Intersession - Back to the Burchfield

Over the winter break, I plan on taking advantage of the time and location to make at least one visit to the Burchfield Penney archives to continue my research. My research will be driven by the direction my advisors and I decide to go in went we all meet together for the first time on Thursday. A major point of my thesis to resolve is determining what software I will use to develop my database. This discussion is critical to have now in order to make sure it can be supported by the archives. Additionally, the end users will have to be considered - is this going to be used by the archives only or will it be publicly accessible? The answers to these questions will likely lead to proposal revisions and may result in a section being added to the literature review. Research questions to continuously keep in my mind are what categories to include and the what is the scope of the artists' careers that I would like to include. Hopefully, the additional research and consultation will allow me to actually start constructing my final deliverable.

Artpark: What Makes the Experience Democratic?

The essence of my research has been to what extent Artpark functioned as a democratic experiment within the 1970s. However, defining what makes the Artpark experience "democratic" in the first has become problematic. After all, "democracy" is a word with many philosophical and functional connotations. Is it the way artists were selected to complete a residency that is democratic? Or is it how theoretically any member of the public could access the site-specific art and interact with the artist, effectively breaking down the studio walls? The artistic process itself could potentially be framed as democratic as well, especially if artists had control over where and how they executed their ideas.

These were questions I had in mind when I made my visit to the Burchfield Penney archives for research last Friday. Jennifer, the project archivist for the Artpark Archival Collection, told me that approaching the question from certain angles (such as how Artpark and its artists were funded) would require extremely intensive archival investigation. Therefore, she suggested to focus specifically on how Artpark functioned as a democratic experiment only for the artists involved. A topic of interest would be examining the types of institutions representing these artists before they were selected (were they artist-led?). The documents I looked over on Friday provided a good starting point for this investigation. The Visual Arts Program catalogs provided useful biographical information for the artists who currently have little to no presence online. A study conducted in 1978 by Arts Development Associates also revealed significant information, such as how only 30% of artists came to Artpark through a personal connection. According to the study, this proved that Artpark was "not a closed shop." The documents also provided a consistent account of Artpark's vision for the arts in its early years: to encourage the realization of experimental ideas in the arts and to engage the public in unorthodox ways.

Situating Artpark in a greater historical context has provided some interesting insights as well. Artpark was one of many efforts during the late '60s and 1970s to free art from the traditional gallery space, or, as Brian O'Doherty calls it, the "white cube." Artpark was far from being the only alternative art space in Western New York during the 1970s. Hallwalls, which was founded in 1974 (the same year Artpark's programs began), also dedicated itself to featuring innovative works from young artists at the time. I am also researching federal and state funding for the arts during this time period and how that may have influenced Artpark's operations. 

The Burchfield Penney Art Center, the location of the Artpark Archival Collection