These are incredibly relevant questions and as always artists seem to be on the forefront to trying to re-think their practice and approaches.
I wonder if the sculptures for the Fourth Plinth commission could be made present elsewhere, either a sculpture park of a museum, as a loan to museums - but that the artist is not responsible for storing / exhibiting their commission - it should be in the hand of the city of London to deal with the artworks. Having recyclable materials would be an option too and would make the experience an elusive 2 years ... it’s tricky for sure.
Unfortunately Barlow will not have to solve the question for her own practice anymore, but I appreciate her even considering changing her approach for a more sustainable one.
Humans inherently impact the environment, no matter what we do. I think for all of us being mindful about this means learning what it is that is harmful and what we can do to reduce that harm. It also means for that the art industry as a whole, not only artists, have a lot of work to do to address the issue. In my own journey trying to remove plastic from my process I have discovered just how difficult it is to use organic materials that are at least able to be home composted, unless I make my own. It is difficult to find ingredient lists from supplies manufacturers so even identifying which paint or ink might be harmful is tricky. While most of my collages and waste I generate are compostable, if I frame them I have to consider the foam core backing, how a frame is actually made, where the framing materials come from eg. shipped from overseas. My choice is to use that material, find a supplier who is more aligned with my values or again make it myself. The irony of a monumental work of art expressing a message about marine pollution made with a huge amount of acrylic paint, metalics and other materials is not lost on me. So I think yes individual artists can contribute to resolving this issue however, it requires industry solutions as well and we either make nothing which is probably unthinkable for those driven to create or we, including our industry, changes the way we do things.
I love Barlow's big work, it's sort of apocalyptic and makes me think about the damage we are doing to the environment. Not sure if that's what she intends, but I agree with you Victoria that art is about putting uncomfortable ideas in front of us to make us think about important things. If she doesn't do this work then we are removing one voice in the many voices we need to try and effect change before it's too late. I know everyone has to do their part but in the grand scheme of things I feel like her work sort of cancels its footprint out with the message it carries.
Nothing is ever simple is it? All we can do is to try and minimise our footprint as much as possible. I do think what artists do is too important for them to stop doing it altogether or to stop exhibiting.
It’s a juicy question isn’t it? I’m kind of surprised (and not) that these works are just sat in storage, I’m guessing the big galleries have similar challenges in storing and displaying collections. I wonder if you added up all the storage costs of the V&A /tate etc with heating/lighting etc and did an environmental impact assessment what we’d find?
I think she makes a fair point about the responsibility attached to commissioning these big pieces. I would worry about what we’d lose or never see if that platform wasn’t available, but the fashion industry and architecture continues to prove that sustainability doesn’t have to be at odds with aesthetic or desirability.
I’m still really bowled over by our virtual gallery experience in London last year to see New Fiction https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/whats-on/acute-art-presents-kaws-new-fiction/ with the looming figures hanging about on the ceiling and in the courtyard, but of course there’s a cost to creating digital that is often not calculated too.
These are incredibly relevant questions and as always artists seem to be on the forefront to trying to re-think their practice and approaches.
I wonder if the sculptures for the Fourth Plinth commission could be made present elsewhere, either a sculpture park of a museum, as a loan to museums - but that the artist is not responsible for storing / exhibiting their commission - it should be in the hand of the city of London to deal with the artworks. Having recyclable materials would be an option too and would make the experience an elusive 2 years ... it’s tricky for sure.
Unfortunately Barlow will not have to solve the question for her own practice anymore, but I appreciate her even considering changing her approach for a more sustainable one.
Humans inherently impact the environment, no matter what we do. I think for all of us being mindful about this means learning what it is that is harmful and what we can do to reduce that harm. It also means for that the art industry as a whole, not only artists, have a lot of work to do to address the issue. In my own journey trying to remove plastic from my process I have discovered just how difficult it is to use organic materials that are at least able to be home composted, unless I make my own. It is difficult to find ingredient lists from supplies manufacturers so even identifying which paint or ink might be harmful is tricky. While most of my collages and waste I generate are compostable, if I frame them I have to consider the foam core backing, how a frame is actually made, where the framing materials come from eg. shipped from overseas. My choice is to use that material, find a supplier who is more aligned with my values or again make it myself. The irony of a monumental work of art expressing a message about marine pollution made with a huge amount of acrylic paint, metalics and other materials is not lost on me. So I think yes individual artists can contribute to resolving this issue however, it requires industry solutions as well and we either make nothing which is probably unthinkable for those driven to create or we, including our industry, changes the way we do things.
I love Barlow's big work, it's sort of apocalyptic and makes me think about the damage we are doing to the environment. Not sure if that's what she intends, but I agree with you Victoria that art is about putting uncomfortable ideas in front of us to make us think about important things. If she doesn't do this work then we are removing one voice in the many voices we need to try and effect change before it's too late. I know everyone has to do their part but in the grand scheme of things I feel like her work sort of cancels its footprint out with the message it carries.
Nothing is ever simple is it? All we can do is to try and minimise our footprint as much as possible. I do think what artists do is too important for them to stop doing it altogether or to stop exhibiting.
It’s a juicy question isn’t it? I’m kind of surprised (and not) that these works are just sat in storage, I’m guessing the big galleries have similar challenges in storing and displaying collections. I wonder if you added up all the storage costs of the V&A /tate etc with heating/lighting etc and did an environmental impact assessment what we’d find?
I think she makes a fair point about the responsibility attached to commissioning these big pieces. I would worry about what we’d lose or never see if that platform wasn’t available, but the fashion industry and architecture continues to prove that sustainability doesn’t have to be at odds with aesthetic or desirability.
I’m still really bowled over by our virtual gallery experience in London last year to see New Fiction https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/whats-on/acute-art-presents-kaws-new-fiction/ with the looming figures hanging about on the ceiling and in the courtyard, but of course there’s a cost to creating digital that is often not calculated too.