progettooreste

[progettooreste]

Una copia quasi perfetta del noto libro “Come spiegare a mia madre che ciò che faccio serve a qualcosa?”, la centrale edizioni, May 2021

https://tinyurl.com/4ej99cbs acertainnumberofbooks(at)gmail.com ISBN 979-8-7477-3902-4

[progettooreste]

A fax-message from H.S., by Giancarlo Norese  series la c., vol. 33, July 2020 edition: 33 copies available here

[progettooreste]

Serena Carbone, alias/il manifesto, July 11, 2020

[progettooreste]

The original publication, refurbished in 2020

[progettooreste]

Recovering

[progettooreste]

No, Oreste, No! @ MAMbo, Bologna 2019

[progettooreste]

Oreste indigent technologies for Puerto Rico, 2000

[progettooreste]

“Come spiegare a mia madre che ciò che faccio serve a qualcosa?”, Link, Bologna, 1997

[progettooreste]

B+B  Moving On   3 March 2001 On Saturday 3rd of March, B+B held an open discussion at the Whitechapel, in connection with the exhibition, Temporary Accommodation. The discussion aimed to take Belt (in this case, a Programme of artists’ projects and events devised by Ella Gibbs) as the starting point for looking at the wider picture of current ‘collective’ art practices. Among those present were Annalisa Cattani and Antonio Scarponi who are members of Oreste (a group of Italian artists), Em Druiff of Dilston Grove, Karen De Jong and Ewoud van Rijn of Room (an artist run space in Rotterdam), artists Nina Pope and Karen Guthrie,  David Lillington, Amanda MacGregor and Neil Chapman. The discussion, ‘Moving On’ was the first stopover of the B+B project, an enquiry into current artistic practices that focus on discussion and exchange as the catalyst for socio-political intervention. The event on Saturday highlighted the need for further discussion. B+B, as part of their enquiry, will therefore be organising regular open discussions in association with relevant projects. These will offer timeout to reflect, locate and focus on current practices. Programme at Temporary Accommodation opened up a variety avenues of experience, each one different and specific to each artist’s initiative. The programme published each week by Ella and the physical space of the Whitechapel tied these initiatives together throughout the two months of the exhibition. The discussion focused on what next?  How do these individual projects and Programme as a whole move on from this Temporary Accommodation? Small-scale, focused and intimate exchanges were the starting points or midway points of longer journeys for those involved. How and where can those journeys converge again? During the discussion, members of Oreste from Italy considered Programme in relation to their annual residencies and in particular their project at the Venice Biennale in 1999. Oreste was created principally as a network of support for artists in Italy. Its foundation related directly to the context of the market led Italian art world and was intended to provide an alternative space to share and exchange ideas. Collective missions offering open supportive networks and platforms for experimentation, such as Oreste, often become systems with internal hierarchies and politics.   During the discussion, the implications of the institutionalisation of collective practices were raised. Many of the experiences hosted by Programme were enjoyed by just a few people who may have engaged with the language courses, cake baking, mending or red shoes. By its nature, collective practice necessitates the concentration and focus of a small group of people. The appearance of this activity (a cluster of chairs, a roundtable discussion) often conveys exclusivity. It became useful in the discussion to consider this in terms of specificity; of micro experience as necessary exclusivity.  This situation is particularly problematic when occurring in a public gallery whose remit is to engage and include all of its visitors. The discussion highlighted the difficulty of placing 'private’ or focused dialogue in a public gallery setting. One night Whitechapel staff were invited by Ella to wine and dine with artists and others involved in the Programme of events. This created a tension between the comfortable, intimate dining experience and the feeling of being on display and inhospitable to people wandering through the gallery. Perhaps there is a danger when an active project space forms part of a wider exhibition that activity becomes performative through its framing and staging.   The banquet, the red shoes, the small informal discussions, all revealed the complexity (and inaccessibility) of working as small collectives in the wider realm of the public art gallery. Ella described her relationship with the gallery, revealing the difficulty of this practice becoming too closely aligned or applied to a gallery’s educational role. This raised issues surrounding the complex agendas of cultural policy in relation to collective practice. The project is valued and initiated as an art / curatorial experiment. These intentions become problematic when the gallery adopts the project as educational, transferring responsibility and confusing roles. The Whitechapel did not collaborate with Ella on a specific education project suggesting that, for the gallery, Programme’s activity (through its collective character and dialogue with the community) offered an education project in itself. Ella expressed her concern with the lack of support from the curatorial staff, recognising that for them, the exhibition is an endpoint leaving them unable to negotiate the progress or life of the project.   Alternative, temporary experimental spaces allow for the nurturing of current practices because of the (idealistic) lack of pressures associated with the institutional structure of public spaces.   It became clear that, in  its relation to the institution of the Whitechapel,  the motivation of Programme to offer a platform for experiment had to remain key. There had to be room for ‘failure’ and ‘success’.   This is challenging when project spaces are sited in a gallery that automatically frames and represents practices without supporting experimentation nor sustaining transitional, durational practice. One of the central issues of the discussion that emerged was the burden of documentation. An overriding impression of the Oreste 3 residency this summer was the seemingly unending desire to record every exchange.   Be it by video camera, stills, notes, Dictaphone, the ever-watchful eye of the inevitable document reigned overhead. In many ways this served to enforce the weight of the frame over the events, immediately placing a stage under the activity. These recollections became inevitably cyclical as we sat taking notes and videoing the discussion on Saturday, surrounded by documentation of projects past with copies of the programme to hand. We discussed the diary by Tomoko Takahashi adorning the walls of the programme’s space which charted the project’s life over the two months it  occupied the gallery. Ella had been asked what would happen to the diary and whether she felt that as a whole it constituted a work. She argued that the parts of the diary belonged to all the participants and it seemed nonsensical for the responses to be separated out. So how do we move on from this burden of documentation? Ella described the paper programme as a means to keep the document active as it constantly fed in and out of the activity by maintaining a changing space for sharing information and ideas. This avoided the process of consolidating collective practice at the end of its life.   The movement of private to public in the creation of the work is transferred with collective practice. Rather than retreating to isolation to conceive and create the work, isolation comes at the end of collective practice, as a point of reflection and communication during the sorting, archiving and editing of footage, photos and sounds. In a sense, the need to document and convey becomes a process of mourning. How can we move on from this paradox of the active becoming static as we sit here framing and tying down our discussion through text? We will let you know when the next discussion will take place. In the mean time please contact us with any comments, ideas or suggestions.

b+b Sarah Carrington and Sophie Hope

[progettooreste]

Subject: FW: valutazione su oreste tre dalla finlandia Sent: 29-10-1920 7:41 Received: 3-11-2000 18:23 Oggetto: valutazione su oreste tre dalla finlandia Oreste 3, Montescaglioso (MT), Italy For me Oreste 3 was the best because: – I learned the phrase “networking”. – I met a lot of artists from all over the world. – I met a lot of Italian artists. – I met a lot of local Montescaglians. – I learned about art being and going social. – I got new contacts and an artproject to join. – I got a lot of influences to my own artistic work. – I got a lot of good food. – I had a good time (the best, very best). Antti Vaaranmaa Mustasaari, Finland ________________________________________________ 06.10.2000 Shortly about Oreste 3 Only a week before our departure a friend from school called and asked if I wanted to go to Italy for two weeks. I couldn't say no though I didn't really know where are we going and what are we going to do. Later on I got some information about the workshops and that there will be young Italian artists as well as from many other European countries. I couldn't wait for to meet all these people and hear a bit what's going on all over Europe! We were taken good care of from the minute we stepped out of the train in Taranto. Everything was organized well; food, apartment, meetings, Oreste office, excursions to interesting places and so on. Thanks for the organizers who worked so many hours to make sure everything is just how it should be. Though we planned a little show for Sassadoro-festival, organized a dinner with Ferdinando and built up a sauna on the beach we still had a lot of time to look around in Montescaglioso. We also had time to just sit in cafe and discuss with other young artists, which was great. On top of that we got a chance to drive down to the beach and relax a bit. So I think program was convenient. Not too much or too little to do. For me the most exciting things were excursion to Matera and taking part to "feeling sense of home"-workshop. Giovanna took me and Heidi to play cards with couple of old men. It was very memorable moment to actually do something with local people. In my opinion the only thing which could be done better is getting the office functional on the day first guests arrive. Orestes office was very important and good place to work at, meet other participants and get information. That's why I think it would be good if it could be in use from the very first day. This summer residence gave me a lot. New contacts to different European countries and lots of good memories of all the nice people. I also got some ideas while I was photographying on the streets of Montescaglioso. And I hope that I learned to see "time" a bit more like Italians see it. Up here in Scandinavia it would be scandal if you had to wait for someone more than five minutes... stressing. So my first experience of Italy was very good. I'm glad that I got to see a little bit of Basilicata instead of the biggest cities. I think I could've found my way to Rome or Milan but I never would've found Montescaglioso on my own. Sanna Heikintalo Nykarleby, Finland

Received: 3-11-2000 18:23

[progettooreste]

Caroline A. Jones, The Global Work of Art. World’s Fairs, Biennials, and the Aesthetics of Experience, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 2016.

[progettooreste]

ephemera from Oreste at the Venice Biennale, sept 24, 1999

[progettooreste]

Preparando il convegno "Come spiegare..." a casa di Anteo Radovan, Bologna 1997 #progettooreste #cesarepietroiusti #evamarisaldi #cesareviel #giancarlonorese foto Silvia Alfei

[progettooreste]

a video edited by Anteo Radovan (1998), digitalized by CSAC archives, Parma, in 2017

[progettooreste]

video stills from the video Oreste alla Biennale, 1999 (edited at studio azzurro, milano)

[progettooreste]

the missing page from Harald Szeemann’s fax to Oreste, feb 29, 2000

[progettooreste]

original betacam-SP tape with anonymous video (g.n. made) for Oreste alla Biennale, 1999