Background articles for ICA discussion

Two other Anthony Davies texts on Metamute are essential if this debate on the ICA is to be understood in a wider context. As well as his original Culture Clubs (2000) written with Simon Ford the two texts are:

1. Basic Instinct: Trauma and Retrenchment 2000-4 (2005)http://www.metamute.org/en/Basic-Instinct-Trauma-a...

Basic instinct alludes to the reassertion of capitals core values within the art scene.

It starts with a reference to the previous director at the ICA:"When the director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London, Philip Dodd, announced his resignation in July 2004 claiming that the UK had become 'curiously insular', the only surprise was that no one questioned his diagnosis. It was seemingly a given that Dodd, architect of one of Britain's most emblematic 'outward-looking' cultural nodes of the last decade, could call time on London's claim to be the world's most culturally exciting city. The 21st century, he announced, belonged to China.[1][1] Nigel Reynolds, 'Swipe at Britain as arts chief quits', The Daily Telegraph, 20 July 2004"Art now seeks to de-link itself from the broader Creative Industries and is infused with the imperative to set standards of quality, articulate vocabularies of expertise, and cater reliably to the diverse markets spanning both subsidised and 'commercial' art worlds.""The desire to create 'a society in the UK where the arts are more effectively integrated with business than almost anywhere else in the world' meant, of course, that the arts had become subject not only to business values but, critically, even more closely 'integrated' into the vagaries of business trends and economic cycles."

Within this context Davies suggests the way right tendencies tend to infiltrate and manipulate progressive movements and networks as the efforts from above to integrate the market mechanisms as cultural supports continues apace in the atmosphere of neoliberal authoritarianism that was increasingly possible after 9/11."In most cases, the primary explanatory architecture welded together a supposed backlash against the 'aggressive' identity politics and theoretical cul-de-sacs of the late 1980s and early 1990s with a sense of disdain for the celebrity-fixated, populist venality of the yBa"

"In the UK meanwhile, after a decade of false starts, an assault on the interdisciplinary and intersectoral proliferations of the 1990s started to gain currency in reactionary registers such as the New Gentleness and New Formalism. Common to the presentation of all these 'post-yBa' and 'post-Sensation' idioms was a clear sense of periodisation and place which, contrary to claims made for the art being 'uncluttered by the relics of history',[1] in fact anchored it to history ­ through a doggedly narrow account of the 1990s British (or rather London/Glasgow) cultural scene"[1] JJ Charlesworth, Not Neo But New , Art Monthly, no. 259, September 2002

"Where corporatisation ­ as part and parcel of a model of convergence ­ implied increased integration with the business community and compliance with its administrative and managerial infrastructures, marketisation relies on models of divergence and individuation. Under the jurisdiction of the State, the burden of provision, valorisation and autonomy is moved onto a carefully modelled, differentiated social system in which the relationship between individual artists and educated consumers moves to the centre ground."

"The art market, Wheatley opines, is closely intertwined with the history of modernism and artists have always had a symbiotic relationship with the gallery/dealer system ­ though symbiosis in this case means that 'sometimes you have to sup with so-called devils to ensure that important work is seen.' The only difficulties this situation throws up are linked to understanding the complex interplay between specialists that result in legitimation, consensus and subscription ­ the 'quite special way' in which the art market manipulates and generates its own demand."

2. Take me I'm Yours: Neoliberalising the Cultural Institution (2008)http://www.metamute.org/en/Take-Me-Im-Yours

Here Davies asks the question of whether we can leave cultural policy making to the culture industry 'professionals' ie management class. His answer is that this would only lead to a critical dead end. The"Museum of Contemporary Art, Barcelona not only ‘commands’ criticism but lays down the terms and conditions in which it can take place. It does it by offering its facilities and expertise, by inviting the big international celebrity activists to further politicise their ‘trustees’, and generally help to integrate anti-capitalist and social movements into its programme. As Gerald Raunig puts it:A productive game emerges here in the relationship between activists and institution, which is neither limited to a co-optation of the political by the institution, nor to a simple redistribution of resources from the progressive art institution to the political actions.[2]"This then begs the question whether, for all the autocritique conducted by institutional directors, curators and activists, for all the talk of transnational networks linking up radical reformist elements, what tangible ‘progressive’ change has occurred within art institutions?So however much lip service is given to radical programmes the end result is going to be zero in relation to the economic position of artworkers, because the corporate interest will assert itself beneath the surface of any progressive rhetoric.

On top of this I would say that the recuperation of activism is not in an equal exchange for resources given. This is a false equation.

[2] Gerald Raunig, 'The Double Criticism of parrhesia. Answering the Question “What is a Progressive (Art) Institution?”’,http://www.republicart.net/disc/institution/raunig...

Digested whilst listening to 'The Poverty of Philosophy' by Immortal Technique.