‘‘We don’t really know how it’s going to work’’: The front-end and back-end processes of action-led research at Tate

pdf
Published: Jul 26, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/grsr.38515
Keywords:
research methods, museums, online audiences, moderation practices, digital culture
Ioanna Zouli
University of Thessaly
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3043-8551
Abstract

The paper considers the front-end and back-end processes of art production as a methodological format and a metaphor for conducting research in museums and other cultural institutions in the age of computation and rapid technological innovation. Beyond their use in software architecture, those two terms can be ways of embedding research inside an institution. Informed by research projects embedded in museums as well as through my observations from the specific case study of BMW Tate Live: Performance Room the paper explores how cultural agents assimilate the technological present and how cultural value is produced in this context. Examining this experimental project of performance art staged live online on Tate’s YouTube channel and the conceptualisations of the digital audiences that emerged throughout the programme’s development highlighted how the institutional authority upon the production of art knowledge translates into online interfaces. The museum’s ambivalence to extend its art programming in a digital, distributed, ecosystem poses wider questions about the ways that contemporary art institutions can comprehend the technological moment and whether they can be up to speed with a computational present and future.


 

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biography
Ioanna Zouli, University of Thessaly

Adjunct Lecturer, Department of Culture, Creative Media and Industries

References
Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. Routledge.
Calonje, T. (Ed.). (2014). Live forever: Collecting live art. Koenig Books.
Crooke, E., Farrell-Banks, D., Friel, B., Jackson, H., Hook, A., Maguire, T., & McDermott, P. (2022). Museums and the pandemic: Revisiting purposes and priorities. A report of the Museums, Crisis and Covid-19 Project. Ulster University.
Dekker, A. (2021). Curating digital art: From presenting and collecting digital art to networked co-curation. Valiz.
Dewdney, A., Dibosa, D., & Walsh, V. (2011). Tate encounters: Britishness and visual culture report. Tate Publishing.
Dewdney, A., Dibosa, D., & Walsh, V. (2013). Post-critical museology: Theory and practice in the art museum. Routledge.
Gellner, D. N., & Hirsh, E. (Eds.). (2001). Inside organisations: Anthropologists at work. Berg.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford University Press.
Giannini, T., & Bowen, J. P. (2022). Museums and digital culture: From reality to digitality in the age of Covid-19. Heritage, 5(1), 192-214. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5010011
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. University of Edinburgh.
Goffman, E. (1989). On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(2), pp. 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124189018002001
Gogarty, L. A. (2012). The Tanks: Art in action. Art Monthly, 362, pp. 29-30.
Graham, B. (Ed.). (2016). New collecting: Exhibiting and audiences after new media art. Routledge.
Heathfield, A. (Ed.). (2003). Live culture. Tate Publishing.
Henning, M. (2006). Museum media. John Wiley & Sons.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Laurenson, P. (2006). Authenticity, change and loss in the conservation of time-based media installations. Tate Papers, 6. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate-papers/06/authenticity-change-and-loss-conservation-of-time-based-media-installations
Lovink, G. (2008). The art of watching databases: Introduction to the video vortex reader. In G. Lovink & S. Niederer (Eds.), Video vortex reader: Responses to YouTube (pp. 9-12). Institute of Network Cultures.
Macdonald, S. (2001). Ethnography in the Science Museum, London. In D. N. Gellner & E. Hirsh (Eds.), Inside organisations: Anthropologists at work (pp. 77-96). Berg.
Macdonald, S. (Ed.) (2011). A companion to museum studies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pringle, E., Wood, C., Sinker, R., McAuley, D., Miller, M., & Tahir, L. (2014). Online collectives: Do online collectives constitute a new public space for museums? Panel discussion. Cultural Value and the Digital: Practice, Policy and Theory. Tate. http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/video/cultural-value-digital-audio-series
Ryu, S., & Cho, D. (2022). The show must go on? The entertainment industry during (and after) COVID-19. Media, Culture & Society, 44(3), pp. 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221079561
Stack, J. (2010). Tate online strategy 2010-2012. Tate Papers, 13. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate-papers/13/tate-online-strategy-2010-12
Stack, J. (2013). Tate digital strategy 2013–15: Digital as a dimension of everything. Tate Papers, 19. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate-papers/19/tate-digital-strategy-2013-15-digital-as-a-dimension-of-everything
Steyerl, H. (2009). Is a museum a factory? e-flux Journal, 7. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/07/61390/is-a-museum-a-factory/
Tate (2011, October 13). Tate and BMW announce major new international partnership: BMW Tate Live – Press release. Tate. https://www.tate.org.uk/press/press-releases/tate-and-bmw-announce-major-new-international-partnership-bmw-tate-live
Tate (2012, March 23). Jérôme Bel – BMW Tate Live: Performance Room [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0TmUQmKpDg
Tate (n.d.-a). Collecting the performative. Tate. https://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/projects/collecting-performative
Tate (n.d.-b). Tate studentships. Tate. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/studentships
Tate Shots (2020). [Video playlist]. YouTube. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uUen04IQNkFECI0L3r-7zGY9RBgIKw8
Walsh, V. (2016). Redistributing knowledge and practice in the art museum. Stedelijk Studies Journal, 4. https://stedelijkstudies.com/journal/redistributing-knowledge-practice-art-museum/
Zouli, I. (2018). Digital Tate: The use of video and the construction of audiences. [Doctoral thesis, London South Bank University and Tate]. https://doi.org/10.18744/PUB.002751
Zouli, I. (2022). Internet liveness and the art museum. In A. Dewdney & K. Sluis (Eds.), The networked image in post-digital culture. Routledge.