8 Comments
User's avatar
Lucia Täubler's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Helen S.'s avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Dr Victoria Powell's avatar

Yes!

Expand full comment
Leila Ainge's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Dr Victoria Powell's avatar

I hear what you're saying about digital art, but I think we would lose a lot if art moved predominantly into the digital realm. There's something about the power in the materiality of art. It's a tricky issue that just doesn't have a clean solution, but I sort of agree with Billie that I think that most artists do such good work in the world that they kind of cancel out their footprint.

Expand full comment
Leila Ainge's avatar

I was thinking about the L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped up and how the grandness of it made it so accessible through images, it gave it a tangible feel if even if you didn’t get to see it, large works add something different that’s for sure.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jan 27, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Dr Victoria Powell's avatar

I knew you'd have a lot to say about this about this Amanda! I would love to record a 15 minute zoom with you about your work and your approach to sustainable practice to send out to my mailing list / post on socials. If you're up for that I'll message you with a link to book in a time slot that suits you?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jan 25, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Dr Victoria Powell's avatar

Yes, I think I agree. That's not to say that artists shouldn't be as thoughtful and careful about their footprint as possible, but I just think art is so important in our world as a mode of reflection, slowing people down, making people think about their lives.

Expand full comment