The possibilities lie in the collegial aspect of our practice. Of having faces and names. And more importantly in having a possibility to bring the connections available and openly create them. That being for me the sense in these art fairs. It is like in all human activity about social connections between people – talking, discussing and changing ideas. I was presenting Rajataide, but because as a loosely formed association it doesn’t promote or foster a certain ideology (or at least doesn’t manifest it anywhere if there is one) except of being a collective of young art/artists. Therefore the ideas and thoughts that I present or promote are first and foremost my own. Meaning that if something, I promoted the existence of the fact that there are these galleries/places that are run by artists themselves. That there are individuals behind them.
So then I am left with the question what kind of art fair would then benefit this – existance of individuals and ideas – and generate discussion that is the needed part of interaction?
This type of fair like What a mess was seems like a weekend long tent village where the participators have their home base and then they set out to visit each others tents, to browse and then navigate back. The fair concept is also (and more evidently of course) a spin of the market place – a direct reference to the first shopping malls,”gallerys” where one can stroll on a roofed corridor and see different things being presented in order to look and evaluate interest. Should artist run initiatives to escape this model or – should they embrace it – filling it with different content, maybe FOCUS on the content?
And there we are again- faced with the old and familiar dilemma of presentation – how to present the content? Somewhere in the arts’s essence is to answer to this question again and again. And that is what we keep on doing by questioning the function of certain structures, of examing what we are left with after an experience, and suggesting new solutions.