Charlie Levine interviews Karl England, artist and Director of Sluice__
Charlie Levine: As a well travelled artist, having grown up all over the world, and now being settled in London, how has this affected your practice? Are there aspects of your work that look specifically at the world? I'm thinking particularly of your film works you've been making recently for The Moving Image Project ,The Opinion Makers at the LondonNewcastle project space and DOLPH earlier this year.
Karl England: It makes me feel like a perpetual outsider, but it also makes me aware that we're all perpetual outsiders. The notion of the 'other' is contingent on you occupying a central position and any positions at a remove as being exotic. If you're essentially from nowhere it ensures your grip on a central position is pretty weak. Your identity isn't formed in relation to place but rather lack of place. Subsequently I'm disdainful of any instances of the 'other' being romanticised. In a globalised society the notion of the 'local' is a prized commodity, but as the definition of 'local' is squeezed ever tighter the ‘other’ is no longer Myanmar it's now neighbouring postcodes. It's no longer art from Seattle, it's now whatever art you don't make. So the 'other' diminishes in distance but broadens in scope. In this state coherent narratives falter and the systems of dissemination is all that remains. Its not what the art says but how it says it that is important. The content is in servitude to the system, the subject is the system.
CL: You are one of the founders and one third of Sluice, an independent arts organisation run to find and produce opportunities for other independent art organisations and projects. You are the artist alongside a curator and educationalist and often talk about Sluice as an extension of your artistic practice; can you explain a little bit about this? How do you see running an art fair, as an example, as an extension of the work you make in the studio?
KE: Art is a system for disseminating ideas. Exhibiting platforms are systems for disseminating ideas. Art is mediated by the systems and environment it inhabits. My work references ideas of access and exclusion, art as commodity (cultural and financial), DIY culture, context and material as a political stance. For me, Sluice__ references these exact same things. So in a sense Sluice__ is the social outlet of my more contemplative 'studio' practice.
CL: Sluice has diversified it's output recently, why has Sluice evolved this way? Where did it come from and where do you see it going?
KE: I think as long as Sluice__ is promoting its community of galleries and exploring issues (conceptual and organisational) that are relevant to both itself and its 'stakeholders' then there's no reason it shouldn't grow organically in any way it likes. The broader reach Sluice__ has the more beneficial it is to all those involved with it.
CL: You say that Sluice is an undefined project, that there's a freedom in this as it can evolve change to suit the whims of the team and the opportunities that arise. How is being unrestricted helpful and exciting for Sluice, their partners and audiences? But also how does this negatively affect the organisation?
KE: I see Sluice__ as a creative entity, creative entities need to retain the freedom to evolve in unexpected ways. As soon as it codifies its systems it will start to seize up and slowly institutionalise itself. If Sluice was merely a commercial platform whose reason for existence was as event organiser for others then a/ I wouldn't be interested in doing it and b/ we'd be doing it badly, as we're by no means commercial, or even (at this stage) sustainable. What I find interesting in Sluice__ is that it's as one with the galleries and projects that we work with. Like the projects we work with we're interested in art as something other than as a pawn in a hyper-commercialised art world. Sluice__ is a place where artistic endeavour as a counter-cultural activity can happen. And as such we're not a service provider but rather a collaborator.
There are very few downsides, when we want to define ourselves we do, we run an art fair that's very un-art fair like, but by labeling ourselves thus we're tapping into the cultural baggage that that terms brings. And that applies to any label we assume for our activities. There may be a penalty to pay as far as funding bodies are concerned, as institutions often perceive lack of definition as lack of direction but I see that as a short term penalty for long term gain. As soon as we start to skew our development to account for what funders might want is the day we're lost.
Karl England: It makes me feel like a perpetual outsider, but it also makes me aware that we're all perpetual outsiders. The notion of the 'other' is contingent on you occupying a central position and any positions at a remove as being exotic. If you're essentially from nowhere it ensures your grip on a central position is pretty weak. Your identity isn't formed in relation to place but rather lack of place. Subsequently I'm disdainful of any instances of the 'other' being romanticised. In a globalised society the notion of the 'local' is a prized commodity, but as the definition of 'local' is squeezed ever tighter the ‘other’ is no longer Myanmar it's now neighbouring postcodes. It's no longer art from Seattle, it's now whatever art you don't make. So the 'other' diminishes in distance but broadens in scope. In this state coherent narratives falter and the systems of dissemination is all that remains. Its not what the art says but how it says it that is important. The content is in servitude to the system, the subject is the system.
CL: You are one of the founders and one third of Sluice, an independent arts organisation run to find and produce opportunities for other independent art organisations and projects. You are the artist alongside a curator and educationalist and often talk about Sluice as an extension of your artistic practice; can you explain a little bit about this? How do you see running an art fair, as an example, as an extension of the work you make in the studio?
KE: Art is a system for disseminating ideas. Exhibiting platforms are systems for disseminating ideas. Art is mediated by the systems and environment it inhabits. My work references ideas of access and exclusion, art as commodity (cultural and financial), DIY culture, context and material as a political stance. For me, Sluice__ references these exact same things. So in a sense Sluice__ is the social outlet of my more contemplative 'studio' practice.
CL: Sluice has diversified it's output recently, why has Sluice evolved this way? Where did it come from and where do you see it going?
KE: I think as long as Sluice__ is promoting its community of galleries and exploring issues (conceptual and organisational) that are relevant to both itself and its 'stakeholders' then there's no reason it shouldn't grow organically in any way it likes. The broader reach Sluice__ has the more beneficial it is to all those involved with it.
CL: You say that Sluice is an undefined project, that there's a freedom in this as it can evolve change to suit the whims of the team and the opportunities that arise. How is being unrestricted helpful and exciting for Sluice, their partners and audiences? But also how does this negatively affect the organisation?
KE: I see Sluice__ as a creative entity, creative entities need to retain the freedom to evolve in unexpected ways. As soon as it codifies its systems it will start to seize up and slowly institutionalise itself. If Sluice was merely a commercial platform whose reason for existence was as event organiser for others then a/ I wouldn't be interested in doing it and b/ we'd be doing it badly, as we're by no means commercial, or even (at this stage) sustainable. What I find interesting in Sluice__ is that it's as one with the galleries and projects that we work with. Like the projects we work with we're interested in art as something other than as a pawn in a hyper-commercialised art world. Sluice__ is a place where artistic endeavour as a counter-cultural activity can happen. And as such we're not a service provider but rather a collaborator.
There are very few downsides, when we want to define ourselves we do, we run an art fair that's very un-art fair like, but by labeling ourselves thus we're tapping into the cultural baggage that that terms brings. And that applies to any label we assume for our activities. There may be a penalty to pay as far as funding bodies are concerned, as institutions often perceive lack of definition as lack of direction but I see that as a short term penalty for long term gain. As soon as we start to skew our development to account for what funders might want is the day we're lost.