Artistic Labour

Knjiga proučuje neplačano umetniško delo in kulturno politiko v času samoupravnega socializma in na prehodu v obdobje postsocializma. Avtorica razvija argument v treh poglavjih: »Kulturna politika in paradoks neplačanega dela«, »Od avantgarde do alternative: umetniško delo in avtonomija v samoupravnem socializmu« in »Postsocialistična razlastitev: prekarizacija kulturnih podjetnikov in razredno razslojevanje kulture«. Prvo poglavje razčlenjuje konceptualni okvir, drugo in tretje pa vzpon neplačanega umetniškega dela v socializmu in poslabšanje delovnih razmer kulturnih delavcev v obdobju prehoda v postsocializem.
Osrednja teza knjige se nanaša na paradoksalno »avtonomijo« dela na področju umetniške produkcije. Avtorica ponuja objektiv, skozi katerega vidimo osupljiva protislovja v samem jedru umetniškega dela: čeprav institucija umetnosti zagotavlja relativno avtonomijo, ki umetnikom omogoča določanje vsebinskih okvirov njihovega dela kot specializiranega poklica, obenem organizira razmere za izkoriščevalski sistem, ki ga na področju kulture zaznamujejo nestalne oblike zaposlitve, podplačanost dela, plačna neenakost in nezanesljiva socialna varnost. Ugled in navidezna izjemnost umetniškega dela zakrivata nepravičnost prekarnega in pogosto neplačanega dela, ki vzdržuje institucijo umetnosti. Avtorica te razmere poimenuje paradoks neplačanega dela (prvo poglavje) in o njem razpravlja na primerih, ki zajemajo tako kulturnopolitične ukrepe, ki naj bi zajezili protislovja s pravno regulacijo umetniškega dela, kot tudi umetniške iniciative, ki so povezane s to protislovno zagato in se borijo proti njej (drugo in tretje poglavje).
Delo temelji na specifični feministični perspektivi, s katere avtorica analizira izjemnost umetnikovega ali umetničinega dela v primerjavi z neplačanim gospodinjskim delom. Namreč, ravno navidezna »notranja« poklicanost – k umetniškemu ustvarjanju oziroma skrbi za gospodinjstvo – obe vrsti dela razveljavlja v kapitalskem razmerju, ju dela za nevidni, kajti povezava s plačo bi gospodinje in umetnike vzpostavila kot delavce. Ker je umetniško delo običajno razumljeno kot izjemno, je državno reguliranje trga dela na področju umetnosti pojmovano kot nagrada za izjemnost, in ne kot zaščita delavskih in ekonomskih pravic kulturnih delavcev in delavk.
Z analizo ukrepov kulturne politike in umetniških bojev za novo vlogo umetnosti v socialistični družbi avtorica dokazuje, da je socialistični državi blaginje spodletelo oblikovati tak produkcijski model za umetnost, ki bi se izognil neplačanemu delu. Posledica tega je bil nastanek alternativne umetniške scene, ki je sčasoma postala sidrišče prekarnih delovnih razmer. Umetniško delo v samoupravnem socializmu je bilo tako ujeto v paradoks: po eni strani je bila kulturna produkcija podprta kot javna dobrina v socialni državi, po drugi pa je naraščalo število kulturnih delavcev, ki so bili podplačani in so delovali v  razmerah neenakopravne socialne zaščite in s pomanjkljivimi delavskimi pravicami. Knjiga nato z vidika politične transformacije socializma in vzpona neoliberalne vladnosti analizira neplačano umetniško delo ob vnovičnem premisleku političnega programa alternative osemdesetih let in s preiskovanjem poskusov neodvisne kulture v devetdesetih letih, ki je s sklicevanjem na avtonomijo hotela izboljšati delovne razmere za umetniško ustvarjanje. V zadnjem poglavju avtorica analizira uvedbo konkurenčnih odnosov na trgu kulturniške delovne sile – tako je kulturna politika na novo opredelila kulturne delavce, in sicer kot kulturne podjetnike – in pojasnjuje postsocialistični paradoks neplačanega umetniškega dela: medtem ko država še vedno (so)financira kulturno produkcijo kot javno dobrino, umetniško delo regulira z rabo izkoriščevalskih tehnik. S tem ustvarja podjetniške subjekte, ki na svoj račun in brez delavskih pravic tekmujejo za čedalje bolj pičla javna sredstva.

This research seeks to understand the contemporary artistic labour of painting in a ‘post-aesthetic’ view, in which artistic knowledge is seen as socially situated, embodied, and emergent; existing in processes rather than artefacts. This has implications for understanding the ‘work’ of painting.  Debates on artistic subjectivity and creative work ignore skilled and cognitive processes of labour (Taylor, 2011).  An exception is Roberts (2007) who proposes that artistic subjectivity has become ‘decentred’, distributed across people, skills and tools.  However, his labour theory does not address painting in any depth.  My research explores decentred artistic subjectivity from within painting.  Using a practice-led method, it explores how painting can evolve a practice in line with new norms around ‘spectatorship’, and asks how we might understand this labour.  Painter-researchers have done much to understand artistic subjectivity as distributed across bodies and materials, but lack focus on ‘social’ conditions of practice.  My research brings this social focus, employing a framework of ‘ecological cognition’ to develop a theory and practice of painting as emergent knowledge that unfolds in relationships between bodies, materials, the ‘social’, and the environment.  It tests a new practice-led perspective for understanding creative work, exploring cognitive processes of contemporary artistic labour. It brings a ‘social’ perspective to understanding the work of artist and audience in painting as research.  It develops a post-Cartesian understanding of ‘making-as-thinking’ that involves body and material interactions, rhythm and gesture.  It considers the embodiment of social structures in artefacts and individual habitual practices, examining cognition as a ‘social’ process.  It suggests that ‘co-responsibility’ (Bolt, 2007) encompasses artist, audience, and artefacts in meaning-making.  It contributes a practical framework for sharing artwork and proposes that ‘creative labour’ (Gulli, 2005) can be a shared art of inquiry that is not just a way of knowing; it reveals social ‘being’.

Should artists understand their artistic activities as work or labor? The article examines the various fields of artistic practice beyond the exhibition nexus and discusses the opportunities and pitfalls associated with recent role models for artists such as being a researcher, a social engineer, a project developer or an activist.

In her text " Politics of Art: Contemporary Art and the Transition to Post:Democracy " Berlin: based artist and theoretican Hito Steyerl describes the function of art in a post:industrial society as one of the primary fuels in the accumulation of capital. Art and culture, she writes, is no longer at the periphery of capitalist production but at its very centre driving it forward. This is because post: 1960s economies thrive on cognitive, affective and flexible labour on which the production of art has sustained itself for a long time. Artistic production, as a result of this, is regarded as the perfect labour form in capital's ongoing desire of becoming an autonomous subject complete in itself. That artistic and creative labour today is one of the main components in the necessary expan: sion of capitalism shows itself on many levels in the production of art. For example higher art education has shifted significantly in its aims and methods. Art schools, sociologist Pascal Gielen claims, have since the beginning of the early 2000 increasingly put more and more pressure on stu: dents to become young creative entrepreneurs more engaged in their websites and business cards than in their own artistic work. An example of this is that one of London's major art schools, the Royal College of Art, since a couple of years back, have turned the yearly – before fairly informal – graduate show into a showroom where collectors, curators and gallery directors are invited and so able to capitalise and institutionalise the works of the students before it has even escaped the allowing atmosphere which art schools before have always provided. On top of that can of course be added the new fee system in the United Kingdom, which has turned art schools into amusement parks for the nouveaux riches. The dissolution of capitalist and artistic production, and the yearning of capital to fully subsume the latter is also visible in the politics of many funding bodies. For example, both the Arts Council in the United Kingdom and Kulturbryggan in Sweden, require artists as well as Contemporary art is a brand name without a brand, ready to be slapped onto almost anything, a quick face:lift touting the new creative imperative for places in need of an extreme makeover, the suspense of gambling com: bined with the stern pleasures of the upper:class boarding school education, a licensed playground for a world confused and collapsed by dizzying deregu: lation. If contemporary art is the answer, the question is: How can capitalism be more beautiful? 1

In an age of global pandemic, we have become aware that trusted linear patterns of thinking and expectation must now be reassessed in what is a changed present and uncertain future. Lucy Cotter's edited book Reclaiming Artistic Research (2019) is prescient of a need to break with linear expectations and to remember that we can never step in the same river twice. Multiple Perspectives The central ambition of this book is to offer different perspectives from creative practitioners, who reflect on how they use artistic research to further their practices and critique the institutional structures that seek to envelop it. This is a time when artistic research has been co-opted by art institutions particularly in academia through research degrees. This book reminds us that the processes of art cannot be codified, contained or pinned down like a butterfly in a collection. The search in artistic research is intrinsically open-endeda way forward. This book is not a manifesto but rather an accumulation of dialogues that loosely pique our awareness.

This research seeks to understand the contemporary artistic labour of painting in a ‘post-aesthetic’ view, in which artistic knowledge is seen as socially situated, embodied, and emergent; existing in processes rather than artefacts. This has implications for understanding the ‘work’ of painting. Debates on artistic subjectivity and creative work ignore skilled and cognitive processes of labour (Taylor, 2011). An exception is Roberts (2007) who proposes that artistic subjectivity has become ‘decentred’, distributed across people, skills and tools. However, his labour theory does not address painting in any depth. My research explores decentred artistic subjectivity from within painting. Using a practice-led method, it explores how painting can evolve a practice in line with new norms around ‘spectatorship’, and asks how we might understand this labour. Painter-researchers have done much to understand artistic subjectivity as distributed across bodies and materials, but lack focus on...

There are more aspiring artists than available positions for artists in artistic labor markets. For fiction writers, the publication of a first book often means getting the first big break in their literary career and entering the literary world as a published author. However, few writers succeed in their aspiration to become published. This article draws on interviews with 59 writers in Swe-den, to explore the tension resulting from the passing of time while aspiring for, but not having, the first big break. The aspiration among writers is an orientation towards attempting to publicly communicate their fiction writing through a published book. Interruptions to the aspiration can create existential dilemmas of unfulfilled aspirations. The unfulfillment of the aspiration may be existentially responded to through "urgency" or "floating", where the writer actively pushes for success or loses the aspiration. The article addresses aspiration in situations where artists' chances for success are uncertain and are decided by gatekeepers. The theoretical framework developed is useful for understanding aspiration over time visa -vis existential dimensions of artistic careers which do not conform to an aspired for ideal career.

Niniejszy numer „Praktyki Teoretycznej” w glownej mierze poświecony zostal zlozonej relacji miedzy polityką a literaturą. Teksty z tytulowej cześci numeru są efektem wspolpracy Praktyki Teoretycznej z Korporacją Ha!art, i cześciowo są poklosiem konferencji „Writing Literature, Reading Society. Power, Politics and Economy in Contemporary Literary Production.” zorganizowanej przez Ha!art w październiku ubieglego roku w Krakowie. Numeru nie […]

This article addresses the class composition of artistic and cultural labor in the metropolis: practices bringing with them political possibilities and potentials for renewed economic growth, but also the threat of exploitation and precarity. To shed light on the area of knowledge engaging with the lived realities of creative workers and the forms of subjectivation occurring in forms of labor, we bring together existing accounts addressing the politics of cultural work and the findings of our “Metropolitan Factory” research project. The research project, based on an investigation of the conditions and activities of independent cultural producers and drawing from the tradition of workers' inquiry, addresses, among other issues, the spatial organization of the creative labor process, the language used by workers to describe relations between life and work, and various forms of self-expression.