I’m going to make a series of unreferenced fairly train-of-thought posts outlining why I began Café Royal Books, my thinking, and the ways in which I source and consider material for publication. I get asked questions around these subjects a lot — twice weekly I guess. There are a lot of Q&A I’ve done, published online, where I try to answer them, and some old YouTube films about drawing, publishing and process. Ask me the same question each day for a week and you’ll get seven different answers, so I’ll take my time with these posts and hopefully they’ll come close-ish to something mildly resembling something almost interesting, or useful.
2005. I wanted a way to exhibit the drawings I had been making, without relying on ‘the gallery’. I was drawing because I’d quit painting. I’d quit painting because despite fair ‘success’, I found it self-restricting. I didn’t want to continue spending 18 months making a body of work. Each piece was large, heavy, expensive, difficult to transport and impossible to transport further than the UK. I get bored easily and never liked to exhibit work more than two or three times. However, because the work took so long to make, I felt obliged to store it, adding to the confusion. I loved paint and painting, still do — I just don’t do it any more, it’s a luxury. Drawing felt a more useful and more purposeful use of time, and less like adding stuff to a world that doesn’t need more stuff. My awareness of ‘stuff’ is greater since having kids, and the thought that one day they’ll have to deal with this ‘stuff’ I’ve made.
Making work that didn’t rely on ‘the gallery’, was something I considered for several reasons. I’ve always enjoyed the space in galleries, sometimes the architecture, the views, the book shops, the coffee, but not often the experience of going to these buildings to look at art or photographs. Hifalutin statements have always irritated me. The assumption that because work is in a gallery, people will come to see it also irritates me. The most irritating thing, I think, is the idea that work placed in a gallery is somehow better than work that isn’t. And that work placed in X gallery is better, because it’s in X gallery, not Y gallery. There can be a general elitism and pretence in galleries, or perhaps in some of those who discuss their own importance because they were in Z show at X gallery. Chin stroking. The galleries you have to climb steps to, just to reinforce their importance, prior to chin stroking — also irritating. Once in, you’re in the hands and at the mercy of a curator with an agenda. Labels everywhere, telling you how to look at the thing you’ve not yet looked at. And it’s hung next to the next thing, so they must be related in some way…Or not, but the label says so. You paid £30 for a timed entry, to look at the backs of the other £30 ticket holders’ heads.
Is a gallery the best place to show art? More-so, photography, unless it’s a Gursky. What about a William Klein show in a hospital, for example, would that be any different? There’s the architecture to contend with in either case. In the gallery, the people who see the pictures are gallery goers. In the hospital it’s potentially anyone, so arguably the hospital is a better place for a Klein show. If only the hospitals had the money and staffing the major art institutions do.
I should add, I like to moan… and there are many great, amazingly supportive, genuine galleries and curators, whose agenda is to show the work in the context that it was made, not an imagined one.