A conversation with Oliver Basciano

The following conversation took place, by e-mail, over the course of seven days between Dan Green and Oliver Basciano.  It is in response to ‘Meteor’, a show curated by Basciano at New Court Gallery and Gallery no.1 in Repton, Derbyshire, for which he asked six artists (Dan Coopey, Maria Georgoula, Paul Housley, Justin Jaeckle, George Henry Longly and Ian Whitfield) to make work in response to the life of a former (and now deceased) pupil or master or Repton school, and a seventh (Iori Wallace) to make work reflecting all six of the alumni.  The title is taken from Karel Capek’s eponymous novel depicting the interaction between three characters and their insights into the identity of a fourth, unknown and unconscious, character after a plane crash.

- Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Hi Oliver

Perhaps I could begin by asking you how the project came to be, why Repton, and why the artists involved?  

Thanks, 

Dan

- Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Hi Dan

The idea of doing show at Repton came initially from the practical situation that Ian Whitfield, a friend of mine, is the artist in residence at the school in the village. He wanted to utilise the school's gallery facilities and asked if I might like to curate something within them. The idea appealed as it would give the artists a space to breathe and experiment, outside the focus of an art hub – be it London, Nottingham or internationally. The setting also gave the show something to immediately address, the idea of curating an exhibition that ignored the strange institutional and remote location seemed absurd. There followed a reasonably long gestation period in which I developed the idea of, quite autocratically, giving each artist the name of a former alumni from the school to catalyse their work. All alumni were dead, noteworthy, but not incredibly famous. 

In terms of the artists involved, they stem from the usual network: friends and artists who's shows I've seen and developed friendships with.  George Henry Longly I interviewed a while back for a magazine, Paul through his gallery, Justin through his own curatorial work. The important point however was that none of them normally worked biographically (with the exception of Iori Wallace– hence the more immaterial nature of his contribution). To ask biographical artists to respond to a biographical theme seemed too easy. Also, all the artists have quite a classical formality to their work which I thought would sit well together, plus I'm obviously a fan of their respective practices! 

Best,

Oliver

- Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Thanks Oliver.

I'm intrigued by this notion of working biographically, delving into the annals of history and re-emerging with a new artifact that communicates something of a persons life, but also of a fresh perspective on a historical narrative.  You mention choosing each alumni member, I'm wondering how those choices were made and, therein, how much of a challenge each artist was presented with in researching people who might not have been contemporary figures. Do you feel the resulting artworks are reliant on that primary source (especially within the context of this show), or has this become secondary to what is shown?  An example might be Paul Housley's portraits, exquisite in their own right as objects, but leaving that looming question of 'who is it' in the viewers mind.

Dan

- Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Great.

After my initial autocratic act I wanted the artists to go their own way. My interest lay in the reimaginings of history and all the theory that hangs around that (Perspectivism, Ranciere, Lyotard, the list is a bit endless and too dense to go into), but I didn't want that to have to be their interest. 

The choices were ad hoc, and basic, via the school's Wikipedia entry. I was interested in the fact that the people listed there were those that the consensus (which Wikipedia at least purports to be) had chosen to remember. Then I went through and chose six (Iori wasn't given biog) that were interesting, funny or I thought would grab the individual artist. All the artists were give was the name- I didn't even give them the fact they were alumni, though they obviously worked this out eventually! 

It was then up to them how much they researched (plus how much documentation their was to research; for example, Maria's work is solely based on the painting that exists of her eponymous subject) and how integral they made them. 

You mention Paul's painting- here the viewer comes face to face with the subject, but conversely (perhaps perversely) for Paul its all about paint, colour and nods to painting greats past. I rather doubt he cared too much for his subject at all! Whilst Dan's work- so abstract on the surface- is an almost full biography. 

I could give you – or all the visitors – the biographical names for each work, but I would be wary to do so: their biographies would probably subsume the enjoyment of the work in its purest form, becoming a game of guess the symbolism. The pinned-up research documentation in Gallery No.1 give a few hints though. 

Oliver

- Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I must say that after sending you that question, I suddenly hoped you wouldn't reveal who the portrait was of!  I think that anonymity and the simple game being played with the viewer is interesting, and, in hindsight, quite fundamental.  I'm intrigued that the journey began with Wikipedia, which itself has become notorious for being an untrustworthy source of material, or at least acceptable only as a starting point for research into more complex ideas and probably becomes (as it did for me) the first point of information for those seeking to unravel some of the threads within the work as the viewer becomes detective.  You mention Lyotard; the discussion so far certainly points to the artworks taking on an identity as meta-narratives, but if the need to identify the history they represent is unnecessary, is this problematic for you?

- Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Hi Dan

The works can certainly operate as meta-narratives, that’s quite true. yet they should tell tales about tales of the viewer's writing. The viewer apes the artist's process’ taking pointers and constructing something anew. It doesn't matter if they get it 'wrong': the objects in the shows are hardly correct tellings of history after all. The anonymity forces the viewer to do this. I hope, in a way, it might focus attention on the unreliability of histories (Lyotard's 'grand narratives')- but also how that unreliability serves us, for better or worst. 

All the best,

Oliver

- Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Thanks Oliver. 

Just one more thing I think, I've been thinking a lot about the role of the viewer within the space, reflecting Capek's characters with their own perspective being of such great influence.  My other creeping thought within this idea links with Iori's work, the fact that the viewer would read a script containing all six figures and how that seems to begin to reflect the theatrical idea of the play within a play; there certainly seems to be that removal form the subject through the artists and then the viewer.  My main experience of this is from Hamlet as the play within the play presents us with one characters perspective of the goings on in Elsinore.

- Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Hi Dan

There are certainly operations going on within operations (the works can operate on their own terms, but also within the curatorial brief). Iori's scrip does not specifically pick up on all the characters as people (like some fantasy dinner party) though but picks up on themes of histories and narratives coming together perhaps more generally. Retrospectively I can see how this adds a performative element for the viewer, though I wasn't thinking theatrics from the outset. I'm glad you've identified it, it chimes nicely with the viewer's investigative role.

O

- Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 20:00 PM

Thanks Oliver for taking the time to do this, it’s been really enjoyable and interesting having this conversation!

- Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Many thanks for all your great questions. I enjoyed answering them. 

All the best,

Oliver

Oliver Basciano is the curator of Meteor. He is Assistant Editor at ArtReview magazine and has written for a variety of others including Frieze, Modern Painters, MAP, Building Design and Architect’s Journal. He is a participant in the curated education programme at South London Gallery.

Meteor is at Gallery No 1 and New Court Gallery, Repton, Derby, DE65 6FH, 20th February – 2nd April 2010.  For more information, please see the exhibition website or visit the school's site

All images courtesy the artist, taken by Dave Cameron.