CONVENOR’S INTRODUCTION The texts assembled in this issue reflect discussions involving the British Art Network team over the last months, undertaken with members, bursary holders, within our Steering Group – whose current members are introduced below – and with others beyond the Network...
Sometimes informal, sometimes organised as consultations, many of these discussions have been prompted by our commitment to become more representative and equitable as an organisation. These conversations often ended up going in unanticipated directions. Talking about race and representation led to debate about what constitutes the curatorial; addressing LGBTIQ+ inclusion ended up with a discussion about digital culture; thinking together about identity led to a reflection on the hazards of social media; observations about cultural criticism provided insights into the economics of publishing and the censorious power of commercial galleries. Reporting here on the activity to date of the new research group on British Working Class Art, Beth Hughes registers how immediate and necessary the consideration of race and disability was in connection with social class, all topics which became the focus of their first session. Hassan Vawda and Ashokkumar Mistry offer perspectives on British art across history, asking provocatively how and why the lived experience of religious commitment and of disability, respectively, have been so often ignored. In a joint interview, Deborah Cherry and Alexandra Kokoli reflect on the multiple intersections of gender, ethnicity and class in the work of Tracey Emin, offering thoughts about the work of cultural analysis and the legitimacy and limitations of the category of British art. All these various contributors are addressing things which have been overlooked, overshadowed, underplayed or actively rejected, and the litany of topics touched on here – class, religious diversity, disability and ethnicity – might inflame anyone intent on claiming ‘anti-woke’ credentials. But what these pieces make clear, individually and collectively, is that these topics are far from ‘marginal’. They are not being imported into or imposed upon mainstream/legitimate/ established British art studies. Instead, they take us to the heart of the matter. Thinking about neurodivergence and disability among artists over history raises a vital question: if such differences are such a prevalent feature of creativity – as emerging work from the RCA cited by Ashokkumar suggests – then do we need 1
