaker 1: What’s up?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I met you some years ago.
Speaker 1: Oh yes of course, you’re very familiar.
Speaker 5: Yeah we met at the…
Speaker 2: I think that get together in Philly, I think that’s it.
Speaker 5: I think in 2004.
Speaker 1: What you could have done is write your own book.
Speaker 5: Well I’m working on it.
Speaker 1: Well then good.
Speaker 5: It’s still – yes it is, I have to take more of a job.
Speaker 2: And it makes sense to be able to talk about it and you have no idea – it’s great to be able to talk about it.
Speaker 5: I know.
Speaker 1: For some reason I had that book reserved because I saw a very impressive list of authors including people who were…
Speaker 5: You know what it was reviewed in S – do you know people from S?
Speaker 1: Yeah I contributed there.
Speaker 5: Oh you worked there. It came out and they announced what was coming out in spring and there is that kind of in depth [0:16:47] [Inaudible].
Speaker 1: I know her from Montreal.
Speaker 5: Yeah and Manchester so it was…
Speaker 1: I saw Gina Badger; she makes good writing as well. She’s writing that, actually she’s staying in this place…
Speaker 5: Oh great, that [0:17:06] [Inaudible] thing. Yeah that’s why I know about – because I saw that he was in…
Speaker 1: Actually we are inviting [0:17:19] [Inaudible] in three weeks I think. You know these guys, [0:17:30] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 5: Yeah I’m a little bit confused about who plays – who is…
Speaker 1: They are real people; they just have completely unreal names. But the builder is actually named Dominic [0:17:43] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 5: That’s right, yeah – his part of the Gina interview.
Speaker 1: Did she get with her boyfriend on…
Speaker 5: I don’t know about that, there’s a lot of usual suspects…
Speaker 1: I wouldn’t think it was unusual, I mean she’s an interesting – she’s got someone who has incredible potential. Yes she’s still a student but she’s got these really very interesting gardening projects but a very critical take on it as well.
Speaker 5: You know – I’ve met her and – but I don’t see her actually very often.
Speaker 1: She’s living in Boston but I knew her in my film when she was doing – it was an interesting project but it didn’t turn out too well but then at school – you know the summer school.
Speaker 5: That’s right yeah.
Speaker 1: But she’s working with us as well with the school of creative methodologies which is next week. You know Gina will actually join me.
Speaker 5: [0:18:57] [Inaudible]
Speaker 2: Yeah I definitely see you guys do a lot of good – so yeah I’m definitely psyched and yeah I might be a little too excited when I say “Hey, are you even separating these publications because there seem to be a lot of” – I just want to say you know this one’s really cool, I’m not sure if I can even separate the [0:19:42] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 5: [0:19:45] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 2: We definitely do, we definitely do. Okay so we’re going to get back to some of the…
Speaker 5: Okay great, now tell me – I was thinking about – can you tell me something about what it is you’re doing because I want to figure out that’s like related to…
Speaker 2: Tonight?
Speaker 1: We have lots of writings about possible key words.
Speaker 5: But more about the thing – like overall I’m considering that would be involved in – well there are two applications. One is for this book about by-products which is about banned practices…
[0:20:39]
Speaker 1: And the excess…
Speaker 5: And the excess which is pretty vague and then Robert for example he will tell you things about the [0:20:54] [Inaudible]. So that’s like very specifically but the other thing that I was thinking about was and more generally publishing that for this online magazine that I aptly call, where we are now looking at our politics in New York and so it’s about partly politics in New York. So to those pertaining to…
Speaker 2: I think the one that focuses on New York – I would suggest that New Yorkers visit it often, it might be the kind of [0:21:28] [Inaudible].
Speaker 5: Yeah and we’re staying here for the week.
Speaker 2: Yeah I’m always here, I’m just not here in New York. But you know, I’m always like…
Speaker 5: Because I do have this thing to go to like in the 29th so I would also do a follow-up for something that’s flexible.
Speaker 1: Well I’ll give you my number and you can SMS me, I mean you can phone me as well but it’s a French number so it’s not too bad to call. So it’s +33…
Speaker 5: [0:22:09] [Inaudible]
Speaker 1: Or you can do zero and then the numbers.
Speaker 5: Okay, zero-one-one…
Speaker 1: three-three-six-six-one-four-eight-four-two-nine-nine.
Speaker 2: We are going to be talking about [0:22:44] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 5: So you’re going to like it?
Speaker 2: Yeah actually we’re [0:23:19] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 1: Okay so we should be probably on in two minutes?
Speaker 2: I think it would be probably good, if Barbara sits here and if you want to hang out with us as well like it would be just kind of informal and we’d just sit around and like hang out in the platform and – it’s just audio and it’s all here. Basically we’ll just let everyone know at the moment and there are a number of people like there are about a dozen locations right now and one of them has 30 people on it so there’s actually a lot of involvement online.
Speaker 1: 60 seconds okay?
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, yeah – yeah. SO just hang out with us so we can probably represent you and the way it’s set its kind of like a…
Speaker 1: It’s very informal Barbara, it’s very informal.
Speaker 6: [0:25:16] [Inaudible]…
Speaker 1: No need to be afraid because it’s the vertical…
Speaker 5: So Barbara we have to leave a little bit early like at eight, I want to make sure that we’re going to have to leave early. Are you here in New York for a few days?
[0:25:32]
Speaker 6: Yeah until Sunday.
Speaker 5: Okay great because we’ve got this long…
Speaker 6: Can I give you my cellphone number? I mean that should be me talking in the lead, but in that case…
Speaker 1: You are getting a little echo…
Speaker 2: We are getting a little bit of an echo, it’s kind of funny it’s almost – hey everybody how is it going? And I know we’re positioned like a panel with you as the audience because that’s just because of the chairs available. Often when we do this we exhibit on a picnic table but we didn’t seem that was necessary to build one of those so…
Speaker 1: Because these things actually takes place weekly, Scott – the first name was Potluck and they’ve actually been – it’s kind of a basekamp tradition, basekamp being the space in Philadelphia.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I’m just going to answer this call…
Speaker 1: I’ve always thought that I was going to – so each Tuesday night for 52 weeks beginning first week of January and going to the last of December 2010. I always thought that I was going to be spending every potluck sort of in the virtual situation because you can join in like no matter where you are…
Speaker 2: No actually if you would mind muting your audio…
Speaker 1: It’s muted.
Speaker 2: Okay great, that would be great. I mean pressing that little button there – excellent.
Speaker 1: Now it’s really mute.
Speaker 2: How about now, guys how’s the audio is it okay?
Speaker 6: Shall I answer? Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Okay great, everybody can hear you just fine.
Speaker 1: I think we should begin by saying that tonight we’re welcoming and pleased to have Barbara Steveni, the founding member of APG group. With us in no particular occasion which gives us the occasion to thank both Steven Rand, executive founding director of apexart which is hosting both these events in the context of the exhibition organized by Anthony Hudek called, Incidental Person. Incidental Person being one of the key concepts which we are going to tackle I guess. Developed first I think by John Latham but one of the key concepts of the artist [0:28:55] [Inaudible].
Speaker 6: Well Incidental person was a Latham term, Latham was very concerned with language and very suspicious of language as in carrying a love baggage and in fact he said that language of money, the flaw of media – of course the biggest flaw. Language and money which of course shows up in his – in the way he wrote books and the way that he alter words and incidental person was his word and caused a lot of furor both within Artists Placement Group because they felt that it was pulling other artists Lathamesque type of when they were all longing to drop a Latham so to speak. But Artist Placement Group – the idea of Artist Placement and so making the stand here came from an idea that I got when as a result of Robert Filliou with the Fluxus group staying with me in our house in London and joined us in America and they wanted some material for putting on their show in Gallery One.
Speaker 1: Daniel Spoerri?
Speaker 6: Daniel Spoerri and Filliou and other members of Fluxus group, but those two actually stayed in our house in Portland Road in London. And I said well I’ll go get you some material. And so I went to the industrial estate in the artisan road [0:30:34] [Inaudible] in London and it was night time, I think it must have been winter but it was dark.
[0:30:41]
And I got lost in this industrial estate, the factories were roaring away and I thought, “Why the hell aren’t we in here” not just to pick up buckets of plastic but there’s a whole area here. So while we’re here – because the fine artist was not represented in industry in any way at all except Oliveti desk [0:31:06] [Phonetic] resource but there was of course a plan out with industrial designers and the plain artists. So I came back with this idea, this eureka idea, John came back from America and I said what about this and he was teaching in St. Martins at that time with Barry Flannigan and Jeffrey Shaw. And John talked about this to the head of sculpture and I said, “By the way if I go winding off of these things, then pull me back for goodness sake”.
Speaker 1: Or push you.
Speaker 6: Or push me and that was what I was this story. Anyway so I went to Frank Martin who was head of sculpture at that time. He was very astute, he realized that although Anthony Caro at that time was head of sculpture, London’s head of painting – they realized that John and Jeffrey was another sort of breed and so he made a sort of department between things to which he invited me to come in a day in a week. And I’ll ask questions if the students and what do they think they were going to do after school and everything. And as a result of that I started the Artist Placement Group by – Frank Martin the head of sculpture said, “Oh Barbara I think this is a terribly good idea, why don’t you go and see these people?” And he was reading The Financial Times and I remembered it in all its pinkness you know at that time. And he has this guy Robert Adeane, he’s chairman of Shell, RTI – chairman of at least four or five companies. And so I went along to Robert Adeane with my idea and he said, “What a good idea, I’ll be on your committee” of course we have no committee. I’ve told the story already today because I’ve watched around you know that what was I was doing before I came here and so I realized I had to get a committee. And so I went to go out to get a committee with all the people that you get to put on a committee like the head of painting, the head of Industrial Design and everything and so we had our committee, Artists Placement Group and that’s where the eureka happened.
But the Incidental Person was the way John’s vision and Anthony’s – really the person who has been putting a lot of time into that – were John’s vision of time based and time – that’s time based that’s not clock time. He called it time based and determination and events and also his suspicion of language was readapting language came right into using that in the context of the practice of APG that he was already thinking like that. So when there was a context of APG which was practical, John gave it this Incidental Person notion like if we were going to be a new type of artists, what sort of artists would we be and what were they and so that’s how the term came.
Speaker 1: Thinking about a new status…
Speaker 6: It was a new status for the artists which was useful having drawn suspicion of language messing around there because the other offices would say like David would say, “No for goodness sake we must keep it opaque; don’t do a manifesto, don’t do these stuff because otherwise we’d be caught and held out yet again” anyways stop me and then take me on. I didn’t know if that was any…
Speaker 1: Incidental is such a slippery word, I take it to mean at least two things – one is that the incidental person – an artist who was placed outside the context of the established meaning in the world, will create an incident…
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand he’s only incidentally on it – it’s like incidentally I’m a foreigner but incidentally…
[0:35:13]
Speaker 6: Exactly and both – and it was sort of keeping this going, this sort of uneasy juxtaposition. I mean when it came to actually negotiating with industries and governments the use of the term incidental – for god’s sake Barbara, you know we’ve had difficulty getting a budget for an artist and now you want me to get a budget for an incidental person. I mean John was really a menace to them and I’m sort of – I was very smooth into looking this is what we need, here’s a contract. But then looking again and it has been really helpful for me to be involved in this Incidental Person project to look again at exactly how John’s meaning, his words didn’t fuse on the long stories so to speak. Although I as a pragmatist didn’t use these terms until they were able to be used because you’ve already made the relationship and then they could sort of listen and they could hear those sorts of terms.
Speaker 1: Previous to this, you were an artist – a practicing artist yourself?
Speaker 6: Yes, yes.
Speaker 1: But do you relatively…
Speaker 6: But I was making – I suppose I was using a assemblage of everything and so this suddenly became – I gradually realized that this was the biggest assemblage of putting people together and it was all a journey and a performance and in my recent work which I’ve called, I Am an Archive and I’ve been doing performances in various places. I’ve returned very much more into performing and to making some siftings as I call it and in my series of works I Am an Archive which was set in [0:37:07] [Inaudible] when we were negotiating our sale of our archive to the Tate because they’ve never bought – I’ve figured this out this morning…
Speaker 1: It is actually really…
Speaker 6: Is this relevant?
Speaker 1: Yes, definitely I mean I think it’s interesting personally. You guys find it interesting but I also think it’s interesting in the context of [0:37:30] [Inaudible] project as well.
Speaker 6: That’s why I say stop me and then journey on to what…
Speaker 1: We need to know I mean, I need to know the facts. Basically of course the way I would see it to put it in like two sentences is that we’re interested life sustaining environments for art which I’m not – which is substantially different than in the mainstream offer with its alienating and rarifying structures and devices and I think this is exactly of course what you’ve pioneered in the 1960’s and mid-60’s whereby taking artists and really arresting them away from a logic of respect and dictatorship and object production and offers and so on and then placing them in a totally different context.
But if I understand correctly to go back to your story it almost started as a student placement…
Speaker 6: No, although…
Speaker 2: Maybe because you were talking about the university complex or…
Speaker 6: Oh you mean the – because I’m in and being in at Central St. Martins?
Speaker 1: Yeah I’m curious.
Speaker 6: That’s an interesting point that you’ve made though, I haven’t thought of it in terms of students because they were the particular artists that we were working with you know, that we were a part of and yes it was students, I haven’t thought about that. But the point was they did have – each of them had broken the boundaries of their particular form of expression like David [0:38:53] [Inaudible] video, Jeffrey Shaw with “Inflatables” and structures like hues that started the Venice structure which is a search group in Holland; Anthony went on to Carlsworg and magnificent at that. Yes they were the students at Central St. Martins where Anthony Caro was the boss guy but there were these people who would cross the structures, who were breaking the boundaries with other forms of expression and we were doing all sorts of events and happenings even with Yoko Ono and Dhal and things like that in the streets prior to APG. But then when I had Filiou and people there and then went back to St. Martins and started to talk to the students like Robert and George and people like that, the people that I’ve asked, “What would you be doing after college?” you know and things like that.
SO yes it was, it was the first time I’ve thought of it as students because I’ve also been part of that group as – with the artists that are doing it you know, it’s interesting you’ve pulled me up – we were students.
[0:40:01]
Speaker 1: What seemed like an interesting ploy or strategy because it would be hard to find money for Incidental Person as artist but you know, what are you going to do with art students, what are you going to do with your degree in art?
Speaker 6: Well that was my questioning…
Speaker 1: The placement scheme is kind of an interesting…
Speaker 6: That was my questions to – at Central St. Martins where Frank Martin, head of sculpture got me to ask questions – of being able to draw from people then – how do you see yourself afterwards school, where do you see it and when you think now of the expectances of students coming out of those schools and things like that? You know, we’ve got our careers, we’ve got our agents, we’ve got our shows something that is very difficult then.
Speaker 1: Who was placed? Were you placed? I know John Latham was.
Speaker 6: John Latham, Jeffrey Shaw, David Hall, Stuart Brisley, Ian Breakwell, Anna Ridley and me in a funny sort of way – me in a funny sort of way. I mean yeah I did a very recent placement. When I say recent you know, like it might have been in 2000 or something because I’m so busy doing it. And there again my sort of identity which in my own work, I Am An Archive; I’m pulling out what was it that I actually did and you know, what were the component parts of my practice so to speak.
Speaker 1: In the video we have here you are obviously playing a very key…
Speaker 6: Well this is – apparently I was very good at this. I didn’t know – oh that’s a big fat minus with union, I fell short in the union – now this was from the 70’s. And the questions if you hear it, the questions of Stuart was just saying, “Well I don’t care if I’m an artist” and something, something you know and all of that’s the same. Then you get Tony Benn who’s our very prominent statesman who is our Minister of Technology in the middle clip which is also on this video where he talks about where two disciplines meet together and how it fuses and does some other things. And so all these were – it’s like right now you know…
Speaker 1: What did you do to placements?
Speaker 6: Placements were – the first industrial placements – the first important placement, industrial placement was with British Steel and I’m very pleased that we took a social one that was quite obviously with the Ministry of Sculptures. [0:42:42] [Inaudible] I’m very pleased to say is going to be tomorrow here with Julie Martin from Experiments in Martin technology and we’re going to talk together about the difference between art and technology and APG which would be roughly about the same time which has much more to do with fabricating and engineers and others much more with social – well he took it to the social level for the first time using the Artist Placement Concept. And I have done a recording with Garth which we can bring tomorrow as well but the interesting thing about the Steel Corporation Fellowship was that I did a bit of a – well it’s not called a search but it’s never called a search then – to find out that the British Steel Corporation had a fellowship for meteorologists and sociologists and I said, “Well why not have an artist”. So they immediately thought that we were going to have all these student sculptures and so okay we’ll have a few student sculptures.
And actually Garth had been working in a fiber glass which was very prevalent with St. Martin’s school of Art at that time. And so when they took it, they were really, really pleased with what he’s done and then they gave him another two years. He made the ports and he talked to the apprentices and…
Speaker 1: So it’s really about talking, it wasn’t really about making objects.
Speaker 6: He also made objects and other artists also made objects where it was kind of necessary to do so, but they were really…
Speaker 1: Why was it necessary?
Speaker 6: Sometimes because why were they an artist? Didn’t they make things? You know I remember Stuart Brisley say, he was talking to all the…
Speaker 1: To reassure expectations that it actually was art?
Speaker 6: Yes you can put it that way – I can do this as well but I’m actually doing this as well. I mean these occurred lots of times like with George Levantis who was an artist who went to sea and negotiated that he went with ocean fleets and a cargo ship and a liner and what was the other one – cargo ship, liner – there were three types – a passenger ship and I had to negotiate the budget in Liverpool with the ocean fleets.
[0:45:05]
And they had sort of artists on board to sort of help well way at that time to do painting at sea or something. George Levantis would be swinging from the side of the cargo ship, chipping off the paint and everything went unto his trollies along with the rest of the – talking about art. And they would be saying, “George, how do you, you know – what are you going to do with your painting and what’s this guy Picasso – you seem to be more ahead of Picasso” and that you know and so it was about talking. But it was also about bringing a different perspective, a discipline to a completely different context, a bi-context – that means all the component parts of the context. That means the people, the orientation of the hosting organization and words are interjected too as well.
Speaker 1: It’s like a double autonomy here in the sense that in one hand an artist was placed, it’s completely autonomized from the world economy because their salary depend on – the reputational economy disappears when you’re on a boat. But at the same time there seems to be an existence…
Speaker 6: But they weren’t paid…
Speaker 1: They all – Latham’s writings, the idea that the artist maintain a certain fundamental autonomy, autonomy of art…
Speaker 6: This was the thing that was negotiated in an association, with any hosting association and that you kept all the way through you know, compromises and what sort of happens or something but that was that there should be no project, work or idea until something developed between the artist and the hosting organization. And the hosting organization would take on this concept and by invitation and through I say the word, “trust” was required and they would be taken on for this period of time in a feasibility period and then after that feasibility period if nothing happened then you could spit it out again and nothing would happen. But if they can make a proposal that would be relevant to go forward, and I use to say and I’ve quoted this before and you’ve heard this all this morning or today or this afternoon – I’d say that that was the biggest achievement was to get the capitalist structure to pay for not knowing. Because they took on the artist on the strength of one does not see things and on what they’ve actually done and what they were capable of. And also they chose these artists out of few people that we’ve put forward and it will be the strength of their personalities and also the artists, all IP’s or whatever would have to respond to the context. They would not have to arrive with a preconceived idea of what they would do, that was absolutely lock on.
Speaker 1: I mean to put it in really contemporary terms; you could say that these artists were using their placements as places of artistic residency…
Speaker 6: How dare you [Laughter].
Speaker 1: Of production and exhibition in a sense that they would arrive with their artistic competence and incompetence, without a preconceived idea and they would take advantage of the I don’t know, the dialogical structure of their colleagues in the place, in the context itself – the context of being at least half the...
Speaker 6: Work.
Speaker 1: The work and not really imagine – the reason I said contemporary because that’s really imaginable in a kind of post-artist environment but in the 1960’s that was the height of Freudism, when in fact…
Speaker 6: Freudism.
Speaker 1: Well I mean it was a very…
Speaker 6: I’m not an academic but I do know these people but I don’t quite – I don’t link the relationship…
Speaker 1: Yeah it was kind of an object-production based economy and not artist economy.
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely you are completely right. One of the things was the whole notion of bringing something back and then putting on an exhibition was not something – they were so – I could say genuinely all of us was so gripped by the excitement of the new context and the exchanges and where it was working so well that our representatives in the host organization. And for instance in ICI, I would say one of our most successful drop-outs was the marketing manager of ICI Fibres who was so keen on the idea that he dropped out of ICI and started to take a local university course and we’ve known him ever since and he speaks in universities. And strange enough on that particular one ICI the artist was rather traditional where he was holding his artist cloak so to speak.
[0:50:12]
And therefore he didn’t engage so much with the employees and the managers and with everything and the ICI marketing director who came with us to join us in some of these pictures and everything and he spoke on behalf of ICI. And he was in a way the person who was infected by the brief and said the plan is not doing it. And you know so sometimes it was the other side that was sort of being the success and winnings so to speak. I don’t know, I might not be answering your questions, so push me back.
Speaker 1: My questions may not be the right questions either but I mean at that time how did you see this? Did you see this as a way of replacing the mainstream art org in fact I had a promising future if only artists could get out into the – I don’t know, the economic and social mechanisms of the society.
Speaker 6: But I supposed art and economics have been put on – if one looks carefully into the catalog and you see the tampering done by John Latham mainly conspicuously – but the other artists you know like Jeffrey Shaw and the other ones in their various ways and very differently – they were saying you know, if you have 50 – I mean John did that sort of thing which was a negative loss of courage. Which virtually said if you have 50 IP’s – well he was calling them IP’s all the time and other people were calling them IP’s and not Incidental Persons – to something and you get this value or this value and was sort of a negative or plus value all the way. So virtually say, yeah have one of these specialists and one of these types bearing the developed sense of making and listening and non-verbal media skills with the exception project and have these people associated with these structures, something else could happen. And I think that that was – and I’m thinking how can we get burned in the art world or even in something like – I really don’t think that we had that much premises. And that was one of the main reasons why the Arts Council was so pissed off with us.
They were like, we’re thinking of 2005 and you know you’ve only had 10 placements. You know I said in this piece here that the amount that they got and the amount you know, the exchange of everything was ridiculous on what they talked about.
Speaker 7: Barbara would you want to say something about that Art and Economics because…
Speaker 6: Oh yes, yeah so you must pull me on to think because I’d go like this. Well Art and Economics was an exhibition we had at the Hayward Gallery of which this old piece here is from 1970-71 which was the time of the Hayward Gallery and Art and Economics was an exhibition in time – this has been printed out so you can read it after. But it was an exhibition in time which was of two years of talk for us to get those particular placements which was the heavy industry and some of the other ones like Helium, Seckers and people like that to get them to be able to get a result and by result it could have been a report or a process or whatever it was and that was then put into the Hayward Gallery. And I went to talk to Arnold Goodman who was the chairman of the Arts Council and Secretary General [0:54:07] [Inaudible] who was a great little guy too. And I said can we have the Hayward Gallery to demonstrate our placements with these industries…
Speaker 1: So you used gallery spaces as meeting areas?
Speaker 6: What we did was first of all we had to get the placements; we had to get the industries to say that they would be committed to having placements along these lines. We still didn’t quite know when I was doing the negotiations with the Hayward Gallery because it was a major venue of the Arts Council, it was one their biggest buildings in the south bank. So I had to say, “Well look, this is all written in here” I have to say, “Well we’ve got this and this industry and this industry, you think we can get so and so” otherwise they would not listen to us. And he said well do you want the Hayward Gallery and this is Lord Goodman who is the chairman of Arts Council – and I said, “Yes”, and he said, “Ambitious, but I’m sure we can do it with a wheelbarrow overnight” so I use this metaphor in my latest performances of the wheelbarrow overnight in all my diaries in my two years in the talk to actually get that.
[0:55:18]
And then – so we put on this exhibition which had Garth Evans with British Steel and he had all these pieces of steel that he had from Port Talbot which he moved around and shifted. We had the side of the steel – HR side of the steel making process and we were hoping to pipe it in but we couldn’t get it across the Thames so we had to record it from Port Talbot. And it was absolutely deafening and everybody was like, oh god you can’t even get it to Hayward Gallery because there was so much noise and we had John Latham’s smashed up car because John Latham had a near fatal crash with all his x-rays and [0:56:02] [Inaudible]. And that was John’s placement with the south wing as intensive care unit hospital…
Speaker 1: And then it worked in turn…
Speaker 6: And it worked yeah, of course John was…
Speaker 1: Yeah I never even realized that.
Speaker 6: Oh no, absolutely and here he was at Hayward Gallery and then he smashed himself…
Speaker 2: I was going to ask you actually about how direct and easily instrumentalized to make these placements – industrial placements where and it seems like there is a lot of play going on in there like yeah, I mean you were commissioned by a hospital to happen there…
Speaker 6: No, no, no that’s a John Latham because the British Steel and Hillie and British Airways with David Hall where he flew over to go under cloud formations and all the industries that Art and Economics. Their representatives came to their show and had these discussions in our sculpture which was the boardroom. So we had British Airways reading up and saying, “Oh do you want me to make a speech or something” and I said, “No ma’am” and I was in the bath at that time and I said, no we just would like you to come and discuss how it was for you and things like that. So all of them with the exception of John Latham which of course when he had this accident – were very much the placements that were directed and negotiated in the time span of two years – anything from three months to two years with the length of the placements that were done in the industry.
Speaker 8: In this industry but on the other hand Latham also did a placement as a relatively high civil servant at the Scottish…
Speaker 6: That was after the Art and Economics, because after Art and Economics we had this huge sort of close down and I said okay, if that’s the case I’m going to go to the government and…
Speaker 8: Okay, this is actually really helpful, I hope this is easily accessible somewhere but I’ve really – we’ve talked like a day in the past like I still don’t know a lot of these stuff. So I was curious where government bodies came into this as well. Because there was an industry and there was – I want to say NGO’s but that wasn’t really the case…
Speaker 6: No, no but there are NGO’s that are very much more prevalent now than they were so there was art and industry. So in that area of decision making process where institutions are controlling you know…
Speaker 1: So you were able to negotiate that actually artists would take their place in decision making?
Speaker 6: Yes and because in Germany for instance where I haven’t done my German work yet, I would have to pick that up – the minister for Education and Science he was just a fantastic guy – Reimut Jochimsen and he was Minister for Education and Science and he actually stipulated that artist’s activity had relevance to government work which we negotiated with our civil servants and he translated it to German and out it on. But after the Hayward Gallery thing I asked Lord Goodman because we were sort of closed down like this – to write a letter to the Civil Service Department to say that we’ve done good work in industry, and how about the government? And so they wrote this letter with my instructions there. And so this letter went off and then nothing happened as usual because artists dropped it into wastepaper baskets and what good government would do that – so Latham said could we try it again and he said, “Where did you send this to, who were the people?” Then I followed up each of the people they’ve sent it to and then talked to them and some of them were the lucky people that you need to meet like you know the link person in the Department of Environment because they do have Scottish Office environment do have something and also Tony Benn, our wonderful socialist statesman…
[1:00:28]
Speaker 1: Formerly Sir Anthony…
Speaker 6: Sir Anthony who gave up his title to be Tony Benn and I’ve got my thing about Tony Benn being here in the archive and he said, look I think this is really great I mean you saw in my Tony Benn clip. And then he introduced me to Barbara Castle who was head of Health and Social Policy and we had Ian Breakwell and Hugh Davies who was a musician and had people in Stockholm in the Department of Health and they had a long project there which went into age consulting and which went into board or rent in hospitals that they were reviewing at that time. And so three people like Tony Benn through writing this letter and then going after them and finding out who the people were and guided Scottish off themselves and it landed with – was it head of – I can’t remember – I’ve got all these on my Scottish work, you have to watch it though.
Speaker 5: From the way you are describing it now I see very much that you were playing a very active role in initiating kind of doing follow-up phone call for example and where there other people who were equally involved on that level?
Speaker 6: Oh you mean in the follow-up and in the push through and everything…
Speaker 5: Well just in general I mean I see – the picture that I’m getting is that you’re very much – and this is also from what I’ve read about APG – was you were playing this role of initiating and finding and meeting these contacts and then I’d imagine that you were kind of negotiating those institutions and artists and just at some point the artist and the hosting institution. But so were there other people who were equally involved in that same role that you played in mediating and facilitating…
Speaker 6: I think with the whole – No, those initial ones but as soon as there was a sort of – I mean John played a lot of support because you know I’m not an academic I mean he had big over – you know I always consult with him. Sometimes it would be good if he came and sometimes it would be really bad if he came because he could really fire up things. You could go in and there’s one entry and you know which is just doing terribly well and then one entry that doesn’t – he’d be out in the way. But once…
Speaker 1: Would you mean that there’s a fair amount of duplicity involved in negotiating these things?
Speaker 6: What’s duplicity?
Speaker 1: I mean a fair amount of like…
Speaker 5: That’s it, you do have this – because there’s this – because you have those institutions there is this…
Speaker 2: Not entirely forthright is what…
Speaker 5: But then there is a fine line between hospitality and when it becomes hostility. And so I was wondering also about that because we – it’s often times that you’ve had success cases but then you might be labeled as controversial or sensationalists you know explosions. And I’m also wondering about the failures which are also interesting…
Speaker 6: Well the failures where yeah I mean the failures – there were failures along the way. You know when the artists were really sort of doing you know like were well into it and with Ian Breakwell with the Department of Social Security for instance – the teams, the architects that he was working with for Broadmoor and Rampton. They got really ratty about the publicity that could come around Ian as an artist and his sort of his you know, his cloak of being an artist was very different to all of them, why should it be so special and everything. And you know I have to – No, I probably shouldn’t say this – well you might as well just crop this. Is anything scrapable or is it all escapable?
Speaker 1: Everything is scrapable.
Speaker 2: It is although I have to say there’s probably about 60 people listening so if you don’t want people to hear I can definitely clip it from the audio.
Speaker 6: No I’m just sort of thinking about the personality of the people – no I mean there were times where the artist really rub people the wrong way, they’d come back to the APG and they’d say, “Look, why is he having all of these sort of publicity and everything” and you know I have to say that do we have to use the first person – singular on every line Mr. Breakwell.
[1:05:26]
But I don’t you know, I’m fairly aware of the amount of [1:05:28] [Inaudible]. Ian was the most – I mean he was a marvelous artist he got really so much to happen and be done and he was – and in the Tate we have his – in the Tate archive when I was doing I Am An Archive and Adrian Glew who is head of the Archives and the Tate opened up at the end of my [1:05:50] [Inaudible] to welcome to APG world but we had all the banners out when we had that and all that stuff. Felicity Breakwell was his partner because Ian has died unfortunately and she read the report that he got out about how the report was deliberately suppressed on his suggestions for the development of Broadmoor and Rampton hospitals but you know he was fantastic. I mean I’m just saying it’s very difficult to being an artist because they had all these sort of hyper thing around them and better to be pointed out. Like the artists that went to see Esso Petroleum who put on two and a half stone I was told.
The petty officer said, "What we don't really like was he was eating so much and look at that lot of weight he has put on" then I said, well he's eaten for weeks I would say. Well he had had appendix before he went on, I was told to shut up and not move and not leap in defense of the artist. But I think of the ones that did these pioneering placements – these were not failures, they were learning situations and I would consider their use as collateral for youth, for future engagements. Plus the methodology, plus the sublime view – is a big resource and that's what they would want from here.
Speaker 7: A little bit of follow-up on that question, at what point did you – it sound like you went from – you've played multiple roles in this story - one of a partner, one of a mediator, one of a negotiator and I think there's a few more up until possibly an artist now…
Speaker 6: Yes I've returned to being an artist; I suppose it was just before we were selling Archive to the Tate. I was beginning to do performances with my banners of which I did a thing in Berlin called Product & Vision where a banner which was made from the treaty that we negotiated with the government which was really the Civil Service Memorandum which we called, "The Treaty" and I had it translated into Russian. And because I was invited by the Artists Union in St. Petersburg to go and talk to them and open an exhibition called [1:08:46] [Inaudible] which was all about consumers and everything. So I made this banner out of using the pieces from the Civil Service Memorandum then translate them into Russian and getting the artists to – invite an artist to write ingredients and method and everything and in colored Bouche and the dye would come back again in several years time and see whether we've cooked what we have done with our government, could they cook it with some of their thoughts in schools in very different situations and that was sent to an exhibition, the banner and it came back of course in a crate. So I then went to Berlin and did a performance about value which was the concept – not valuable – but when it came back in the crate in a box , it was not edible it was an object and so I did performances around this and I've just been doing it with my wheelbarrow and all the things…
Speaker 7: About a few things that you brought – I mean if it's okay…
Speaker 6: Okay please do.
Speaker 7: I get very quick – how long was your – I simply just want to – about your stats as an artist – consider all of your work from this time to the – what you think would be more easier to describe as tour that's practiced today, or would it be more difficult to describe it that way at that time? Not that it relates to your performance – what you call performance – all of your negotiating, organizing and that sort of thing – would it be more difficult for most of us now to really understand that within an artist's practice?
Speaker 6: Yes.
[1:10:34]
Speaker 7: But when I say most of us, I don’t want to make any blank assumptions but just I'm guessing because people are coming here to Apex to try to hear you speak that thing, I don't know. Maybe like self-selective enough to be able to understand those kinds of activities within the range of artists about this practice, or this thing may have been more difficult then – I was just kind of curious about that because I think only a certain part of a lot of what you've described did you really identified yourself as an artist…
Speaker 6: I have been long time identified myself, I actually sorry if I have interrupted you – I actually only came out one was Me, which was in 1977 when I was in Germany when I changed you know, I used my name Barbara Steveni as something since I was Barbara Steveni which was my maiden name rather than Barbara Latham. Just also hiding behind APG's sort of letters, not necessarily meaning to hide behind them but just not noticing that I was…
Speaker 7: The kind of like the student in a four year…
Speaker 6: Yeah for my practice and my energy and my – whatever it was. And so in more recent time I'm seeing my journey like my actual journey; as my art journey, as my assemblage so I've come much more into a recognition time often what I was doing I guess.
Speaker 5: Do you – I'm trying to figure out when I say this word it doesn't seem quite so reductionist but the question that comes to my mind is what are the gender difference that you were able to reacted and speak on behalf of like you say in the APG and whether that's easy for example to be active because you were speaking on behalf of others. Whereas that thing traditionally there are roles that is not done by for example not women, then it's something that you know I noticed or I'm interested when women find it easier to speak or to act as an agent behind another – kind of whether you've tied it tight enough how you've factored in the environment or whether they've have chose to adapt to that influence…
Speaker 6: I think I was so busy doing and being very excited by the doing and getting that action to happen that I haven't looked at that time. I may began looking at what it was and what I was doing and seeing it in relation to you know my assemblage work which I was doing in the late 60's and 70's and you know my time at task and everything. So I was busy doing and I only looked later and began to reflect too late, I did not notice any difference that's of – it as an artist, as a journey and I think in doing my – these works and these sculptures that I'm pulling out that aspect of it as well. But that's for – this is us going up on the babies in Scotland.
This was as much for looking at generation or change of recognition of gender and what was going on at that time. I mean it's just only very, very recently and actually through Anthony being working at Flat Time House which is John's ex studio which is being made into a research center but also I invited Anthony to be on some Westminster works and my Scottish works that this has come into my practices to – they were looking at the whole journey and at what time I noticed myself being an artist or something. Although you know Chelsea I was that artist and I was making things; yes Anthony Caro saw my assemblage and yes he knew and so I've had different points of recognition maybe of myself.
[1:15:22]
Speaker 1: I think I'd come back to what you actually did and what you thought the effect might be and what the effect actually was. There's an interesting parallel to be drawn I think between the movement of much more politically motivated movement of [1:15:40] [Inaudible] in the late 1960's. Pertaining in the wake of May 1968 in the student union uprisings at that time is that young Marxist would go into the labor force, they would go and deliberately seeking appointment as manual laborers on an assembly line. And it was for two reasons in Marxist discourse is that one, so they would learn the true reality of what it was like to be a worker right, it was like a projection about it and secondly of course it was to teach people whose experience really was really as a worker. Some of the intricacies of Marxist theories were that they would be better equip to emancipate themselves.
Speaker 6: That is interesting.
Speaker 2: And also to steal from – to commit small petty acts of theft.
Speaker 1: And sometimes I mean…
Speaker 6: You mean you actually go into destroying…
Speaker 1: And to sabotage.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily on a large scale but as a part of a process.
Speaker 1: Sabotage was a long part of the labor movement; it didn't require any Marxist student intellectuals to take place. In fact labor emancipation never required this actual talk but it did take place and they can see that there were placements. They called them – they would establish themselves but there was also a certain amount of duplicity involved. In other words they weren't completely upfront about what they were doing. The feeling was that they were not when they actually, effectively use their tools or their skills to achieve social emancipation and so on. So I mean there's a kind of parallel with what you're doing but that was a predictably non-autonomous way of acting, in fact there's almost a slavish commitment to a very specific time and therefore it didn't really go anywhere. So I'm understanding I mean how are you…
Speaker 6: Politically…
Speaker 1: It came out of the same kind of ethos in the 1960's…
Speaker 6: It came – it did came out of the ethos, there was an artist union at that time which you would have started easily talked about in the original you know, 1970's you know own tape. I mean John Latham in particular and I suppose me because I was accused of, "You haven't even read Marx's" desperately like this capital method but it – yeah what were we talking about. I had my line but I was just starting to get lost now – I think that the ethos that was there made another ethos but I do feel that this ethos came very specifically from a motivation of making art and context but that they are being very aware of what the context consist of and that is just the component part of the context, it means it's not a place its time, it's the ends to which the hosting organization is going. Where does it relate to the human race and the planet so to speak.
There was sort of these concepts of what we looked at in the association and I mean we were accused a lot of both things – one of being there to destroy the system, that was one of the things that was labeled to us which might be along the lines of what you had said. But the other one was that you know we were so politically naïve we don't have doubts you know – taking the political force of the workers part of this admin but one of the points about being inside was to be able to operate at all levels of the organization and okay one can be accused of glowing up in the top level. But what was going in at a level where something could happen and then it had to be joined I mean you couldn't do anything without – when you're inside without getting the trust – I call it trust rather than agreement of the workforce whether it be a manager level or whether it be at the employment level you know you have to get that going otherwise nothing was going to happen. So I don't even know if what are those things.
[1:20:22]
Speaker 2: Yeah I mean one of the interesting things is really the explosion of what some people have called organizational art or practice that – rather practices that you know, we're artist sort of cultural, we're cultural actors or whatever and institute themselves in these existing renovations. You know on one hand it's not all that radical, it's kind of at this point – what was I trying to say – and I have heard of people who are creating their own worlds in kind of a different way. See I think I sometimes have a hard time seeing the value in this practice which one of the things that I find fascinating about are artists who whether they are sleeping with the enemy or taking the short approach or the backdoor method if you put it or whether they're actually trying to sabotage or if they are just working with an existing structure and taking it as it is. I think its' a different way of creating a sustaining environment for creative practices especially when it becomes critical way of practice like I find that to be really exciting and interesting.
But I think that there are some who are really having a hard time resolving themselves with one another and one is the directly I think in a really generalized idea – I'm sorry but like I can think a lot of specifics but I can't just bring them enough clearly for a second. I think often people who are working in a directly oppositional way have a hard time coming to terms with people who are working on the insides so to speak, working with existing organizations. There's kind of a flash of you know, world sort of way, this collection that is hard to reconcile sometimes, I guess I was just wondering if you had a hard time dealing with that because of so many of the artists who were involved in this art or in a pretty directly oppositional loss of time…
Speaker 6: Well I mean Stuart for instance, Gustav Metzger but a lot of them…
Speaker 1: This group was in APG?
Speaker 6: They worked in APG but for instance he was very against – when we first did I think Industrial Negative Symposium in '68 and Gustav got up and said I hate all of you sort of something – I want to burn down your factory so British Arts is going to go up in flames, it could be burned down any moment. But then Gustav was one of the people who wanted to come and have a place for later in ICI and so I mean in a way when he heard the way that we were trying to negotiate and because – no it was not ICI, it was IBM sorry – and we were…
Speaker 1: So you got elected to their…
Speaker 6: Well we were proposing it when we were negotiating it with IBM and IBM said produce this paradox – I don't know if I'm getting it right with what – if you're doing what they think you're doing, we wouldn't have you anywhere near us. And if you're not doing that there's no point in having it – a terrific paradox. It was a rather good paradox but I just remembered on that one.
Speaker 7: Do you like – when you enter into an organization I think there's a risk now in it's history but it seems to kind of figure out or stop in a way with your realization of who you were in the late 70's and today where there seems to be this missing history which is the 80's or the 90's. And that was something else, that was a way of life, an organization and eventually …
Speaker 6: Yes I know that's quite true, we broke this out again – this is why the whole idea of that they could be…
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, can you rephrase that question again for a moment, I was going to try to but…
Speaker 6: There's a gap here between the history and…
Speaker 1: Yeah 20 years basically.
Speaker 6: 20 years that's…
Speaker 2: There was this anger in the years between the 80's and the 90's…
Speaker 6: They're fucking awful…
Speaker 2: Soon after the 70's in this vein of APG, there comes something else…
[1:25:07]
Speaker 6: Yes we had to get this – we had to change the name from Artist Placement to another name because the Arts Administration and Authorities were going to do their placements weren't they and things were not under the same – they were not under the motivation and the brief that we set up with APG so we changed the name to Organization and Imagination which was also from nothing to finding out and from O+I. So we did that and under that when they sort first of approaches to the government again and also when we did some oversees placement and stuff but when the late about government came in I thought oh wow great – and we got socialist work again – and but of course they hit the ground running and they really didn’t need to know about artists in that way because it had all to do with celebrities and things like that.
So that took a lot of energy and time so in doing that but now it seems that especially using the events like the selling of the archive and the TATE, the school and the archive that took a lot of courage thinking both in government interest and everything again and we also did some educational projects in that meantime. And so it was the end of our labor which was the end of London Education Authority and the education projects and schools which were not artisan schools and had to look at policy of the changed curriculum. And we did those, we just wanted to work something good.
Speaker 2: I think it's important to look at the successes and look at the failures as well because ultimately – it's actually hard to say once it's in that state currently but many of us working – we don't have so much history as we are working today…
Speaker 6: I really wanted to you know have some more time on your working today lessons and all that you know – all that I haven't got that…
Speaker 1: I had the sense that you might feel that we're reinventing the wheel in a certain sense, you know what I mean. Debates that which got really clearly summed up – those are things that you were confronting I don’t know before we were born and in certain sense so it was kind of disappointments to – I kind of wonder how do you – do you think things have moved on or do you think they've just sort of repeated themselves?
Speaker 6: Well we have a different time, we have a different context to do these things and I think that APG's history and also it's method is very appropriate to be used and to be used as collateral and I think it is terribly encouraging to hear like in this show different ways people are working and that it is possible to look again and see whether one can one use the methodology and the experience – all the successes and the failures. I mean I've just been talking to Robert about the ones that worked and everything I mean what didn't work are sort of in the archives of the TATE that we didn't get that far from these other reasons and I use these in my performances where I have to arrive at a [1:28:50] [Inaudible] keep them in the grow backs to grow again spores and I mean that's – but I think that it's not reinventing the wheel, although somebody did say that the worse in the world of Arts, somebody was sitting next to Nixon as he wrote – and so director of the TATE gallery and he said, "What we need is a contemporary APG" I thought it felt when I was told that that there is a contemporary APG but it's how it – what is appropriate to do and that’s why we were looking at often economics too.
What would the issues be, what would the motivation be, how strong will it be and they wouldn't be just government and industry – they would be the issues, they would be the issues of the day and that is really what we're looking at and seeing whether it's possible you know from people like you.
Speaker 2: Absolutely you were talking about the [1:29:45] [Inaudible] project earlier – I want to find out more about that like just at least the little – but you did talk about that – I get the sense that it was somehow translated what you all have done in one context into another context and other people were kind of testing that out somewhere. And I think time plays a factor too I mean it really hasn't been all that long in the sense like we have now an academic almost discipline like there's different discipline organizational studies and – I wouldn't say the frightening thing but the thing that makes me feel – that's much more difficult for artists to not necessarily escape but just to not as easily be instrumentalized by the…
[1:30:41]
Speaker 6: That’s the fear isn't it the institutionalization, the bureaucracy eroding the artist…
Speaker 1: I think it's more than that, I think it's the economy. We live in a area of creative capitalism in the sense that we're creatives – not artists necessarily but creative types are hijacked and harnessed and yoked to the wheel of production…
Speaker 2: And willingly as well…
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 6: As you say they expect them to – oh I see that’s' the funding stream or whatever you know.
Speaker 2: It's a hard time now because on one hand you need to do a certain – you need to play a certain ball or whatever right to get to actually do the kind of practice where you have something for yourself in some way into existing organization. You know you can't come in there with Molotov cocktail, you have to – right, right exactly…
Speaker 6: What did you say?
Speaker 2: Now that sounds like a porno or something, hello? Anyways just that like – I don't know where that came from but one hand you know, you have to have a certain amount of integration and acceptance of playing a game that you're not necessarily fond of in order to get somewhere with it. Because you're actually – you're not a secessionist, you are – this type of practice is a negotiation but strong negotiations.
Speaker 6: Strong negotiations.
Speaker 2: The hard thing is like how do you actually have not to like have all these laying metaphors but you know the cards in your hand that you can actually play so you can be a strong negotiator now when organizations are – I wouldn't want to pretend that oh this was back before any company knew about advertizing, they weren't all that savvy. I realized they were savvy but this is like really savvy now, especially along these lines. Yeah and like specifically it's like you actually – when you go to business when you're trained basically on how to properly use artists…
Speaker 6: Exactly, exactly…
Speaker 2: So yeah I think we're up against something kind of different now…
Speaker 6: Yes that is what one is up against and in a way we've helped create it you know and but the business of questioning the motivation and finding an echo of people and stuff in it I mean that's almost out of skill in negotiation. All I can say is let's use what we managed to do in whatever way, see whether that could be used as an example like this is what happened other than seeing it would be different in this context and in this time but this is the approach that managed to make…
Speaker 1: But really the knots and bolts I mean, in those negotiations where you learning things, I mean was it really I think trying to – who would pick these guys, these leaders the captains of industry – are they letting artists into their workplaces? Or was it really like also you were learning something from them or was it a cyclical process…
Speaker 6: I do think that we were learning something from them I mean when I say learning was learning their world and also learning about – that was an interesting thing I'd like to – learning about the individuals in organizations who – and they are relative attachment to the job and then to themselves as individuals and you really begin to feel that in the pressures in the stuff so when we did the catalogue with the Times Business Forum – I think one of the things you know the more that my job is worth, the more of sort of you know and where that could in some way – oh god, I'm sounding so ridiculous – it was where you could win out and then the exchange and where the exchange began to fuse.
[1:35:10]
And It's short at times but I've always been an optimist and this also been taken cared of and I – is that I feel at this time where you know the economy has shown itself to be more of a tease where the planet and the human race is certainly tough to be what it is. That there is something to be worked on here that is worthwhile of which this could be utilized in some way and I think after Economics II however were developed could be a really interesting worthwhile I think to throw out.
Speaker 1: How do you feel about the term like the embedded artist? This is a term I've heard…
Speaker 6: Embedded in what?
Speaker 1: You know it's very…
Speaker 6: I haven't heard of that term.
Speaker 1: Well it was a term that I first heard from the Swiss artist and I suppose embedded artist Ursula Biemann who considers herself to be an embedded artist. Basically she considers herself to be a secret agent…
Speaker 6: Oh my god, oh no near…
Speaker 1: And you know the embedded journalists are these guys – well not only guys I mean people – who…
Speaker 6: You mean investigating…
Speaker 1: The company troops for example in Afghanistan or in any part wherever they are deployed, and they dress up – they wear the same gear as the soldiers and do the same – they sleep under the same trees and they march on the same…
Speaker 2: Action research or…
Speaker 1: And basically they expose themselves to the same risks because you would report back into the front line so these are called embedded journalists and of course it has been taken out after some extent by the – by an artist. So if I'm going to do that I'm going to be an embedded artist and I'm going to go with a group of archeologists or a group of anthropologists or a group of whatever and – except that I'm going to bring my particular lens – and I don’t mean the camera – I mean focusing device for example. Do you find that a troubling term or do you think that’s' an interesting – like pursuing something if you have….
Speaker 6: I mean that’s another way of – rather around a similar way of pursuing such an action. It's the question of the motivation at that time like where's the motivation going on in that and what is it's effect on asking that question of the effect of the impact of themselves…
Speaker 7: That’s' interesting the effect I mean the way the embedded person is speaking through a consistency outside that is watching or expecting or waiting for someone for resolved. I think that's where we differentiate APG and that you didn’t seem to be going into the frontlines knowing that at the other hand on the flight on your return trip you would be eager to read or listen or see what you will be producing I think – I mean your absence in that return trip seems to be decisive and you weren't speaking for anybody back home. Your home seems to have dissolved…
Speaker 6: That's an interesting thing is that's yes, yes…
Speaker 8: In a way we're sort of more excited, there is definitely the feeling that there is a safety – there is a public out there and that is safe watching this from their homes with museum which can see this in the safety and so they will appreciate that risk taking. But here the risk taking was shared with the duo who would go and have to follow that…
Speaker 1: I totally agree, it's a very different paradigm actually. I think embedded artists almost presupposes that you've taken a conventional exhibition practice and the gathering for that into a unusual production context. But I think the APG did something already, actually that’s why rather glibly but nevertheless – but I wasn't even suspicious, when I said in fact it was conceived as a place of residency, production and exhibition because the entire art – I guess this leads to a question. This leads to a question like the title of Marissa's book – did this lead to exhibiting by products? Did the placements lead to producing art objects in an inverted plate which is dry clean and might – you know we've seen a bit of conceptual art right? Things that just happened to be produced along the way and they ended up being the finality…
Speaker 6: They didn't have to be at all, I think the fact that Hayward Gallery or the fact that like what you said embedded back into the art world and you that's some description of that Incidental Person thing – the fact that we did that and that it was down didn't seem to be and certainly wasn't the motivation. The motivation was making the work whether it was published or put back into a gallery or something somewhere, somewhat.
[1:40:16]
And I think in doing the Hayward show for instance it was a demonstration and a questioning of value of what would be possible of new forms of association that would be new forms of art. I don't know if that makes sense…
Speaker 1: We have a question – oh I'm sorry…
Speaker 5: Let's just say that I am taking an opportunity of taking out the by-product and kind of junking back to the earlier part and the early part of this conversation – I mean the word by-product to me was a curious thing that it talks about the way that that's colloquially used that the term by-products is that it's an industry or system and by-product is sometimes kind of chanced upon and it's as thing that kind of comes out of a larger system. And what I noticed in artist practices that are involved or integrated themselves into an industrial or a governmental systems is that they're – and what's interesting to me is that there's this listening like and there's this kind of reciprocally between the artist and the hosting institution. So the by-product I think to me was kind of open-ended term, I think it's really pragmatic at times when there are – there is an emphasis and a kind of pressure for the arts produced in the gallery and that it's in entirely different minds and it's like uprooted from it's context and from the people involved in the creation…
Speaker 6: That's what I mean, uprooted from it's context…
Speaker 5: Yeah and so that's kind of a negotiation or kind of negotiating or code switching on behalf of the artist if they are asked to because they are often times I think talking or asked to talk to two artists in two different audiences but…
Speaker 1: I disagree with you actually; I think it's not so much a market pressure as it is a museulogical…
Speaker 6: The museum.
Speaker 1: Blindness because these artists are some of the most favorite cases of these artists who died young for example for those who died in the 60's and in the 70's who were not represented necessarily by galleries now but its' the museums which are fetishizing and rarifying of the object...
Speaker 5: That need archival…
Speaker 1: Yeah because they have to show something because the whole physical and conceptual architecture of their space is promised upon them.
Speaker 6: Yes exactly and how also…
Speaker 1: First I'm not trying to let the market off the hook but oftentimes I think in this higher end of the value production within the art world museums are really much more – they certainly have a play of very perfidious role…
Speaker 6: Well they have to justify the government spending for – big capital spending for their actual bricks and mortar of the museums. So all these business about them threatening for access and you know educational programs and the conceptual art movement would be another part of that as well.
Speaker 5: Well I think it's even this kind of institutional logic which hasn't even – perhaps has nothing even to do with the archival quality of things but for example I have this friend who works at the MOMA here in New York and she is in the new media section – it's not the film section, it's not the sculpture section and so she has to always qualify herself, produce something or kind of contain something within it. So it's all these kind of like annoying institutional habits that can get in the way of making an archive's distinction.
Speaker 2: And it's part of their role as an institution is that let's figure it two ways – yeah exactly and kind of like to get these organization to eat their sandwiches and thank them for it, to find ways to not necessarily meet their expectations…
Speaker 1: Well we have actually a question here…
Speaker 7: And as the strength of that what you call yourselves now when you say my projects are my practices and I am not – they were saying like something similar but very different with what you're saying that my personal work is not an object, it's not a collection, it's not an institutionalized entity but it is repository, it is labeled as – I mean there is something very strong about being able to answer I Am An Archive to the institution because then we're really resisting opposition but for me that's not true.
[1:45:11]
Speaker 2: The archive is kind of a colonizing kind of way…
Speaker 6: No I'm keeping the archive beyond the Acid-Free as I've said for my thing like keeping it, by calling myself the Archive although the Archive is there you know I'm keeping it beyond the Acid-Free by action and by performing it.
Speaker 1: Anthony's was quite – I mean I had questions rather than it could be a point as well. One of the most interesting archives of conceptual art in the 60's is the [1:45:49] [Inaudible] archive from Argentina and the person the woman who is the owner of that archive or basically who has that archive is [1:46:02] [Inaudible]. And the most interesting thing about that archive is when she talks about it, well you can see the pictures and you can read the texts and it's been – but it's really when she was there when she points at it and says, oh this was when…
Speaker 6: Yes this is what I find that I was going into the archive and I said, oh did we do that and something, something it was Adrian Glew's up on here recording the archive as I speak so there's a lot of that sort of going on to actually…
Speaker 2: And he could probably just do a lot of that on Facebook, just use Facebook to archive your every move and your…
Speaker 6: I mean this is rather what's happening to my house if I've got cameras up here you know from there so that anything I'm making is you know – I'm making and I'm sifting and you know this is what the stand report about or the population is and this is what we were coming up. I mean its' a nightmare, you've got cameras coming up me all the time.
Speaker 2: So when we get to visit you basically it wouldn't be a part of your archive…
Speaker 6: Yes you won't.
Speaker 1: Okay we have a question here actually I think David I think from Post Autonomy has asked three questions now – should I read them or would David want to come on and read them yourself?
Speaker 2: If he does then I'll have to turn off the – hold on a second David…
Speaker 6: I love that.
Speaker 1: Yeah that's what he is suggesting – okay go ahead and do that okay, well actually one was a bit…
Speaker 3: I think three is the letter to him…
Speaker 2: Okay one was in the context for this was you were talking – well I'm not exactly sure the context – the context was yeah thanks – well let me just ask this question, you'll probably get a better sense than I do. Does this include a nostalgic view of the former Avant Garde scripts such as the 0+1…
Speaker 1: O + I …
Speaker 2: Oh is that what he was referring to – I thought he was talking about something else but then okay then I do get that. Yeah so does that include the nostalgic view of the former Avant Garde groups such as Organization + Imagination? I'm not sure I completely understand…
Speaker 1: You know it was in reference to the Marxist question about things becoming fetishized and becoming derivatives or by-products, standing in for the real thing and to what extent is O + I susceptible to that kind of a pitfall and to what extent is it avoided, I think this is his question. That was his first question, and the second…
Speaker 2: Maybe we should just kind of go one at a time…
Speaker 6: I don’t know what I could quite sort of part of this – perhaps Anthony can be drawn in here. Well one of the things is that we changed the name from APG for the couple of reasons given; the arts institutions were apparently doing something which was not for artist's original intention. Also as Flat Town House with John's works and theories is an active spore you might say and because I Am An Archive is the other active spore in the process of knowing or not until there's something relevant that will come out of this present thing to really – whatever it is consuming you have to keep this organization going for something and so you can consider this a spore, here is a spore so it is something else and organize in a morph stage and this is maybe this is what it's morphing into.
Speaker 2: Yeah I get the sense that…
Speaker 6: I don’t know whether that's a…
Speaker 2: It's not purely an archiving, it's just a keepsake or something.
Speaker 6: Absolutely not, it's an active living thing about practice and the relevance of practice of this type of artist engagement and you know society is not…
[1:50:37]
Speaker 1: This leads to David's second question which is more sort of deep cutting question is this: Isn't the overall question here whether there is a continued value in the Avant Garde and to extend that question the value of autonomous artists and the privilege role of the artist in shaping reality. It's true that throughout the discussion there has been a presupposition that – both a privilege and of agency. I mean not all artists have this privilege role because they can actually change reality. I think that David is wanting to question both whether artists really do shape reality and just what – is it really anything more than just a privilege to do whatever sort of top full range shenanigans that occurs to them.
Speaker 6: Well I know the word privilege hangs around the word artist and also has done. I do actually believe that art expressions do and can change things and always have done the history and when they contextualize in different places they will take an effect on their context and people that they are encroached with and this is my belief and this is what I've seen and this is what is clear I think the case. Of course by moving into these different context of meeting up against the things that are going to be a completely different sample form of what it is that this context is not going to make of this so called privileged Incidental Person con-artist or whatever.
Speaker 5: And I think the notion of the Incidental Person makes a more interesting answer is because it implies that not to assume that artist is…
Speaker 6: Not assuming that he is an artist…
Speaker 5: The work is so self contained but he needs the context and all the operational contextual place which…
Speaker 6: And also that by using perhaps that term it can apply to any person, specialists who is working using the skills of that particular you know knowledge, life development that they've been set on the course of involved in that sense. I mean it's interesting that Stuart was actually sort of saying a bit there about you know it could be anything, I don't have to be a bloody officer I guess you know it could be anything. So I do think Incidental Person however annoyed people might have been at that time and however cultish it might be on the privileged term artist could be a useful one to deploy for an expert and I will take away the word privilege because it's just kind of different set of skills.
Speaker 1: But the question is strategies did take advantage of the privilege the symbolic…
Speaker 6: Absolutely, absolutely…
Speaker 1: Like why are you able to have a strong negotiating position at times – the Ministers, the Councilors…
Speaker 6: It has been something else, I have been accused of that.
Speaker 1: Certainly on that accusation but I mean it's clear that was part of the strategy and that anyone has the right to look like a Cabinet Minister first of all to get a meeting with a Cabinet Minster and look them into their eyes and listen this is what – this, that and the other thing and be taken seriously.
[1:55:06]
Speaker 6: Yeah but as you can see as Tony Benn is saying there was no difference –we're all people and okay some managed to get to Tony Benn because he lived up the road you know. So you wouldn't bump into him in the station but you meet whoever they are whether they are cabinet ministers or steel workers or apprentices or something as he says on that thing they are all people and that's somehow this – you're carrying your skill – also I'm messing about John…
Speaker 1: I think you're right you know if we are talking about competency and about the privilege state sans the artist that I figured I'm kind of curious to hear what he was saying…
Speaker 5: I probably thought Avant Garde…
Speaker 1: No I just felt you were sort of back paddling your efforts because you may have been going up force but I kind of found the connection…
Speaker 6: No I mean I do feel very strongly and I know I don't have to say I feel strongly I mean it is recognized throughout history about the artist and the part of being able to change something because of a recognition or fusion in another off of something that they feel is the truth about the human race or something like that. Is all I'm saying is bring another specialist and it's not a privilege and maybe we could use the term Incidental Person, I'm just saying really this other one being and fight back the capitalist structure on which will use artist – you know use oh we’ve got the artist now or something in whatever way.
But it's a different fight and we have to do but it's a very good fight that we can use as stuff to fight with.
Speaker 7: Maybe in all it's existence we use of the first part of the Incidental which is the incident…
Speaker 6: The Incident.
Speaker 7: And I think that it is also this strategy would affect me – help you with a fighting chance you know there's definitely a sense you were creating a structure or organization or strategy that allows the chance and allows your…
Speaker 6: It has to allow for chance and it has to allow for risks and all – everybody knows that if you – if this is not allowed to take place well nothing can change and also you know I find it partly interesting talking with the civil service and management place – oh you know they all know all about these things about managing risk bar. We'd get the download about managing risks but the whole point about it was that they wouldn’t risk managing risk you know so maybe that's another interaction there.
Speaker 1: To rift a little bit on that question that a subject in question has been asked – one of the points of so called relation aesthetics have been most sort of…
Speaker 6: Is that Claire?
Speaker 1: Directly criticized is for making these sort of floorings out of the art world per se into the life or other life worlds. But not really to do anything of substance there but really to sort of behave in a really colonial fashion. In other words to colonize those life worlds and then to repatriate the objects or the artifacts really that would have been gleamed in this process back into the art world for the greater glorification of the artist and really of not much good at all. So I mean I wouldn't – so the question really was how is the use of space as APG used space and context by APG or Incidental Persons different from this colonization of life worlds which we – which unfortunately we are really, really problematic which used to be called relational aesthetics.
Speaker 6: Well I could be very interested in Claire coming up to our thing because she's done a lot of research for APG and said that it was very different and this is why I wanted to know what are the things that she was finding – what were they different.
[2:00:03]
I think I can go along with that idea of going on colonizing and then bringing back again and having it for the artist because I don’t think the worlds like that now. I mean if you look at absolutely every form of anything it's all being a part of everything else and you know the internet and sampling of music and I don't think it's colonized and brought back again and I think it's taking a different direction and making something new. I don’t think it’s called the art world if you see what I mean. I'm probably not doing very well in here, remember I'm not an academic.
Speaker 2: If I can interject for a second, can I speak up here for just a second?
Speaker 6: What do you mean speak out for me…
Speaker 2: I'm just kidding…
Speaker 6: I don't even understand how Skype is skyping I mean I don't…
Speaker 2: I mean I was just telling them that but basically about specifically Artist Placement Group – the Organization + Imagination, I feel like it's a bit different here than in the UK, even the awareness of that work but my understanding is that this is not necessarily even though we're talking about maybe at least 40 years later you know like it's not necessarily highly visible even currently what was going on then. I feel like it's easier to level that critic when artists are much more visible and it's sort of obvious that a lot of the secondary game that we're getting is for the enhancement of careers or you know we are sort of claiming a lot or gaining a lot from that work. Basically the possible facts of what these sort of social practices like have is in those cases its' really easy and often times probably true to say that they are like secondary if that too. Like the benefit that we are getting for ourselves you know but I feel like I'm not sure that that was necessarily case for – I mean it would be harder for…
Speaker 1: It's a sober question to ask though because it's all to easy to suppose that you know art is good and more art is therefore better and that is kind of one of the built in suppositions I think of art in public space, in the broader sense of public space which actually wasn’t a private space, business spaces and so on.
Speaker 6: I would question the word good, I mean I don’t think more out or art is good it is what could be said to be going on to use a John Latham phrase that anything is happening and is being made here like don’t make more follies, don't be you know – just question what it is, the action is. Now that this so called art and Incidental Person is out there and is affecting much more than his you know – I mean he is in contact much more. I want to say affecting it does or doesn't so I don’t think I wouldn’t ever sort of say art is good or art is something that I could say for instance, that art does affect change and therefore where one does it and when one does it and whatever it is that one does needs to be questioned very, very strongly.
Speaker 7: We could request certain questions if you allow us –someone asked about that the other day and maybe I can ask that if you don't mind…
Speaker 6: Sure.
Speaker 7: Elise Lozano was asking that she'd like to know your opinions Barbara on change like really what that means were where you've seen this happened historically, and what you felt were the APG impacts. I think that may have been addressed briefly on that.
Speaker 6: Why don’t you – using those on placements again you know the ones that I have quoted and I haven't quoted I think there was a…
Speaker 1: Barbara I just want to make a connection…
Speaker 2: I think I lost that interaction earlier – well we might as well keep talking until that gets resolved…
[2:05:05]
Speaker 6: I just think about change that the areas that definitely have sort of changed I mean for instance there was a change in the marketing director ICI who said you know he may have thought of this was great and this would affect future managers of ICI but he was the one that dropped out rather than you know the artist and stuff that lead to this sort of change. I think that what happened on the Esso Tanker was a big amount of change on the people that they came up against. What against – came out who they touch with, I think it 's affected the art institution whether for good or bad I don't know I mean there would be lots of change as a result of the actions. Steel Corporation had lots of change, the artists involved in my works – it was amazing to get in these different venues. There was a Lisa coming from – it wasn't the Lisa from Flat Town House was it?
Speaker 2: No she is on the – I don't think so, she's doing a socialist colony project in the US on the West Coast. I'm sorry I'm forgetting the exact state right now but it's yeah it's in the US.
Speaker 6: There was definitely a lot of changes on both sides I mean it was typical change and that's of just the individuals but then how it actually affected a bigger policy change or something I think the Germans or Scottish – I have to go into each of them with details. It's definitely changed, hastened or brought on a new position for artist engagement in society in a wider way whether that's a good thing or a bad thing – I'm not using good.
Speaker 5: Well good because I was just going to say that [2:07:15] [Inaudible] was one of the – he was one of the founders of Xerox part, he had this term productive friction that we already spoke about and there's this other artist from Canada Darren O'Donnell and he wrote this book, Social Acupuncture and it's about – this idea that working in other organizations and this is like less specific like APG is working in an institution but he had this – he compared this to acupuncture which is really painful and you've got to feel something but it's painful. So I think the definitions that involve the foreground and understanding are actually…
Speaker 6: That's an interesting take.
Speaker 1: We're on my computer here.
Speaker 8: Alright great, thanks Steven.
Speaker 1: I think we are just about done, that was a good question coming – I'm afraid you've missed the answer to it. Next time.
Speaker 8: So I'll be.
Speaker 6: Who is that guy?
Speaker 1: it’s Greg from the Atlanta…
Speaker 6: Alright, right.
Speaker 8: Hi how are you thank you so much for an amazing, amazing talk.
Speaker 1: You've had a busy day Barbara maybe we should wind it…
Speaker 2: Well in fact normally just before eight sometime we generally wind things up it's just been so interesting that I haven't even realized until the internet cut for me but…
Speaker 6: So does it cut off after a certain time, okay.
Speaker 7: If you could just you know people who were talking can have an audio recording and can give you the…
Speaker 2: That would be great yeah – I don’t know if you guys have heard that at all because our mics probably not connected…
Speaker 1: Yeah this is my computer mic there would be a number of events this week at Apexart around this exhibition the Incidental Person and on Saturday there will be a panel discussion with Barbara.
Speaker 6: And Noah Latham who is just flying here…
Speaker 1: Yes and there's also…
Speaker 6: Garth Evans also and Judy Martin is that tomorrow?
Speaker 1: And Anthony Hudek has generously offered to give us a copy of that debate which had to do something with post on the Plausible Worlds what's that – should we wind up to that?
Speaker 2: Absolutely yeah, definitely this is really interesting we will continue right now.
Speaker 6: I wanted to hear much more about Post Art worlds but I don't just have much time to…
Speaker 1: You are more than welcome, thank you so much Barbara. Thank you to Anthony also for making this possible and thank you very much to Steven Ranch and…
Speaker 6: Where is he?
Speaker 1: Somewhere, he's in the wings somewhere. It was a good pleasure.
Speaker 6: Thank you, thank you.
[2:10:24] End of Audio