Unsolicited Statement to Group Material by Timothy Rollins
A Proposal for learning to get things off our chests: Behaviour, Discipline and our project.
Iâd like to be very honest. I was significantly hurt by last weekâs meeting; the subsequent depression was exacerbated by what I interpret as some other membersâ feelings that I personally was responsible for problems in the group, that I should talk to people, that I should do something about the strained relationships that have afflicted this organization with a severe case of hypertension. This is what I have to say, and I think it only fair and proper to address my statements to the Group as a whole:
Not to be overdramatic, but I worry â am sometimes terrified â because of Group Material. The colossal amount of time, energy, talk and money that has already been funnelled into this Group by its members would make any serious internal fuck-up the most grave of tragedies. To be blunt, this Group MUST be a success â a success of a kind that the Group as a whole can live with. I see ourselves as heading towards failure and I need to express my opposition to tendencies operating even at this early stage.
In the long run my criticism of the groupâs internal behaviour AS A WHOLE are probably the least important. But this category of problems is certainly the most infuriating, the most painful. I want to address the question of intrigue in the group â the kind of rabid back-biting I detect that produces a only a smelly foaming residue on personal and working relations are combined in disproportionate amounts. I think the âuncomradelyâ behaviour evident in meetings and (Iâm certain) in private conversation about Group members is pathetic and incredible at this early point, among persons who are supposed to be friends. Here are some of the signifiers in this semiosis of crap: whispering in the ear of another member while someone is making a statement to the Group, a total loss of temper control culminating in mindless personal insult, obnoxious dry grins to others when suggestions are made, pedestrian little jokes that throw a monkey wrench into the course of an important discussion, the rolling, winking, crossing, clenching of eyes and any other number of exaggerated facial contortions that attempt to produce meaning but only piss people off. When we have reservations about points being made, we must learn to articulate them in the clearest language possible. Resentment that is written all over our faces must be deciphered, mysterious forms for the sake of the people affected and for the sake of the Group as a working whole.
I think I am resented in the group, and I offer this self criticism: I do tend to be impatient, pompous, pedantic, demanding, self-righteous and, most disturbing to me because I canât seem to control it, a tendency to parade my knowledge in the search for argumentative authority. (Perhaps I am doing this at this very moment; Iâll talk about this laterâŠ) But on the other hand I feel that any knowledge or information that I offer is automatically taken as a front to the groups intelligence, that academic information is a priori useless or of no interest to the Group. I know that this will be strenuously denied in theory, but is it my imagination when I see at least four pairs of eyes roll whenever I make a point of history or aesthetics or political economy? Iâm sincere when I say that my comments (except for those moments when I am obviously engaged in phrase mongering) and my little drawings and little proposals and my little writings such as this develop out of an enthusiasm for the people and projects and potential of this fucking group. There have been intimations saying that I am dictatorial; I wonât take this nonsense. Dictatorial behaviour occurs when someone denies the proposals or decisions of the Group in the sole interest of advancing his/her subjective whims. But what if no one makes even a weak attempt at a cohesive, concrete, informed and MATERIAL suggestion (in the form of writing, diagram, or any other sort of presentation that can be scrutinized or analysed) but, rather, simply (very simply) skims âideasâ from the tops of their heads in a cavalier fashion??? We all have visions â but what we desperately need are diagrams for practical activities. Generally, our style of work sucks. When someone does work, bringing in a concrete idea, they are rarely supported â instead everyone plays the role of the critic. But even this is theatre â at least real critics produce a literature that offers a clear position, no matter how mistaken. You canât imagine the frustration when you work to propose something â research the possibilities â take the time to articulate your suggestion, only to be accused (usually subliminally) of intimidating the Group, of being an absolutist, of âtrying too hardâ or â the most crippled insult of all â âtalking to much.â If only our mouths produced written language weâd have volumes of important material that could be collected and used by other groups interested in the type of work we are trying to do. âTrying to doâ donât you see how pathetic this is?
Trust isnât a personalised emotion â it has a function that should be emphasised in this group. In reality this group possesses few innocents; it contains neither wolves nor lambs. Whether or not we continue in our neurotic, sheepish and bleating confusion is a matter that can only be determined by every member of the Group DURING THE WORK PROCESS OF THE GROUP ITSELF. We have different fields of expertise (developed or emergent), levels of proficiency in a multitude of interests and a healthy pluralism whenever it doesnât collapse into a confusion of interests. We should have nothing but enthusiasm for our project because â and your head is really up your ass if you donât realise this â WE HAVE NO OTHER SATISFACTOY OPTION. I refuse to âplay downâ my activity for the sake of making Group members âfeelâ like they are participating. DO SOMETHING! Better we all become a pack of over-talkative dilettantes with arms full of drawings and proposals and mouths full of references than a sanatorium of slouching mumblers with pens and notebooks in one hand and a beer can in the other.
Group Material really needs to tighten up, to be more efficient in our work methods and organization, to be more conscientious to priorities if we are not to deteriorate into a messy, arbitrary, indistinctive co-op gallery that dresses indecisiveness in the garb of humility âdown to earthâ-ness and a commitment to the casual. Where discipline isnât consistently embraced by every member in a group then self-discipline and self-initiative is unfair and impossible â it virtually feeds the laziness or the sloppiness of other memberâs responsibilities. Already in Group Material we can see that certain individuals tend to carry the organisation, only to be reprimanded for conspiring to build hegemony. All this leads to personal resentments that are hard to undo.
Group members should be highly conscious of their responsibilities. Iâm amazed how members approach the reality of this enterprise. The Group should at least provide a world of compensation for the social functions to be performed for money: we design for corporations, teach for the state, construct the lofts for people responsible for gentrification, make insipid useless products for the profit of some asshole somewhere. And yet we wouldnât think of being late for work at the office, work that is almost completely against our self interest, but when a work session on the Group Material space is scheduled, people saunter in over an hour late or donât show up at all. And we wonder why advanced capitalism has survived with such durability all this time â they know how to organise themselves effectively! THIS IS THE WRONG TIME AND PLACE TO PLAY IN A LOW KEY. Everyone is treating the Group as if it were some leisure time activity when particular people (namely Mary Beth and Patrick without who Iâm sure we would have 1. No space because no one else got off the asses to look 2. No references because most of us have pathetic credit histories 3. No basic utilities) are losing money, losing time at work and, certainly, losing faith in the ability of this group to last five years. FACT: Not one serious suggestion for a third (or fourth or fifth) show has been offered â only the most vague, evasive and practically flippant of âideas for proposals for shows.â Sometimes I wonder if there hasnât been a strain of mononucleosis artificially introduced into the Group by the biological warfare department of the CIA. The endless wind-blowing, the âworking outâ of polemics that common sense should tell us can only be resolved in praxis â all this I suspect gets us quite depressed. Many of the little practical problems I find with the group will be petty complaints if they did not appear to be irrefutable evidence of the groups collective incompetence. Trivial⊠if we canât even call Con Ed, how the fuck are we going to be able to call press and contacts to get people to come to the space, to establish a supportive audience, to promote our work for the benefit of not only ourselves, and I mean this, for the advancement of art history in America. Our inconclusiveness is becoming maddening; one gets crazed trying to keep 1001 issues and questions âin mindâ never knowing when group âopinionâ will shift at the whim of one who has changed his/her mind, or who didnât attend the last meeting and didnât bother to call someone to find out what went on.
The problem of discipline, like the problem of behaviour, is linked to the question that, it seems, everyone in the Group is trying to evade: WHAT IS GROUP MATERIAL GOING TO DO? Only the collective can discuss this, but I want to ask: are we to be a co-op debating society or a spear head for a politically and socially informed cultural movement? Of course these are the extremes of possibility, but anyone who sees aiming for the high mark as âimpracticalâ or âover-ambitiousâ has been victimised by the old pedagogy of the bourgeoisie that tells every member of the working class: âyou can do nothing but work for us!â Artists or would-be artists like us tend to suffer from an irrational inferiority complex when it comes to putting our asses on the line of actual cultural production. Are we Group MATERIAL or not? Really⊠how insecure⊠how dare we feel inadequate or insecure or hesitant to do work in this age of Judy Chicagos and Times Square shows??? This is to say nothing of the out-and-out reactionaries that constitutes the façade of the American avant-garde! Our work concerns, at an essential level, the politics of aesthetics in a world where politics are increasingly being made aesthetic. We will certainly do more harm than good â by example â if we donât get our shit together in the way of theory and practice. (Canât you hear it now? âso youâre naĂŻve and want to make a socially committed art? Look at Group Material, look how far they gotâŠâ) Discipline is the foundation of any effective activism (in this world at least) and the Group needs to work harder on an individual and collective basis. We must DO things MAKE things â it is through this practice that we will earn a real ability and education instead of merely consuming information we can puff out at someone elseâs gallery openings.
Julie said a good thing a couple of weeks ago, unfortunately not a G.M. meeting she was in her room preparing her artworks. I donât remember what led to her excellent comment: âIâm just going to do these things and Iâm not going to worry about looking like an asshole anymore.â At last purism is defeated! Julie is no hero (or isnât she?!), but this is a example of commitment (to cultural production â to art) and courage. It will probably get her a nice bunch of money in the long run. (Just kidding, of course.)
