| NEXT ISSUE  |  BACK ISSUES  |  CONTENTS |

This recent exhibition by BANK was heralded as their first ever in a commercial gallery, though quite why is unclear, as the London-based artist collective exhibited some three years ago at the Mayor Gallery in Cork Street; and a more established commercial gallery you could not hope to find.

Setting aside this lapse in collective memory, what does this transition signify for the once subversive and revolutionary artist partnership? Does it imply an acceptance of the commercialism of the art system and therefore a change in BANK’s fundamental principles? Has the reality of financial survival finally effected this transition, as has often been the case with artists attempting to undermine the art system in the past? Or have they finally realised the futility of their subversive and confrontational strategies?





A parallel to this last point can be found in Michael Landy’s Breakdown. Despite this project being considered by many as one of the best works produced last year, the artist was not shortlisted for the Turner Prize, an oversight which may well have been due to the subversive nature of the work and its critique of the inherent commercialism of the art world. Assuming various guises, BANK’s previous works were characterised by their highlighting and ridiculing of the art world and its idiosyncrasies; their latest contribution, however, signals a shift to more orthodox forms of art production, primarily painting on a variety of surfaces, including canvases, found posters and a pashmina scarf. Composed of gestural marks and blobs of bright and contrasting colours, they resemble the ‘neo-Pop’ abstraction currently in vogue. However, emblazoned with slogans such as ‘the boring poor’ and ‘kill the workers’, these works continue BANK’s ongoing critique of the art system, in particular its disregard for and lack of engagement with fundamental social issues.

In addition to this ongoing critique of the art establishment, these works can also be seen as a development of BANK’s subversive strategies, which ironically function through the paintings’ commercial nature and success. In contrast to earlier work, this new strategy allows them to ‘infiltrate’ the art system and to operate from an internal vantage point. They are, in a sense, more subversive, while giving the impression of being subsumed by the system.

These paintings can therefore be seen as a direct continuation of BANK’s subversive activities. Their commercial nature functions to critique the activity of art collecting, by being ‘collectable’ when what they are commenting on are the idiosyncrasies of that very activity. And, as such, they reveal one of the fundamental facets of art collecting, namely how the intentions behind artworks are often ignored or overlooked in favour of other less significant and superficial considerations.
While this decision to operate within the art system can be seen as a change of strategy, it signals a more developed understanding of that system and the realisation that it is fundamentally more productive to work within it than without. But this is hardly a startling revelation. Take, for example, the conceptual movement of the late sixties. While many of these artists started out with revolutionary intentions to subvert the art system by making work that was either ephemeral or unsaleable, by the 1972 Documenta – a defining moment for conceptual art – virtually all exhibited artists were making marketable work for leading commercial galleries, and indeed it was only such gallery credentials that ensured inclusion. Seen by some as the failure of conceptual art, it could be equally perceived as reflecting the maturity and insight of the artists involved.

It would be generous to coincide BANK’s new strategy in similar terms, and therefore in contrast to other ‘revolutionary’ artist collectives maintaining a more confront-ational approach. Instead of ‘selling out’ to the system as would, at first sight, appear to be the case, BANK’s latest works should be considered a development of their continuing critique.

Eugene Tan

 | NEXT ISSUE  |  BACK ISSUES  |  CONTENTS |