The Crucifixion Considered As An Uphill Bicycle Race
by Alfred Jarry
From The Selected Works of Alfred Jarry
(Grove Press, 1965).
Translated by Roger Shattuck.
Barabbas, slated to race, was scratched.
Pilate, the starter, pulling out his clepsydra or water clock, an operation which wet his hands unless he had merely spit on them -- Pilate gave the send-off.
Jesus got away to a good start.
In those days, according to the excellent sports commentator St. Matthew, it was customary to flagellate the sprinters at the start the way a coachman whips his horses. The whip both stimulates and gives a hygienic massage. Jesus, then, got off in good form, but he had a fiat right away. A bed of thorns punctured the whole circumference of his front tire.
Today in the shop windows of bicycle dealers you can see a reproduction of this veritable crown of thorns as an ad for puncture-proof tires. But Jesus's was an ordinary single-tube racing tire.
The two thieves, obviously in cahoots and therefore "thick as thieves," took the lead.
It is not true that there were any nails. The three objects usually shown in the ads belong to a rapid-change tire tool called the "Jiffy."
We had better begin by telling about the spills; but before that the machine itself must be described.
The bicycle frame in use today is of relativelv recent invention. It appeared around 1890. Previous to that time the body of the machine was constructed of two tubes soldered together at right angles. It was generally called the right-angle or cross bicycle. Jesus, after his puncture, climbed the slope on foot, carrying on his shoulder the bike frame, or, if you will, the cross.
Contemporary engravings reproduce this scene from photographs. But it appears that the sport of cycling, as a result of the well known accident which put a grievous end to the Passion race and which was brought up to date almost on its anniversary by the similar accident of Count Zborowski on the Turbie slope -- the sport of cycling was for a time prohibited by state ordinance. That explains why the illustrated magazines, in reproducing this celebrated scene, show bicycles of a rather imaginary design. They confuse the machine's cross frame with that other cross, the straight handlebar. They represent Jesus with his hands spread on the handlebars, and it is worth mentioning in this connection that Jesus rode lying flat on his back in order to reduce his air resistance.
Note also that the frame or cross was made of wood, just as wheels are to this day.
A few people have insinuated falsely that Jesus's machine was a draisienne , an unlikely mount for a hill-climbing contest. According to the old cyclophile hagiographers, St. Briget, St. Gregory of Tours, and St. Irene, the cross was equipped with adevice which they name suppedaneum. There is no need to be a great scholar to translate this as "pedal."
Lipsius, Justinian, Bosius, and Erycius Puteanus describe an other accessory which one still finds, according to Cornelius Curtius in 1643, on Japanese crosses: a protuberance of leather or wood on the shaft which the rider sits astride -- manifestly the seat or saddle.
This general description, furthermore, suits the definition of a bicycle current among the Chinese: "A little mule which is led by the ears and urged along by showering it with kicks."
We shall abridge the story of the race itself, for it has been narrated in detail by specialized works and illustrated by sculpture and painting visible in monuments built to house such art. There are fourteen turns in the difficult Golgotha course. Jesus took his first spill at the third turn. His mother, who was in the stands, became alarmed.
His excellent trainer, Simon the Cyrenian, who but for the thorn accident would have been riding out in front to cut the wind, carried the machine.
Jesus, though carrying nothing, perspired heavily. It is not certain whether a female spectator wiped his brow, but we know that Veronica, a girl reporter, got a good shot of him with her Kodak.
The second spill came at the seventh turn on some slippery pavement. Jesus went down for the third time at the eleventh turn, skidding on a rail.
The Israelite demimondaines waved their handkerchiefs at the eighth.
The deplorable accident familiar to us all took place at the twelfth turn. Jesus was in a dead heat at the time with the thieves. We know that he continued the race airborne -- but that is another story.
14th October 08 2nd Text
The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill Motor Race
by J.G Ballard
From the Evergreen Review Reader 1967-1973.Originally published in Evergreen #96, Spring 1973. From Love and Napalm: Export USA (Grove Press, 1969).
Author's note. The assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, raised many questions, not all of which were answered by the Report of the Warren Commission. It is suggested that a less conventional view of the events of that grim day may provide a more satisfactory explanation. Alfred Jarry's "The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race" gives us a useful lead.
Oswald was the starter.
From his window above the track he opened the race by firing the starting gun. It is believed that the first shot was not properly heard by all the drivers. In the following confusion, Oswald fired the gun two more times, but the race was already underway.
Kennedy got off to a bad start.
There was a governor in his car and its speed remained constant at about fifteen miles an hour. However, shortly afterwards, when the governor had been put out of action, the car accelerated rapidly, and continued at high speed along the remainder of the course.
The visiting teams. As befitting the inauguration of the first production car race through the streets of Dallas, both the President and the Vice-President participated. The Vice-President, Johnson, took up his position behind Kennedy on the starting line. The concealed rivalry between the two men was of keen interest to the crowd. Most of them supported the home driver, Johnson.
The starting point was the Texas Book Depository, where all bets were placed in the Presidential race. Kennedy was an unpopular contestant with the Dallas crowd, many of whom showed outright hostility. The deplorable incident familiar to us all is one example.
The course ran downhill from the Book Depository, below an overpass, then on to the Parkland Hospital and from there to Love Air Field. It is one of the most hazardous courses in downhill motor racing, second only to the Sarajevo track discontinued in 1914.
Kennedy went downhill rapidly. After the damage to the governor the car shot forward at high speed. An alarmed track official attempted to mount the car, which continued on its way cornering on two wheels.
Turns. Kennedy was disqualified at the hospital, after taking a turn for the worse. Johnson now continued the race in the lead, which he maintained to the finish.
The flag. To satisfy the participation of the President in the race Old Glory was used in place of the usual checkered square. Photographs of Johnson receiving his prize after winning the race reveal that he had decided to make the flag a memento of his victory.
Previously, Johnson had been forced to take a back seat, as his position on the starting line behind the President indicates. Indeed, his attempts to gain a quick lead on Kennedy during the false start were forestalled by a track steward, who pushed Johnson to the floor of his car.
In view of the confusion at the start of the race, which resulted in Kennedy, clearly expected to be the winner on past form, being forced to drop out at the hospital turn, it has been suggested that the hostile local crowd, eager to see a win by the home driver Johnson, deliberately set out to stop him completing the race. Another theory maintains that the police guarding the track were in collusion with the starter, Oswald. After he finally managed to give the send-off Oswald immediately left the race, and was subsequently apprehended by track officials.
Johnson had certainly not expected to win the race in this way. There were no pit stops.
Several puzzling aspects of the race remain. One is the presence of the President's wife in the car, an unusual practice for racing drivers. Kennedy, however, may have maintained that as he was in control of the ship of state he was therefore entitled to captain's privileges.
The Warren Commission. The rake-off on the book of the race. In their report, prompted by widespread complaints of foul play and other irregularities, the syndicate lay full blame on the starter, Oswald.
Without doubt, Oswald badly misfired. But one question still remains unanswered: Who loaded the starting gun?
by J.G Ballard
From the Evergreen Review Reader 1967-1973.Originally published in Evergreen #96, Spring 1973. From Love and Napalm: Export USA (Grove Press, 1969).
Author's note. The assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, raised many questions, not all of which were answered by the Report of the Warren Commission. It is suggested that a less conventional view of the events of that grim day may provide a more satisfactory explanation. Alfred Jarry's "The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race" gives us a useful lead.
Oswald was the starter.
From his window above the track he opened the race by firing the starting gun. It is believed that the first shot was not properly heard by all the drivers. In the following confusion, Oswald fired the gun two more times, but the race was already underway.
Kennedy got off to a bad start.
There was a governor in his car and its speed remained constant at about fifteen miles an hour. However, shortly afterwards, when the governor had been put out of action, the car accelerated rapidly, and continued at high speed along the remainder of the course.
The visiting teams. As befitting the inauguration of the first production car race through the streets of Dallas, both the President and the Vice-President participated. The Vice-President, Johnson, took up his position behind Kennedy on the starting line. The concealed rivalry between the two men was of keen interest to the crowd. Most of them supported the home driver, Johnson.
The starting point was the Texas Book Depository, where all bets were placed in the Presidential race. Kennedy was an unpopular contestant with the Dallas crowd, many of whom showed outright hostility. The deplorable incident familiar to us all is one example.
The course ran downhill from the Book Depository, below an overpass, then on to the Parkland Hospital and from there to Love Air Field. It is one of the most hazardous courses in downhill motor racing, second only to the Sarajevo track discontinued in 1914.
Kennedy went downhill rapidly. After the damage to the governor the car shot forward at high speed. An alarmed track official attempted to mount the car, which continued on its way cornering on two wheels.
Turns. Kennedy was disqualified at the hospital, after taking a turn for the worse. Johnson now continued the race in the lead, which he maintained to the finish.
The flag. To satisfy the participation of the President in the race Old Glory was used in place of the usual checkered square. Photographs of Johnson receiving his prize after winning the race reveal that he had decided to make the flag a memento of his victory.
Previously, Johnson had been forced to take a back seat, as his position on the starting line behind the President indicates. Indeed, his attempts to gain a quick lead on Kennedy during the false start were forestalled by a track steward, who pushed Johnson to the floor of his car.
In view of the confusion at the start of the race, which resulted in Kennedy, clearly expected to be the winner on past form, being forced to drop out at the hospital turn, it has been suggested that the hostile local crowd, eager to see a win by the home driver Johnson, deliberately set out to stop him completing the race. Another theory maintains that the police guarding the track were in collusion with the starter, Oswald. After he finally managed to give the send-off Oswald immediately left the race, and was subsequently apprehended by track officials.
Johnson had certainly not expected to win the race in this way. There were no pit stops.
Several puzzling aspects of the race remain. One is the presence of the President's wife in the car, an unusual practice for racing drivers. Kennedy, however, may have maintained that as he was in control of the ship of state he was therefore entitled to captain's privileges.
The Warren Commission. The rake-off on the book of the race. In their report, prompted by widespread complaints of foul play and other irregularities, the syndicate lay full blame on the starter, Oswald.
Without doubt, Oswald badly misfired. But one question still remains unanswered: Who loaded the starting gun?
6th May 08 1st Text
What kind of a community is a community that is an artwork?
How do communities that are artworks compare to communities that are not artworks?
By Alex Locket
Introduction
This essay makes a comparison between the community movement developed by Rudolf Steiner and 'AVL-Ville', a community set up by the art group AVL. 'AVL-Ville' is a community that is an artwork where as Steiner communities are not art related. As such, the way 'AVL-Ville' and Steiner communities' function, their fundamental concerns, and their internal structures are different. This essay explores these differences; what does it mean for a community to be an artwork, how does a community function in the art world, and what happens when a community is put into an art (rather than spiritual/ religious or philosophical) context. These communities are interesting to compare and explore because they have similar ideas about ways of living and lifestyle, but have very different organizational structures and motives. One community is a religious community, this is interesting to compare with an art community because art and culture are closely allied to religion, and both are a matter of belief
AVL-Ville and Steiner communities have very different origins; one is spiritual and educational and the other is art and business driven. Rudolf Steiner put forward a social and religious philosophy (Anthroposophy) in the early twentieth century. This philosophy developed practically and is present in many spheres of life such as food, education, architecture, and medicine. There are around 1000 Steiner communities worldwide. The Anthroposophy Society's main base is in the Goetheanum, a building that is located in Steiner community in Basel, Switzerland. Atelier van Lieshout- Ville was a (micro) community that was set up in 2001 in a harbour in Rotterdam, Amsterdam. It was established to provide a living and workspace for Joep van Lieshout and his workers (together known as AVL). AVL-Ville was declared a free state by AVL, an autonomous space where anything is possible. The community existed for eight months before closing down. AVL-Ville was a community that existed within the remit of the 'art world'; it was a community that was put into a capitalist, utopian, and market driven framework. The different origins, motivations, frameworks, and organizational structures, behind the two communities make AVL-Ville and Steiner communities internally different. But, on a practical and daily life bases these communities function similarly.
This essay also briefly looks at other artworks that deal with the idea of the community but in ways other than actually setting up a community. Kaye Donachie's work explores the community in the medium of paint. I will also look at the phenomena of Andy Warhol where parallels can be drawn between his work AVL-Ville's work. Andy Warhol is the most socially significant artist of the late twentieth century, 'relational aesthetics' and the community were very important to him.
• Similarities between AVL-Ville and Steiner communities
The lifestyle and outward appearance of AVL-Ville and Steiner communities is similar. They both have concerns about architecture, food, medicine, education, and art. These are all things that communities need in order to be self-sufficient and challenge state monopolies.
• Agriculture and the environment
AVL- Ville and Steiner communities adopt similar attitudes towards self-sufficiency and farming. Both AVL- Ville and Steiner communities grow their own food, and raise and slaughter their own animals. Both value self-sufficiency over convenience. Van Lieshout was taught by a traditional butcher how to slaughter and prepare a pig. The instructions and photos of how to do this are published in AVL's Manual . Biodynamic farming is a method used by Anthroposopist's. It is a method which pre-dates the organic system (but is organic) but also based on planetary movements, magnetic fields, special composting methods, and special preparations for the soil (such as bulls horns stuffed with manure, and burning slugs and sprinkling the ashes on the earth).
Both AVL and Steiner have a general concern for the environment. At AVL-Ville there is an energy plant that runs on waste and biogas, a biological effluent water purification plant, and compost toilets. They have a machine that generates biogas and cooks - the machine enables animal and human manure to produce gas which is then used for cooking. AVL-Ville also had windmills that power some of the buildings. Both communities take care of the environment, indeed rule 8 in AVL's constitution is - 'All participants have to respect, maintain, and improve the environment'.
• Self-sufficiency
AVL and Steiner communities also have the same DIY attitude. The people who live at AVL- Ville and in Steiner communities have the experience making dwelling spaces, of growing vegetables, of raising animals, of making compost toilets, of making fires for cooking, of making furniture, of building according to their specific architectural beliefs and requirements. Rudolf Steiner believed that humans developed and learnt through using their hands and that they continue to develop and learn through using their hands. Without using their hands early human beings would not have been able to build shelters, or hunt and pick food. Catering for your everyday needs, being able to sustain yourself, and being self sufficient, is of great importance.
• Medicine
AVL and Rudolf Steiner both challenge accepted medical views. Although they have different ideas about medicine (almost opposite ideas), the ideas that they do have are unconventional. At AVL-Ville there was an operational and fully equipped hospital complete with a waiting room, nurse's station, operating room, and recovery room. A small team of nurses and doctors ran the hospital. AVL has made other medical works such as an abortion clinic. "Women on Waves' was a floating information and abortion clinic, located just outside the 12 mile zones of countries where abortion is illegal. AVL's view of the human being is cold and mechanistic; man is seen as an assemblage of pipes and organs. Man is seen as a machine.
Anthroposophical medicine is a type of alternative medicine that uses plants and minerals grown in biodynamic gardens (rather than chemicals made in a laboratory) to make medicine. Anthroposophical medicine views man not as a machine but as a human being with a body, soul, and sprit. Conventional medicine treats only the body whereas Anthroposophical medicine treats the whole person with nature. AVL presents a savage view of modern medicine, that man is a machine.
• Education
Both the Steiner community and the AVL community offer educational programs. However, Steiner's pedagogy is far more comprehensive and detailed than AVL's. Perhaps Steiner's biggest influence in wider society has been in education. Steiner schools have their own curriculum that is focused on the full and round development of the individual. There are around nine hundred Steiner schools and Kindergartens worldwide. The number of schools has seen a large increase in the past ten years as interest in the system has grown. Steiner's methods have been tried, adopted, and tested in state and private schools, and young offenders institutions in recent years. The schools are important because they keep the discussion of education open and alive within the wider education system.
Steiner Schools are not just for children. The Goetheanum, the centre of General Anthroposophical Society is The School of Spiritual Science. The School offers a path of inner development through gaining new kinds of knowing. It is a forum for human encounters in which people can share and explore their interests and struggles at understanding the world and Steiner's ideas. The School is divided into ten sections. The medical section devotes itself to medical and pharmaceutical research and training physicians, pharmacists, and therapists. The pedagogical section explores ideas in education and development of the human being based on the anthroposophical image of the human being. The agricultural department focuses on research, collaboration, and public representation in the areas of soil management, crop cultivation, animal husbandry, and the farm organism. The art section of the School teaches painting, sculpture, architecture, furniture design, glass engraving, and plant colour research. It also investigates ideas in art therapy and art education.
AVL-Ville Academy offers education to its participants. We can see a similar division in the curriculum at AVL-Ville as at the Goetheanum School. The AVL-Ville Academy offers short courses in practical areas such as 'The Art of Living', the tricks of the art trade, project management and marketing (the AVL theory), creative knowledge, and practical technical skills. The education provided is practical and no books are read. Those who look after the farm learn about agriculture, those who work in the marketing department learn business skills, those who make the artwork learn technical skills, and those who work in the AVL-Ville hospital learn medical skills. The Academy aims to train people in skills that are advantageous to the development to AVL-Ville. Although the Goetheanum school teaches subjects that are necessary for the continuation of the Steiner community it is also interested in developing the human being. Courses at the Goetheanum are open to everyone where as the AVL Academy is only available for those who live and work at AVL-Ville.
• Art and Culture
Both Steiner and AVL have a concern with art. AVL-Ville is an artwork and art is the reason that the community exists. The Rudolf Steiner community is not an artwork but art has an important role in the community. Rudolf Steiner placed huge importance on art and thought it was necessary for human development and expression. Steiner's interest in art was partly in the spiritual origins of art and in partly in its educational role. In Steiner's education system the arts are of vital importance both in and for themselves and for their ability to lay down the foundations for other kinds of learning; imagination is the seat of learning. Steiner brought artistic training into all fields of education. In Steiner schools at least three hours of the day is devoted to the arts. Art activities include painting, woodwork, metal work, glasswork, basket weaving, building, gardening, bookbinding, music, singing, theatre, and dance. According to Steiner these activities help develop the senses and help to build other skills, both intellectual and psychological.
AVL's interest in art is different from Steiner's interest. For AVL the community follows from the art. Art is way of exploring and trying to understand the workings of society. As an artwork AVL-Ville reflects society, the community model is used to explore wider issues. AVL-Ville is not an inward looking community like Steiner's is. AVL-Ville does what art does rather than what a community does. This is why AVL-Ville is an artwork and why Steiner communities are not.
Similarly, Kaye Donachie's work is about communities but the art comes before the community, so much so that the idea of the community and counter cultures is explored not by setting up a community but through painting. Donachie's work is the painting parallel to AVL-Ville. Donachie's other worldly paintings. Donachie's work has explored communes such as Monte Verita in Switzerland, the Manson family, the Friedrichshof Commune, and Commune 1. Her paintings suggest a post apocalyptic world, a world that deteriorated into factions of strange religious cults and tribal gangs. Donachie's most recent paintings are of Monte Verita, a utopian community founded in Switzerland at the beginning of the twentieth century. The commune was located on top of a hill, traditionally a place where the 'truth' was revealed. Monte Verita was a hetrotopia, a lived utopia where those who sought refuge from the industrial society that dominated Northern Europe at the time could go. Donachie uses portraiture and landscapes to reflect on the radical philosophies theorized and practiced in this other world. People sit in the woods by a campfire performing rituals. In other paintings people are dancing and singing. In another painting people are performing religious rituals. Strange looking bearded men sit naked reaching towards the sky. One painting is simply of a full moon, an image that has much spiritual significance. Indeed many of the activities discussed in the above sections (self sufficiency, food, buildings, people working together) are featured and discussed in Donachie's paintings.
• Architecture
Both communities have a particular utopian view towards architecture. Although AVL's functional Dutch utopian style architecture is different from Rudolf Steiner's Organic architecture, building plays a fundamental role in the development of both communities. Community and design have a symbiotic relationship. The way in which a community is housed influences group dynamics and the well being of the group. Both AVL and Steiner have an interest in good design.
Community and design fit together, each needing the other. For example, AVL's six-foot-long brown "Study Skull" contains only a bed and a desk, because what else is there to do but work and sleep and sleep and work? This paints the picture of a depersonalized society which is focused on work and money. 'Tampa Skull' is equipped with a single cooking appliance- a deep fryer. The sink is a mere two inches deep since Americans only eat fast food and seldom wash dishes. The way we behave and exist influence architectural design and our living quarters and environment shape the way we behave and exist.
The house we live in and the office we work in become more than just spaces. They are a part of us.
AVL design and architecture does not fit into the same scheme as Rudolf Steiner's, but there is a similar utopianism. At AVL-Ville there were a number of mobile buildings and living units, which could be extended upon if needed. Transportable and temporary structures were made because there are no building laws surrounding something that is movable and foundationless. Also, it is easier for the community to move on if they want to or of it is necessary to.
Through Steiner's interest in the alignment between science and nature, matter and sprit, he developed an anthropomorphic architecture. Steiner's buildings are inspired by nature; none of the buildings have right angles and thus reflect the non-angular shapes in nature and the human body. The buildings are self-sustainable and healthy; they are often powered by alternative energy sources; compost toilets are available for use; and the surrounding land is used for farming and growing food. Buildings are often located in idyllic and natural environments such as in forests, on mountains, and by rivers.
This idea of architecture is similar to James Lovelock's view. Lovelock devised the Gaia Charter for Organic Architecture and Design in the 1970's. Organic Architecture promotes harmony between man and nature through design, buildings, furniture, and the surroundings become part of a unified, interrelated composition. Lovelock gives a list of rules of what design should be :
Design should:
Be inspired by nature and be sustainable, healthy, conserving, and diverse
Unfold like an organism, from seed within
Exist in the 'continuous present' and begin 'again and again'
Follow the flows, and be flexible, and adaptable
Satisfy social, physical, and spiritual needs
Grow out of the site and be unique
Celebrate the sprit of youth, play, and surprise
Express the rhythm of music, and the power of dance
We can see how similar this view of architecture is to Steiner's.
• Internal organization
The Steiner community and AVL- Ville have different internal organizational structures. Joep van Lieshout and Rudolf Steiner were doing very different things. There are different organizational structures that different communities use. Steiner's system is democratic, community focused, and based on a set of beliefs and ideas. AVL's government uses another model. AVL-Ville functioned like a community but was more a company . AVL-Ville was half company town, half commune. A business model was used to develop a community.
• Life At AVL-Ville
AVL-Ville directly challenges the states control of community by ignoring regulations on architecture, land ownership, food, alcohol, weapons, and sexuality. The inhabitants of AVL-Ville had freedom over these fundamental aspects of life. This freedom came with the declaration that AVL-Ville was a 'free state' (indeed AVL-Ville had its own flag, currency, and stamps). The members of the collective established a constitution of rules and principles which guide the conduct of the members of AVL.
• AVL-Ville's Constitution
AVL-Ville's constitution of principles, rights, and duties is as follows:
• AVL-Ville is open for people who contribute or have made a significant contribution to AVL or AVL-Ville
• Participants are equal in race, religion, gender, political affiliations, and have equal rights, and freedom of expression
• Participants have to be honest
• There should be the intention to communicate and everyone should be open to that
• Litigation: Conflicts are to be solved
• Property: All property has to be respected
• Participants have the right to an education in disciplines which are advantageous to AVL
• All participants have to respect, maintain, and improve the environments
• Rules can be amended and changed in the general AVL-Ville meetings
• AVL provides the space to install structures and supplies facilities
• AVL is concerned with the individual well being of its participants and their pursuit of happiness
• The common facilities are financed by the sale of AVL products
• AVL is governed as a company
• You can have fun as long as you do not harm anyone or do things that are a disadvantage to AVL
AVL looks after those who look after and are advantageous to AVL. It educates, provides food, shelter, facilities, and provides jobs for its members. In order to participate in the community you have to work within the community in an advantageous way i.e. make artwork, work on design projects and commissions, and educate yourself in business management.
Rule 13, states that AVL-Ville is governed as a company. This reveals the organizational structure of AVL- Ville. It is as if Joep van Lieshout was the managing director, and the rest of the AVL are the shareholders, people with more of a stake/ more shares in AVL have more of a say. Changes in the constitution were made by the shareholders in meetings (rule 9), but decision making is not made collectively.
AVL extended and modified the usual corporate organizational model to realize different possibilities that are otherwise sometimes frustrated in our society. AVL-Ville promotes full communication between its members (rule 4); it safeguards individual well-being and happiness (rule 11); and promotes the respect and improvement of the environment (rule 8).
• Life in a Steiner community and the structure of the community
Rudolf Steiner developed a system of thinking that has had influence in many people in many countries for around 105 years. Rather than having a constitution or a set of rules, this community has a whole philosophy, a whole practice of living. The community does not operate in any system other than in its own; it does not have the external concerns (such as art, economy, market, business) that AVL-Ville has. Steiner's philosophy is about looking inwards.
In a Steiner community, the people who live there contribute practically towards the community. People take on roles that are necessary in order sustain the community- teachers, farmers, gardeners, doctors, designers, priests, and so on. The village caters for the needs of the community. In the Steiner community in Basel (where the Goetheanum is located), there are two farms which produce meat, eggs, milk, cheese, vegetables, fruit; a community garden which produces vegetables, fruit, and eggs; shops that sell the produce; an old peoples home; homeopaths (for humans and animals); chemists that stock Anthroposophical medicine; a church; shops which sell special children's toys and clothes; and houses in the architectural style of Rudolf Steiner. The community is almost economically self-sufficient; it does not participate in wider economic exchange. The community operates within itself and not so much with the wider world.
• Community and commodity
So, how do the different organizational structures and the different concerns of AVL-Ville and Steiner communities affect the groups? AVL-Ville is an artwork (which is half a business and half a community), which functions in the art market. As such AVL-Ville has concerns over and above the community. AVL-Ville's main external concern is with the reflection and investigation of current economic situations.
• Economy and AVL
AVL-Ville is 'governed as a company'. It uses the art products it produces to finance itself and make money. Is AVL a corporate community based on the mechanisms of global capitalism?
AVL-Ville completes itself with a Marketing and Public Relations department. The department seek large-scale design commissions from both within and from outside the art community. There is also Business and Finance department (Directed by Jeroen Thomas who seems to be a co-leader with Joep van Lieshout). The system used by AVL is economically self sufficient from the art market, it is a parallel space. The corporate model is used to market the work. Half the time AVL makes experimental sculpture and the other half of the time AVL works on architectural commissions for private clients ranging from garden sheds, to offices, to cafeterias. For example, AVL made the bathrooms and bars for the Grand Palais Convention Centre in Lille, France. Is there a demarcation in boundary between AVL's unashamedly commercial work and the art? AVL seems to think that there is no demarcation, the commercial reality is part if the work.
AVL Franchise Unit t is a portable community. This portable, nomadic structure can be put up anywhere. All you need to add is people. Or not. The shipping containers have been converted to hold a kitchen, power plant, shower, compost toilets, bedrooms, and a common room. If you add Pioneer Set , a portable farm house, chicken coop, pig pen, stable, and rabbit hutch you have a set up for a communal living. There is no need for high streets, electricity, gas, and supermarkets. AVL Franchise Unit is a ready-made community, get a few people, start a rumour, get some animals, and plant some vegetables.
Franchise Unit (as the name suggests), openly mimics the imperialistic techniques of growth and expansion deployed by multi national companies. Being easily movable (a lot of AVL's work is flat pack and transportable) this vision of community living can be taken beyond the boarders of the Netherlands to occupy other countries.
Nike TOWN is presented as a city and thus places itself within the political, economic, and legal structure for communities. Nike Town is an organization that is set up as company. Going even further is Disney World, which is presented as a whole world. Likewise AVL- Ville is presented as a total living experience.
It is corporations that dominate; AVL embraces this and works with the mechanisms of global capitalism. Like Nike Town and Disney World, AVL-Ville reveals the totalitarian dimension behind total living. Despite the last century seeing the defeat of totalitarian governments (from fascism to communism), we have been eager to embrace the attempts of various corporations to take over life by infusing it with commodities. Lifestyle wins over the practice of life.
Atelier van Lieshout claims to be influenced by the principles put forward in Machiavelli's book 'The Prince', a 'how to succeed guide' from 1532. Machiavelli thought that human beings, in their most basic state, are bad. Humans always want to increase their power and their wealth. Joep van Lieshout says: 'I accept that the world is bad and that you need money and that people do everything for money and power. You can live very well in this world as long as you understand how it works.' AVL uses the community to try and understand how the world works. Machiavellianism is not the most humane or ethical set of principles for structuring a society or world, buts it is not so bad for artist. Despite AVL- Ville only existing for eight months it was successful because Joep van Lieshout developed a small production line, promoted his leadership, generated money, and created a rumor. JvL has demonstrated that he understands the possibilities of art, economy, community, and power.
• AVL-Ville products
The community as an art project has desirable commodities on offer. The AVL workshop pumps out the slick multiple, which are a great marketing tool (furniture and multiples are available via AVL on eBay), and a great way of making money. There is no notion of exchange or gift (at least outside the company), only of making money.
AVL uses the multiple as a way of 'skimming' the market. He sells the multiple in different markets (artificial barriers are put up in order to segment the market). In the different markets the values assigned to the object will differ. Doing this gains more money than just selling a few unique objects to a big corporation.
• AVL-Ville and Andy Warhol's Factory
AVL are not the only artists who have played with the idea of capital and economics, of community and commodity, and whose work is refection on a particular economic situation. Like AVL, Warhol was interested in social and economic realities. Andy Warhol's Factory was a space that the artist set up as a framework where things could happen, and what happened there was out of the control of Warhol. In this way Warhol's Factory is different from AVL-Ville, there was no constitution or aim, it just happened.
The idea of community was important to Warhol. At the Factory Warhol succeeded in creating an 'relational aesthetics circle', a place where people could hang out, watch films, make work, and write. Economics was also important to Warhol. Warhol employed a team of workers to mass produce his pop art commodities. His method and work reflects the economic situation of the time. In the 1960's the economy was based on the commodity, advertising and mass production were at their prime. Warhol exposed this consumerist society in his work. AVL-Ville has commodities on offer but also exposes our contemporary economy- the experience economy .
• Longevity and influence of AVL-Ville and the Steiner community
AVL-Ville and the Steiner community existed for different lengths of time. This difference in time span makes a difference to how developed the communities are, how large the communities are, and how much influence they have had.
AVL existed for eight months before running into trouble with the authorities. It was a fleeting and temporary community. AVL-Ville did not open their arms to just anyone, only those who worked for AVL could participate. AVL-Ville did not have much influence outside itself and the artworld. AVL-Ville did not help to solve the States problems or really answer questions of agriculture, medicine, architecture, and education. Government was not influenced by the AVL art project. No laws were changed, no real debates occurred, and no politics were influenced. Art projects rarely directly challenge the government policy. Artwork is rarely political, rather is it just about politics. AVL-Ville discusses the situation where as the Steiner community (or a similar community) is in the situation.
Although Steiner's philosophy reflects inwardly it has influenced and continues to influence government through policy. It has influenced educational polices, it has widened discussions about alternative medicine, and it has promoted discussions in the farming arena. Perhaps it is Steiner's presence within the wider discussion of these issues that has contributed to the wide following and longevity of Steiner communities. Steiner's philosophy is very political but collapses into the spiritual. Perhaps this spirituality was something that catered for the needs and mood of the turn of the century.
The larger a community or group and the more forceful they are, the more influence they have. For example, Christiana is a free state in Copenhagen where around three hundred people live. They have fought the government (and the police) on and off for the past forty years in order to remain an independent state, free from the laws and rules of the rest of Denmark. Christiana used to be an army barracks, when the army moved out, political squatters moved in. Christiana has succeeded in opening debates about who owns land, questions about self-government and who sets the rules, and group living. Christiana challenges governmental policies and keeps the debate about the right to be part of a small concentration of power active.
Had AVL-Ville really set down roots, fought for their cause, persuaded, and influenced the wider community and the government then the project may have had more weight and longevity. But perhaps this was not one of Atelier's aims, after all the buildings at AVL- Ville were on wheels, ready for the community to move (or collapse) at any point. However, in 2001 Joep van Lieshout did say that he would like to expand AVL-Ville and set up franchises around the world- AVL West Coast, AVL Asia, and so on.
• Conclusion
The idea of community has been and continues to be explored by many artists in different ways. Artists like Warhol, Andrea Zittel, and AVL are socially aware artists who have practically explored how communities work by setting up group. Other artists such as Kaye Donachie and Aurelien Froment have explored the idea of the community in ways other than setting up a community. The way art explores the idea of community is very different from the way non-art community's function. In art communities' art is at the forefront and it is from the art that the community follows. In the Steiner community, and other non-art communities such as Christiana, it is the community that comes first and the art and culture that follow.
AVL-Ville was a successful artwork (at least it was successful in AVL's terms) but not a particularly successful community in comparison to communities that are not artworks. AVL-Ville functioned for only a few months, the community was small and was only open to those who could be advantageous to AVL, and the community had little influence within government. AVL-Ville also had concerns that would be unusual for non-art communities to have; rather than being concerned with politics, human development, or philosophy AVL-Ville was more concerned with art, economic markets, and commodity. It is these concerns and the manipulation of them that make the community an artwork rather than a community par se. The exploration of the notion of community in art is varied and differs greatly from what non-art communities actually are.
Bibliography:
Atelier van Lieshout, Jennifer Allen, 2002, Camden Arts Centre
Atelier van Lieshout: A Manual, 1997, Museum Boymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam & NAi Publishers
Franchise, Atelier van Lieshout, Jennifer Allen, 2002, Colofon
Sun at Midnight, The Rudolf Steiner Movement and the Esoteric Tradition, Geffrey Ahern, 1984, The Aquarian Press
Rudolf Steiner, Scientist of the Invisible, A.P Shepherd, 1954, Floris Books
The Gift, Marcell Mauess, 1996 Cohen and West LTD
The Philosophy of Freedom, Rudolf Steiner, trans Michael Wilson, 1964, Rudolf Steiner Press
The Redemption of Thinking, A study in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, Rudolf Steiner, trans A.P Shepherd, 1955, Rudolf Steiner Press
Towards Wholeness, Rudolf Steiner Education in America, M. C Richards, 1980, Wesleyan University Press
Cf 'Relational Aesthetics', Nicolas Bourriaud
Atelier van Lieshout 'A Manual'
The Gaia Theory, a New Look at Life on Earth, James Lovelock, 1987, Oxford University Press, USA
AVL constitution: no: 13 'AVL is governed as a company'
List from: Pamphlet 'Ideal Home' V &A, London printworks exhibition
2002
1999-2000
'Up the Organization', an interview with Joep Van Lieshout by Jennifer Allen, ArtForum April 2001
AVL Manual 'The Function of the Multiple' p 68
Cf 'The Experence Economy' B.J Pine and J.H Gilmore, 1999, Harvard Business School Press
'Up the Organization', an interview with Joep Van Lieshout by Jennifer Allen, ArtForum April 2001
Froment's recent film 'The Ape, the Bell and the Antelope', gives us a tour of Arcosanti, an experimental town designed by Paolo Soleri, a place where architecture is determined by an awareness of ecological and sociological concerns.
How do communities that are artworks compare to communities that are not artworks?
By Alex Locket
Introduction
This essay makes a comparison between the community movement developed by Rudolf Steiner and 'AVL-Ville', a community set up by the art group AVL. 'AVL-Ville' is a community that is an artwork where as Steiner communities are not art related. As such, the way 'AVL-Ville' and Steiner communities' function, their fundamental concerns, and their internal structures are different. This essay explores these differences; what does it mean for a community to be an artwork, how does a community function in the art world, and what happens when a community is put into an art (rather than spiritual/ religious or philosophical) context. These communities are interesting to compare and explore because they have similar ideas about ways of living and lifestyle, but have very different organizational structures and motives. One community is a religious community, this is interesting to compare with an art community because art and culture are closely allied to religion, and both are a matter of belief
AVL-Ville and Steiner communities have very different origins; one is spiritual and educational and the other is art and business driven. Rudolf Steiner put forward a social and religious philosophy (Anthroposophy) in the early twentieth century. This philosophy developed practically and is present in many spheres of life such as food, education, architecture, and medicine. There are around 1000 Steiner communities worldwide. The Anthroposophy Society's main base is in the Goetheanum, a building that is located in Steiner community in Basel, Switzerland. Atelier van Lieshout- Ville was a (micro) community that was set up in 2001 in a harbour in Rotterdam, Amsterdam. It was established to provide a living and workspace for Joep van Lieshout and his workers (together known as AVL). AVL-Ville was declared a free state by AVL, an autonomous space where anything is possible. The community existed for eight months before closing down. AVL-Ville was a community that existed within the remit of the 'art world'; it was a community that was put into a capitalist, utopian, and market driven framework. The different origins, motivations, frameworks, and organizational structures, behind the two communities make AVL-Ville and Steiner communities internally different. But, on a practical and daily life bases these communities function similarly.
This essay also briefly looks at other artworks that deal with the idea of the community but in ways other than actually setting up a community. Kaye Donachie's work explores the community in the medium of paint. I will also look at the phenomena of Andy Warhol where parallels can be drawn between his work AVL-Ville's work. Andy Warhol is the most socially significant artist of the late twentieth century, 'relational aesthetics' and the community were very important to him.
• Similarities between AVL-Ville and Steiner communities
The lifestyle and outward appearance of AVL-Ville and Steiner communities is similar. They both have concerns about architecture, food, medicine, education, and art. These are all things that communities need in order to be self-sufficient and challenge state monopolies.
• Agriculture and the environment
AVL- Ville and Steiner communities adopt similar attitudes towards self-sufficiency and farming. Both AVL- Ville and Steiner communities grow their own food, and raise and slaughter their own animals. Both value self-sufficiency over convenience. Van Lieshout was taught by a traditional butcher how to slaughter and prepare a pig. The instructions and photos of how to do this are published in AVL's Manual . Biodynamic farming is a method used by Anthroposopist's. It is a method which pre-dates the organic system (but is organic) but also based on planetary movements, magnetic fields, special composting methods, and special preparations for the soil (such as bulls horns stuffed with manure, and burning slugs and sprinkling the ashes on the earth).
Both AVL and Steiner have a general concern for the environment. At AVL-Ville there is an energy plant that runs on waste and biogas, a biological effluent water purification plant, and compost toilets. They have a machine that generates biogas and cooks - the machine enables animal and human manure to produce gas which is then used for cooking. AVL-Ville also had windmills that power some of the buildings. Both communities take care of the environment, indeed rule 8 in AVL's constitution is - 'All participants have to respect, maintain, and improve the environment'.
• Self-sufficiency
AVL and Steiner communities also have the same DIY attitude. The people who live at AVL- Ville and in Steiner communities have the experience making dwelling spaces, of growing vegetables, of raising animals, of making compost toilets, of making fires for cooking, of making furniture, of building according to their specific architectural beliefs and requirements. Rudolf Steiner believed that humans developed and learnt through using their hands and that they continue to develop and learn through using their hands. Without using their hands early human beings would not have been able to build shelters, or hunt and pick food. Catering for your everyday needs, being able to sustain yourself, and being self sufficient, is of great importance.
• Medicine
AVL and Rudolf Steiner both challenge accepted medical views. Although they have different ideas about medicine (almost opposite ideas), the ideas that they do have are unconventional. At AVL-Ville there was an operational and fully equipped hospital complete with a waiting room, nurse's station, operating room, and recovery room. A small team of nurses and doctors ran the hospital. AVL has made other medical works such as an abortion clinic. "Women on Waves' was a floating information and abortion clinic, located just outside the 12 mile zones of countries where abortion is illegal. AVL's view of the human being is cold and mechanistic; man is seen as an assemblage of pipes and organs. Man is seen as a machine.
Anthroposophical medicine is a type of alternative medicine that uses plants and minerals grown in biodynamic gardens (rather than chemicals made in a laboratory) to make medicine. Anthroposophical medicine views man not as a machine but as a human being with a body, soul, and sprit. Conventional medicine treats only the body whereas Anthroposophical medicine treats the whole person with nature. AVL presents a savage view of modern medicine, that man is a machine.
• Education
Both the Steiner community and the AVL community offer educational programs. However, Steiner's pedagogy is far more comprehensive and detailed than AVL's. Perhaps Steiner's biggest influence in wider society has been in education. Steiner schools have their own curriculum that is focused on the full and round development of the individual. There are around nine hundred Steiner schools and Kindergartens worldwide. The number of schools has seen a large increase in the past ten years as interest in the system has grown. Steiner's methods have been tried, adopted, and tested in state and private schools, and young offenders institutions in recent years. The schools are important because they keep the discussion of education open and alive within the wider education system.
Steiner Schools are not just for children. The Goetheanum, the centre of General Anthroposophical Society is The School of Spiritual Science. The School offers a path of inner development through gaining new kinds of knowing. It is a forum for human encounters in which people can share and explore their interests and struggles at understanding the world and Steiner's ideas. The School is divided into ten sections. The medical section devotes itself to medical and pharmaceutical research and training physicians, pharmacists, and therapists. The pedagogical section explores ideas in education and development of the human being based on the anthroposophical image of the human being. The agricultural department focuses on research, collaboration, and public representation in the areas of soil management, crop cultivation, animal husbandry, and the farm organism. The art section of the School teaches painting, sculpture, architecture, furniture design, glass engraving, and plant colour research. It also investigates ideas in art therapy and art education.
AVL-Ville Academy offers education to its participants. We can see a similar division in the curriculum at AVL-Ville as at the Goetheanum School. The AVL-Ville Academy offers short courses in practical areas such as 'The Art of Living', the tricks of the art trade, project management and marketing (the AVL theory), creative knowledge, and practical technical skills. The education provided is practical and no books are read. Those who look after the farm learn about agriculture, those who work in the marketing department learn business skills, those who make the artwork learn technical skills, and those who work in the AVL-Ville hospital learn medical skills. The Academy aims to train people in skills that are advantageous to the development to AVL-Ville. Although the Goetheanum school teaches subjects that are necessary for the continuation of the Steiner community it is also interested in developing the human being. Courses at the Goetheanum are open to everyone where as the AVL Academy is only available for those who live and work at AVL-Ville.
• Art and Culture
Both Steiner and AVL have a concern with art. AVL-Ville is an artwork and art is the reason that the community exists. The Rudolf Steiner community is not an artwork but art has an important role in the community. Rudolf Steiner placed huge importance on art and thought it was necessary for human development and expression. Steiner's interest in art was partly in the spiritual origins of art and in partly in its educational role. In Steiner's education system the arts are of vital importance both in and for themselves and for their ability to lay down the foundations for other kinds of learning; imagination is the seat of learning. Steiner brought artistic training into all fields of education. In Steiner schools at least three hours of the day is devoted to the arts. Art activities include painting, woodwork, metal work, glasswork, basket weaving, building, gardening, bookbinding, music, singing, theatre, and dance. According to Steiner these activities help develop the senses and help to build other skills, both intellectual and psychological.
AVL's interest in art is different from Steiner's interest. For AVL the community follows from the art. Art is way of exploring and trying to understand the workings of society. As an artwork AVL-Ville reflects society, the community model is used to explore wider issues. AVL-Ville is not an inward looking community like Steiner's is. AVL-Ville does what art does rather than what a community does. This is why AVL-Ville is an artwork and why Steiner communities are not.
Similarly, Kaye Donachie's work is about communities but the art comes before the community, so much so that the idea of the community and counter cultures is explored not by setting up a community but through painting. Donachie's work is the painting parallel to AVL-Ville. Donachie's other worldly paintings. Donachie's work has explored communes such as Monte Verita in Switzerland, the Manson family, the Friedrichshof Commune, and Commune 1. Her paintings suggest a post apocalyptic world, a world that deteriorated into factions of strange religious cults and tribal gangs. Donachie's most recent paintings are of Monte Verita, a utopian community founded in Switzerland at the beginning of the twentieth century. The commune was located on top of a hill, traditionally a place where the 'truth' was revealed. Monte Verita was a hetrotopia, a lived utopia where those who sought refuge from the industrial society that dominated Northern Europe at the time could go. Donachie uses portraiture and landscapes to reflect on the radical philosophies theorized and practiced in this other world. People sit in the woods by a campfire performing rituals. In other paintings people are dancing and singing. In another painting people are performing religious rituals. Strange looking bearded men sit naked reaching towards the sky. One painting is simply of a full moon, an image that has much spiritual significance. Indeed many of the activities discussed in the above sections (self sufficiency, food, buildings, people working together) are featured and discussed in Donachie's paintings.
• Architecture
Both communities have a particular utopian view towards architecture. Although AVL's functional Dutch utopian style architecture is different from Rudolf Steiner's Organic architecture, building plays a fundamental role in the development of both communities. Community and design have a symbiotic relationship. The way in which a community is housed influences group dynamics and the well being of the group. Both AVL and Steiner have an interest in good design.
Community and design fit together, each needing the other. For example, AVL's six-foot-long brown "Study Skull" contains only a bed and a desk, because what else is there to do but work and sleep and sleep and work? This paints the picture of a depersonalized society which is focused on work and money. 'Tampa Skull' is equipped with a single cooking appliance- a deep fryer. The sink is a mere two inches deep since Americans only eat fast food and seldom wash dishes. The way we behave and exist influence architectural design and our living quarters and environment shape the way we behave and exist.
The house we live in and the office we work in become more than just spaces. They are a part of us.
AVL design and architecture does not fit into the same scheme as Rudolf Steiner's, but there is a similar utopianism. At AVL-Ville there were a number of mobile buildings and living units, which could be extended upon if needed. Transportable and temporary structures were made because there are no building laws surrounding something that is movable and foundationless. Also, it is easier for the community to move on if they want to or of it is necessary to.
Through Steiner's interest in the alignment between science and nature, matter and sprit, he developed an anthropomorphic architecture. Steiner's buildings are inspired by nature; none of the buildings have right angles and thus reflect the non-angular shapes in nature and the human body. The buildings are self-sustainable and healthy; they are often powered by alternative energy sources; compost toilets are available for use; and the surrounding land is used for farming and growing food. Buildings are often located in idyllic and natural environments such as in forests, on mountains, and by rivers.
This idea of architecture is similar to James Lovelock's view. Lovelock devised the Gaia Charter for Organic Architecture and Design in the 1970's. Organic Architecture promotes harmony between man and nature through design, buildings, furniture, and the surroundings become part of a unified, interrelated composition. Lovelock gives a list of rules of what design should be :
Design should:
Be inspired by nature and be sustainable, healthy, conserving, and diverse
Unfold like an organism, from seed within
Exist in the 'continuous present' and begin 'again and again'
Follow the flows, and be flexible, and adaptable
Satisfy social, physical, and spiritual needs
Grow out of the site and be unique
Celebrate the sprit of youth, play, and surprise
Express the rhythm of music, and the power of dance
We can see how similar this view of architecture is to Steiner's.
• Internal organization
The Steiner community and AVL- Ville have different internal organizational structures. Joep van Lieshout and Rudolf Steiner were doing very different things. There are different organizational structures that different communities use. Steiner's system is democratic, community focused, and based on a set of beliefs and ideas. AVL's government uses another model. AVL-Ville functioned like a community but was more a company . AVL-Ville was half company town, half commune. A business model was used to develop a community.
• Life At AVL-Ville
AVL-Ville directly challenges the states control of community by ignoring regulations on architecture, land ownership, food, alcohol, weapons, and sexuality. The inhabitants of AVL-Ville had freedom over these fundamental aspects of life. This freedom came with the declaration that AVL-Ville was a 'free state' (indeed AVL-Ville had its own flag, currency, and stamps). The members of the collective established a constitution of rules and principles which guide the conduct of the members of AVL.
• AVL-Ville's Constitution
AVL-Ville's constitution of principles, rights, and duties is as follows:
• AVL-Ville is open for people who contribute or have made a significant contribution to AVL or AVL-Ville
• Participants are equal in race, religion, gender, political affiliations, and have equal rights, and freedom of expression
• Participants have to be honest
• There should be the intention to communicate and everyone should be open to that
• Litigation: Conflicts are to be solved
• Property: All property has to be respected
• Participants have the right to an education in disciplines which are advantageous to AVL
• All participants have to respect, maintain, and improve the environments
• Rules can be amended and changed in the general AVL-Ville meetings
• AVL provides the space to install structures and supplies facilities
• AVL is concerned with the individual well being of its participants and their pursuit of happiness
• The common facilities are financed by the sale of AVL products
• AVL is governed as a company
• You can have fun as long as you do not harm anyone or do things that are a disadvantage to AVL
AVL looks after those who look after and are advantageous to AVL. It educates, provides food, shelter, facilities, and provides jobs for its members. In order to participate in the community you have to work within the community in an advantageous way i.e. make artwork, work on design projects and commissions, and educate yourself in business management.
Rule 13, states that AVL-Ville is governed as a company. This reveals the organizational structure of AVL- Ville. It is as if Joep van Lieshout was the managing director, and the rest of the AVL are the shareholders, people with more of a stake/ more shares in AVL have more of a say. Changes in the constitution were made by the shareholders in meetings (rule 9), but decision making is not made collectively.
AVL extended and modified the usual corporate organizational model to realize different possibilities that are otherwise sometimes frustrated in our society. AVL-Ville promotes full communication between its members (rule 4); it safeguards individual well-being and happiness (rule 11); and promotes the respect and improvement of the environment (rule 8).
• Life in a Steiner community and the structure of the community
Rudolf Steiner developed a system of thinking that has had influence in many people in many countries for around 105 years. Rather than having a constitution or a set of rules, this community has a whole philosophy, a whole practice of living. The community does not operate in any system other than in its own; it does not have the external concerns (such as art, economy, market, business) that AVL-Ville has. Steiner's philosophy is about looking inwards.
In a Steiner community, the people who live there contribute practically towards the community. People take on roles that are necessary in order sustain the community- teachers, farmers, gardeners, doctors, designers, priests, and so on. The village caters for the needs of the community. In the Steiner community in Basel (where the Goetheanum is located), there are two farms which produce meat, eggs, milk, cheese, vegetables, fruit; a community garden which produces vegetables, fruit, and eggs; shops that sell the produce; an old peoples home; homeopaths (for humans and animals); chemists that stock Anthroposophical medicine; a church; shops which sell special children's toys and clothes; and houses in the architectural style of Rudolf Steiner. The community is almost economically self-sufficient; it does not participate in wider economic exchange. The community operates within itself and not so much with the wider world.
• Community and commodity
So, how do the different organizational structures and the different concerns of AVL-Ville and Steiner communities affect the groups? AVL-Ville is an artwork (which is half a business and half a community), which functions in the art market. As such AVL-Ville has concerns over and above the community. AVL-Ville's main external concern is with the reflection and investigation of current economic situations.
• Economy and AVL
AVL-Ville is 'governed as a company'. It uses the art products it produces to finance itself and make money. Is AVL a corporate community based on the mechanisms of global capitalism?
AVL-Ville completes itself with a Marketing and Public Relations department. The department seek large-scale design commissions from both within and from outside the art community. There is also Business and Finance department (Directed by Jeroen Thomas who seems to be a co-leader with Joep van Lieshout). The system used by AVL is economically self sufficient from the art market, it is a parallel space. The corporate model is used to market the work. Half the time AVL makes experimental sculpture and the other half of the time AVL works on architectural commissions for private clients ranging from garden sheds, to offices, to cafeterias. For example, AVL made the bathrooms and bars for the Grand Palais Convention Centre in Lille, France. Is there a demarcation in boundary between AVL's unashamedly commercial work and the art? AVL seems to think that there is no demarcation, the commercial reality is part if the work.
AVL Franchise Unit t is a portable community. This portable, nomadic structure can be put up anywhere. All you need to add is people. Or not. The shipping containers have been converted to hold a kitchen, power plant, shower, compost toilets, bedrooms, and a common room. If you add Pioneer Set , a portable farm house, chicken coop, pig pen, stable, and rabbit hutch you have a set up for a communal living. There is no need for high streets, electricity, gas, and supermarkets. AVL Franchise Unit is a ready-made community, get a few people, start a rumour, get some animals, and plant some vegetables.
Franchise Unit (as the name suggests), openly mimics the imperialistic techniques of growth and expansion deployed by multi national companies. Being easily movable (a lot of AVL's work is flat pack and transportable) this vision of community living can be taken beyond the boarders of the Netherlands to occupy other countries.
Nike TOWN is presented as a city and thus places itself within the political, economic, and legal structure for communities. Nike Town is an organization that is set up as company. Going even further is Disney World, which is presented as a whole world. Likewise AVL- Ville is presented as a total living experience.
It is corporations that dominate; AVL embraces this and works with the mechanisms of global capitalism. Like Nike Town and Disney World, AVL-Ville reveals the totalitarian dimension behind total living. Despite the last century seeing the defeat of totalitarian governments (from fascism to communism), we have been eager to embrace the attempts of various corporations to take over life by infusing it with commodities. Lifestyle wins over the practice of life.
Atelier van Lieshout claims to be influenced by the principles put forward in Machiavelli's book 'The Prince', a 'how to succeed guide' from 1532. Machiavelli thought that human beings, in their most basic state, are bad. Humans always want to increase their power and their wealth. Joep van Lieshout says: 'I accept that the world is bad and that you need money and that people do everything for money and power. You can live very well in this world as long as you understand how it works.' AVL uses the community to try and understand how the world works. Machiavellianism is not the most humane or ethical set of principles for structuring a society or world, buts it is not so bad for artist. Despite AVL- Ville only existing for eight months it was successful because Joep van Lieshout developed a small production line, promoted his leadership, generated money, and created a rumor. JvL has demonstrated that he understands the possibilities of art, economy, community, and power.
• AVL-Ville products
The community as an art project has desirable commodities on offer. The AVL workshop pumps out the slick multiple, which are a great marketing tool (furniture and multiples are available via AVL on eBay), and a great way of making money. There is no notion of exchange or gift (at least outside the company), only of making money.
AVL uses the multiple as a way of 'skimming' the market. He sells the multiple in different markets (artificial barriers are put up in order to segment the market). In the different markets the values assigned to the object will differ. Doing this gains more money than just selling a few unique objects to a big corporation.
• AVL-Ville and Andy Warhol's Factory
AVL are not the only artists who have played with the idea of capital and economics, of community and commodity, and whose work is refection on a particular economic situation. Like AVL, Warhol was interested in social and economic realities. Andy Warhol's Factory was a space that the artist set up as a framework where things could happen, and what happened there was out of the control of Warhol. In this way Warhol's Factory is different from AVL-Ville, there was no constitution or aim, it just happened.
The idea of community was important to Warhol. At the Factory Warhol succeeded in creating an 'relational aesthetics circle', a place where people could hang out, watch films, make work, and write. Economics was also important to Warhol. Warhol employed a team of workers to mass produce his pop art commodities. His method and work reflects the economic situation of the time. In the 1960's the economy was based on the commodity, advertising and mass production were at their prime. Warhol exposed this consumerist society in his work. AVL-Ville has commodities on offer but also exposes our contemporary economy- the experience economy .
• Longevity and influence of AVL-Ville and the Steiner community
AVL-Ville and the Steiner community existed for different lengths of time. This difference in time span makes a difference to how developed the communities are, how large the communities are, and how much influence they have had.
AVL existed for eight months before running into trouble with the authorities. It was a fleeting and temporary community. AVL-Ville did not open their arms to just anyone, only those who worked for AVL could participate. AVL-Ville did not have much influence outside itself and the artworld. AVL-Ville did not help to solve the States problems or really answer questions of agriculture, medicine, architecture, and education. Government was not influenced by the AVL art project. No laws were changed, no real debates occurred, and no politics were influenced. Art projects rarely directly challenge the government policy. Artwork is rarely political, rather is it just about politics. AVL-Ville discusses the situation where as the Steiner community (or a similar community) is in the situation.
Although Steiner's philosophy reflects inwardly it has influenced and continues to influence government through policy. It has influenced educational polices, it has widened discussions about alternative medicine, and it has promoted discussions in the farming arena. Perhaps it is Steiner's presence within the wider discussion of these issues that has contributed to the wide following and longevity of Steiner communities. Steiner's philosophy is very political but collapses into the spiritual. Perhaps this spirituality was something that catered for the needs and mood of the turn of the century.
The larger a community or group and the more forceful they are, the more influence they have. For example, Christiana is a free state in Copenhagen where around three hundred people live. They have fought the government (and the police) on and off for the past forty years in order to remain an independent state, free from the laws and rules of the rest of Denmark. Christiana used to be an army barracks, when the army moved out, political squatters moved in. Christiana has succeeded in opening debates about who owns land, questions about self-government and who sets the rules, and group living. Christiana challenges governmental policies and keeps the debate about the right to be part of a small concentration of power active.
Had AVL-Ville really set down roots, fought for their cause, persuaded, and influenced the wider community and the government then the project may have had more weight and longevity. But perhaps this was not one of Atelier's aims, after all the buildings at AVL- Ville were on wheels, ready for the community to move (or collapse) at any point. However, in 2001 Joep van Lieshout did say that he would like to expand AVL-Ville and set up franchises around the world- AVL West Coast, AVL Asia, and so on.
• Conclusion
The idea of community has been and continues to be explored by many artists in different ways. Artists like Warhol, Andrea Zittel, and AVL are socially aware artists who have practically explored how communities work by setting up group. Other artists such as Kaye Donachie and Aurelien Froment have explored the idea of the community in ways other than setting up a community. The way art explores the idea of community is very different from the way non-art community's function. In art communities' art is at the forefront and it is from the art that the community follows. In the Steiner community, and other non-art communities such as Christiana, it is the community that comes first and the art and culture that follow.
AVL-Ville was a successful artwork (at least it was successful in AVL's terms) but not a particularly successful community in comparison to communities that are not artworks. AVL-Ville functioned for only a few months, the community was small and was only open to those who could be advantageous to AVL, and the community had little influence within government. AVL-Ville also had concerns that would be unusual for non-art communities to have; rather than being concerned with politics, human development, or philosophy AVL-Ville was more concerned with art, economic markets, and commodity. It is these concerns and the manipulation of them that make the community an artwork rather than a community par se. The exploration of the notion of community in art is varied and differs greatly from what non-art communities actually are.
Bibliography:
Atelier van Lieshout, Jennifer Allen, 2002, Camden Arts Centre
Atelier van Lieshout: A Manual, 1997, Museum Boymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam & NAi Publishers
Franchise, Atelier van Lieshout, Jennifer Allen, 2002, Colofon
Sun at Midnight, The Rudolf Steiner Movement and the Esoteric Tradition, Geffrey Ahern, 1984, The Aquarian Press
Rudolf Steiner, Scientist of the Invisible, A.P Shepherd, 1954, Floris Books
The Gift, Marcell Mauess, 1996 Cohen and West LTD
The Philosophy of Freedom, Rudolf Steiner, trans Michael Wilson, 1964, Rudolf Steiner Press
The Redemption of Thinking, A study in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, Rudolf Steiner, trans A.P Shepherd, 1955, Rudolf Steiner Press
Towards Wholeness, Rudolf Steiner Education in America, M. C Richards, 1980, Wesleyan University Press
Cf 'Relational Aesthetics', Nicolas Bourriaud
Atelier van Lieshout 'A Manual'
The Gaia Theory, a New Look at Life on Earth, James Lovelock, 1987, Oxford University Press, USA
AVL constitution: no: 13 'AVL is governed as a company'
List from: Pamphlet 'Ideal Home' V &A, London printworks exhibition
2002
1999-2000
'Up the Organization', an interview with Joep Van Lieshout by Jennifer Allen, ArtForum April 2001
AVL Manual 'The Function of the Multiple' p 68
Cf 'The Experence Economy' B.J Pine and J.H Gilmore, 1999, Harvard Business School Press
'Up the Organization', an interview with Joep Van Lieshout by Jennifer Allen, ArtForum April 2001
Froment's recent film 'The Ape, the Bell and the Antelope', gives us a tour of Arcosanti, an experimental town designed by Paolo Soleri, a place where architecture is determined by an awareness of ecological and sociological concerns.
6th May 08 2nd Text
Go Tell It on the Mountain: LA's New Nomadic Schools
Art Review Issue 20, March 2008 By Holly Myers
The story of art in Los Angeles is inseparable from the story of its art schools, which typically goes something like this: the pioneers laid their foundations between the wars – Otis College of Art and Design in 1918, Chouinard Art Institute in 1921, Art Center in 1930, UCLA's College of Applied Arts in 1939 – dwarfed by the behemoth of Hollywood, so far from even the shadow of New York as to scarcely register on its radar and catering primarily to a population of students who hadn't the means, the talent or the ambition to go East. Over the course of a generation or two, however, as California's postwar confidence rose, a critical mass of luminaries emerged (Robert Irwin, Ed Ruscha, John Baldessari and so on). In 1961 Walt Disney transformed Chouinard into CalArts, which – in one of the most peculiar of LA's many high/low entanglements – proceeded to mine the avant-garde enclaves of New York and Europe for faculty and visiting artists, setting into motion a powerful, self-perpetuating machine. Ever more prestigious faculty, at CalArts and elsewhere, drew ever more talented students, who in turn became faculty, tipping this pool of talent from the art schools to the city's other colleges and junior colleges, and then to outlying regions, producing estimable programmes in unlikely places like Long Beach, Pomona and Irvine – thus attracting more students, spawning galleries like souvenir shops along a newly established tourist route and spurring a flurry of contemporary programming in museums.
It is a heady state of affairs, one that reflects trends felt around the world – the rise of the MFA, the boom of the market – but which feels particularly acute here, in a city with a short historical memory and, until recently, little cultural infrastructure to speak of. It is a shift that raises significant and sometimes troubling questions, however. What are the economic ramifications of large numbers of people coming into a financially unstable field tens of thousands of dollars in debt? What are the artistic consequences? How many risks can one take in one's work while carrying that sort of a burden? Do creative practices actually excel in a climate of academic specialisation? How do the conditions of pedagogy affect the work of those who, by choice or necessity, are funnelled back into teaching? Does the experience these artists gain from these programmes, whether as students or teachers, actually lead to more interesting work? And how many artists, for that matter, do we actually need?
Take, by contrast, this scene: a geodesic dome in the hilly neighbourhood of Mt Washington one Thursday evening last November, where 12 people – several artists, a graphic designer, an apparel designer, two writers, a new-media professor visiting from Illinois, two graduate students and a young high-school teacher, ranging in age from late twenties to early forties – sit on pillows in a circle, drinking tea and discussing the fate of humanity. To what degree, they ponder, is environmentalism a form of misanthropy? Are we mistaken in applying questions of morality to a fundamentally amoral realm of nature? How does one grapple with the violence of the food chain? What's to be done about population growth? The dialogue is intelligent, informed, respectful and engaged; the vibe is one of a comfortable retreat.
What does this have to do with art school? It represents the most recent incarnation of the Sundown Schoolhouse, one of a handful of pedagogically oriented grassroots endeavours to emerge in the vicinity of the LA artworld in recent years, endeavours which draw upon the city's wealth of educational resources – namely the proliferation of individuals in the habit of teaching and the abundance of those with a fondness for learning (not mutually exclusive populations, by any means) – to pose a welcome antidote to the hype of the MFA: a vision of education both more expansive and more accessible. These loose and in some cases amorphous institutions – the Schoolhouse and the Mountain School of Arts are the most visible – work on a small scale, without a lot of fanfare, and with little to no concern for the boundaries between disciplines. Though they differ considerably in structure and approach, they share a commitment to broadening the foundation of the artistic and intellectual life.
The Schoolhouse, which was conceived by Fritz Haeg as an outgrowth of a series of salons he hosted in the dome (where he also lived until recently) from 2001 to 2006, is a continually morphing entity. In its first season – autumn 2006 – it took the form of an intensive college-like course, with a preselected group of nine students meeting every Sunday, 12 hours a day, for 12 weeks, to participate in discussions, workshops and projects led by a rotating assortment of teachers, on subjects ranging from yoga to poetry to magic to community organisation. This autumn it was a book club, meeting every Thursday for nine weeks and open to anyone who wanted to stop by (Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, 2007, was the featured book on the evening I visited). The school's functions, however, aren't limited to the vicinity of the dome. Last winter, it travelled to Manhattan for 'Dancing 9 to 5', a day of movement workshops in a Whitney Museum sculpture court, and to the Philadelphia Institute of Contemporary Art for 'The Philadelphia Training Camp for Expression Skills', a two-month 'clinic' devoted to communication, with topics such as 'The Fine Art of Writing Bad Poetry', 'How to Be an Unorthodox Tourguide of Your Own Terrains' and 'Make an Instrument Out of Everyday Shit'. Because Haeg no longer lives in the dome – he is on the road almost continuously with other projects – the Schoolhouse will now become almost entirely nomadic. This spring will find the project in Texas with 'How to Eat Austin', a seven-week series of workshops relating to ecology and gardening, presented in conjunction with Haeg’s solo show 'Attack on the Front Lawn', in a local space called Arthouse.
"My biggest problem with MFA programmes is how insular they are", Haeg says, "and how focused they are on contemporary fine art. If you want to be a really thoughtful, challenging, innovative artist, I think that the last thing you should be looking at is contemporary art. You should be looking at science and reading history and looking at the newspaper and looking at everything but art – you know? To just be stuck in a building with other artists your own age, and then only meeting with other artists that are maybe 10 or 20 years older than you – it's just such a small, narrow world to be living in. It's so limiting."
He points to the work of Buckminster Fuller, whose biography he presented in the book club's final session. "Basically his theory is that the powers that be want us to be specialists", Haeg says, "because they don't want us to see the big picture, because the more you see the big picture, the more apt you are to question things. He's saying that decades ago, but I think it's even more true today."
A similar concern underscores the philosophy of the Mountain School of Arts, which was founded in 2005 by artists Eric Wesley and Piero Golia, though the approach is very different. Whereas the Schoolhouse functions, to some degree, as an extension of Haeg's own artistic practice – though he considers himself more architect than author – Wesley and Golia are adamant that the Mountain School is neither a 'project' of theirs nor an art school, but an institution patterned on the university model and devoted to general education, with a curriculum grounded in science, philosophy and law. Wesley stresses this point multiple times in our correspondence, clearly wary of seeing the school featured in an art magazine. 'The mission of the school today is to diversify', he writes in an email, 'to break out of the constant reference of art school or remain trapped in the "art world" where you don't have a chance at the "real world".
'The school accepts around 15 students per year, half of them from outside the US, for a single three-month term (January through March). Classes are held two nights a week in the back room of a bar in the gallery-studded neighbourhood of Chinatown, and tuition is free. In both administrative and financial terms, it is a shoestring operation: the faculty (a handful of regulars and a rotating – often spontaneous – roster of visiting lecturers) donate their time, the bar donates the space and a sympathetic real-estate lawyer donates housing for the foreign students. The school's wealth is in its contacts, which, despite the founders’ aversion to ghettoisation, are particularly impressive in the creative disciplines (Paul McCarthy, Pierre Huyghe, Dan Graham, Simone Forti, Franz Ackermann, Christian Jankowski and Hans Ulrich Obrist have all made appearances). The goal, however, is to have an equally deep reach into all fields.
To illustrate the dangers of narrow thinking, Golia – a chatty and very funny Neapolitan who rarely gives a straight answer – recounts a call he received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, informing him, mistakenly, that his driver's license had expired the previous August: "Ma'am, it can't be", he says, "because I got it in October, so in August I didn't have it. And she's like, no, it's here on my computer: expired August 16. And I'm like, OK, does your computer say that it was issued in October? And she's like, yeah, October 22. And I'm like, so, do you have a brain to put your computer together?" He laughs incredulously. "So that's the idea of the school: stimulating thought. Obviously – thank God – we are not dealing with such tragic cases.
"Our dream", he continues, "is to become an encyclopedic school, to put together a community that is not anymore just artists, but that is… whoever. Like, if you want to become a better surgeon, come and expand your mind. Look around. The more you look around, the more you learn in life. You know, if you go to work for a mechanic for a year, it doesn't necessarily make you a better writer, but it helps your brain to keep moving. If you just do one thing in your life, you become like a machine – and my driver's license really will expire in August, before it was actually issued. So our dream is to cross the border."
Though markedly different in the particulars of structure and personality, the Sundown Schoolhouse and the Mountain School reflect what has long been a defining quality of LA art history: the capacity of its players to look beyond the grip of categories, hierarchies and institutions. As the community shifts now into a position of unprecedented visibility, globally speaking, and its dynamics continue, inevitably, to codify, the need for such vision is only more acute.
Art Review Issue 20, March 2008 By Holly Myers
The story of art in Los Angeles is inseparable from the story of its art schools, which typically goes something like this: the pioneers laid their foundations between the wars – Otis College of Art and Design in 1918, Chouinard Art Institute in 1921, Art Center in 1930, UCLA's College of Applied Arts in 1939 – dwarfed by the behemoth of Hollywood, so far from even the shadow of New York as to scarcely register on its radar and catering primarily to a population of students who hadn't the means, the talent or the ambition to go East. Over the course of a generation or two, however, as California's postwar confidence rose, a critical mass of luminaries emerged (Robert Irwin, Ed Ruscha, John Baldessari and so on). In 1961 Walt Disney transformed Chouinard into CalArts, which – in one of the most peculiar of LA's many high/low entanglements – proceeded to mine the avant-garde enclaves of New York and Europe for faculty and visiting artists, setting into motion a powerful, self-perpetuating machine. Ever more prestigious faculty, at CalArts and elsewhere, drew ever more talented students, who in turn became faculty, tipping this pool of talent from the art schools to the city's other colleges and junior colleges, and then to outlying regions, producing estimable programmes in unlikely places like Long Beach, Pomona and Irvine – thus attracting more students, spawning galleries like souvenir shops along a newly established tourist route and spurring a flurry of contemporary programming in museums.
It is a heady state of affairs, one that reflects trends felt around the world – the rise of the MFA, the boom of the market – but which feels particularly acute here, in a city with a short historical memory and, until recently, little cultural infrastructure to speak of. It is a shift that raises significant and sometimes troubling questions, however. What are the economic ramifications of large numbers of people coming into a financially unstable field tens of thousands of dollars in debt? What are the artistic consequences? How many risks can one take in one's work while carrying that sort of a burden? Do creative practices actually excel in a climate of academic specialisation? How do the conditions of pedagogy affect the work of those who, by choice or necessity, are funnelled back into teaching? Does the experience these artists gain from these programmes, whether as students or teachers, actually lead to more interesting work? And how many artists, for that matter, do we actually need?
Take, by contrast, this scene: a geodesic dome in the hilly neighbourhood of Mt Washington one Thursday evening last November, where 12 people – several artists, a graphic designer, an apparel designer, two writers, a new-media professor visiting from Illinois, two graduate students and a young high-school teacher, ranging in age from late twenties to early forties – sit on pillows in a circle, drinking tea and discussing the fate of humanity. To what degree, they ponder, is environmentalism a form of misanthropy? Are we mistaken in applying questions of morality to a fundamentally amoral realm of nature? How does one grapple with the violence of the food chain? What's to be done about population growth? The dialogue is intelligent, informed, respectful and engaged; the vibe is one of a comfortable retreat.
What does this have to do with art school? It represents the most recent incarnation of the Sundown Schoolhouse, one of a handful of pedagogically oriented grassroots endeavours to emerge in the vicinity of the LA artworld in recent years, endeavours which draw upon the city's wealth of educational resources – namely the proliferation of individuals in the habit of teaching and the abundance of those with a fondness for learning (not mutually exclusive populations, by any means) – to pose a welcome antidote to the hype of the MFA: a vision of education both more expansive and more accessible. These loose and in some cases amorphous institutions – the Schoolhouse and the Mountain School of Arts are the most visible – work on a small scale, without a lot of fanfare, and with little to no concern for the boundaries between disciplines. Though they differ considerably in structure and approach, they share a commitment to broadening the foundation of the artistic and intellectual life.
The Schoolhouse, which was conceived by Fritz Haeg as an outgrowth of a series of salons he hosted in the dome (where he also lived until recently) from 2001 to 2006, is a continually morphing entity. In its first season – autumn 2006 – it took the form of an intensive college-like course, with a preselected group of nine students meeting every Sunday, 12 hours a day, for 12 weeks, to participate in discussions, workshops and projects led by a rotating assortment of teachers, on subjects ranging from yoga to poetry to magic to community organisation. This autumn it was a book club, meeting every Thursday for nine weeks and open to anyone who wanted to stop by (Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, 2007, was the featured book on the evening I visited). The school's functions, however, aren't limited to the vicinity of the dome. Last winter, it travelled to Manhattan for 'Dancing 9 to 5', a day of movement workshops in a Whitney Museum sculpture court, and to the Philadelphia Institute of Contemporary Art for 'The Philadelphia Training Camp for Expression Skills', a two-month 'clinic' devoted to communication, with topics such as 'The Fine Art of Writing Bad Poetry', 'How to Be an Unorthodox Tourguide of Your Own Terrains' and 'Make an Instrument Out of Everyday Shit'. Because Haeg no longer lives in the dome – he is on the road almost continuously with other projects – the Schoolhouse will now become almost entirely nomadic. This spring will find the project in Texas with 'How to Eat Austin', a seven-week series of workshops relating to ecology and gardening, presented in conjunction with Haeg’s solo show 'Attack on the Front Lawn', in a local space called Arthouse.
"My biggest problem with MFA programmes is how insular they are", Haeg says, "and how focused they are on contemporary fine art. If you want to be a really thoughtful, challenging, innovative artist, I think that the last thing you should be looking at is contemporary art. You should be looking at science and reading history and looking at the newspaper and looking at everything but art – you know? To just be stuck in a building with other artists your own age, and then only meeting with other artists that are maybe 10 or 20 years older than you – it's just such a small, narrow world to be living in. It's so limiting."
He points to the work of Buckminster Fuller, whose biography he presented in the book club's final session. "Basically his theory is that the powers that be want us to be specialists", Haeg says, "because they don't want us to see the big picture, because the more you see the big picture, the more apt you are to question things. He's saying that decades ago, but I think it's even more true today."
A similar concern underscores the philosophy of the Mountain School of Arts, which was founded in 2005 by artists Eric Wesley and Piero Golia, though the approach is very different. Whereas the Schoolhouse functions, to some degree, as an extension of Haeg's own artistic practice – though he considers himself more architect than author – Wesley and Golia are adamant that the Mountain School is neither a 'project' of theirs nor an art school, but an institution patterned on the university model and devoted to general education, with a curriculum grounded in science, philosophy and law. Wesley stresses this point multiple times in our correspondence, clearly wary of seeing the school featured in an art magazine. 'The mission of the school today is to diversify', he writes in an email, 'to break out of the constant reference of art school or remain trapped in the "art world" where you don't have a chance at the "real world".
'The school accepts around 15 students per year, half of them from outside the US, for a single three-month term (January through March). Classes are held two nights a week in the back room of a bar in the gallery-studded neighbourhood of Chinatown, and tuition is free. In both administrative and financial terms, it is a shoestring operation: the faculty (a handful of regulars and a rotating – often spontaneous – roster of visiting lecturers) donate their time, the bar donates the space and a sympathetic real-estate lawyer donates housing for the foreign students. The school's wealth is in its contacts, which, despite the founders’ aversion to ghettoisation, are particularly impressive in the creative disciplines (Paul McCarthy, Pierre Huyghe, Dan Graham, Simone Forti, Franz Ackermann, Christian Jankowski and Hans Ulrich Obrist have all made appearances). The goal, however, is to have an equally deep reach into all fields.
To illustrate the dangers of narrow thinking, Golia – a chatty and very funny Neapolitan who rarely gives a straight answer – recounts a call he received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, informing him, mistakenly, that his driver's license had expired the previous August: "Ma'am, it can't be", he says, "because I got it in October, so in August I didn't have it. And she's like, no, it's here on my computer: expired August 16. And I'm like, OK, does your computer say that it was issued in October? And she's like, yeah, October 22. And I'm like, so, do you have a brain to put your computer together?" He laughs incredulously. "So that's the idea of the school: stimulating thought. Obviously – thank God – we are not dealing with such tragic cases.
"Our dream", he continues, "is to become an encyclopedic school, to put together a community that is not anymore just artists, but that is… whoever. Like, if you want to become a better surgeon, come and expand your mind. Look around. The more you look around, the more you learn in life. You know, if you go to work for a mechanic for a year, it doesn't necessarily make you a better writer, but it helps your brain to keep moving. If you just do one thing in your life, you become like a machine – and my driver's license really will expire in August, before it was actually issued. So our dream is to cross the border."
Though markedly different in the particulars of structure and personality, the Sundown Schoolhouse and the Mountain School reflect what has long been a defining quality of LA art history: the capacity of its players to look beyond the grip of categories, hierarchies and institutions. As the community shifts now into a position of unprecedented visibility, globally speaking, and its dynamics continue, inevitably, to codify, the need for such vision is only more acute.
29th April 08 Minutes
Hi there I hope you are well. We had our second group meeting on Tuesday which went really well. We decided not to record it this time which took the pressure off a bit and instead of talking about possible outcomes for the meetings we got down to the nattering and eating.
Here is some of the topics we covered
The current Barbican exhibition: Martian Museum of Terrestrial Art
Double Agent at the ICA
The current Pump House show
New LA art schools
Other events which could run alongside the meetings
Historical and Theoretical content within artistic practices and its importance
Montessori schools and Steiner communities
Relational Aesthetics
Thinking laterally about influences, ie law, science, architecture, gardening etc.
We have decided to start off the next meeting with a discussion about a couple of short texts relating to alternative ways of living and learning; here are the links for them.
http://www.artreview.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1474022%3ABlogPost%3A91246%20
http://www.ladypirate.co.uk/AVL&RudolfSteiner.htm
Here is some of the topics we covered
The current Barbican exhibition: Martian Museum of Terrestrial Art
Double Agent at the ICA
The current Pump House show
New LA art schools
Other events which could run alongside the meetings
Historical and Theoretical content within artistic practices and its importance
Montessori schools and Steiner communities
Relational Aesthetics
Thinking laterally about influences, ie law, science, architecture, gardening etc.
We have decided to start off the next meeting with a discussion about a couple of short texts relating to alternative ways of living and learning; here are the links for them.
http://www.artreview.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1474022%3ABlogPost%3A91246%20
http://www.ladypirate.co.uk/AVL&RudolfSteiner.htm
11th March 08 Minutes
This is a bullet point list of what we covered and chatted about.
Claire - Introduced talking about a few examples of other artist lead organisations/groups
Canal Presents Artist film screenings talks – event based.
Rational Rec – films screening, events.
Self Service – Birmingham. Bringing artists together, group crits. They began Pub conversations; each artist in the group invites someone of influence who in turn invites someone. Has a website - each talk pod cast on Internet. Also has artist’s links. Started with someone acting as chair but not dictating.
Sheffield contemporary arts forum, artist awareness – e-lists
Leeds – started as critical debates leading to be an organisation
Giuseppe - Where we would like to go…
Place for discussion and debate. Similar to an institution, networks. Collective, bounce of each other
Meet up regularly face-to-face, instead of an Internet based group. Lots of information already on Internet.
Use each others skills, Giuseppe works in Artwords bookshop - etc
No exchange of money. Each bring a bit of food.
Needs the group to decide where we’d like to go with it, don’t want to dictate.
Studio visits, talks, film screenings and events?
Funding – AN networking artists network, awareness of other networks. To pay for talks etc.
Stand Assembly – Nottingham Spent NAN bursary on peoples travel to studios for visits.
Previous group experience…
Takes time to organise we shouldn’t have to put a lot of effort in as we all have other things on. Need a few more sessions to work out what people actually want from meeting and getting to know each other.
Having something that is separate to the commercial world. Develop links with artist and curators and writers away from galleries. Would be a place to form these links.
Past bad experience with group crits at Arts Admin. No structure, turned into a counselling session, good to have some kind of structure.
What it could be…
Meeting for specific things – 15mins to talk about work. Topics for sessions?
Encouraging people meeting up separately rather than whole group. Separate studio visits.
Not talking about individual work but topics around it – for example moving to Berlin and feasibility.
Not confusing what the time is for, addressing issues.
Discussions that are relevant to others?
Discussions about practical things like funding bursaries, framing, and proposals.
Rough structure, people would be interested in that, talking about there work, presentations. Opportunities to work together.
Two people a week to discuss their work.
Not the same people should organise, as it would be too much of a commitment.
Find the common things within the group.
Hosting evenings. Doesn’t have to be finished work.
Once a month. Group emailing to schedule the next meeting.
Devout a part of the session to presentation, then chat. Relax listen and have a chat afterwards.
What each person that attended does…
Claire
Works 4 days a week, my own work the rest of the time. Video and audio works. In a book not long ago which I did a screenplay for from a video I had made.
Fox
Also works four days, soon hopefully going down to 2. Works on his own work and collaborates, makes videos and performance. Just graduated from goldsmiths MA. Doing collaboration with a curator and a critic to set up an online magazine.
Greg
Sculpture, thinking about going onto furniture making. Working freelance set building.
Tess
Does photography and incorporates sculpture into it. Works 3-4 days a week. Just got a new studio in Walthamstow. Recently got a commission to do some new work.
Giuseppe
Works 4 days a week – bookshop and publishers. Makes performative work, which uses film and photography. Super 8, Polaroids and slides. Site specific.
Mary
Works 5 days a week. Lives in a live/work with studio. Has been making live performance for a couple of years, heading more towards sculpture involving drawing video performance. Got a solo show coming up which is exciting, then a performance in Berlin after that.
Then we ate…Pasta and cakes
Does anyone want to show his or her work next time or present something?
Were their any other people going to come?
Should have been about 15.
I think we should hold off on doing anything until others that want to be involved come along.
No think we should go for it and people should just join
Like to address to more people, meet and get to know more people
Lets not move to fast with this!
Good to be comfortable and get to know people in the group
Not having much money, not having a lot of free time… it’s easy just to meet people that you know.
Spare time ends up being making work time.
Nepotism
Finds it hard to get in there, sick of trying to talk to people I don’t know
Networking is bullshit!
Yeah, What the fuck are we doing?!
AN “Just go to an opening and start talking to someone, why don’t you say, what work do you make?”
Wear a T-Shirt saying let’s network!
I used to love that shit and now I turn up to an opening and you see all these people and you think maybe I actually don’t want to talk to anyone.
Everyone in there groups, that’s why it would be nice to get out of that environment. Its by word of mouth that this will get other people involved and grow
What is interesting is knowing a group of artists that are friends and they live in the same city, London or somewhere else and you find out they met on a residency in New York, or the Lake district or somewhere like that. They don’t even know each other from living down the road from each other. They just know each other from that time they have spent together, and that how you bond with people.
That’s why I’m living with my flat mate
Why don’t we all go away together then?!
Just go individually and bring 5 people back
Back to structure…
Think if we have some kind of structure for next time that will bring people in.
Need something to offer, meet up on this date and 1 or 2 people are going to talk about a specific topic. So we can work around that afterwards, so people don’t feel they are wasting their time.
But people will only turn up to what they think they can get something out of.
I just quite like the idea of just meeting up and getting the chance to talk to people.
Bullet point - tell other people that couldn’t make it what we’ve gone through and that might attract people, and people may then add to it. 1st meeting maybe a bit scary to some people.
It will take a long time to make an agenda on everyone’s wants. Does anyone want to actually do anything or do we just meet up and talk? Is it a crit thing or people presenting information about things they like or absolutely anything? Things that can be accumitivley worked on through out meetings.
The bigger the group the harder for everyone to have a say and restrictions on what can happen – meeting up once a month and 1 person showing there work, we’d be here for ever!!
What people would like to do next time…
I like the idea of seeing someone’s work or someone talking about a topic.
2 people hosting the evening.
I’d like to do a cross pollination of ideas, figuring out new links between things, someone bring in something to do with snakes – someone else something about sculpture. Like research.
Explore something and bring it in.
An object – show and tell - Like a social crutch.
Two people bringing something.
Time frame – so it doesn’t carry on too much.
I’m going to bring a lap dancer and see what you all say about that!!
I’m interested by experimental Jazz – but I don’t know much about it.
Not like an institution, fun, not dry and stiff. Not necessarily based on theory.
Keeping deadlines.
Happy to meet again and see if anyone else has anything to bring up, otherwise we are setting up structures. Would be good to hear what others opinions are.
No one has anything pressing to say right now or next time
Good to just have a group of people to bounce off as you don’t often get the chance to with a group of people
Serious dedicated time to talk about art, which doesn’t often happen in studios, just passing comments
Good space to carry it out, private and own toilet. Early week bookings, free. Can bring our own food. Fits at least 15 people in.
Mondays / Tuesdays – Tuesdays preferred
Claire - Introduced talking about a few examples of other artist lead organisations/groups
Canal Presents Artist film screenings talks – event based.
Rational Rec – films screening, events.
Self Service – Birmingham. Bringing artists together, group crits. They began Pub conversations; each artist in the group invites someone of influence who in turn invites someone. Has a website - each talk pod cast on Internet. Also has artist’s links. Started with someone acting as chair but not dictating.
Sheffield contemporary arts forum, artist awareness – e-lists
Leeds – started as critical debates leading to be an organisation
Giuseppe - Where we would like to go…
Place for discussion and debate. Similar to an institution, networks. Collective, bounce of each other
Meet up regularly face-to-face, instead of an Internet based group. Lots of information already on Internet.
Use each others skills, Giuseppe works in Artwords bookshop - etc
No exchange of money. Each bring a bit of food.
Needs the group to decide where we’d like to go with it, don’t want to dictate.
Studio visits, talks, film screenings and events?
Funding – AN networking artists network, awareness of other networks. To pay for talks etc.
Stand Assembly – Nottingham Spent NAN bursary on peoples travel to studios for visits.
Previous group experience…
Takes time to organise we shouldn’t have to put a lot of effort in as we all have other things on. Need a few more sessions to work out what people actually want from meeting and getting to know each other.
Having something that is separate to the commercial world. Develop links with artist and curators and writers away from galleries. Would be a place to form these links.
Past bad experience with group crits at Arts Admin. No structure, turned into a counselling session, good to have some kind of structure.
What it could be…
Meeting for specific things – 15mins to talk about work. Topics for sessions?
Encouraging people meeting up separately rather than whole group. Separate studio visits.
Not talking about individual work but topics around it – for example moving to Berlin and feasibility.
Not confusing what the time is for, addressing issues.
Discussions that are relevant to others?
Discussions about practical things like funding bursaries, framing, and proposals.
Rough structure, people would be interested in that, talking about there work, presentations. Opportunities to work together.
Two people a week to discuss their work.
Not the same people should organise, as it would be too much of a commitment.
Find the common things within the group.
Hosting evenings. Doesn’t have to be finished work.
Once a month. Group emailing to schedule the next meeting.
Devout a part of the session to presentation, then chat. Relax listen and have a chat afterwards.
What each person that attended does…
Claire
Works 4 days a week, my own work the rest of the time. Video and audio works. In a book not long ago which I did a screenplay for from a video I had made.
Fox
Also works four days, soon hopefully going down to 2. Works on his own work and collaborates, makes videos and performance. Just graduated from goldsmiths MA. Doing collaboration with a curator and a critic to set up an online magazine.
Greg
Sculpture, thinking about going onto furniture making. Working freelance set building.
Tess
Does photography and incorporates sculpture into it. Works 3-4 days a week. Just got a new studio in Walthamstow. Recently got a commission to do some new work.
Giuseppe
Works 4 days a week – bookshop and publishers. Makes performative work, which uses film and photography. Super 8, Polaroids and slides. Site specific.
Mary
Works 5 days a week. Lives in a live/work with studio. Has been making live performance for a couple of years, heading more towards sculpture involving drawing video performance. Got a solo show coming up which is exciting, then a performance in Berlin after that.
Then we ate…Pasta and cakes
Does anyone want to show his or her work next time or present something?
Were their any other people going to come?
Should have been about 15.
I think we should hold off on doing anything until others that want to be involved come along.
No think we should go for it and people should just join
Like to address to more people, meet and get to know more people
Lets not move to fast with this!
Good to be comfortable and get to know people in the group
Not having much money, not having a lot of free time… it’s easy just to meet people that you know.
Spare time ends up being making work time.
Nepotism
Finds it hard to get in there, sick of trying to talk to people I don’t know
Networking is bullshit!
Yeah, What the fuck are we doing?!
AN “Just go to an opening and start talking to someone, why don’t you say, what work do you make?”
Wear a T-Shirt saying let’s network!
I used to love that shit and now I turn up to an opening and you see all these people and you think maybe I actually don’t want to talk to anyone.
Everyone in there groups, that’s why it would be nice to get out of that environment. Its by word of mouth that this will get other people involved and grow
What is interesting is knowing a group of artists that are friends and they live in the same city, London or somewhere else and you find out they met on a residency in New York, or the Lake district or somewhere like that. They don’t even know each other from living down the road from each other. They just know each other from that time they have spent together, and that how you bond with people.
That’s why I’m living with my flat mate
Why don’t we all go away together then?!
Just go individually and bring 5 people back
Back to structure…
Think if we have some kind of structure for next time that will bring people in.
Need something to offer, meet up on this date and 1 or 2 people are going to talk about a specific topic. So we can work around that afterwards, so people don’t feel they are wasting their time.
But people will only turn up to what they think they can get something out of.
I just quite like the idea of just meeting up and getting the chance to talk to people.
Bullet point - tell other people that couldn’t make it what we’ve gone through and that might attract people, and people may then add to it. 1st meeting maybe a bit scary to some people.
It will take a long time to make an agenda on everyone’s wants. Does anyone want to actually do anything or do we just meet up and talk? Is it a crit thing or people presenting information about things they like or absolutely anything? Things that can be accumitivley worked on through out meetings.
The bigger the group the harder for everyone to have a say and restrictions on what can happen – meeting up once a month and 1 person showing there work, we’d be here for ever!!
What people would like to do next time…
I like the idea of seeing someone’s work or someone talking about a topic.
2 people hosting the evening.
I’d like to do a cross pollination of ideas, figuring out new links between things, someone bring in something to do with snakes – someone else something about sculpture. Like research.
Explore something and bring it in.
An object – show and tell - Like a social crutch.
Two people bringing something.
Time frame – so it doesn’t carry on too much.
I’m going to bring a lap dancer and see what you all say about that!!
I’m interested by experimental Jazz – but I don’t know much about it.
Not like an institution, fun, not dry and stiff. Not necessarily based on theory.
Keeping deadlines.
Happy to meet again and see if anyone else has anything to bring up, otherwise we are setting up structures. Would be good to hear what others opinions are.
No one has anything pressing to say right now or next time
Good to just have a group of people to bounce off as you don’t often get the chance to with a group of people
Serious dedicated time to talk about art, which doesn’t often happen in studios, just passing comments
Good space to carry it out, private and own toilet. Early week bookings, free. Can bring our own food. Fits at least 15 people in.
Mondays / Tuesdays – Tuesdays preferred
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)