Furtherfield Blog

These days, success is often measured in numbers: how much money something made, how many people were involved, how many things were produced. Funders require these figures for their reporting, and the crowdsourcing trend reinforces the idea that big numbers are better. But where does that leave small-scale and experimental work? What of galleries that occupy tiny spaces, or one-on-one encounters between artists and their public? I have participated in many excellent small scale art projects and events over the years, with necessarily limited numbers.

I really do wonder what the Tate Modern means when they say that their "live performance room" is "the only place you can see art made for you to view at home". Quite aside from the myriad artworks available online for people to experience - live or otherwise - have they forgotten about television, radio, and other media, digital and analogue, that has made the viewing of art possible not only at home but in all kinds of private and domestic spaces for - well, a very long time?