Shedding light on collaborative common ground, a book review

Above image: PAD/D: DEMONSTRATE!, installation of art made for public protest, Chicago (circa 1983).

This is the second installment of my quest to harvest relevant tid-bits from between the pages of Temporary Services’ new artists’ book Group Work. The trials and accomplishments of past collaborative and collective activities can offer a lot in the way of cautionary tales and models of success. This group has got them both.

New York collective Political Art Documentation/Distribution was established to archive an amassing collection of ephemera from art/political actions and events but snowballed into something much larger. Temporary Services’ Brett Bloom conducted three interviews with four members of Political Art Documentation/Distribution (PAD/D); Gregory Scholette and Janet Koenig were interviewed together and Jerry Kearns and Barbara Moore were each interviewed separately.

PAD/D was sparked into being by writer and activist Lucy Lippard, in New York’s East Village in 1980. Lippard had been collecting up a bunch of posters and other documentation from the preceding two decades of political art activism, mostly through donations from the artists themselves. At the time the art institutions were largely ignoring socially engaged art so, in the spirit of self-organization, Lippard called a meeting to enlist help with the creation of an archival resource. Jerry Kearns recalled turning up to the first meeting after “seeing a leaflet stapled to a pole”, he describes Lippard’s continuing involvement in the group as contributing a “Leadership of doing”.

So told, this was a period of many collective activities, both locally in the East Village and in the US scene in general. Because of this Lippard was interested only in creating a resource - not in forming another group. However, after the first couple of meetings the artists became frustrated with such administrative documentary tasks and started to get excited about the potential of the group as a site of artistic/activist production. It seems like this kind of self definition and direction from amongst the members so early on really continued through the group’s lifespan. These energies meant the group were both prolific and divergent in their output.

While the documentation team became an autonomous entity within the wider group, largely left to their own devices, PAD/D grew to become an umbrella organisation for a diverse range of activities. These spanned from the initial archival project to a reading group that “kind of mutated” into an anti-gentrification project, the publication of a leftist cultural events calendar and a newsletter to distribute the contents of the archive — to name the few ongoing projects mentioned in the interviews.

I thought it was interesting to note, and of some relevancy to the TAC situation, that as the group became larger the structure of PAD/D became more hierarchical. In their first year of operation consensus was used, after which they moved to majority voting. Jerry Kearns explained “We tried to make power transparent within the group. But we also tried to avoid the endless group therapy sessions that consensus decision making often leads to”. I think one of their most interesting achievements was developing a system to deal with their growth. To keep communication and opportunities open a system was instigated whereby people proposed new projects to the group to gauge interest and gain support. In order to keep a track of all the activities there was a regular event called “Second Sundays” where members spoke about their on-going projects. PAD/D was a real large-scale group, something hard to imagine happening in a Wellington context.

It seemed like there was quite a struggle over keeping the organisation centrally located. A steering committee was formed to oversee the activities of the project-focused sub-committees. At times, although the steering committee conceptualised themselves as advisory, this caused uneven power relationships to arise. Gregory Scholette recalls that “As time went on PAD/D became very structured … to the point where there were elaborate flow charts about how you submitted a proposal to the group”. Long-time PAD/D member Janet Koenig argues “It was no longer Democratic, at that point, at least to my mind. ‘Democratic centralism’ is nearly an oxymoron”.

Despite differences of opinion PAD/D managed to hold it together through some challenging events. Koenig and Scholette were part of a reading group that was accused of trying to create a faction. Scholette explains the initial motivation for the splintering: “Some of us felt that we didn’t have enough theory. We didn’t feel like PAD/D had really thought through these issues of art and society very deeply”. During a big event that PAD/D had organised, designed to bring together other counter-institutional groups into a mega coalition, Scholette circulated an essay that he had written which mounted a critique on PAD/D. Crazy times. Luckily, the group had “a very strict structure for dealing with problems” and after an initial period of tension things settled down and people realised that the reading group was generating valuable resources for PAD/D.

One of the great things about this article was the way the different perceptions and experiences of the group are communicated through the discrepancies in opinions between the separate interviews. This group and its structures were formed from a collective desire to honour and continue the legacy of activist/artistic activities from preceding decades of political and social change. They did this through making a place for the materials that were left behind and, more importantly, through keeping the practice of collective activity alive and functioning.

Throughout the interview with members of “Political Art Documentation/Distribution”, in Temporary Services’ Group Work, there is mention of the other many and varied organisations that influenced their group – both in terms of its structure and its ideology. I haven’t really even gone into the specifics of this. There are a heap of touchstones for TAC in the stuff above, it has been great to read about some of the common threads and I hope it’s been informative for you, dear reader.

The first book review installment, which is about General Idea, can be found here: Group Work artists book review
An article on PAD/D written by member Gregory Scholette can be downloaded in pdf form here: A Collectography of PAD/D

Group work artist's book review

Temporary Services has just published an artists book called Group Work. I got extremely excited when I found out about their collaborative book about collaboration and got myself a copy. I thought you'd all be interested in hearing about it, I also thought that as a way of helping myself think through the ideas I'd make a book review. I will add to it as I get through the articles, probably going back and changing it a bit. There's heaps of info that's applicable to us at TAC, so we could use the comments section to talk about the ideas too. Let me know if you want more info, something photocopied or - once I've finished - a lend!


The initial five members of Temporary Services (TS) started working together in 1999. The group is currently a triadic collaboration, based in Chicago and they have a very busy exhibition history, website and lots of publishing projects.
The book has been edited by the three collaborators and contains interviews with, and profiles of, active and historical collaborative artist's groups and musicians, all from the US and Europe. Their general thesis holds that — acknowledging the interdependence of human existence — all art making is collaborative at some point.
The generality of the title, Group Work, also follows from their interest in the broader scope of groupings as human/societal organising principles, an interest which, TS's editorial explains, consciously extends beyond the specificity of art practices and languages.
The list of quotes, responding to some well worded common questions on collaboration, are the only direct manifestation of this broader investigation. The rest of the contents explore group work through an artistic and musical context.
I am working my way through the book slowly, and have just finished their first interview with AA Bronson, one of the three artists from General Idea. Other collaborators in General Idea (GI) were Felix Partz and Jorge Zontal (all aliases). GI was a collaboration that began in Toronto in the seventies amongst the hippie commune scene. It was hugely prolific in both art and social activism and only wound up after the death of its two other members from HIV related illnesses.
General Idea seems to have been a big influence on the Temporary Services model.
The interview covers the genesis of the group, the way GI worked together, how they resolved conflicts, the roles and languages that emerged in the group dynamic - and finishes with a discussion of Bronson's individual practice after the dissolving of General Idea in '94.
One of the first projects that General Idea undertook was an underground newspaper called FILE which they began as a communication tool for connecting themselves beyond their small local art community to artists in other cities and countries. Bronson gives the example of their "Artist Directory", a 700-strong list of artists addresses published with the purpose of encouraging open mail contact between readers and artists. TS's questions tease out the way FILE seems to have swung between this total openness and a more insular fictional world.
I was really interested to read about their group processes, the members had a very close working relationship, lived together in the same house and used to have conversations every morning over coffee. Bronson explains "We had a rule of thumb that we only actually carried out a project by consensus. So if anybody wasn't sure about something, then we would put it on the back shelf. We didn't reject it ... at a later date ... we might pick up one of those ideas again and knit it into some other project we were doing". They found this "shelving" method worked well as a way of resolving conflicting opinions.
The roles within the collaboration were flexible, shifting from project to project according to what the members were interested in at the time: "We never advertised who did what. And people always thought they knew. People tended to think that Jorge did all the photography and Felix did all the painting and I did all the writing, but it wasn't true at all. It was truly collaborative". Similarly, their approach to their group identity was one of anonymity, initially using pseudonyms to avoid the "artist as genius" trap, although Bronson now believes that "in the end pseudonyms don't make the slightest bit of difference to all of that".

Stay tuned for more, L.