Subversive Dialogue

An Extremist Approach to Sociological Art

CLARK.

I am an artist, in many senses of the word, but one may never realise that
they have seen my work.
You may already be a subject.
I stand by a rhetoric that venerates the influence of the subversive, in order
to truly engage with the spectator. This is because an artists main objective, in
my eyes, is to affect their audience to the best of their creative ability. However, I
also believe that art is hamstrung within its own sociological boundariesThe gallery, the frame, the canvas
They all hold connotations negative and positive aspects of value,
creativity and often, of pretentiousness and exclusivity.
This stigma limits the possibility of a strong response from the subject.
I aim to correct this, through a body of work solely focused on sociological
influence. Unnoticed but not unseen, unaccounted but influential.
As such, this portfolio is not a series of visual pieces, but a breakdown of
my concept and what I hope to achieve as it grows.
Please find enclosed, my practise.

Content
1. Foreword
2. Post-mortem
The Physical

3. Post-mortem
The Concept and Aim

4. The Rebirth
5. A Short Critical Analysis
Tino Sehgal and the Authenticity of Experience

6. Conclusions and Bibliography

Post-Mortem
Part One: The Physical

The previous incarnations of my practise have had three consistent aspects:

The Action, the Reaction and the Dialogue. Firstly, I will attempt to outline these
in the most concise way possible, as they form the foundation for the process
itself.
The Action
This takes the form of social interaction or influence, performed by an
actor - dubbed the Co-conspirator. The Action is heavily scripted and can range
from minor behaviours, such as repeated use of a specific terminology, to a much
more dramatic event, like an audible argument or the insertion of an enigmatic
individual.
There is no reason for the audience around this performance to interpret
it as anything other than a genuine event and as such, they are impacted on a
much more human level than those watching a play or an artistic piece. For
example, one can only assume that observing Romeo commit suicide on stage is
less scarring than watching a friend attempting it in reality.
This is one of the many reasons why these pieces remain consciously
subversive- but I digress.
The Reaction
Often in previous iterations I have also included a lengthened testing
process at the end of the actual piece, in order to assess the successfulness of
the action taken. This is in usually isolated incidences where I can correlate my
goal (emotive influence, engagement with certain theological subjects, etc.) with
the general consensus throughout the audience.
In my very early work I would wait until the subject had left the space and
question them, often taking notes, but in my later work found that I could simply
add a few more co-conspirators to the group. These play the role of the
Researcher, talking casually with those affected, creating a much more genuine
feel and didnt harm the illusion of reality, while still providing a relevant amount
of statistics to analyse.
One of the constant questions about this process is on which aspect is the
actual piece The performance, or the statistics that follow. I am undecided.
The Dialogue
As an artist, people expect you to be able to explain your work, whether
you are formally justifying yourself, or simply chatting. This was an issue for me, as
I would ideally prefer nobody to know anything of my practise, otherwise the
psychological impact may be dampened by some innate sense of social paranoia.
To subdue the inquisitive nature of those around me, I adopted a persona, dubbed
CLARK. I would wear a suit while studying, and practise a very convoluted, overtly
pretentious pattern of speech and writing. I would also script responses to
questions, almost like an FAQ, wherein I could effectively nullify any interrogation
with a high success rate. This has proved to be a very transferrable skill, and
something that I now use on a daily basis in non-art social interactions.
I effectively aimed to dramatize the mythos of the artist, utilising the same
aspects that I believe ostracize a lot of subjects from truly engaging with artwork
the exclusivity and nonchalance of the pretentious creator.

Post-Mortem
Part Two: The Concept and Aim

There is a sense of irony in talking about how art hamstrings itself with
sociological stigma, and then counteracting it by doing the same to myself in such
an extreme way, but there is method. I have already touched upon the
fundamentals of why I believe I must be subversive to create something genuine,
but it is much more than my personal opinion. A staple in my research is proven
sociological and psychological theorems; observing many aspects but focusing
mostly on the concepts of Structuralism and Utilitarianism - treating them as
opposing sides of the same coin. This materialises as objectives within my current
work, but the interest in the context of this stems from a specific test,
independent from this newer rhetoric:
The Milgram Experiment, now renowned in its success, was a series of short
tests set up in 1963 to observe obedience. I could write pages about the physical
nature of the test but I would be going on a rather long tangent. Suffice to say, the
work was incredibly successful in solidifying the notion of an authority figure
affecting an individuals actions much further than one would expect. In this case,
to a point where the subject would think they were administering a deadly dose of
electricity to another volunteer. This was all false, of course, but a high
percentage did follow the orders - with a degree of trepidation.
Years ago, when I read about this work, I found myself interpreting the
findings much more broadly than the study intended. I would question as to the
authority figures in the confines of my work, as an artist, or the outside stigma
that affect our outcomes. If such a small influence can directly change someones
decision-making so drastically, are there outlying influences that I had failed to
consider?
I started to think that the gallery itself was against both me, and my
audience. The clinical, laboratory-like setting, housing perfectly framed,
meticulously crafted imagery, all intended to make me respond in a certain
manner or to think in a certain way, seemed like a subversive evil haunting my
attempts to create true art.
So I chose to control it, lest it control me.
My methodology has evolved drastically over time, but is usually kept to a
similar format, keeping in-kind with social testing practises. I would subversively
invade exhibitions, or curate exhibitions in which I would create a testing
paradigm. If I heard of an exhibition that boasted about how fun and interactive it
would be, it would be my job to see if I could counteract that, focusing on looking
at the responses of the individuals therein and the group independently. Then
judging whether the techniques I had used were accurately mirroring an
authoritative influence.
As I grew as a sociological artist, I found considerable influence from
researching of the Sociological Art Collective, particularly Herv Fischer, and his
later work with Ecole Sociologique Interrogative. I also gained a certain amount of
religious fervor when I was introduced to the work of Tino Sehgal, while keeping a
steady dialogue over the artists closer to the roots my practice, such as Allen
Kaprow. I will be going in to more depth on a singular example of these practices in
a shot critique, later in this portfolio.
Ultimately, it is this grey area between the artist and the social scientist
that I gingerly attempt to tread.

The Rebirth
So my ultimatum, essentially breaks down to; the reality of the situation
leading to the effect on the subject and the lingering change of state therein.
However, it is the foundations of this that lead me to consider a lot of my previous
work a monumental failure.
While I am an individual that has always been incredibly critical of my work,
I have now completely dismissed a lot of what I have already achieved. Despite
how statistically, a lot of my work has proven my theories demonstrably successful.
The reality of the situation, is the key.
My curse, I suppose, has been to think inside of artistic boundaries, as a lot
of my pieces have been within gallery spaces. It parallels the reason why this
concept arose, but doesnt take to heart the truest nature of the interactions
within my goal. My argument has been that artistic stigma is exclusionary and often
nullify any true engagement, however I have rarely done work in a public setting.
You may have noticed that while I have been explaining the technical side
of my work and its roots, I havent named a single piece of actual art. Nor have I
quoted my dissertation or the nature of my Degree Show exhibition. This was a
conscious decision, as they are now invalid.
A scientist doesnt linger on his failed tests, he takes notes as to why it
failed and moves on with his process.
Thus, as I progress to an MA course, my intention is clear: I will move my
practise out of the constriction of the gallery, and in to reality. My testing
framework itself will provide the skeletal structure on which to base the meatier
elements of my sociological rhetoric, such as; structuralism against utilitarianism
the individual against the group chaos against structure.
Not only will the newer placement of these pieces strengthen the initial
concept of the overarching logic, but it will also forge a newer context on which to
build. My work will no longer be solely an observation on the sociological
imperfections of art. Instead, it can now engage with aspects that are external, far
broader and more accessible.
I would like to explore the immediacy of interaction and the effect on
different generations of subjects, as I believe social media is a strong contributing
factor in the way the sociological makeup of our society is evolving. As an
individual who doesnt visit any of these websites, I consider myself as a
conscientious objector; in prime position to treat it as a social structure to be
tested. I would also ideally work towards a much larger piece, placed in locations
around a town or city, to attempt to influence much larger groups as a whole, with
the goal of creating a universal sense of community between the otherwise
unrelated participants.
This brings us to why this work needs to exist because genuine social
interaction is becoming much rarer. People even a couple years younger than me
are choosing to stay at home consistently, whether that is watching something that
falsifies emotional engagement with them, or taking part in a faux-social structure.
That is the context of my work, not just within the current artistic
paradigm but also in all aspects of modern life.
As I attempt to solidify this practise, my research methodology will take the
form a series of short debates, often to assess the validity of artists or individuals
that consider themselves to be doing something intrinsically social. From Allen
Kaprows Happenings and related contemporary art, to the Youtuber prank
channels redubbing their work as Social Experiments, to modern scientific theory.

A Short Critical Analysis

Tino Sehgal and the Authenticity of Experience

Artistic inspiration can come from many places, whether they are seen as
positive or not is an interesting dicotomy. For all intents and purposes, Tino
Sehgal; the German artist, currently respected within the world of social art, has
a very similar practise to my own. He refuses visual documentation of his work,
focusing on immediate social aspects above a potentially second-hand audience
member. He also dubs his work constructed situations and hates the mention of
his pieces in comparison to a performance, arguing that his practise breaks away
from theatrical norms.
His practise within this theory has been quite eclectic, but has always kept
these principles as a core component. In this short text, I will attempt to compare
the merits of two of his most recent shows; These Associations (The Unilever
Series, Tate Modern, 24 July28 October 2012) and This is So Contemporary (John
Kaldors Public Art Projects, Gallery of New South Wales, 2014.)
Firstly, These Associations, acted as a singular event, constructed with a
large group of individuals housed within the Turbine Hall of the Tate Modern. They
would approach gallery-goers as they entered, often talking about a deeply
personal issue, both positives and negatives alike. The intent of this seems to be to
impact the unwitting participant with something intrinsically human often a level
of interaction that you dont see in reality, let alone within a gallery space.
Following that show two years later with a piece that has been re-exhibited
for over ten years now. This is so Contemporary, includes three interpreters
chanting and dancing. They would stay frozen, then suddenly jerk to life, shouting
This is so contemporary! and gyrating madly, before returning to position and
repeating the process.
The actuality of the two pieces are dramatically opposed; as one is very
human, and the other is quite knowingly artsy. However, which one wouldve
affected the audience more? The benefits of the much crazier approach would be
to shock and awe the befuddled subject in to submission, providing an anecdote for
those involved at the very least. It would make the subject vulnerable, as you
physically force the concept toward them. However, my argument is that of
subtlety.
In comparison, These Associations, doesnt hold nearly as much artistic
baggage and instead focuses on the genuine nature of human interaction. There is
an element of chaos, intrinsic with the aforementioned work, but it is merely
through the number of individuals and the differing dialogues - not through the
action itself. However, there is a parallel to be drawn with my conversation over
the constricting nature of the gallery space within social art. While there is a clear
merit toward These Associations, as it does effect on a very human level, it is still
housed within the gallery. The space that limits response.
Sehgals work is always within a gallery or a museum, yet I have found a
few moments when even he has touched on this issue. One often forgets that
even if art is a very successful field in contemporary culture, there are still a lot of
people alienated by it, he states in an interview for W magazine, Even if people
dont fully understand where my work is coming from, at least theres somebody
who looks kind of sane standing in front of you and politely engaging with you.
People react.
This is my point exactly, that despite the steps made by These Associations
to create something that people will react to and interact with, it is ultimately
dampened by the awareness of the art and the social alienation of the gallery
space. That piece couldve been exhibited with no stigma attached, but instead
found itself dubbed art to its detriment.

Closing Statement
I understand that this approach is rather unorthodox not just the art, but
the way in which I have chosen to submit my application. I also apologise that
reading through this is probably quite taxing, however I could not think of a more
constructive way to show you my work than to explain it in detail. Hopefully it
shows enough merit to warrant such an avant-garde approach.
Thank you for considering me for a placement at your university.
I look forward to seeing you soon.

CLARK.

Condensed Bibliography
Only cited when directly referenced extended bibliography
available on request.
Page 3 Lunt, Peter K. Stanley Milgram: Understanding Obedience and Its
Implications. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Print.
Page 5 "Tino Sehgal." Tate. Tate Modern, n.d. Web.
Cumming, Laura. "Tino Sehgal: These Associations Review." The Guardian.
Guardian News and Media, 28 July 2012. Web.
Stein, Danielle. "Tino Sehgal." Tino Sehgal Comments. W Magazine, 27 Oct.
2009. Web.