Page 46 - Studio International - September 1970

John Billiard
and
Ian Breakwell
In March 1970 two artists with different
working histories collaborated in a two-man
show at the New Arts Laboratory, London.
What is common to both Hilliard's and Break-
well's recent work is an element of transience,
a tendency to operate within specific locations,
and in particular an elaborate use of various
forms of documentation, especially photo-
graphy. The different motives for adopting
similar needs and procedures are demon-
strated in the work and notes of each artist
made before, during, and after that exhibition.
Sequence of events at the New Arts Laboratory:
SATURDAY 28 FEBRUARY 1970
At 8 p.m. the exhibition commenced with a
retrospective viewing of three large pieces of
sculpture (1) made by John Hilliard. At
8.30 p.m. Hilliard announced there would
now be a change of work on display, the past
work to be replaced by new work built on the
spot. Before this happened, however, the work
in the gallery would be offered for sale to
quickly complete the process of making/
displaying/selling that is assumed of work of
this kind. As each of the pieces came up for
sale, Ian Breakwell and two assistants began
to wrap or shroud them in paper covered with
the word UNSCULPT (2). This procedure
being complete, and no one having offered to
purchase any of the three pieces, Breakwell,
Hilliard and two assistants, armed with
sledgehammer, axe, hammer and spanner,
began to demolish/dismantle the sculpture
and to dispose of the remains into a rubbish
`skip' outside the gallery (3).
The events of the opening, recorded up to this
point on video tape, were now played back to
the 'audience'. At the same time Hilliard and
two assistants began to erect a structure built
of scaffolding. As the last pole was positioned,
the gallery lights were extinguished, and
ultra-violet 'black' lights were switched on.
Hilliard then began to paint the scaffolding
with fluorescent blue paint, so that the form
emerged under the light as he proceeded.
Completion of this ended the opening, and
the new work remained in situ for four days.
THURSDAY 5 MARCH-THURSDAY 12 MARCH
Using three stockinette tubes, each thirty feet
long, and (4) sheets of paper covered with
words, Breakwell installed a large static work.
There was in addition an aluminium-framed
clear polythene greenhouse, the contents of
which changed regularly (this remained
throughout the rest of the show).
FRIDAY 13 MARCH-SATURDAY 21 MARCH
Hilliard erected a second scaffold piece (5).
The exhibition terminated.
NOTES FROM THE EXHIBITION-JOHN HILLIARD
I. INTENTIONS
Diversity of post-war styles notwithstanding,
the prevalent recent tradition of English
sculpture evolves from the St Martin's/RCA
school of large, interior-located structures in
steel, polyester resin, acrylic sheet, etc.
The intention of the kind of sculptures which
first emerged collectively at the Whitechapel
Gallery in 1965 (by Bolus, Tucker, King,
Annesley, Witkin, Scott, Woodham in parti-
cular) is that they should be durable, com-
parable in this respect with bronzes or
carvings. But the size and nature of this type
of work belies its real fragility. In practice it
deteriorates rapidly through transportation,
exhibition, storage, and general bad handling.
The loss is qualitative also—works dependent
upon precise form and immaculate surface
are quickly devalued by rusty erruptions of
peeling paint, or by cracks, dents and
scratches. The work fails to act up to its
promise because it is materially inadequate.
This inadequacy arises from situations which
are not ideally envisaged for these sculptures.
Were they to be transferred instantly upon
completion to a permanent interior location,
there's no reason to suppose that they wouldn't
survive indefinitely. But in reality they are
often required continually for exhibitions
and/or — because of the virtually non-existent
market for sculpture in England—put into
(probably unsuitable) storage. In either event,
the materials/objects cannot take the ensuing
punishment from weather, workmen, or what-
ever. If this kind of sculpture gets shown
around too much it falls apart. If it doesn't
get shown, or comes back after every exhibi-
tion, it still falls apart. Experience of such
very basic, seemingly secondary working
problems, coupled with an awareness that
there is neither sufficient space nor outlets for
what one is doing, can be a primary stimulus
in effecting definite change in procedure.
At the opening of the New Arts Laboratory
exhibition I formally offered pieces of my past
work for sale, to demonstrate that there is no
real need or market for works of that kind. I
then destroyed them as I considered them
inadequate to their use in a material sense,
and also to illustrate their speedy reduction to
junk. The two new pieces that I subsequently
erected in the gallery were examples of one
alternative approach to the making of
`sculpture', and could be described as
`occasional' works.
II. OBSERVATIONS AND RESPONSES
`If decisions relating to works built for specific
exhibition locations cannot be advanced prior
to actual installation beyond the typed script
or the drawing, then there is a likelihood that
the gellery will become an extension of
studio as an operating area.'
... people attending the event had been
invited into a space which was temporarily
not only a performance area but also an
artist's studio, to watch a piece of work being