Roadshow

Walsh returns to her feature ‘I Object’ to consider how artists such as Mark Leckey, Hito Steyerl and Ed Atkins are keen to dissolve their subjectivity in order to exist in a non-hierarchical network of things. Quaintance questions whether post-internet is an aesthetic that relinquishes criticality for a compliance with corporate and right-wing thinking, while Grayson asks what are the ‘ends of post-internet art’, analysing why the trend has become so popular.

Read the articles online:
I Object Maria Walsh on art and the new objecthood
Right Shift Morgan Quaintance on the end of post-internet art
Talkin’ ’bout their g-g-g-generation Richard Grayson on the ends of post-internet art

>>Play The End(s) of Post-Internet Art

The interview: an invaluable historical tool or a perpetuation of the cult of celebrity? The first in the Whitechapel Gallery’s Banjos at Dawn series of duelling debates sees Art Monthly contributors Gilda Williams and Julian Stallabrass take up opposing positions, while Sally O’Reilly ensures etiquette is observed.

>>Play For and Against the Interview

What is the Future of Art Education?

In response to demand, Art Monthly organised two public debates: one in London in September and one in Birmingham in October. At these events readers were given the opportunity to question educational professionals and policy makers.

The panels debated the motion: ‘Is further privatisation, corporatisation and instrumentalism inevitable or are there alternatives?’ and responded directly to the question ‘What is the Future of Art Education?’

Panel:

Pavel Büchler, artist and research professor at Manchester Metropolitan University.

Phyllida Barlow, artist, professor of fine art and director of undergraduate studies at Slade.

Michael Corris, writer and professor of fine art at the Art & Design Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University.

Vaughan Grylls, artist and former director of Kent Institute of Art and Design.

What is the Future of Art Education?

In response to demand, Art Monthly organised two public debates: one in London in September and one in Birmingham in October. At these events readers were given the opportunity to question educational professionals and policy makers.

The panels debated the motion: ‘Is further privatisation, corporatisation and instrumentalism inevitable or are there alternatives?Æ and responded directly to the question ‘What is the Future of Art Education?’

Panel:

Michael Corris is a writer and professor of fine art at the Art & Design Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University.

Lisa Le Feuvre is a writer, curator and lecturer on the curatorial programme at the Department of Art, Goldsmiths.

Paul Gough is chair of the art and design group of the Research Assessment Exercise and pro-vice chancellor at University of West of England in Bristol.

Irit Rogoff is an art historian and professor of visual cultures at Goldsmiths.

Paul Wood is the author of ‘Between God and the Saucepan’, a study of English art education from the 18th century to the present day, which will be published in the History of British Art in November 2008.

Love them or loathe them Art Fairs are here to stay. Part of the art market, art fairs don’t just benefit dealers and collectors but artists too, so why do so many art critics despise them? Isn’t it time to move the debate along from the default position of ‘museum shows good: art fairs bad?’

Panel: Pryle Berhman, Lisa Le Feuvre, Peter Suchin

The two artists in conversation.

David Ryan and Kirsten Norrie are both artists and both musicians, Sally O’Reilly is a critic and curator of performance events and all three write for Art Monthly. They discussed the crossovers between music, performance and other art forms and tried to address some of problems of definition that arise as a result. They tackled the common questions about interdisciplinarity such as how do you critique or react to a work which combines more than one art form? How context affects the work – when music is played within an art context and vice versa? What difference can the audience make if the work is ‘participatory’, ‘interactive’, or ‘transactive’?

Worlds within Worlds: The Institutions of Art

‘If institutionalisation once lurked ominously in the distance for the avant-garde radical, today it is instantaneous, ubiquitous and unexceptional.’ – Dave Beech

Are today’s artists powerless to resist institutionalisation?

The Art Monthly panel will attempt to define the concepts of ‘institutionalisation’ in art and ‘the institutions of art’ and debate the changing practice of institutional critique, including the phenomenon of self-institutionalisation which, arguably, has superseded it.

The Camera Never Lies?

Despite the crimes committed in the name of photographic truth are photographs themselves innocent? With Art Monthly critics Craig Burnett, Alison Green, Axel Lapp and Julian Stallabrass.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Judging the Value of Art

How is art judged in the present anti-aesthetic, yet post-theoretical times? Who judges the value of art – the collector, the dealer, the curator or the critic? Art Monthly critics Dave Beech, JJ Charlesworth, Jonathan Harris and Sarah James met to debate the relationship between criticism and the art market and what this means for the formation of critical judgements about art.

The State of Art Criticism

Following a seminar convened by Alex Coles and held at Tate Britian on the theme of the state of Art Criticism a series of features were published in Art Monthly. Michael Archer’s riposte to Coles’s ‘The Bathroom Critic’ provoked other writers and critics to reply, their responses in the form of features, letters and polemics continued to be printed in Art Monthly across five issues.