ART INSIDER–BEN LUKE: What is Art For?–Journey into Art Writing and New Book

Art Insider is an interview segment with fascinating figures of the art field who lift the veil on their corner of contemporary art. 

→ ⁠SIGN UP TO THE EXHIBITIONISTAS FILES: ⁠⁠https://joanaprneves.substack.com/s/exhibitionistas⁠⁠

Guest: Ben Luke (Host of A Brush With)

Ben Luke is an art journalist whose voice reaches a wider audience through his successful podcast A Brush With, where each episode is dedicated to an artist interview led by him. His new book, What is art for? Contemporary artists on their inspirations, influences and disciplines (2025, Heni), stems from it. The scope of his questions is aimed toward building a good perspective on what artists look at, listen to, and where they draw their energy, inspiration and creative flow from.  We discuss pop music and visual art crossover in the 80s and the boisterous 90s whose suppressed history Luke knows and shares brilliantly.

→ For our third season, we're working with intern production assistants for the first time. Your donations will contribute to pay for their work: ⁠⁠⁠https://exhibitionistaspodcast.com/support-us⁠

If you appreciate my work, why not buy me a coffee? It's a nice way to show your appreciation without having to commit to a membership: ⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/exhibitionista⁠⁠

For behind the scenes clips, links to the artists and guests we cover, and visuals of the exhibitions we discuss follow us on Instagram: @exhibitionistas_podcast

Bluesky: @exhibitionistas.bsky.social

[e-mail]

#contemporaryart #benluke #artexhibitions #abrushwith #exhibitionistas #exhibitionistaspodcast #joanaprneves #artbook #artbookclub #bookclub #painting #contemporarypainting #londonart #museum #londonmuseum #artpodcast #artconversations #arttalk #talkart #greatwomenartists #louisebourgeois #velazquez #dorissalcedo

Episode Transcript

(00:05):
Hi there and welcome to our bi weekly digital meeting place.
We're about to let someone else in for our first Art Insider
episode of the season. None other than Ben Luke, widely
known for his podcast A Brush With, but also for his writing
in the Art newspaper where he isa contributing editor.

(00:26):
Ben Luke turned out to be a realart nerd, which made for the
most enjoyable conversation. As ever, finding out about each
persons unique journey into art is fascinating not only for us
in the art bubble, but also for you out there in your own
meanderings in contemporary arts.

(00:48):
So we talk about his new book, What is Art?
For Contemporary Artists on their inspirations, influences
and disciplines, published by Henny, which revisits the
Brushwood podcasts and presents the interviews with a completely
new framing. You'll find out all about them
in the episode. But mostly what I find really,

(01:11):
really fascinating is that this book shows that digital formats
respond to different needs than a printed book, that they are
complementary. In fact, it is quite interesting
as an exercise to move from one to the other.
And even if you are on a brush with aficionado or aficionado,

(01:34):
you can even try to figure out what interviews you would have
taken as opposed to the ones that were chosen and also
compare and enjoy the imagery that or the illustrations that
accompany each interview. We also talk about audiences.
So talking about formats, obviously they would not exist

(01:55):
without you out there listening to podcasts and reading and
enjoying books. So we talk about audiences more
from the perspective of museum visitors and museum management.
And we exchanged about this nagging feeling that I have that
audiences are considered by mostart spaces as a sort of

(02:19):
shapeless BLOB, a sort of average of all the averages of
all possible behaviours. And this word also carries a lot
of biases in attendance of a museum.
Diminishing is interpreted in many, many ways and can be seen
in many, many aspects. So it is really interesting to

(02:43):
talk about these things and alsoto try and contribute.
If museums, museum directors, museum teams are listening to
this episode, I think it's really great to open the
conversation, but also for you out there who go to exhibitions
to reflect upon what you choose to go to, how you visit museums,

(03:06):
but also how the information about the exhibitions is
delivered to you. And that's a lot of what we
focus on in this conversation. So yes, here we are again,
existing and spending time together virtually to go back to
real life nourished. Because don't forget, we visit
exhibitions so that you have to or so that you experience them

(03:30):
vicariously through us and also so you can read books.
You can find Ben Luke's What is Artful published by Henny
through a link in the description notes if you want to
purchase it or have a look at what it's about.
This is not an affiliated link, by the way.
I don't gain anything from that.And while you're at it, do sign

(03:51):
up to the newsletter. As you know, I'm a writer.
And by signing up, you will alsohave access to all my archive of
texts on Sub Stack as well as the exhibitionist files.
Because each newsletter is in fact a little bouquet of useful
links, post episode reflections,and also an easy way for you to

(04:11):
support us through the Sub Stackplatform for less than what a
beer costs these days. If you don't know Substack, it
is also a place where you can find other writers, other
creatives you can wonder about. And I usually post some links as
well to other writers out there or other creatives who are doing
interesting stuff. So I embarrassed myself trying

(04:36):
to introduce Ben Luke the way heintroduces his artists.
I don't think I've ever been more self-conscious in this
podcast in my life, but it was thrilling to do it and it was
even more thrilling to inquire about so many things in relation
to museums, exhibitions, books and artists and the 90s in the

(05:00):
UK. So stick around.
Here comes the episode. Enjoy.
Hello, this is Exhibitionist. There's the podcast where we
explore art in all its iridescent nuance and diversity
from all angles, with different types of episode providing a

(05:21):
variety of pathways into contemporary arts.
I'm your host, Joanna Pierre Nevis, contemporary art writer
and curator. So welcome to the first Arts
Insider episode of the season, where I interview fascinating
figures of visual arts to talk about their passions and their

(05:41):
suggestions. Also for you to navigate your
own experiences with more depth and pleasure.
It is my immense honour to welcome to the podcast writer,
editor and broadcaster Ben Luke.Welcome to the podcast.
Thank you so much for being here.
Thank you. Thank you for having me.
So Ben Luke studied fine art andhistory at Middlesex University,

(06:06):
where his conversation with fellow students and invited
artists progressively led him toswap the paintbrush with a pen.
So after graduating, he worked for the press office at Tate's
Gallery, as it was named then, for eight years, going from
press assistant to senior press officer.

(06:28):
In 2005, he had acquired such experience with art and artists
and such a talent for finding unsuspected entry points into a
subject or a body of work that he started writing for several
magazines and newspapers, including The Art Newspaper,
which he works for as contributing editor and podcast

(06:48):
host. He also writes for artist
monographic publications and is regularly invited to host artist
talks in several art spaces and galleries.
In 2017, the Art Newspaper launched the podcast The Week in
Art, and it is in this first episode that we hear Ben Luke's

(07:09):
voice for the first time, A voice that could very well win
the trophy of the gentlest voicein the podcasting industry.
In addition to this, as a host and a writer, Ben Luke has the
ability to be precise, verbally playful and incredibly
comforting. The first episode of The Week in

(07:31):
Art covers a conference at the National Gallery around Nazi
looted pieces and Rachel White Reads solo exhibition at Tate
Modern. Then it was also the first time
that we got to listen to Ben Luke's trademark in Art
podcasting, carefully worded introductions read with what I
would characterize as a sort of syncopated composure.

(07:56):
Ben Luke has another podcast with, I presume, A wider range
of listeners focusing solely on artist interviews.
It's called A Brush with It is quite established now and was
inspired initially by AQ and a interview published in the Art
newspaper since 2019, where a number of set questions were

(08:17):
asked to different figures of the industry.
Ben Luke pitched it as a podcastat the start of the pandemic on
the 22nd of May of 2020, an effective pitch for an available
audience then. The podcast was officially
launched in August 2020 with Michael Armitage and counts
prestigious artists across 120 episodes such as Rooney Horn, Ai

(08:42):
Weiwei, William Cantridge, John Jonas, Kapwani kiwanga, Jeff
wool, Mahlan Juma, Lebena Hamid amongst many others.
But what brings him here is precisely the book stemming from
the podcast, a brush width titled What is Artful out now.

(09:02):
So you can purchase it after listening to this episode.
And it contains a selection of 25 interviews from the podcast,
but much more as well. So, Ben, do you want to present
the book in your own words? Thank you very much.
I just have to say that is an extraordinary, generous and kind
introduction. Thank you so much.

(09:22):
I really appreciate it. So yes, the the book is called
what is art for? You can see I'm holding it up so
that. For those who are watching.
Yeah, for those of you that are watching, it's it's a it's a
weighty tome, actually. 400 pages and as you say, 25 artist
interviews from the Series A brush with.
And one of the things, of course, about podcasts, and

(09:44):
especially the brush with podcasts for which we don't
record video is that of course you can listen to these artists
talking about their influences and cultural experiences, which
is the kind of key factor of thebrush with podcast.
You know, it's, it's, it's me talking to artists, yes, about
their work, but also about theirwork through the prism of their

(10:04):
experiences with culture. And I mean culture in its
broadest sense, you know, it's it's visiting cities as much as
much as it is experiencing particular artworks and so on.
And what we do in this book, andit's published with by Henny.
And then it's been fascinating and an extraordinary process
working with them on this is really try to illustrate those

(10:27):
interviews in a way that you, ofcourse, you cannot with a
podcast. And so I'm very pleased to say
there is a very generous amount of imagery in this book.
It's wonderful to even for me who who conducted these
interviews, to read these interviews alongside pictures.
And there are these fantastic correspondences between the

(10:48):
words and the images you're seeing of artworks past present,
deep past, absolutely contemporary.
You know, it's a, it's a fascinating study, I think in
what artists are thinking now. And to see that on the page as,
as visual information as well asreading the artist's words, I

(11:09):
think really justifies where we've done this book.
And alongside that, I've writtenin the, the introduction, which
I note that you you read very carefully and drew some, some
information from which explains this with my background, but
also why I'm interested in talking to artists and what,
what my fundamental motivation, I guess, is in wanting to have

(11:32):
these long form conversations. And then also importantly, 5
short texts on artists that I'vecalled anchors.
And that's actually a term whichI borrowed from the Tate,
actually the my years at the Tate, even before I left the
Tate, they they were beginning to talk about certain anchors
around which the collection was for.
Oh, I see, I wonder. If they do it a lot with.

(11:54):
Yeah. And as I don't think you.
Explained that in the text to you.
No, no, I mean no, no, I didn't.I don't think I did.
But, but I think it's a it's a crucial word, This, this idea
that there are sort of influential anchors around whom
from whom spring or from or who weight down to, to continue the
the image, a kind of a kind of discourse around which other

(12:19):
artists can participate. And I think that that those
that, you know, in this book, there could have been many more,
but the five that we chose go from Velasquez through Goya to
Manet to Duchamp and to Louise Bourgeois.
And, and those are short texts which draw the kind of
connections between the different artists responses to

(12:41):
them, but also try and explain their significance through time
as well. So for instance, that of course
somebody like Velasquez, you know, we now think of one of the
greatest of all time. But there was a kind of period
between the his death in 1660 and and the 19th century where
where unless you were in the royal family in Spain or

(13:03):
happened to be visiting a, a, a kind of nobles palace, you
wouldn't have seen his work, youknow?
Which happens a lot, of course, to all of us, absolutely.
Yeah, of course, very much so. So it's, it's just an
extraordinary thing to to chart influence and to and to look at
influence and how it manifests over time and how certain

(13:26):
figures just reappear and reappear.
And these anchor texts are very much about that.
I had some trepidation going through the names because I
started going down the list and thought are there not going to
be any women in this list? Because very often when I listen
to the interviews, it is true that the famous artists of the

(13:48):
past and the all these artists, most of the artists you're
interviewing are in their late 30s forties onwards.
And of course, the artists that were taught at university and
that you encounter most often are men.
So I'm curious to see so to to ask about Louise Bourgeois,
particularly was it a name that in terms of the women, because

(14:09):
I, I presume you had that worry as well.
So how did Louise Bourgeois comeabout?
Is it frequents in terms of referencing and?
And how is she referred to I? Think in the text that I write
about her, I write about that extraordinary span of time that
she connects to. So on the one hand, Louise

(14:29):
Bourgeois, I think to most people who do know her, might be
a kind, might still be seen as acontemporary artist.
She died in 2011, I think, but she her artistic life spans way
back in negotiation with an enormously important moments at
different points. She so she married the art

(14:50):
historian Robert Goldwater and they they relocated to the
States from Paris. She her background, by the way,
in Paris is extraordinary in this textile, you know, you
know, antique dealing, textile manufacturing, extraordinary
rich background which involves so much of her later
development. She's she, which she moves with
Robert Goldwater to the States and you know, and then has this

(15:15):
extraordinary life in which, yes, as I say, she connects to
surrealism. But then through the 60s, she's
when she actually has a period where she, she focuses entirely
on psychoanalysis, where she's, she has, she has mental illness
and she, she deals with her mental illness through a very,
very the exacting process of psychoanalysis, which deeply

(15:38):
informs her work on the one hand, but also means that she
doesn't make art for quite a long time.
And then she begins making art again in the 60s and produces, I
guess, the kind of iconic, and Ihate you hate that word, but I
genuinely think these are iconic.
These works, you know, the iconic sculptural works, deeply
sexual, deeply informed by the psychoanalysis, deeply probing

(16:03):
her family relationships. Her drawings, by the way, as
well as her sculptures, are the most extraordinary things there
is in at the Quarto Gallery in London as we speak, there is a
room of drawings by Louise Bourgeois which are just.
Astonishing. Absolutely breathtaking.
She's an extraordinary figure from the point of view that she
she spans decades and, you know,grew into that moment where

(16:26):
installation art exploded and was a pioneer of different forms
of installations in with her cell works, which are, you know,
sculptural installations which involve different forms of,
yeah, multiple different forms of materiality and contain these
incredibly psychoanalytically informed but but also sort of

(16:46):
psychically active spaces involving sculptural materials,
textiles, you know, architectureelements and so on.
I think, you know, she does comeup through the series of brush
with and in the book. And the reason I think she does
is because she there's there is a kind of moral guidance that

(17:10):
she has for artists. She has that's.
So interesting. What do you mean by that?
I think, I think she is an exemplar of a kind of tenacity
that artists respond to. She, you know, there are many
ways in which she informs artists from on a formal level,
but also it's her journey. And I think, I think very often

(17:32):
one of the most interesting things about artists and
influence is the fact that they are interested in other artists
as a formal example, as a way oflearning about materials and and
imagery and so on, but also because of the way they behave
through their life and the way that they made their work.

(17:52):
And what do you think is most inspiring in her tenacity for
artists? Well, I think it's that thing
of, you know, if you think aboutyou, you mention about male
artists versus female artists, you imagine the environment in
which she is making work right from the start.
She it's a male dominated world and she is making an entirely

(18:15):
individual practice surrounded by an entirely patriarchal
system. And so if you are Louise
Bourgeois, to have that tenacityto keep making work and make
work with the individuality thatyou make it and and just keep
probing yourself through all of this, even when it was deeply

(18:37):
unfashionable, when subject matter was anathema in the 60s
in New York, you know, minimalism, come on, you know,
and so you. Know.
And so feminine and so visceral and sexual.
I mean, it was absolutely frowned upon, yeah.
So to make that kind of work, I think is an exemplar for artists
that you know, you can, you might be able to see a trend

(18:58):
there happening in the corner ofyour eye, but don't be
distracted by it. Do your thing, you know, don't,
don't succumb to what happens tobe the modish way of making
work. Do what you need to do, not what
you think people think you should do, you know?
On that note, that leads me to my first question to you,

(19:20):
because when I'm invited to, youknow, do lectures or for create
creative workshops in Fine Arts universities, I often tell the
students that being an artist isnot the only possible outcome
when you're studying Fine Arts. And you are the the perfect
example of that. So I was, I'm really curious in

(19:43):
to know if you're switching froma creative process, like a more
an artistic process you were painting to writing and to
working in the institutional context.
If it was progressive, it was. If it was a sudden epiphany, how
did that happen and how did you feel?

(20:06):
It's, it's really interesting question because I think by the
time I had come to the end of mydegree, I realized I wasn't
going to be a painter. Apart from anything else, I was
a bit disillusioned with the actual process.
It was really interesting. In my first and second year, I
had very stimulating conversations with particular
tutors and so on. In my third year, I think my, my

(20:27):
universe of art expanded to a certain degree, but my, it made
me feel that my work was inadequate.
And so therefore, I think, I think by the time I'd come to
the end of my degree, I very much thought that art history
was the way forward. And so therefore from there it
was just a question of, you know, how do I manifest this

(20:49):
interest in, in art and and artists without being a painter?
So it wasn't an obvious thing. I didn't say it'll step outside
of my degree and go, OK, I'm going to do this.
I'm going to go and work in a press office or anything like
that. But it was, I was clear that I
wasn't going to be a practicing artist.
But I would say that having beenin a studio and having to go

(21:09):
into a studio and make make art every day or four days a week or
whatever it was when I was in myon my degree course really stood
me in good stead in trying to understand artists and trying to
understand the way that they work and feel when they're in
that studio. Because it is kind of
terrifying. You know, going into a studio,
it can be really inspiring, but also can be absolutely

(21:31):
terrifying. There are moments.
Yeah. And I think, I think that, you
know, one of the interesting things I asked about artist
rituals, you know, the, the, thesubtitle of the book is
contemporary artists on the influences, inspirations and
disciplines. And one of the key things I
think about the conversations I have on the podcast and in the
book is that I'm interested in what it's like being an artist.

(21:51):
You know, it's what, why they dowhat they do.
It's a kind of curious life. And, and I think to have a bit
of access to that during my student days, albeit with the
entirely cosetted world that is,you know, studying a degree
rather than just being in a freeperson with no job, you know, or
whatever, you know, just going into the studio everyday.

(22:13):
Yeah. OK.
So it was slightly softened by the fact that it was done within
the context of a degree course. But still, the idea of going
into the studio and trying to make work, having that in my
past, albeit briefly, I think has helped in terms of
understanding artists. And since this is
exhibitionists, of course, I must ask you about, you know, a

(22:38):
foundational experience with artin general and how that came
about. And I remember that in the Jenny
Savile episode, you mentioned going to Paris with your school
and how that expanded your your horizons about the vastness of
other people creating something else elsewhere.

(22:59):
How did you, how were you first touched by art?
Do you remember? Was it an exhibition?
Was it an artwork? Was it early?
Was it later? I mean, it must have been
profound enough for you to decide to go into Fine Arts
university. Yeah, yeah, definitely.
It was really curious actually. I think that what got me into

(23:19):
art was music. And when I was young, I was, I
loved pop music and I was reading popular music magazines
in the 1980s when loads of musicians, pop musicians, people
in the charts were from an art background from they've been to
art school, you know? Absolutely.

(23:40):
But you know. That's a very United Kingdom.
I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but I'm so glad because I've
spoken about this with many British people who are, you
know, into art. Artists are people who go to
exhibitions with me and I keep telling them as someone who's
not English and who didn't grow up, grow up here.
It is such a British thing to have Bryan Ferry.

(24:04):
What's the what's the name of the Pulp singer?
Jarvis Cooker. Jarvis Cooker.
So many artists or singers and really important pop figure.
I think even Damon Alban went toart school.
Right. Yeah.
So it's. Right, sorry, but please do go
on. Don't lose your you're.
Absolutely right. I think this is really key that
that you cannot underestimate the the influence of art schools

(24:25):
on British music and why it's sofantastic.
Yes, yeah, I agree. You know, because the ideas are
coming from left field and some of those are being propelled in
to people's imaginations throughpopular music.
And that to me isn't that, that is what I mean about my
liberation, if you like, into art.
It came through music. So, and it's not even the kind
of trendy names. It's actually from that sort of

(24:46):
generation after Bryan Ferry. So Bryan Ferry was archly
artistic in the sense that he was taught by Richard Hamilton,
you know, in Newcastle, you know, so you couldn't get a
better tutelage. And in fact, wonderfully, he, I
think he collects pop art, you know.
But anyway, yes, so, so the generation after fairy, the
people that were influenced by Brian Ferry are people like

(25:07):
Duran Duran and people like that.
So I was, I was looking at theseearly 80's pop stars.
I was like 910 years old at thisstage, you know?
Yeah, we were very young. Yeah, so reading Smash Hits
Magazine and Nick Rose from Duran Duran, he's banging on
about Andy Warhol and Jean Cocteau and you know, these sort
of deeply mysterious figures were people there.

(25:29):
I then was sent on a journey to look at and it took me a little
while, but I think by the age of13 I'd asked my mum to go to the
Tate and, and so age 13 or thereabouts, I'm pretty sure it
was 19/19/86, I went to the Tatewith my mum and I can remember
very, very clearly being deeply inspired and being completely

(25:51):
dazzled in a way by two artworks.
And 1 was Autumnal Cannibalism, which is by Salvador Dali, which
is one of those Spanish Civil War paintings.
And I remember being particularly dazzled by the
painting of a knife, the metal on a knife, the sort of
kaleidoscopic paint that describes the Sheen of the
knife. So that was one thing.
And then by Andy Warhol's Marilyn Diptik and those kind of

(26:12):
two artists kind of formed for me a kind of route through which
to kind of a window, if you like, into the art world.
And, and from there, I expanded out in different directions
from. So, you know, if you've got
surrealism and pop and those twofigures in particular as a kind
of grounding, you can imagine how broad you can then, you

(26:34):
know, broadly you can expand your horizons.
And you're right. And and, you know, not not long
after that, there was a trip to Paris, I think.
Yeah. So I think when I was 16, I went
to Paris. And by that stage I'd, you know,
if you imagine I've got three years of being becoming very
passionate about art by that stage.
And I'd seen Andy Warhol's retrospective at the Haywood

(26:55):
Gallery. And by this stage, that was in
1989, it was the great, it was the most amazing retrospective,
which was at MoMA in 1989. So you imagine two years after
Warhol's death, and it's Kiniston Mcshine, the absolutely
legendary curator, Kiniston Mcshine, the curator of primary

(27:16):
structures, that. Information.
I'm fascinated with the exhibition.
Information about technology andconceptual art.
It's he is an incredible curator.
Yeah. He is an amazing curator and it
was his Warhol show which touredfrom MoMA to the Heywood.
I think he also went to this Entre Pompedou and elsewhere.
So I saw that exhibition at the Haywood in 1989 and I think I

(27:38):
saw it twice. And I and by that stage Warhol
had become my pop * if you know what I mean.
I, I had a portrait of a Frightwick self-portrait poster
from that exhibition and a Marilyn poster from that
exhibition on my wall as if theywere kind of icons of my, you
know, teenage years. So was the.

(27:58):
Relationship with Marilyn, or was it a relationship with the
way the, the, the, the star, theicon was treated in terms of
image? What, what, what attracted you
guys? But you were a teenager.
I, I'm presuming that Marilyn was, I mean, I remember in our
childhoods she was still an incredibly glowing presence in,

(28:24):
in the pop world and popular culture.
So was it her? What, what?
Because I'm always interested inthe part of life that connects
you to art, that then brings youback to life, you know?
Yeah, absolutely. I think, I think it was.
It was, it was everything that you just said and more in the
sense that, yes, I can remember,for instance, we were reading

(28:45):
biographies of Marilyn and, you know, her death was so
fascinating. Of course, that's what Warhol
picks up on. And that's why he uses, you
know, that's why he uses that portrait of her.
You know, that very straightforward glamour shot of
her. Sorry, that's the wrong term.
That very straightforward portrait of her.
You know, that was a kind of casting image effectively.

(29:08):
And it was, it was the glamour of Marilyn, the glamour of her
death. Frankly, the fact that there she
was this intriguing tragic figure, I think was absolutely
central. And Warhol picked up on that and
knew, went by making these images that he was propelling
that that tragedy into our lives.
It was, it was the kind of celebrity, the the, the kind of

(29:33):
allure of something completely opposite to the life of a
suburban kid in Kent, you know, in, you know, South of London
that it was something to do withthat too, I'm sure.
So yes, it was it was all of those things.
But it's important to say also that, you know, I did have
Warhol as a poster on my wall aswell.

(29:53):
Him, one of the self portraits, the frightened self portraits.
So Warhol was the maker. Of that of the image was
completely in there absolutely. And I remember also like reading
a serialization of the Diaries of Warhol, which came out around
the same time in The Sunday Times at that point.
And you have to remember that this is during the AIDS crisis.

(30:15):
So I can remember reading about Warhol and, and the glamour of
New York in the context of this terrible, terrible situation
relating to AIDS. And, you know, so many of the
people he knew were dying just before he died.
There was this sense in which this most glorious of scenes,
that New York scene of the late 70s and early 80s was somehow

(30:39):
being destroyed. And it was, you know, that
again, the tragedy of that was somehow weirdly compelling to
me. And so I, you know, it, it
represented something so other in terms of intellectual life,
in terms of, in terms of the idea of this impossibly
glamorous city, these terrible events that were happening that

(31:00):
that was magnetically attracted to it, you know.
Time for a short break to let you into the Exhibitionist the
studio. Look around you.
There is a computer, a good mic,the software in the computer,
which is a sort of virtual spacethrough which you and I meet

(31:24):
with a time and space delay. Then there are my books and two
perfectly round Flintstones. All the magic happens here.
I've been talking to a university whose students need
placements, and I could use someassistance with production and
research while also mentoring the future professionals of the

(31:49):
field. But for that, I have to pay
them. And that's where you come in.
Do you know how much a membership costs?
A mere £25 a year. Which means that you pay £2 a
month, 25 lbs for a whole year when you'd buy a catalog.

(32:13):
That's the average price for onesingle book with two texts.
If you become a member of Exhibitionistors through a
platform called Sub Stack, you not only get to support
exhibitionists, but you also receive on average about 18 more
texts minimum that I will have written about many, many, many

(32:38):
fascinating topics of contemporary arts, philosophy of
arts, and many other subjects. There's a little bonus that I
added, which is getting to ask me questions.
If you have a question about contemporary art, about the
field, about the market, about studies in contemporary art, I'm

(33:00):
very, very happy to do the research for you or to dig into
my little well of knowledge and put the information out there
for you. I can name you or you can be
anonymous so you get to put me to work as long as the questions
and the prompts you give me are within my abilities and the

(33:22):
research material available to me.
Otherwise you can go to donor books in the description notes.
If you have 1 LB to spare, you can just donate one time.
Very, very small amounts. That's what I do with Wikipedia
once in a while. I put some money in there
because I use it almost daily and I want to reward people who

(33:47):
nourish me. Thank you for spending some time
with me here in my studio. Thank you for considering this
decent proposal. On with the episode.
This would be a very long answer, I suppose, to this
question, but if you could briefly auscultate the

(34:09):
relationship between popular culture and contemporary art
now, which is so different from what you're describing, do you
have a sort of a diagnosis of the reason why?
And I think we'll talk about that later because you wrote
really interestingly about the politics in museums.
But do you think that there's a disconnect between art and

(34:33):
audiences, perhaps in certain ways, Or this fear that people
have a contemporary art because of this lack of overlap between
popular culture and contemporaryart?
Or maybe you don't agree with what I'm saying.
Perhaps. I think, I think I agree with it
and don't agree with it at the same time, if you know what I
mean, In the sense that I think there is still a very pronounced

(34:55):
engagement between contemporary art and popular culture.
In the sense that there are verymany artists who are accessing
very popular images and making them dynamic in a new way within
the field of contemporary art. I'm thinking about like Arthur
Jafer. Arthur Jafer, yeah.
He's the last. He's the last artist in the
book. He's the most recent interview
in the book. And it's funny 'cause he's one

(35:16):
of the artists recently about whom I've had conversations
around the shocking aspect of the work.
Because it's so hard to shock us, right?
It's so hard to provoke a sort of reaction.
And he certainly does. Yeah.
And I think like so for instance, last year AJ produced

(35:37):
this work which I think is called Its title keeps changing.
So before I talked to him it wascalled redacted and it was just
that it was written like 5 star symbols.
During the interview he correctsme and says no it's called BG.
No sorry no it's called Ben Gazzara who was an actor from

(35:58):
1917. Then he said.
I later learned that he's changed the title to BG and I
think it may be Ben Gazzara again now but I don't know.
Anyway, there is this. It will change.
Probably again after the episode.
But he has. But he has made this
extraordinary work which I really hope will be shown in the
UK at some point soon. But it's been shown in New York
and LA, which is, and I've seen it as a stream, so I haven't

(36:21):
seen it in a gallery context, but it is one of the genuinely
most shocking artworks I've seenin my life.
And I mean that in a good way, because what he does is he takes
a popular form of popular culture.
It will be it at that stage, a kind of kind of experimental
form of popular culture, which is Martin Scorsese's film Taxi
Driver. And he takes the final scene

(36:44):
from Taxi Driver, final scenes from Taxi Driver in which a
figure, Travis Bickle this this white supremacist taxi driver in
New York goes in and shoots a pimp and men visiting sex
workers. But he recasts it based on

(37:05):
information he had learned that originally the pimp character
was was due was supposed to be black, but he was written the
the black character was written out and Harvey Keitel plays him
instead. So what amazingly AJ does is he
recasts it, reshoots it effectively with with a black
pimp and black people visiting the sex workers and casts it as

(37:26):
a white supremacist repeatedly murdering black people.
And it is one of the most genuinely like you, you, you use
that term visceral. And I think that's a term which
is, is it's it's one of the bestways to describe what art does
when it really hits you, you know, it does.
It's like AI always say it's like a punch to the solar

(37:47):
plexus. It takes the breath out of you.
You know, and this does that, that this film by Arthur Jafer
and it it's just astonishing. And it's repeated 13 times with
slightly different iterations each time.
And then in the middle of it, there's this gorgeous moment
where the pimp starts singing along with Stevie Wonder's
wonderful song as one of the great songs, yes, one of my

(38:10):
favorite songs. And and this sort of delicacy of
this man who's who's about to meet a very brutal death,
smoking on a on the on a porch, singing along with as it's kind
of like, you know, again, just somehow weirdly shocking and and
yeah, yeah. So so there you go.
There's art connecting to popular culture in in a way

(38:33):
which I think is deep and profound and which I think I
would urge anybody to connect with.
And a JS work more generally also does that, you know, but
also I think, yes. So there is also a disconnect
between contemporary art and popular culture in in the in the
sense that there I think you were sort of suggesting that
there was a kind of suspicion around it, you know, within

(38:53):
popular circles to a degree. And I think that is a real
problem because I think with contemporary art, more than
almost any other art form, there's this idea among certain
people that they feel like they're being hoodwinked, that
they're not in on the game, thatsomehow the rules haven't been
explained to them and therefore they're the butt of a joke.

(39:13):
Exactly. And there's actually a really
good line about this from Alan Bennett, the playwright writer.
He said that they should have a sign above the National Gallery
which says you don't have to like everything.
Absolutely, yes. There's this sense of
obligation, of enjoying everything.
Because my theory is that it's presented as a masterpiece, so
you feel stupid if you don't getit.

(39:36):
And I think it's also the presentation of the the artists,
the genius, the masterpiece, themuse, you know, all of that
patriarchal lingo I find. But you may have a different
view, obviously. Yeah, there there.
There are forms of construction around works of art, whether
they be historic works of art orcontemporary works of art, which

(39:59):
are to which can act as a barrier to audiences.
There's no doubt about that. But also, I feel very
passionately, and these conversations in this book and
on the podcast absolutely attestto that, that artists are
generous. You know, they want to connect
to people, you know. You know, it's very rare that
you meet an artist who says no. I just want to make work for my

(40:20):
peers. I'm not interested in connecting
to a broader public. I don't care what people think
of my work. You know, I, you know, I can
count on the fingers of one finger the number of artists who
I think that applies. But.
Yeah. But I know I can't remember for
certain whether it is the personI think of.
But anyway, I know that basically, you know, there are
some they and certainly have been in the past, people who

(40:43):
just want to make work for theirpeers and they don't really care
about having a broader connection.
But certainly now, in my experience, artists want want to
connect. They're doing this.
If you look at the answers to the question, what is art for?
That's the title of the book. So many of the answers, yeah, so
many of these answers are about a kind of human connection.
Absolutely. You know, and, and I think I

(41:05):
think, yes, there are all sorts of reasons why people feel that
contemporary art or art more generally is not for them.
And some of that is in the language which which is
constructed around it and in thethe kind of environmental and
architectural structures that are that are that are around it
too, of course. But I do feel profoundly that in

(41:26):
the right circumstances, all forms of art, historic,
contemporary, everything can connect very deeply to all of
us, you know? So yeah, that's why we're doing
it right. Absolutely, yeah.
And we dedicate our lives to it,not only the artists, but all of
us. Right.
So question related to exhibition going.
You were talking about the 89 exhibition of Andy Warhol.

(41:48):
So I'm presuming you're not going to answer this one.
But I'm really curious to know if there's any exhibition that
you feel that very deeply that you should have seen, you know,
from the turn of the century to the 20th century to now, Is
there any exhibition that you really deeply feel that you
should have been to? There are so many and yeah, I,

(42:13):
so I'm, I think I'm sort of, I'mnot a, I'm not a scholar of
exhibition history, but I'm unofficially, I guess I'm a
scholar of exhibition history. I'm constantly in my research,
dazzled by looking at installation shots of these
extraordinary exhibitions that happened in the past and wishing
I'd been there to see it. Like the first papers of
Surrealism, which was a 1940s exhibition in New York in which

(42:36):
Marcel Duchamp. But what it's it's called a mile
of string. The the amount of string he used
is for debate, but basically he put string all the way across
the exhibition as a kind of massive installation, completely
destroying the opportunity for other other artists.
Were enjoying the painting. Yeah, yeah.
So there's things like that which you know, gosh, so many of

(42:58):
those surrealist exhibitions actually, you know, in
surrealist object exhibitions and you know, the Great
exhibition in London for the International Surrealist
Exhibition. And I think the, the show I most
if it's, if it has to be won, the show I most wish I'd seen is
the 1992 retrospective of Henri Matisse's work in New York at

(43:19):
the Museum of New York. 400 works, all the Russian paintings
alongside the American collections and you know, all of
the amazing European collectionsalso lent for that show.
It's like as close as possible as you could have got to a
perfect Matisse show. And so I was, I was in 1992, I

(43:42):
was 19 and I couldn't get to NewYork.
There was a version of it that travelled to Paris, but I didn't
even see that. But the New York show was, was
the absolutely comprehensive one.
It's curated by the great John Elderfield.
He's one of the great Museum of Modern Art directors, a great
historian of modernism, one of the most incredibly intense
researchers and scholars of, of modern art.

(44:04):
And just like, you know, you cango on Moma's website and look at
installation shots and, you know, little tiny image, black
and white images of show and I'mgasping, you know, that
alongside that, you know, it's, it's that show seems to me to
like that. I, I don't, I would have
exploded if I'd seen that show. Matisse's push comes to shove.

(44:27):
It's it's pretty much, it's pretty much my favorite artist.
And and he, he moves me so deeply.
His achievement is so extraordinary that I just, I
think I would, yeah, that show, I would have been, I would have
been in tears or most of the waythrough everything.
So in some ways it's it's good that you have to preserve your

(44:50):
syncopated composure. So moving on to politics or
maybe political issues reflectedin institutions.
I was so, so happy to read a text you wrote for the other
newspaper Speaking of podcasts as opposed to texts and and the
the reverberation they might have.

(45:11):
Of course this was directed perhaps more to professionals,
but the title is so gripping. Are museums guilt stripping
their visitors question mark? No, they aren't doing enough.
And I would love you to explain what you were responding to,
which is a very specific 2024-2025 situation, I think.

(45:32):
And also, why do you feel that you can't participate in that
complaint? So the context is that there is
this growing swell of views which suggests that the visitor
numbers to museums are slightly lower to certain museums because

(45:55):
they are, and I'm going to put this quote in the heaviest of
quote marks, woke. There's this anti progressive
politics agenda which is appearing sort of subtly in
various spaces, you know, various forms of article, which
is it's suggesting that the programming at certain museums

(46:19):
and, and often it's about tape, but it's all about other other
places as well. White chapels come into, you
know, the people's crossfire. It's, it's suggesting that the
programming, the expanding of canons, the language which is
used to describe historic works within the context of slavery,

(46:42):
of colonialism and so on, is guilt tripping people.
My view very strongly is that there isn't enough of it, you
know? What was interesting is that you
were talking about heritage museums and not contemporary art
museums. And I thought that your scope
was so precise and so fascinating because we're

(47:03):
talking not only about the present but also history very
specifically in what is shown inthe museum.
And I was very happy to see you,you know, make an argument in
such, you know, clear words that, you know, I think it's
worth picking up again, you know, and repeating.
Yeah, absolutely. So, So I think in the in that
article, for instance, I talked about that astonishing show of

(47:26):
the mogul period at the Victoriaand Albert Museum, which closed
earlier this year. And it was one of the most
beautiful shows I've ever seen. Absolutely stunning show, but it
was really notable how little ofthe politics was there and how
little of the sort of geopolitical issues which were
central to that period. There were hints of it.
You know, you saw the connectionbetween Europe and and India,

(47:50):
but and I picked up on somethingthat Shutipa Biz was the great
contemporary British artist who's been the guest on a brush
with pointed out, which was a really fascinating article in
which, you know, it's exploring how museums in a way are
disguising to a certain degree by presenting these really
opulent and wonderful shows. By using opulence as the kind of

(48:12):
driving force of a show, they'rekind of disguising the kind of
very real global situation in that period, which is to me
endlessly fascinating and wouldn't at all reduce the
impact of those works of art. It's not guilt tripping people
to tell them about the situationrelating to empires in the 17th

(48:36):
century and how they connected to India and the, you know, East
India Company and so on. And, and how it was, how it was
active and how, and the ways in which colonialism was
manifesting in that period and, and before it and after it.
You know. So for me, the idea that just by

(48:58):
representing something like thatwithin the context of a
political and geopolitical and social situation is somehow
going to make to put, put visitors off is, is strange
because it seems to me that it'sdeepening the context and

(49:19):
deepening the understanding. And what, what are museums for
if not for deepening understanding?
Yes, they are about showing artworks and of course they are,
that's their fundamental responsibility and, and looking
after the artworks. But but part of that is the
interpretation of what these artworks that are in their
possession and that they have onloan and so on.

(49:39):
And I feel that they could do more to make it.
I'm, I'm quite, you know, I'm quite surprised when you see
displays of paintings by, by notable figures from the 18th
century of aristocrats who clearly benefited from slavery
and colonialism in the imperial project.

(50:00):
And yet nothing is mentioned about why they can afford to pay
Gainsborough the money for this extraordinary portrait.
It doesn't make Gainsborough's portrait any less powerful.
It makes it more powerful in certain ways.
It shows that art plays a role, yes, in these encounters between
very different and very distancecultures and what role it plays

(50:24):
of possession, of fascination, also of othering weirdly through
possession. I find it also very, very
fascinating and. But also, can I say that one of
the things that I think is really, really important about
this is a lot of the people thatare writing these things are
white. And it's really important that
that just because a white commentator doesn't like being

(50:48):
told about empire, it means thata black or brown visitor to that
exhibition or to that collectionis not going to respond to it in
a completely different way. And it, it makes assumptions
about audiences at museums as much as it makes assumptions
about, about what showing art isabout, you know, and I think
actually it's, it's important that we, that we keep talking

(51:12):
about this, but also just that we, you know, we have a
perspective on how, on the different ways in which we can
communicate about, about artworks and that all of them
are interesting. And let's, let's, let's, you
know, let's make these discussions richer, not shut
them down, you know? Well, fascinating.
I'd love to talk about this far more, but I would love to move

(51:35):
on to the book because there's 25 interviews from those 120
that episodes of the podcast which you recorded.
So sometimes people are not really aware of how podcasts
work. So you prepare the interview
deeply, intensely. You do a lot of research, then

(51:55):
you meet the artists, you ask them questions, and then you
spend a long time editing the episode.
Someone edits it for you, but you have to check the editing
and you have to then absorb what's that object has become
from that conversation. And then you have 120, and
they're in the past. So I'm really interested in

(52:17):
knowing how you revisited these episodes and did you change your
perception on them? Did you see something different
that you hadn't seen in that, you know, the heat of the moment
of producing the episode? How did that work?
It's really fascinating, actually.
So on the one hand, there's sortof certain preconceptions you
have about which are the best episodes.
And I'm terrible at this becausethey're all like my children.

(52:39):
So it's it's really hard to say,oh, that, you know, and in fact,
some, some of my absolute favorite episodes, we we aren't
representing them because, you know, 25 from, as you say, over
100 is it's, it's it's a a sample of and a very in depth
sample of those those episodes. But yeah, I mean, so on the one
hand, I think it's really important to say that I would

(53:00):
say that it's not perfect, but there is a a, a pleasing
diversity in the artists that wetalk to in terms of
geographically, in terms of their backgrounds, in terms of
their age, for instance. The the nice thing is that there
are two Michaels interviewed in the book, Michael Armitage and
Michael Craig Martin, and I think there's five decades

(53:22):
between them, you know, so, so that so there's a sense in which
we wanted to get a, a quite broad scope, but then revisiting
them also has been such a pleasure as we were editing the
text, you know, Rebecca Merrill,who is the commissioning editor,
and Michaela Parkin, he was the coffee editor.
We were working together quite closely in the early stages of

(53:43):
the book and batting these theseinterviews back and forth in
text form. And there was a real delight
actually in that process. I can remember sending them, you
know, messages where, where we'dgo.
I love this one, that bit where they talk about XYZ, you know,
there, there were moments where,you know, moments which I knew
were there. But somehow seeing them written

(54:03):
down as text made me think even more deeply about them and
remember the references. There's a wonderful bit in the
Ragnar Kyatensen interview. Ragnar Kyatensen, the great
video artist and installation artist from Iceland, who It's

(54:23):
probably the funniest of all theinterviews.
I'd say it's the one where I laugh the most, definitely.
But there's a wonderful bit where he talks about Mina, the
Italian chanteurs and of the 60sand this amazing song that she
sings. And, and, and it instantly
prompted both Rebecca Morrell and Michaela Parkin to go and

(54:45):
listen to Mina and, you know, and you know, so, and I love
that actually. And I hope that that's what this
book and the podcast does, is that people will go and look at
these references and listen to these references and read these
references and so on. It's certainly done that for me.
You know, so many books that I've read have come out of these
conversations, you know, so yes,the process of choosing 25 was
difficult in some ways because there were so many to choose

(55:07):
from, but I but there were lots of reasons why I think it's a,
it's a balance selection. There's painters, there's
installation artists, sculptors,you know, there's quite a full
gamut of, of kind of means of making here as well.
And I think that's important too.
You know, if we're talking aboutartists and being interested in
their studio practices, to have a kind of real range of making

(55:29):
is really important too. There's, you know, everybody
from Jeremy Della who kind of doesn't, it's not really a
studio he works in and he called, you know, corals people
to to make work within contexts and so on.
And and then you've got somebodylike Charlene von Heil, the
painter, who, you know, just there she is in her studio, her

(55:50):
spy herself forming this world. She talks about how in the
studio she creates these kind ofmood chords basically which
surround her, which prompt new bodies of work.
And there's, you know, the the difference between the very
social practice of somebody likeJeremy Della or Theastic Gates,
the Great American social practice practice artist who's

(56:12):
also amazing ceramicist and sculpture and everything else to
have, you know, to have them. And then somebody like Charlene
or Michael Armitage, you know, people using paint, you know,
is, is really thrilling actually.
And, and I think you get that from the imagery in the book and
the way that they're thinking aswell, you know, so very, very

(56:32):
different ways of being artists,but also sort of obviously
lovely correspondences between the individual interviews as
well. I'm also fascinated by the
difference of answers to that important question that gives
the book its title. What is Artful?

(56:53):
And I would love to know if thatvariety and the difference in
answers has had a sort of impacton you or how, how do you
account for the diversity of answers in this question that
sometimes when you're talking tosomeone who doesn't, you know,

(57:14):
and you say that you work in contemporary arts, they ask you,
you know, what is it? You know, I don't know anything
about it. What does it, you know, what,
what function does it have? What can it bring me?
And you ask the question, which I think is really, really
courageous for a book title because then you have to
deliver, but the artists do. So you leave it in the artist's

(57:34):
hands and the, the sort of myriad of answers that you have,
you know, how do you how, how doyou handle that and what does it
tell you? It's it's a really good point
actually that that it's, it's ina way a, a tricky question to
ask of an artist, you know, because it basically says to
them like, why are you doing what you're doing?

(57:55):
But that is a kind of fundamental, yeah, you know, but
it, but it is also sort of fundamental to the book and to
the whole query of the brush with podcast, you know, you
know, because I think it is a curious life to be an artist.
And I think therefore to ask what what is art for?
You know, what, what is this thing that we're all so obsessed
with doing in the world? You know, it, it, it is a sort

(58:18):
of a complex question. The, the the range of answers is
really pleasing. Actually, there's a there's
quite a gamut. You get like people that use
single words like, you know, Sarah Z says it's for
sustenance. That's it, you know, and and I
think she means in in so many multiple ways, A lot of artists
feel that art is basically a wayof surviving in the world.

(58:41):
I think, you know, Charlene von Heil says we, you know, and I'm
sorry to use a swear word here, but she says we'd be be totally
fucked without it. You know, she's you know, it's
it's if it wasn't for art, how that on earth would we navigate
what's going on? Because it's grim, you know, it
frankly is so grim out there. And no, never more than it feels

(59:01):
like them now, you know, and, and so lots of the responses
are, are are about finding a wayto be human and, and trying to
articulate what it is to be human.
And then for Theaster Gates, I think he says it's it's about
healing you. Know yes, he does.

(59:24):
I was going to ask you about that because I feel that this it
wouldn't have been something that you would have allowed
yourself to say 50 years back oreven more.
And now it is a recurring words for artists and even for
curators, This idea of care and healing is quite surprising and

(59:45):
frankly, comforting. No, I agree with you and
actually one of the one of my favourite interviews in the
book. They're all my favourites.
What? Who am I kidding?
One of my favorite interviews isis with Alberta Whittle, the
Scotland based Glasgow based Barbadian British artist who
talks about in the answer to what is art for talks about

(01:00:07):
about art as a manifestation of hope, you know, but she also
talks a lot through the interview because it's crucial
to her practice about care, you know, about collective care and
an art. Being a kind of an agent within
that and that's AI think you're right that that the idea of art
connecting to care, connecting to healing, connecting to ideas

(01:00:30):
of well-being and so on. To discuss that 50 years ago or
whatever would have been an asthma, but also even now I
think to do it and to understandthat that's within a context of
criticality of inquiry of interrogation is crucial.
It's not fairy, fairy woo woo, you know it.

(01:00:52):
It is absolutely about a critical inquiry into the world
and legacies of slavery, colonialism, etcetera,
particularly in the in in the work of Alberta Whittle.
So it's it's about those legacies and the damage and the
trauma and so on and about manifesting hope from now into
the future. So the idea that it that that it

(01:01:15):
was anathema 50 years ago is probably linked to the idea that
you had, you know, the language of art had to be tough in a
certain way. But you can still be tough and
critical and, and you know, laceratingly focused on
dismantling systems of oppression and so on and talk
about care and healing and so on.
So I think that's really crucial.

(01:01:37):
Interesting. They're not incompatible.
Yeah, that's never thought of that.
But you're so right. I have a really, really strange
question to ask you as someone who hasn't grown up here and who
I guess my FOMO would have been the time where artists were
being talked about in the press in the UK in the 90s.

(01:01:58):
And that's wonderful. 80s, nineties.
And that wonderful interview is Painting Dead with Tracy Emin
and Norman Rosenthal and David Sylvester and all of those
people. And I was wondering, what do you
make of that era as someone who's was here, who went through
it, was affected by it, who has known and interviewed a lot of

(01:02:23):
those artists directly, you know, embodying that phenomenon.
And also that seems so far away now, so distant, and yet it
wasn't that long ago. What do you make of that period?
It's a really crucial period because I was at university in
that period. So in 1992 to 1995 I was at

(01:02:46):
university. I was an art student.
And so I saw in a way, even though I was remote from it, I
wasn't in the art world at all in that period.
You know, I saw in a way that burgeoning scene.
And I was able to, you know, I'mlucky in that I saw the very
first young British artists showat the Saatchi Gallery, the
late, lamented, wonderful Saatchi Gallery in Boundary Rd.

(01:03:10):
that, you know, anybody who wentthere, you talk to them about
that space and they talk about it as the most beautiful art
space they've ever seen. You know, it was just A and
utterly stunning art space. It's difficult to express how
beautiful it was, especially within a context in which, you
know, London didn't have Tate Modern.
You know, the, the, the modern collection of the, the Tate had

(01:03:33):
was shown in what is now Tate Britain in one side of it.
So. So we didn't have Tate Modern,
but we had this gleaming space up in North London.
Yeah, difficult to get to a realschlep, but there it was.
And, you know, I saw that first young British artist show and it
has to be said, you know, it's really important to say this,
that there were lots of kind of artists that were featured in

(01:03:54):
these shows that have been forgotten.
So everybody thinks it's just about the so-called Ybas now,
the young British artist now. But there were loads of artists
peripheral to it, but also got shown in these exhibitions that,
you know, we've all forgotten about.
You know, Alex Landrum was in the first young British artist
show, for instance, a painter with sort of texts in the middle
of the the the canvases. And then but, but in that show

(01:04:18):
was Rachel White Reed and DamienHirst.
And so Hirst showed his shark. He showed 1000 years, which is
the piece with the flies and thefly killer and, you know, cow's
head and but, but Rachel showed ghost, which is, which was the
work that connected to me on that visceral level that we were
talking about earlier on. And, and also, I should also say

(01:04:40):
that for me, one of the most profound art experiences of my
entire life was seeing Rachel's house, Rachel Woyeri's house, in
East London in 1993. Another one of my firmos.
Well, yeah, I mean, absolutely. And you talk about, you know,
yeah, the sort of great art experiences, a few experiences
I've ever had with art have beengreater than Rachel Watery's

(01:05:00):
house. I was so passionate about it
because the debate in public culture in that time to.
Your so it was in the public space because it has all the
elements of an incredibly intersectional work.
Because it was in the public space, it was in an area that
was raised of a social, a socialarea, basically where the houses

(01:05:25):
just disappeared. You know, the, the, the
landscape, the gentrification was ongoing of the city.
And then Rachel Watry decides tobasically cost one of the houses
and expose the, the, the sort ofempty space of the house in, in
as a sculpture. So the house disappears, the the

(01:05:45):
empty space remains in the public space and everyone is an
up in an uproar about it. And the art critics love it and
everyone's talking about it. And Rachel White Reed, I have a
question for you because I've always wondered.
I've read about this quite a lotand I'm fascinated by that.
But I never really understood how she feels about it, which

(01:06:10):
probably has changed across the years.
But I never quite I've I've, I always have the sense that she
was very hurt by the the, the upheaval and the destruction of
the of the sculpture posteriorly.
Oh, and also, and this was commissioned by Art Angel.
He was starting to think about public space as a space to show

(01:06:31):
arts, which for me as a young philosopher, then curating
student, was such an impressive idea, you know, to just put out
there. So there's so many aspects of
this story. That's a really good summary of
what happened. And it was even more fraught

(01:06:52):
than even you're suggesting. Because I think one of the one
of the things that's been forgotten about this now deeply
revered sculpture or sculptural project is, is that there were
questions asked about it in Parliament.
It was that much, it had that much of an effect on British
culture. It was.
So basically, yes, the, the whole context for Rachel White

(01:07:13):
Reed in that time was impossible, if you like, she was
an extraordinarily ambitious, brilliant sculpt sculptor.
She was absolutely, absolutely the vanguard of that scene in a
way that people have slightly forgotten because they think
it's Tracy who was at the vanguard of that scene.
But at that time, Tracy was not that well known.
And, and you know, if you like the, the 2 standard bearers for

(01:07:35):
contemporary art in Britain in that time were were Damien Hirst
and, and Rachel White Reed. You know, they were by far the
most sort of talked about if youlike artists at that time.
And you know, Rachel in the sameyear she was taught shortlisted
for the second time for the Turner Prize.
She puts this amazing sculpt shethe most extraordinary endeavour

(01:07:59):
to create that thing, you know, So take the, if you like the
shell of a Victorian home in East London off and preserve
mummify the air within it is herphrase.
I love that phrase. It's so perfect.
Mummify the air in a room was the way she described ghost,
which is a single room. She expanded that out into a

(01:08:21):
full house and this time it's concrete.
And so yeah, it's this massive public art project.
The local councillor is just doing everything he can to
denigrate it and eventually succeeds in having it it it
knocked down. There's debates about what would
have happened had it survived because it was, I think, you
know, Art Angel themselves admitthat by the time it it was

(01:08:43):
knocked down, it already, you know, it was heavily graffitied.
It was, you know, it was, it wasalready showing signs of wear
and it was never intended to be a like.
And it actually bore the title of your book Someone.
Graffiti, yes, yes, right. Yeah, yeah.
Wonderfully, there was a the thethe kind of the kind of subject

(01:09:03):
of the debate was summarized on the side of the sculpture
because somebody wrote what for and somebody else wrote why not,
why not, you know, so there you go.
I mean, it was just, you know, the debate that was happening in
British culture at that moment was summarized on in graffiti on
the on the actual work. But yeah, I mean, and I think,
you know, from Rachel's perspective in my conversations
with her and I've been, I've been lucky enough to have quite

(01:09:24):
a few conversations with her nowand some of them have, have have
addressed house. I think from from 1, from 1
perspective, she is enormously proud that that she made that
sculpture, sculpture. She knows that it's, if you like
a defining work in her career and she embraces that.
But also I think she feels a very great sadness that she was

(01:09:45):
never really able to enjoy it because of the furore.
And she would, she told me she'dgo and sit in her car and look
at it and see people engaging with it.
And but she felt she couldn't actually spend that much time
physically with it beyond that because it was, there was just
so much clamour and attention around it, you know?

(01:10:06):
But it was if you cared about art.
And if you, you like me, you were a young person who was
emerging into a passion for, forcontemporary art and, and, and
seeing this debate happening in public culture, you know, it,
it's, it gave you so much fire in your belly about why you love
this stuff, you know, And, you know, I remember, you know,

(01:10:28):
vividly talking to people, arguing with people about why it
was so important and so wonderful.
So for me, that that work, and Rachel's work generally actually
is enormously important, you know, you know, almost more
important than anything else. Yeah.
This has been so enjoyable, thank you so much.

(01:10:52):
I think I feel like we could go on forever talking with you and
learning. I would just ask you one final
question. As an art professional, what
would you say or what have you said to notch someone you know
into going see contemporary art?Someone who may be a bit
intimidated or a bit discouragedby not knowing?

(01:11:15):
What would be the thing to say, you think, to kind of convince
or excite people about contemporary art?
I think I would say that it willgive you a new sense of yourself
and your relation to the world because it's worth experimenting

(01:11:39):
with it for that reason. You know, even if it's not the
first artwork you see, it might be the second, it might be the
10th, it will hit you. I, I challenge anybody not to
find the, the art that moves them because it is so diverse.
It is so broad ranging, you know, and I think you know, a
lot of the answers to the question what is art for?

(01:12:02):
Relate to this extraordinary revelatory feeling that art has
and its extraordinary capacity for changing our perspective on
the world or making us think differently, or making us richer
somehow as people and finding a way to process what is around

(01:12:27):
us. And so I would say, if you want
your senses sharpened, if you want your intellect deepened, if
you want your heart fuller, go and see some up.
Amazing. Thank you so much.
And you are there. Don't forget, go and get this
book. It's a wealth of information and

(01:12:48):
you get that variety that you were talking about Ben.
So it's out there for you. Thank you so much, Ben, for
doing this interview. It is, I have to say, quite
unsettling to have your voice and to see your face reacting to
mine. It's usually just such a
soothing experiment to to listento your voice.
This was quite, quite fantastic.Thank you so much.

(01:13:10):
Thank. You so much for having me and
thanks again for your very kind words.
Thank you. Exhibition This is an
independent podcast created and hosted by me, Joanna Pya Nevers.
We have episodes every two weeks, and this season, Season
3, is a bit of a turning point. We have 5 new episode types,

(01:13:31):
from more experimental art travel logs or art stories to
conversational formats about solo exhibitions with people who
are not part of the industry. Because we're all both actors
and spectators of art and life. If you're new here, you have a
whole catalog of episodes to enjoy.

(01:13:53):
Discover them at your own pace.