Introduction to'US AND THEM'

by Becky Shaw
................................

'Us and Them' is a widely used expression to describe a social relationship, the way we define a pool of common interest, 'us' in relation to those who think or act differently, 'them'. In the past there seemed to be ways that we, 'us' might act together, joined by common goals or views. However, today it seems the only remaining time when we clearly recognise 'us' is when we see ourself defined against 'them'. The perimeter is often defined by 'us'; to reassure 'us', that we are right, that we know who we are and how we should act. In defining 'Them' we create the negative space of 'Us'. We don't know what we are but we know we aren't 'them'. In every sphere of life we see this polarity being played out: East and West, Muslim and Jew, paedophiles and 'the decent public', old and young, black and white, working class and middle class, rural and urban, artist and audience, doctor and patient, consumers and sellers, 'individuals' and 'the masses', and also between fields of activity; science and art, theory and practice etc. On one, simplistic level, this gives us something to feel strongly about, unusual under the creeping blanket of contemporary ennui. Also, it's often the case today that we feel so concerned with offending others that we are reduced to a hesitant inertia. At least a strong opposition generates beliefs and action, and, to some extent, at least treats our opponents with a healthy respect. Operating from a position of 'us' against 'them' at least makes us feel that we are self-defining. However, 'Us and Them' is, today, undoubtedly negative, as it is based on a corrosive principle of fixed difference between people, and the eternal impossibility of communication or understanding.

Through this year's Pamphlet Static plans to explore this contemporary and historic structure of hostility, the need to define ourselves against others, and the interface between individuals or between groups. Through the essays we hope to develop an understanding of the self-defining and world-changing nature of opposing views, whilst also realising that today conflicts are often surface, the flimsy playing of one identity against another, rather than engaging with more profound issues. The range of essays we are commissioning will deal with both the minutiae and the global, including texts which tackle 'Us and Them' explicitly and also through exploration of specific contexts, projects, events etc. We anticipate contributions from the fields of art, architecture, health, politics, geography, psychology, education, biology, technology, anthropology, literature, but this list is not exhaustive and we continue to look for proposals.

Why Static chose this theme for their first round of Pamphlets perhaps deserves some explanation. As a comparatively young art organisation, Static continually finds itself sited between polarities. As a partially publicly funded art project Static is caught in the usual dilemma of working to fit public criteria and seeking some kind of autonomy. Art organisations today both seek to benefit from, explore, and at the same time differentiate themselves from, and oppose the range of instrumentalist agendas being played out through government policy- art as regenerator, art as social glue, art as lifelong learning, art as identity builder, art as therapy and art as smokescreen for decline. Static, like many organisations, enjoys the benefits of some of these agendas, but seeks to remain critically awake, able and ready to comment and challenge.

The 1980s/90s generated a plethora of artist-led galleries, and dialogue surrounding their significance, as an antidote to commercially led interests and the inertia of larger institutions. Since then, artist-led projects have also become an established part of a metropolitan and provincial art circuit. However, if opposition and innovation comes from anywhere, these sites must still present the most likely seedbed, being self-motivated and self-defining. If we are to achieve anything, it will, of course, be through following our own interests in making interesting and critical activities take place, rather than seeking to fit external agendas or consensus. Static seeks to develop a route through the polarities between stable institution and the romanticism of the 'alternative'. Whether we can achieve this without sitting on the fence remains to be seen. Financial independence from state funding remains a key ideological principle and hope for Static, one that can possibly be fulfilled through a range of commercial ventures, including an informal dealership (does informal make it more palatable, hiding its implications in a casual attitude?). Commercial activity always presents the danger of reducing critical quality, but an equal danger is to moralise against commercial viability. Artist-led organisations often consider state income to be less tainted than the private money or commercial activity. Static accepts there are agendas implicit in every route and that this is yet another perceived polarity through which we might be able to weave a path, or find a place for ourselves on or off the scale. Continuing to be active, while asking questions about the conditions of activity seems preferential to being dormant through principle.

Static has a number of partnerships with other organisations, and sits on a number of committees, such as the 'VCG'- 'Visual Culture Group', designed to develop the visual culture infrastructure of Liverpool. Again, this presents dangers- losing independence under the remit of larger organisations, or the risk of supporting an instrumentalist dilution of the arts into cultural industry. However, not being active is a greater danger, and membership of these groups presents the enormous potential, not least the possibility of positively influencing development.

Within its programme of activities Static is in a position to do what few organisations, especially in Liverpool, can do- to critically support the development of young artists. This gives Static the opportunity to work with fresh energy and ability, while at the same time continuing to work with established artists. Hopefully our audience will never know quite what to expect.

And the notion of audience and artist (or writer etc) brings us back to the Static Pamphlet. Working our way through daily dichotomies has given us a heightened awareness of 'Us and Them' which we were keen to explore through writing. However, the issue remains, who are the activities of Static for, and in particular, who is the audience for the Pamphlet? We have always assumed a wide readership for the Pamphlet. We hope to reach academics, writers, artists, and in fact anyone with an interest in the development of culture around them.
Whether we can maintain both 'high' and 'low brow' readership remains debatable and perhaps idealistic, but for the meantime we are holding out from channeling the Pamphlet towards any one level of activity. We also intend the Pamphlet to engage with a host of activities, including politics, architecture, social studies, art and fashion, seeing them intertwined in, and reflecting and shaping contemporary society. Again, whether this broad focus will just result in dilution, is still to be discovered. We are also concerned about geography. We are keen to raise the level of critical activity in Liverpool where we are based. However, being concerned only with 'us' would mean certain failure, for as Frank Skinner was fast to point out, 'local is a euphemism for crap'. The best thing we can do for the intelligent and energetic visual culture scene in Liverpool is to set our sights on a larger, international sphere of ideas, making the vital connections between quality activity near and far. Whether we can attract and maintain a local and global audience remains as yet unknown, but online publication certainly makes this feasible, and the low-tech hard-copy outlet also makes reaching a local, casual readership, possible.

In considering whether we are being naïve in our hopes for such a complex readership we began to wonder how other publications saw their audience. We asked editors of hardcopy and online journals to describe their audience and whether they had ever attempted to change it. We received four very different responses. CIRCA, based in the Republic of Ireland manage to navigate geographical issues, describing their readership as, 'artists, cultural theorists, the informed general public, mostly in Ireland, though we have an institutional uptake worldwide'. Rather than pitching at a more specialised audience, Contemporary Magazine's Keith Patrick described how they had doubled their readership 'by explicitly addressing areas such as architecture, fashion, film, music, etc. and their relationship to art' However, Patrick goes on to conclude that 'no art magazine has a truly catholic readership and that, to an extent, all remain part of a specialist niche market.'

Modern Painters gave us fascinating, precise audience figures, including the average earnings of their readership, which is £30-340k.
In contrast, when asked about the readership for Cabinet ,Sina Najafi said,
'every "great" magazine writes its own audience into existence. It takes various vague notions that are in the air and makes them coalesce into a way of seeing the world that in retrospect seems self-evident…..Our one assumption about our readers is that they are intellectually curious and flexible enough to follow us through the various things we offer them in the magazine. We may not be succeeding but our goal is to create a new category of magazine reader, one who may have at one point existed but has been bludgeoned out of the market, at least in the US, by the commercial framework of most magazine (we are a non-profit').'

Albeit on a small scale, some interesting points about the nature of building a readership were raised by these responses. There is continued play across the spectrum between specialisation and a general focus- indeed a publication like Cabinet specialises in being general. The responses also describe the downfalls and incentives of profit-making status, and also whether it's possible to be both local and international. These issues all fit within the debate about readership and whether you pitch at an existing group, 'us' or can build a new one, perhaps combining both 'us' and 'them'. We remain inspired by Cabinet's intention to 'write its own audience into existence'. We also hold on to our intention to reach as wide an audience as possible. This goal isn't based on a gentle inclusivity but a desire to build a readership that asks more questions and looks more deeply, and pushes us to ask more questions and look more deeply.

Many thanks to:
Peter FitzGerald, CIRCA
Serena Ahangama, Assistant to The Editor, Modern Painters.
Keith Patrick, Contemporary Magazine
Sina Najafi , Editor-in-chief, 'Cabinet'