AUTHOR(S):

TITLE:

YEAR:

Publisher citation:

OpenAIR citation:

Publisher copyright statement:

OpenAIR takedown statement:

This publication is made freely available under ________ open access.

This is the ______________________ version of a work originally published by _____________________________ (ISBN ___________________; eISBN ___________________; ISSN __________).

This publication is distributed under a CC ____________ license.

____________________________________________________

Section 6 of the “Repository policy for OpenAIR @ RGU” (available from http://www.rgu.ac.uk/staff-and-current-students/library/library-policies/repository-policies) provides guidance on the criteria under which RGU will consider withdrawing material from OpenAIR. If you believe that this item is subject to any of these criteria, or for any other reason should not be held on OpenAIR, then please contact openair-help@rgu.ac.uk with the details of the item and the nature of your complaint.

1

‘Venturingoutonthethreadofatune’:theArtistasImprovisorinPubliclife

AnneDouglas

Justasthemusicianorcomposerhasathisdisposala‘theory’withwhichhecanworkmeaningfullywhetherhefollowsitclosely,developsitordeviatesfromit,sothepainterandthesculptorneedatheorydealingwiththelawsofrhythm,proportion,measure,weight(light‐dark),quality(colour),space,andthelike.(Grohmann1959,p174)

IndiscussingtheworkofWassilyKandinskyofsomehundredyearsago,WillGrohmann,anarthistorian,focusesonKandinsky’sefforttodevelopanewgrammarforthevisualarts.Kandinsky,Grohmannargues,undertakesaprofoundrethinkingofvisualperceptionfromtheperspectiveoftheartist.WorkingalongsidePaulKleeandothersinthecontextoftheBauhausatWeimar,Kandinskyrepositionedartandcraftinrelationbothtoindustrialisationandtheemergenceofanthroposophy,atapointofmomentoussocial,culturalandpoliticalchange.Itis‘theory’Grohmannarguesthatguidestheartistsandtheirfollowerstonavigatethroughthenewterrainaesthetically,practically,spirituallyandintellectually.Actingasleaders,theyopenedupanewkindofpotentialinthewaythevisualartswerethoughtandpractised.Intheearly21stcenturysomeleadingartistssuchasSuzanneLacy,HelenMayerandNewtonHarrison,JohnNewlingandMierleLadermanUkelesamongothers,haveincreasinglyfocusedtheirunderstandingofchangewithinissuesthateffectpubliclife,shiftinggravityfromindividualexperiencesofmaterialproduction,formandgrammarthatarguablydefinedmodernisminart,toadifferentfocus,aqualityofencounterinpubliclife.Theydelineateapointoftransitionfrommodernismintoadifferentwayofunderstandingartintheworld.Modernismwaspredominantlyconcernedwithevolvingformfromamaterialbaseindevelopingautopianworldofcontinuousprogress.Thepracticesoftheselaterartists,incontrast,focusoncurrentsystemsofvalue,ontheimplicationsofvalueinshapinghowweliveinthepresent–forbetterorworse.Theirworkisalsodeeplyconcernedwithform,butinadifferentway.Ithasbecomeincreasinglyimportant,forexample,forartistslikethesetohaveinsightintotheprocessesbywhichtheyengageapublic,tomakelegiblethedynamicbetweentheirworkanditspublics,symbolicallyaswellasthroughformsofintervention.Theychallengethecanonofsinglemediumartforms,workingdirectlyincommunities,organisationsandinstitutionsofpubliclife,encounteringinconsistencyandcontradiction.Theyareneverentirelyincontrolofhowtheworkunfoldsintheworld,ofhowitmightdevelopthroughparticipation.WhereGrohmanncites‘theory’offorminmodernismasaguidingprinciple,thischapteroffersmetaphorsasanequivalentfocustoexploretheparticularcharacterofsociallyfocusedartpractice.Metaphoroperatesinadifferentwayfromtheory.Metaphors,unliketheories,arefluid,relativeandmutable.Theydonotestablishprinciplesbasedonanalysisbutarealtogethermoreexploratory,

2

focusingtheimaginationinaparticularway.Iposethequestion‐towhatextentmightimprovisationactasametaphorofferinginsightintothenatureofartisticapproachesthatpositionartwithinissuesandsubjectivitiesofeverydaylife?Improvisationinartisoftenunderstoodinanon‐metaphoricalwayi.e.asaveryparticularapproachtothecreationofanartworkforexampleinjazzorinnonnotatedmusicaltraditionssuchastheclassicalIndianraga.HereandincontrastIjuxtaposetwodifferentmetaphoricalsensesofimprovisation.Bothareconcernedwithactingandthinkingfreely.Intheoneweescapeapastinwhichwearetrappedinpointlessrepetitionbyundertakinganewdirection.Inthesecond,pastandpresentareentangledwithinacontinuousunfoldingprocess.Bothwaysofthinkingaboutimprovisationareusedtoexploreamovementinartfrommaterialconcernstoissuesofpubliclifeinaselectionofartists’practicesthroughaseriesofquestions:How,ifatall,isimprovisationpresent?Whyisitsignificant?Whatdoesimprovisationasametaphorrevealabouttherelationshipofarttopubliclifeinthelate20thand21stcenturies?Howmightananalysisofimprovisationinartdevelopinsightintoimprovisationasawayofbeinginlife?Livingwithenvironmentalchange:HelenMayerandNewtonHarrisonAsartistsandecologists,HelenMayerandNewtonHarrisonhavebeenconcernedoverfiftyyearswiththeimplicationsofeco‐culturalwell‐beingbetweenhumanandnon‐humancommunities.Theyexploretheecologiesofparticularplacesthroughaseriesofquestions:Howbigishere?Howlongisournow?Thesequestionsarenotseekingdefinitiveanswers.Theyactasapointofentryintothecomplexityofrelationshipsineco‐systems(Douglas&Fremantle2016).TheHarrisons’workisaprofoundcritiqueofmankind’sincreasingtendencytoassumecontrolovernature,resultingfromaproblematictransmutationofknowledgeintoeconomicsystemsbasedinvaluesofprogressandprofit.In1974atanearlystageintheirartisticpartnership,NewtonHarrisonobserved

Itisnotthesupermarketasacentreoftrade,whichisitslegitimateculturalfunction,thatdisruptsman’sintuitivecontactwithhisbiologicalsources,butthesupermarketasautopiansimplifieranddeveloperofartificialneedsthateventuallyerodesourinnersenseofdiscriminationandourabilitytorelatemagicallytotheenvironment(Burnham1974,p166).1

TheHarrisonshaveslowlyevolvedanalternativeimaginaryrecastinghuman/environmentalrelationsasinterdependent.ThisismostvividlyexpressedintwomirroringtextsinTheLagoonCycle1975‐85,aprojectthat 1 I am grateful to Chris Fremantle for drawing my attention to this quote 1st October 2015

3

studiedtheecologyofaspeciesofcrabinSriLanka.TheartistsattemptedtomimicandreconstructthehabitatofthecrabinCaliforniainordertoquestionanddocumentdifferentstagesoftheirgrowingunderstandingofitslifeconditions.AretheHarrisonsimprovisinginthiswork?Ifso,how?TheLagoonCycle,asadiscretework,takestheformofapublishedtextandanexhibitionthatbothincludelarge‐scalemapsandimages.Thetexttakesshapeasadialoguebetweentwoopposingperspectivesorcharacters–thatoftheWitnessassomeonewhoreflectsonandquestionscoursesofaction,versustheLagoonMaker,whoismorespontaneous,drivenbypro‐actionmorethanreflection.Itisthroughinterplaybetweenthetwopositionsthatnewinsightemerges.Differencesarenotresolvedbutheldinproductivetension.Thewholeworkisconsciousofformalvalues,of“rhythm,proportion,measure,weight(light‐dark),quality(colour),space”(Grohmann1959).Thisisevidentinthefollowingtwoshortfragments,inthewaytheseareorganised,paced,andintheuseofrepetitiontodevelopunderpinningideas.ThefragmentsappearatdifferentpartsofTheLagoonCyclebutareusefullyjuxtaposedheretogiveasenseoftheHarrisons’approach.“ButpeoplearetoughandresilientandimprovisetheirexistenceasbesttheycanverycreativelywiththematerialsathandbutthematerialskeepchangingOnlytheimprovisationremainsconstantTheWitness(Harrisons1985,p37)LifeinthelagoonsistoughandveryrichitbreedsquicklyLikeallofusitmustimproviseitsexistenceverycreativelywiththematerialsathandbutthematerialskeepchangingOnlytheimprovisationremainsconstantTheLagoonMaker(Harrisons1985,p60)Everyaspectofthetextisdetermined,ratherthanindeterminate.Inanyformal,literalsenseitisnotanimprovisedworkbutaconceptthatisthreadedthroughthetext,appearingandreappearingmuchlikealeitmotifwithinapieceofscoredmusic.However,TheLagoonCyclemayalsobeconsideredimprovisatoryinanothersense.Tounderstandthisitisnecessarytomovebeyondthetext,image,exhibitionandbookasartobjects,andexaminehowthesefunctionaspartofamuchlargermovement.Thetextispartofadiscoursethatisnevercompleted.Atarelativelyearlystageofdevelopment,theHarrisonsopenuptheircreativeprocesstoparticipationandtheinevitablecollisionsthatresultfrommultipleunderstandingsandsensibilities.Oncetheyhaveachievedasufficientlevelofknowledgeand

4

awarenessoftheissuestohand,theyshapeadiscreteworkdescribedabove,asaproduct.Atthisstagetheyareseekingtomakesenseofwhattheyhaveexperiencedandtoofferthisbacktoalisteningpublic,puttingtheirthinkingtothetestanddrawingcriticalresponse.Thepointisnottoarriveatablueprinttoactuponbuttosustainanunfolding,iterativemovement,onethatfunctionsinthesymbolicrealmoftheimaginationwithpotentialforspecificaction.Itisinthisprocessbackandforth,betweenactionandreflection,thatthedeeplearningtheyareseekingthroughtheworkcanoccur.ThedialoguebetweentheWitnessandtheLagoonMakeropensintowiderconversationgatheringparticipantsasitmoves,aformof‘conversationaldrift’,theHarrisons’ownmetaphor(Adcock1992,p45).Inthiswaytheissuesgaininintensityandcomplexity.Invitation(andnotcompetitionpredeterminedbyadesignbrief)isfundamentaltotheopen–ended,exploratoryandmobilenatureoftheiraesthetic.TheLagoonCycleestablishedafoundationforallsubsequentprojectsintheHarrisons’oeuvre.Bothmeaningsofimprovisation,asanescapefromthedeadweightofthepastversusjoiningaworldthatisgiven,aresimultaneouslytrueintheHarrisons’work.Ontheonehand,improvisationisaforceorenergythatunderpinsalllife,humanandnonhuman.Itiscontinuousandongoing,given.However,thereisalsothedesiretomoveforwardintoafuturethatisdifferentfromthepast.Isthissimplyacontradictioninwhichimprovisationlosesanyspecificmeaning?GaryPeters,ajazzimproviserandphilosopher,critiquesareadingofimprovisationthatmakesclaimsforinnovationandnovelty.Therealworkoftheimprovisingartistisnotthatoffreedomasaformofemancipationinafutureyettocome,afreedombasedinhope,butthatofafreedomthathasalwaysexisted,andthattheartworkhelpsustoremember.Freeimprovisationinmusiciscommonlydescribedasacting‘onthespurofthemoment’ofanexperience(“improvisation”inCollinsDictionary),‘workingwiththematerials’tohand(‘improvisation”inOxfordDictionary).Deployingthemetaphorofthescrapyardchallenge,Petersacknowledgesthattheimprovisorisalwaysworkingwiththeknowledgeofexistingmusicalmaterial,sothepastisalwayspresentintheexperienceofimprovising.Theimportantquestionisthequalityofrelationshipbetweentheimprovisorandtimeandavailablematerial.Timeisimportantbutinthesenseoftiming‐knowingwhenaword,note,chordorsequenceistakenup,workedonandwhenitisnecessarytoforgetitandfindsomethingelsetoremember(Peters2009,p165).Materialisalsoimportant,butalwaysinrelationtocontextsofmeaningthatmightproducenewmusicalcontent.Petersdismissestherelationshipbetweentwoormorepeopleimprovisingasreducingimprovisationto‘aglorifiedlove‐indressedupasart’(Peters2009,3).Insteadheemphasisestherelationshipofimprovisortoimprovisation.Improvisation

…isnotanawarenessoftheotherbutoftheinevitablesituatednessoftheimprovisorinawork,thecontingencyofthatwork,andoftheagilitynecessarytoavoidbecomingtrappedinthecommunicativecommunitycreatedbyit.(Peters2009,p3)

5

Peters’insightisimportantindeepeningourunderstandingofimprovisationasamethodofprogressingfrompastintopresentthatisnotaUtopianprojectionorrupturewiththepastbutbasedin‘hyperawareness’ofwhatthepasthasledusto.Thepastandpresentarethusentangledandmutable.Improvisationinthissenseisamovementfromaclosedsenseofwhathasbeen,tooneinwhichthepastisre‐opened,re‐imaginedinthepresent.InthislightwemightreaddialogueintheHarrisons’workasawayofexercisingthefreedomtothinkasindividualsthroughparticipationinasharedexperience,hencetheimportanceofdifferencebetweenthetwoperspectivesofLagoonMakerandWitnessandthemovementimpliedinconversationaldrift.Bothgathermomentumandconnectadeepecologicalpasttothepresent,keepingtheissues,inthiscaseoftheenvironment,alive,urgentandopentonewpotential.PeterscitesbothqualitiesasaspectsofImprovisation:thesearchforthefreedomtothinkasanindividualwithinthecontingencyofsociallifeandholdingintensionthespaceofambivalent,contradictoryvalues.TheHarrisonsgobeyondPeters’articulationofimprovisationinthesensethattheybelievethatthefutureisdeterminedbythestorieswetellourselvesnow,storiesofourownbecoming.Whosevoice?SuzanneLacyInaparallelway,SuzanneLacyhasconstructedalong‐term,tenyearprogrammeofworkfocusedintherelationshipbetweenyoungblackpeopleandthelawenforcementagencies,educationalistsandyouthservicesinOaklandCalifornia.IntheOaklandprojects(1991‐2001),sheexploredtheabsenceof‘voice’amongblackyouthinthe1990sinanareathatpreviouslyhadfosteredpowerfulpoliticalmovementssome20yearsbefore–MalcolmX,theBlackPanthermovement.EachprojectwithintheOaklandseriesincludedahighprofileperformanceevent(Lacy,1991‐2001)(Douglas,2007).InRoofisOnFire1993‐4,oneofanumberofperformanceswithinatenyearcycle,theartistworkedwithparticipantstostageaseriesofconversationstoalisteningpublicwithaviewtoexposingandchallengingracialprejudice.Thestaging,liketheHarrisons’LagoonCycle,wasmeticulouslyconsideredinformalterms.Inthiscase,largeblackandwhitecarsthatseateduptofourtofiveyoungpeoplecreatedfocalpointswithinanOaklandrooftopparkinglot.Spectatorscouldwanderfreelybetweenthevehiclestohearwhatwasbeingsaidandtosee,bywhom.Itwasaself‐conscious,aestheticdecisiontotimetheperformanceforsunsetmarkingatransitionthroughthecolourspectrumfromlightintodarkness.Thecontentoftheconversationswithinthecarswasnotdeterminedbutextemporizedbytheparticipantsexploringtheirexperiencesoftheissues.Inwhatsenseisimprovisationspecificallyevidentinthiswork?Inthisparticularsequenceofprojects,Lacy’s‘worldasfound’issocially,ratherthanecologically,situated.Itaddressesissuesofidentityandpower.Shedrawsoutatemporaryspaceandtime,encirclingdisorder.Thepointistoacknowledgetheconflictinherentintheissuesathand,tobeopentothedisjunctureand

6

contradictionthatdifferencesofviewandexperienceproduce.Inthisspaceitisalsoimportanttoletgoofjudgementalism,offixedpositions.Thistemporaryspaceallowsparticipantsfromdifferentfactionstoforegroundtheconditionsoftheiroppression,tomakevisibletheseconditionsinjuxtapositionwithotherperspectivesbetweenyoungpeople,police,educationalistsandpoliticians.Inherroleastheartist,Lacydoesnotattempttodeterminefuturecoursesofaction.Shefocusesoncreatingasharedsenseofthefreedomtothinkdifferently.Inthisway,thework,likethatoftheHarrisons,offersthepotentialfornewunderstandings.WheretheHarrisonsemphasiseandrevealacertainmethodicalprogressionthroughtime,Lacy’sperformancespunctuatemomentsintime.Inthissenseshemightappeartoleantowardsthefirstdefinitionofimprovisation,anescapefromapastbyundertakinganewdirection.However,herworkhasanimportantdurationaldimension.Theperformancesfrequentlyoccurattheendofmonthsofintenseworkshopexperienceswithparticipantsthatestablishtheboundaryconditionsofadiscourse.Theperformancesdistilandare‐opentheworkshopdynamictoalargerpublicaffectedbytheissues.Witheachprojectthequalityofencountercannotbestandardisedintoamethodthatcanbereliablyrepeated.Eachencounterisunique,involvingLacy(echoingPeters)ininhabitingthesituation,gainingdeepknowledgeofitscontingencies,workingwiththeknowledgethatis‘tohand’andalsoofjudgingwhentoactandwhentomoveon.Inthissensethepastiscontinuouswiththepresent,butdifferentlyinflected.IntheiressayOftheRefrainDeleuseandGuattaridescribeimprovisationthroughthreedifferentscenarios(2002).Eachformulatesaparticularqualityofresponsetochaosaslife’scondition.Thechildinthedarkstabilizesherfearbysingingandrepeatingarefrainunderherbreath.Therefrainisfamiliarandenablesthechildtoovercomeherfeelingoffragilityandexposure,thefeelingthatchaoswillbreakaparthersenseoforder.Inasimilarway,theadultdrawsacircleandcallsit‘home’,adelimitedspacethatisnevercompletelyfreefromtheforcesofchaosbutalsoresistsandfilterstheirimpact.Thesearefragilegesturesofcontrolinwhichthepossibilityofchaosiseverpresent–“(A)mistakeinspeed,rhythm,orharmonywouldbecatastrophicbecauseitwouldbringbacktheforcesofchaos,destroyingbothcreatorandcreation”(Deleuse&Guattari,p311).Thistemporarycontainmentandcontrolisnotlasting.Thecirclereopens,anopeningthatisproducedbythecircleitself,‘asafunctionoftheworkingforcesitshelters’(ibid,311).Itisacontrolledreopeninginadifferentplacefromthecircle’sorigininchaos.Thesearenotthreesuccessivemovementsbutthreeaspectsofasinglething,therefrainorritournellethatisimprovisation.

Onelaunchesforth,hazardsandimprovisation.ButtoimproviseistojoinwiththeWorld,ormeldwithit.Oneventuresfromhomeonthethreadofatune.Alongsonorous,gestural,motorlinesthatmarkthecustomarypathofachildandgraftthemselvesontoorbegintobud“linesofdrift”withdifferentloops,knots,speeds,movements,gesturesandsonorities”.(ibid,pp311‐312)

ThechaosLacyconfrontsinsocialsettingsisnotdirectionlessbutacomplex

7

arrayofconflictingforces,ofinteriorbeliefsandexpectation,ofexteriorizedidentities,ofcollisionsbetweensocialclass,genderandrace,ofwiderpoliticalandcivicforces.Performanceisameansofmovingbetweenthedifferentrealms,connectingtogethercriticalmomentsin“differentloops,knots,speeds,movementsandsonorities”producingnewlyconfiguredrelations.NeedsandInLacy’sprojectRoofisonFire,forexample,youngpeople,normallytherecipientsofaspeakingpublic,momentarilyleadtheconversationsandtheadultslistenin,“looping”thesocialorderinanewconfiguration.MarkingthetransitionintopubliclifeDeleuseandGuattari‘sunderstandingofimprovisationdrawsonmusictodescribethemovementfromprivatetothepublic,fromthedomestictothecivic–“Achildhumstosummonthestrengthfortheschoolworkshehastohandin.Thehousewifesingstoherself,orlistenstotheradio,asshemarshalstheantichaosforcesofherwork.””(ibid,p311).Eachdemarcatesaspacethroughsong.Thefoundationsofcitiesarecreated,theysuggest,bywalkingacircle“asinachild’sdance,combiningrhythmicvowelsandconsonants”(ibid,p311).Theonecontext–thedomestic–shareswiththepublicafragilitythatmightbreakatanymomentalbeitatdifferentscalesofendeavour.Thisshiftinscale,fromtheprivatetothepublic,issignificantandbringsitsownchallenges,inparticularinthegapcreatedbymodernityinrelationtocivicvalues.Thishasabearingonhowwemightexplaintheshiftinartasimprovisatory,openinguptoissuesofpubliclifethroughbothformandcontent.HannahArendt,asapoliticalphilosopher,characterisesmodernityofthe19thcenturyonwardsasaperiodmarkedbyanexcessivepreoccupationwithlabourbuiltaroundhierarchiesthatfunctiontofulfilmaterialneedsanddesires,withacorrespondingemphasisonadministrationratherthanintelligentgovernance.Modernity,inArendt’sview,isnotconducivetonurturingthinkingandfindingmeaningincommunallife.Nordoesmodernitycreateaclimateforcriticalaction(Arendt1998).Arendthasaconservativeviewofart,aligningitwithcraftactivity,ameanstoengagewithmaterialsinskilledwaysthatmovethehumanconditionbeyondmeresurvival(Arendt1998,173‐4).ShedidnotenvisageinherwritingsacivicorpublicroleforartintheactivistsensepresentedbytheHarrisonsandLacy.However,herobservationsofchangeinthepublicspherearesignificanttounderstandinghowandwhycertainartistshavechosentodevelopacriticalcounterpointtothevaluesofmodernity.MorerecentlyPascalGielenasasociologistofcontemporaryart,hasgonefurtherthanArendtincharacterisingthe21stcenturyasatimeofexcessivediscrepancybetweenhumanwantsandneedsandthelossofstablestructuresintheformofinstitutionsthatembodyandcareforvalues(Gielen2013).Gielen’sparticularexamplesincludethelawinrelationtothestate,theuniversityinrelationtomoney,thechurchinrelationtosuperstition.GielenechoesArendt’spoliticalcritiqueofmodernism.UnlikeArendt,however,healignscontemporary

8

artisticendeavourwithothersocialandpoliticalmovestoaddressnewconditionsforactionandmeaningincommunityinpostmodernsocieties.Suchanundertakingwouldinvolveanewsetofskillsandpreoccupations,notleastcriticalskills.How,ifatall,mightimprovisationbothcharacterizeandinformsuchashiftinfocus?GrantKesterasanarthistorian,isparticularlyinterestedinthechallengesofopeningartuptothesocialandpolitical.Henoteshowsociallyengagedartistsandtheoristsarelookingoutsideofart,drawingonnonartdiscoursestoexplainwhatartdoesintheworld.InhiseditorialofanewjournalField,heobserves

Whileotherwisequitediverse,thisfieldisdrivenbyacommondesiretoestablishnewrelationshipsbetweenartisticpracticeandotherfieldsofknowledgeproduction,fromcriticalpedagogytoparticipatorydesign,andfromactivistethnographytoradicalsocialwork.Inmanycasesithasbeeninspiredby,oraffiliatedwith,newmovementsforsocialandeconomicjusticearoundtheglobe…(Kester,2015)

Kesterremarksonthedesireofcontributorstothefieldofsocialartpracticetomovebeyondexistingdefinitionsofbothartandthepoliticalandtochallengehierarchicalformsofpoweranddecision‐making.Hedefinesthefundamentalchallengeasoneofepistemology‐ofappropriateconcepts,languageandmethodology,oftechniquesofanalysis.

…wearesorelylackinginanyusefulintermediarytheoriesthatretainasufficientengagementwiththematerialityofpracticetoopenupitscomplexinterrelationshiptolargerpoliticalandeconomicstructures.Itisourbeliefthatappropriatecriteriafortheanalysisofsociallyengagedartcanonlyemergeoutofanepistemologicalinquirythatseekstoprovidebothamorecomprehensiveresearchmethodologyandabasicdefinitionallanguagethatwouldallowustomoreconfidentlydescribethescopeandfunctionoftheworkitself(ibid).

Kesterdefinesaclearneedtolookbeyondarttoaddresstheshiftinfocustowardsthesocialandpolitical.IncontrastIargueforanapproachthatreachesdeeplyintotheepistemologyofartspracticeitselfasaparticularmeansofunderstandingthisshift.Thelatterworkscloselywithevidenceinthewritingsofartiststhemselves(theHarrisons,Peters)andofphilosopherswhodrawonart(DeleuseandGuattari).Whatinparticularhasimprovisationtooffer?Improvisationasexploredabove,alwaysoccursinrelationtoplaceandcontext,aformofcallandresponsethatiscontingentonwhatisongoingandwhathasgonebefore.Itisarefusaltobetrappedundertheweightofa‘before’,tobefreetomove,toopenuppotentialbyharnessingthepastinafreshway.InthislightPeters’metaphorofthescrapyardchallenge,ofbeingsurroundedbythedebris

9

ofthepastwhiletaskedtoproducesomethingfresh,isparticularlyresonant.Itevokesadilemma:thefearofgettingstuckwhilebeingcompelledtomoveforward.Tounlockthisdilemma,Petersunravelsconfusionbetween‘origin’and‘freedom’.Improvisationdoesnotoriginate.It‘recovers’thefreedomtobeandtoact.Inadifferentway,DeleuseandGuattariremindusofthefragilityoflife,ofhowchaosasadominantstate,refusesorder,andofthetentativetechniqueswehaveoftakingtemporarycontrol.Drawingonmusic,theyevokeimprovisationinrelationtorepetitivesongthat,likebirdsong,marksatemporaryterritoryinacomplexityofotherinterestsandagendas.Kesterdescribesthespillingoutofartintopubliclifethroughtermssuchas‘relational’or‘sociallyengaged’.Thislanguagepowerfullyconnectsartspracticetoissuesofpubliclife.However,thesetermsalsohaveatendencytoneutralizethespecificityoftheworkasart.Theyareinterchangeablewithothersocialsites–educational,legalandsoon.Improvisationevokestheimageoftheperformingmusician,onenotnormallyassociatedwithpubliclifeanditsinstitutions.Intheconcerthallortheatrewesuspenddisbeliefjustastheimprovisorsuspendsintention.Inascrapyardmadeupofthedebrisofthepast,he/sheischallengedtocreateanatmosphereofhyperawarenessinwhichanythingmightbecomepossible.Improvisationisakindof‘infiniteagility’(Peters2009,p70)centredontheindividualinrelationtohis/herdisorderedlifeworld.Itisawayofacknowledgingthatthereisnopossibilityofescapefromthehappenstance,fromthecontingentinlife,tosomethingmoreordered,justasitisimpossibletoescapethecircumstancesofourbirth.Insteadwearepresentedwithanopportunitytore‐entertheworldasifforasecondtime,throughanimpulsetolive,ratherthanmerelyexist.Theseinsightssuggestthatthereissomethingimportantaboutdrawingonaconceptthatishardwiredintoart,inparticularmusic,toinformtheoutwardfocusingtrajectoryofartinpubliclifeinthelate20thand21stcenturies.Improvisationallowsustosubstituteanassumptionofcontrol,ofdesign,withthepossibilityofencounterinAlthusser‘ssenseofachangeofdirectionbroughtaboutthroughchance.Anencountermaybeinfinitesimallysmall,butiflasting,bringsaboutthepossibilityofadifferentworld(2006,6).“Artdoesnotexpresstheself,itmeaningfullyconfiguresit”(Peters,2009p14).MierleLadermanUkelesandherpracticeofMaintenanceArt(1969‐present)presentsaparticularlyvividexampleoftheartistseekingnewconditionsforpoliticalactionandmeaningandofimprovisationinthesenseoutlinedabove.Ukelesseesdisorderinsocialandpoliticalinequality.Shecreatesanewdirectionwithinthisdisorderbywritingamanifestoearlyinhercareer,ManifestoforMaintenanceArt,1969(Ukeles,1969,pp622‐624).Thiscallsforarethinkingof‘maintenance’inculturebyinitiallyaddressingtheartworldanditsrelationshiptoconflictedvaluesofmaintenanceandcreativity.Themanifestoactsasapointofdepartureforanumberofprojectsthatexploretheissuesincontextswellbeyondartintosocietalpracticesofwastemanagement.

A. TheDeathInstinctandtheLifeInstinct:

10

TheDeathInstinct:separation,individuality,Avant‐Gardeparexcellence;tofollowone’sownpathtodeath‐doyourownthing,dynamicchangeTheLifeInstinct:unification,theeternalreturn,theperpetuationandMAINTENANCEofthespecies,survivalsystemsandoperations,equilibrium

(ibid,p622)InWesternart,themanifestosuggests,wevaluethedevelopmentofspecialworksbyindividuals.Theseclaimtobetheforceofchange,oflifeitselfandironicallyrequiresignificantmaintenance‐ofideas,activitiesandofmaterialswithininstitutionalisedpracticesofthemuseumandgallery.Inotherwords,theneedformaintenanceisahiddenconsequenceoftheWest’scelebrationofdynamicchange.Doingone’sownthingasanindividualisaforceofdeath,notlife,whenplacedalongsidelivingsystemsthatrequiremaintenancetosurvive.Howdoesthemanifestoworkinpractice?InCare1969,Ukelesproposedtoinhabitanartgallery,tocreateacommunityofparticipantstoexplorelabourofallkinds(inthesenseofordinary,daytodayactivitiesthatsustainlife).Fiftyindividualsofdifferentclassesandactivities,frommaidstoconstructionworkers,bankerstolibrarians,weretobeinterviewedindividually,recordedandre‐presentedintheexhibition.Theideawastoexplorethemeaningofmaintenanceandthedifferencebetweenmaintenanceandfreedom.Inthiswaythepublicspace(ofthegallery)wouldbecomeaspacetodebatemeaningsandvaluesassociatedwitheachconcept–‘work’,‘labour’and‘care’(Ukeles,pp624‐625).Ukeleshasevolvedthisapproachoverdecadeswithinsustainedprogrammesoverthepast40+yearssituatedinissuesofpublichealth,wastedisposalandsanitation,TouchSanitation(1978‐84),FlowCity(1983‐present),FreshKillsLandfillandSanitationGarage(1989‐present).InwhatsensecanUkeles’workbeconsideredimprovisatory?Toreturntothetwodefinitionsthatopenedthechapter–improvisationasanescapefromthepastvimprovisationasentanglementinanemergentworld‐itbecomesapparent,asintheworkoftheHarrisonsandLacy,thatbothsensesofimprovisationholdtrueinUkeles’work.Sheproposestoreversetheinherentsystemsofvalueinbothcontextsofwastemanagementandartmuseums.Theseconstituteamentalandimaginativebreakwiththepast.Herworkalsomanifestsadurationalcommitmentanddirectentanglementintheissuesoverconsiderableperiodsoftimeasameansofcreatingchange.WhileaspectsofUkeles’workmaybeconsideredimprovisatorysuchasthegestureofshakinghands,ofreachingforward,ofjudginghowlongtoengage,otheraspectsaredistinctlyun‐improvisatory.Theworkinvolvesconsiderablelevelsofrepetitiveaction.Thisistheirpower.InTouchSanitationUkelesshookthehandsof8500sanitationworkersinoneyear(1979‐80)andwalkedtheroutesofsanitationworkersacrossbothdayandnightshifts.Farfrombeingcontentto‘liveinthemoment’ofaperformance‘usingthematerialstohand’,shemeticulouslydocumentedeachproject,inparticulartheconversations

11

betweenherselfasartistandherparticipants,materialsthatsubsequentlyformedgalleryexhibitions.Shealsotargetedlanguage(ratherthanfocusingonthenonverbaloftenassociatedwithimprovisation)torevealthedegreetowhichwebecometrappedincertainconceptualpolarities:naturevculture,creativityvmaintenance.TounderstandtheimprovisatoryqualitiesinUkeles’work,IwouldliketopickuponPeters’underpinningoffreeimprovisationasasearchandrecoveryoffreedomthathasalwaysexisted(asopposedtofreedomasorigination)(Peters,2009).Indevelopinghisargument,PetersjuxtaposestwonotionsoffreedomdrawingonthewritingsofIsaiahBerlin(1958).ThesecloselymirrorUkeles’manifesto.Positivefreedomisdrivenbythedesiretobeone’sownmasterwhereasnegativefreedomisdrivenbynon‐interference,ofnotbeingpreventedbyothersfromactingasoneself.Paradoxicallythefirst,thefreedomoftheindividualtoactontheirowntermsseparatefromawidercommunity,threatensthefreedomofnon‐interferencethatallowstheindividualthescopeandspaceforspontaneityandoriginality.Attheriskofcaricature,thefirstmaybethefreedomoftheselfseekinganarchist(oravantgardeartist)whomightgotoanylengths,includingviolence,torealiseselfwhereasthesecondmaybethefreedomoftheactivistdrivenbyadesirefortheco‐existencewithanother,engagingwithdifference,“theconcernfortheecosystem,theconcernforthedowntroddenandsilenced”(Peters2009,23‐24).

“…thefreedomoffree‐improvisationisnotsomethingthatisenactedorexpressedthereinasagivensubstanceoftheperformancebutitis,rather,somethingtheimprovisationallowsustofind.Freeimprovisationthenisnottheembodimentoffreedombutasearchforitinthehereandnowofthework’sbecoming.Inasenseitisthenegativefreedomthatisnecessarytofreetheimprovisorandimprovisationfromtheforcesthatwoulddevastateit:pastworks,thework,theother,thecollective.”(ibid,p72)

TouchSanitationplacesintensionbothpositiveandnegativefreedom.Positivefreedomisfirstlytheartistherselfwhounpaidspendstimewiththesanitationworkersandinvestsinthedepartment.Freedomisalsomanifestintheindividualwhocreateswastewithouttakingtheresponsibilityfordisposingit,effectivelyotheringwaste.Thispositionwhiledestructiveofasenseofcommongood,isculturallyprivilegedoverthewastecollector,referredtopejorativelyasthe‘garbageman’.(Ukelescritiquedanddisplacedthistermwith‘sanman’).Ukeles’secondmanifesto,SanitationManifesto!(1984,624‐625)buildssignificantlyontheearlierMaintenanceArtmanifesto(1969)aroundthisparticularcivicexperience.Usingthemetaphorofownershipthatisresonantofpublicaspayingaudienceandprivateconsumer,Ukelespositionssanitationasco‐ownedandco‐produced,aconsequenceoflivinginside‘ourcorporealbodies’inurbancivilisationswithintheplanet.Ifindividualfreedomisdefinedasself‐interest,sheargues,weareledintoashallowrelationshipbetweenthepublicandwaste.Wedonotseewhereweputwaste,whatwedoorshoulddowithwasteandindeed,whatchoiceswehaveinrelationtowaste.Sheoffersusadifferentimaginary.‘Wasteisourimmediateunwantedpast’(p624).Weare

12

facedwithchoicesinrelationtothatpast–toconservethroughtransformingitortodrownit.

Sanitationworksallthetime,throughalltheseasons,nomatterwhattheweatherconditions.Sanitationistotallyinter‐dependentwithitspublic:lockedin–theserverandtheserved.(p625)

Whileacknowledgingindividualfreedom,shesuggests

“Justasbylaw,wecan’tshipourgarbageOUT,buthavetodealwithitINourcommon‘home“,manageitsoitdoesn’tdestroyus,wetoo,alltogether,havetoworkoutindividualfreedomoutwithoutdestroyingeachother.(p625).

LikePetersworkinginthecontextoffreeimprovisation,Ukelesworkinginthecontextofsocialartpractice,viewsartaslyingatthecentreofdemocracy‘astheprimarysystemarticulatingtheformsof(individual)freedom’(p624).Ukelessuggeststhatthechallengeneedstobeundertakenatthehighestlevelofintelligenceandcreativityinthedevelopmentofnewperceptualmodels.Underpinningtheshiftisaneedtounderstandhowtoconnectwithoneanother,tomovebeyondtheimageofthe‘garbageman’asdirty,toourcleanstate,togetridofthecastesystemthatcurrentlyoperatesandtoviewsanitationastheCity’s(inthisinstanceNewYork’s)culturalsystem.Sanitationserveseveryone,everyonemustbeservedinademocracy,thedevelopmentofequalrightsinthecultureofsanitationinherentlyexpressesthisinterdependence.Inthiswaysheavoidstheatomisationoftheindividualseparatedoutfromthesocialbysuggestingthattheindividualisconstitutedthroughsocialexperience.WhileUkeles’manifestos,liketextintheworkoftheHarrisons,arenotimprovisedinanyformalstylisticsense,theyestablish,likeimprovisationitself,anaestheticspaceinwhichambivalentvaluesarecontained,butnotcontrolled.Thisisnotasuperficial‘look’ofanimprovisationalformorstyleofartisticproduction.Insteadeachprojectaddressesadifferentsituationandsetofcontingencieslooselyheldtogetherthroughthemanifestoasapointfromwhichto‘ventureforth’.Whiletheartistsmanageboththeconditionsandformsofinteractionwithothers,alltheworkdevelopsindialoguewithothers.Theworkofartsubstantiallyresultsfromnegotiationbetweenindividuals,oneofwhommaybeanartistandtheotheralmostcertainlynot.ReturningtoPeters’earlierdismissalofimprovisationexistingbetweentwoormoreplayers,therelationalaspectinUkeles’workisnotbasedinegoismbutinaparticularqualityofencounter.Thesenseoffreedomoperatinginthisworkisnotrestrictedtothatoftheindividualactingautonomouslyforthemselvesbutfreedomwithanawarenessofotherinterestsatwork,freedomwithintherealconstraintsofpubliclife,constraintsthatarecriticallyrevealedaspartoftheprocess.Inasimilarway,theHarrisonsandLacyalsoactasindividualswithinasocialsetting,notinisolation,butwithinacomplexsetofrelationshipsandconflictinginterestsandacrossdifferentspheresofinfluencethattakenasawholeconstituteanimprovisatoryapproach.

13

Conclusions–LifewithoutascriptTheartists’practicesthatformthecoreanalysisofthischaptermarkashiftinapproach,progressivelyopeninguptotheissues,content,formandstructuresofpubliclife.Historicallytheyconstituteoneaspectofacomplexsetofcircumstancesthatmarkthetransitionfrommodernismtopostmodernism.Theirworkhasprovokedadifferentdiscoursesurroundingartinlife,onethatismoreconcernedwithforgingacriticalrelationshipbetweenartist,artworkandpublicthroughparticipation,andlessconcernedperhapswithinnovationthroughmaterialproductionandartasobject.Theoutwardfocusofthesepracticeshasinvolvedtherelinquishingofcertainkindofcontrolovertheworkwherethepublicarenolongerthereceptorsofcompletedworksofart,butincreasinglypartoftheircreation.Theartiststhemselvesareneverentirelyincontrol.Itispossiblythisqualityofinterdependencebetweenartistasindividualandanengagedpublicthathasprovokedandinformedanexplorationofimprovisationasapossibleexplanatoryframeworkforunderstandingwhathaschanged.Alongthewayithasbeenimportantnottoassumethatmodernistartistswerenotawareorcriticaloftheirpoliticalcontexts(refKandinskyontheSpiritualinArt/Brechtetc…).NoramIsuggestingthatformalandmaterialconcernshavebeendisplacedincontemporaryartpracticesbyissues–whetherthesearepolitical,socialorecological.Contemporaryartprovokesadifferentconfigurationofthematerialandpolitical,ofprivateandpublicexperienceinwaysthatdenoteashiftinvaluesandrelationships.Improvisationisapossiblecharacterizationofthechange.Tothisendtwoapparentlycontradictoryqualitiesofimprovisationhavebeenputforward:improvisationasabreakwiththeweightofthepastvimprovisationasanentanglementwithinanunfoldingpresent.Bothqualitieswerefoundtoco‐existinactivistapproachesthataresimultaneouslydrivenbyadesireforabetterworld(thereforeattemptingtobreakwiththepastinwaysthattransformwhathasbeen)whileacknowledgingthatanyrealdevelopmentinpubliclifeisdependentupondeepformsofentanglementbytheartistwithincommunitiesthatsharethesameissuesorconcerns,withinandbeyondanarrowunderstandingofart’spublics.Byexploringimprovisationmoredeeplyasaconceptthathasbeenfundamentaltoartthroughouthistoryandthathastakenveryspecific,specialisedformsinparticularinmusic,newunexpecteddimensionsofimprovisationhavebeenrevealed.Aprobeintothemostradicalendofimprovisation,freeimprovisationinmusic,foregroundstheimportanceoffreedom(ratherthaninnovationororigination)asthesharppointofanimprovisatorypractice.Thefreeimprovisorseekstomarkanunmarkedspaceinthesearchforafreedombasedinasenseofcommongood.Thisqualityoffreedomstandsincontradistinctiontomodernism’sheroicfreedomoftheisolatedindividualgenius.Thisnotionofexisting‘freedomin

14

common‘isremarkablyresonantoftheactivistartiststrivingtoopenartwithinsocial,culturalandcommunitylife.This(activist)artistcreatestheconditionsthatothersinhabit.Thewholeconstitutesaninterventioninanhistoricalprocessthroughanexposuretocriticalunderstandingratherthanthefatalism.Thiskindofimprovisationismorethananabsenceofascriptforlife,theworkingofthingsoutaswegoalong.Drawingontheepistemologiesofartpractice,improvisationisnotnecessarilyaformalattributeofthematerialcultureoftheworkbutaqualityofthewaytheworkexistsintheworld.Toachievethisrequiresspecialisedforms,extendingunderstandingofvisualrhythm,proportion,measure,weight(light‐dark),quality(colour)andspaceintothetemporalandspatialdynamicsofpublicsphereitself.Inotherwordsareadingasimprovisationallowstheworktobreathe.References:Adcock,C.(1992)TheHarrisons:ConversationalDriftinArtJournal,CollegeArtAssociationUnitedStatesSummer1992Vol51,No2.pp34‐45Althusser,L.(2006),“Theundergroundcurrentofthematerialismoftheencounter”,ThePhilosophyoftheEncounter:LaterWritings,1978‐87,TransbyGoshgarian,G.M.,Verso,London,pp.163‐207.Arendt,H.(1958/1998)TheHumanCondition,Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPressBurnham,J.(1974)ContemporaryRitual:asearchformeaninginposthistoricalterms159‐166inGreatWesternSaltworks.EssaysinthemeaningofPost‐formalistArt.NewYork:GeorgeBrazillersCollinsEnglishDictionary(2006),“Improvisation”,8thed.,HarperCollins,Glasgow,p.819.Deleuse,G.&F.Guattari(2002)OftheRefraininAThousandPlateaus,translatedandforewordBrianMassumi.London:Contiuumpp311‐350Douglas,A.&C.Fremantle(2016)InconsistencyandContradiction:LessonsinImprovisationintheworkofHelenMayerHarrisonandNewtonHarrison.InElemental:anArtsandEcologyReader.Manchester:TheGaiaProjectDouglas,A.(2013)AlteringaFixedIdentityThinkingthroughImprovisationinImprovisationalAttitudes:ReflectionsfromArtandLifeonCertainty,Failure,andDoubt.AmandaRavetz,AnneDouglas&KathleenCoessens.CriticalStudiesinImprovisationVol8,No2.Montreal,2013.http://www.criticalimprov.com/public/csi/index.htmlDouglas, A. (2007).,Working in public seminars [online]. Aberdeen, RobertGordonUniversity[online].Availablefrom:http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/subj/ats/ontheedge2/workinginpublicseminars/seminar_

15

menu.html[Accessed20February2015].Gielen,P.(2013)TheartistashybridmonsterIncubateConference2013.Availablefromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYT7XGwRQCA.Accessed3.12.2015.Grog,D.EcologicalRestoration.MierleUkeles,FlowCity.inArt&EcologyPerspectivesandIssues.Availablefromhttp://www.greenmuseum.org/c/aen/Issues/ukeles.php.Accessed3.9.2015Grohmann,W.(1959)WassilyKandinskyLifeandWorktransNorbertGutermanLondon:ThamesandHudsonHarrison,H.M.andN.(1985).TheLagoonCycle,Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversityPress)Kester,G.(2015)FieldAJournalofSociallyEngagedArtCriticismEditorial1Availablefromhttp://field‐journal.com.[Accessed8.11.2016.]Lacy,S.TheOaklandProjects1991‐2001Availablefrom:http://www.suzannelacy.com/the‐oakland‐projects/.[accessed3October2015]OxfordEnglishDictionary(1989),“Improvisation”,Vol.VII,2nded.,ClarendonPress,Oxford,p.752.Peters,G.(2009)ThePhilosophyofImprovisationChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPressUkeles,MierleLaderman.1969.MaintenanceArtManifestoinStiles,K.andSelz,P.editorsinTheoriesandDocumentsofContemporaryArt.AsourcebookofArtists’WritingsBerkeley:UniversityofCalifornia1996pp622‐624Ukeles,MierleLaderman.1984.SanitationManifestoinStiles,K.andSelz,P.editorsinTheoriesandDocumentsofContemporaryArt.AsourcebookofArtists’WritingsBerkeley:UniversityofCalifornia1996pp624‐5