Rangituhia Hollis, 10:43 a.m. 14 May, 2015 #

It is a shame that all of the other works in the exhibition have been surmised as addendum, to that of Heta's. As there are a number of innovations that are evident in these works that have not been mentioned in this review. Perhaps this signals a lack of capacity on the part of the author or the site in general or perhaps I am likewise scornful because I have been left out. The thing is that Maori will still be looking elsewhere, for traces that their articulations can be understood by the mainstream. As for the exclusivity of the wananga you simply need to wait for the book.

Ralph Paine, 3:44 p.m. 14 May, 2015 #

In my experience artists either GET together, or they’re GOT together; and thus two different kinds of organisational desire run through any given art world. When artists get together they tend to compose their groups autonomously and non-hierarchically, that is to say, they self-organise—an artist-run collective is a good example. On the other hand, when artists are got together their groups tend to be composed hierarchically via institutionally constituted procedures, powers and divisions of labour, that is to say, they are organised by more powerful others—a curated exhibition/event inside an art school gallery is a good example. Felix Guattari talked about this as the difference between group-subjects and subjected-groups.

Obviously things are more mixed up than this: for example, an autonomous artist may sign a contract with a dealer, thus getting herself together with a group of artists commonly known as a ‘stable’. Or, was it the dealer who got her into the stable? Was it economic necessity? Was it a desire to exhibit, to be famous? Whatever the case, there are all kinds of subtle/not so subtle hierarchies operating in the art market. And there are complex feedback loops operating between the art market, art schools, public galleries, and even the artist-run collectives. Autonomy is a difficult thing.

In any case, it seems to me that what is being described and critiqued here is an attempt to create an autonomous, self-organising group (group-subject), but this within the confines, and via the powers and procedures of, a hierarchical institution. This kind of attempt is very common in art-pedagogical situations: a hierarchical organisation wants to teach non-hierarchical procedures (of course this is not to say that there are not greater or lesser stratified organisations). However, today (as yesterday) this contradictory or paradoxical state of affairs is the place from which an important strain of art discourse or theory begins. In other words, contradictions and paradoxes are productive for thinking. For example: can we get our sh_t done without the necessity of hierarchies; what hierarchies do we find in contemporary Maori and Pasifika worlds; is there a flat or even low ontology/theory available to us; can we construct one? Anyhows...

Ralph Paine, 5:34 p.m. 14 May, 2015 #

And, I forgot to add, always groups have different degrees and types of exclusivity/openness; just as the art that they produce will induce greater or less welcoming affect... "What's the vibe here?" "What kinda atmosphere am I suspended in?"

Negotiating one's way around the groups and the differing affects/vibes/atmospheres which go to compose any given art world at any given time can be a troubling, sometimes paranoia-inducing, pastime. Or...