Disrupting The Gaze: Art Intervention and the Tate Gallery. By Marc Garrett. Introduction. Disrupting the Gaze is written in three parts. The first chapter Art Intervention and the Tate Gallery investigates contemporary art intervention at the Tate Gallery. It includes artists, art groups and activists: Graham Harwood, Platform, Liberate Tate, IOCOSE, Tamiko Thiel, Mel Evans, Mark McGowan, Mark Wallinger, Damien Hirst and Britart. The second chapter The Power and the Gaze studies the history of the Tate Gallery, its connection with the Millbank Penetentiary and the “Panopticon", Jeremy Bentham’s design and concept for the prison. The third chapter explores different concepts of “the gaze” and includes feminist, societal and media art contexts. Together they form part of a larger study that looks at dissent in the context of contemporary art, technology and social change. Each artist(s) featured in this chapter delivers his or her own particular unofficial and official mode of art intervention at the Tate Gallery. Whether these interventions concern economic, social or political conditions, they all connect in different ways. Less in their style or genre than as contemporary artistic practitioners exploring their own states of agency in a world where our public interfaces are as much a necessary place of creative engagement, as is the already accepted physical ‘inner’ sanctum of the gallery space. These artists’ and their artworks have become as equally significant (perhaps even more) than, the mainstream art establishment’s franchised celebrities. In his vindication of those artists hidden away in places where the art establishment’s light rarely shines, Gregory Sholette observes that “when, the excluded are made visible, when they demand visibility, it is always ultimately a matter of politics and rethinking history.” 1 (Sholette 2011) This draws upon a contemporary art culture and its audiences beyond the mainstream. These artistic discoveries and discourse arise from an independent art culture that is rarely reflected back to us. Instead, we receive more of the same, marketed franchises. The central, mainstream version of contemporary art has found its allies within a global and corporate culture, where business dictates art value. Meanwhile, a spirit of artistic emancipation thrives. It is self styled, self governed and liberated from the restrictive norms that dominate our mediated gaze. We live in a world riddled with contradictions and confusing signals. Our histories are assessed and reshuffled according to the interests of the powerful, and re-introduced as fact. We might fail to notice that there are so many bits missing. We accept what is given through sound bite forms of mediation and build our cultural foundations on these acquired assumptions and imagined guidelines. This paper studies how contemporary artists are challenging these defaults through their connected enactments and critical inquiries into the existing conditions. It highlights a continual dialogue involving a historical struggle between what is held up as legitimate art and knowledge, and what is excluded. It looks at a complexity, embedded in the class divisions of our culture. And it draws upon struggles going as far back as the enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, colonialism and slavery to present day concerns with the dominance of neoliberalism. The Tate Gallery is chosen as a focus for these various historical, contemporary, political and societal conflicts and its ability to hold our gaze as an icon of culture, since it was founded in 1897. Uncomfortable Proximity. We begin in the year 2000, when the Tate Gallery had just commissioned its first Net Art work, Uncomfortable Proximity, 2 by Graham Harwood. At this time, mainstream art institutions were still coming to terms with the Internet and the World Wide Web. The mainstream art world’s slowness to engage the various ways in which artists have been exploiting the digital medium, and a networked culture has been unfortunate not only for the artists practising in this medium, but also for audiences hungry for an authentic reflection of contemporary art culture. Ironically, this lack of knowledge at the Tate Gallery enabled Harwood to initiate a rare critical art intervention directed at the Tate’s historical status on his own terms. Harwood was able to bite at the hand that fed him, whilst seen by a large audience. Hogarth, My Mum 1700-2000 and Constable Haywain, Dad, Mud from the Thames 1800-2000,Composite image c. Graham Harwood 2000. “From adolescence I had visited the Tate, read the Art books and generally pulled a forelock in the direction of the cult of genius, on cue relegating my own creativity to the Victorian image of the rabid dog. We know well enough that this was how it was supposed to be. The historical literature on ‘rational recreations’ states that, in reforming opinion, museums were envisaged as a means of exposing the working classes to the improving mental influence of middle class culture. I was being inoculated for the cultural health of the nation.”3 (Harwood 2006) Uncomfortable Proximity, demonstrates the awkwardness of an artist communicating his own subjectivity, in contrast to the Tate’s own apparently untouchable stately aura. The artwork breaks into and opens up, the well-maintained impression of the Tate, as it sees itself and by others. “The artist very deliberately used the work to question the role of digital media in promotion and collection. His web site copied the Tate publicity site, with his own content inserted, causing substantial institutional disruption around the marketing department because the Tate’s Web site, in common with those of many art museums, was seen primarily as a marketing tool, then perhaps as interpretation, but never before then as a venue for digital art.” 4 (Cook, 2001) Uncomfortable Proximity creates a Wizard of Oz moment, in which we momentarily discover what lies behind the curtain. This church of art, of historical magnitude is not unduly disrupted but is offered an opportunity for self-reflection and re-evaluation. These re-evaluations concern its identity and occupation, and the validity of its classifications where procedures based on good breeding come to the fore. Uncomfortable Proximity evokes Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, in which the portrait of the eponymous hero depicts his own dissent into moral corruption while his own body remains untainted. The facade of his idealised beauty is a mask for a hideous interior. He then tries to hide the painting from prying eyes and kills the artist who painted his portrait to keep the darker impression of himself a secret. Wilde’s fable is considered a work of classic gothic fiction with a strong Faustian theme in which the protagonist sells his soul in return for worldly power. Dorian in front of his portrait in the 1945 film The Picture of Dorian Gray. 5 “The pessimistic historian Oswald Spengler (1880 – 1936) has also suggested that the Faust story captures the historical essence of the modern West, which he sees in “decline” just because of its willingness to sacrifice virtually any other value in its quest for knowledge and power.” 6 (Solomon & Higgins 1974) Harwood invites us to peep behind a façade, and the people he represents appear like ghosts, mutants, lepers and outsiders, evocative of the underclass of British people now referred to as “Chavs”, “an insulting word exclusively directed at people who are working class.” 7 (Jones 2012) It identifies and reinforces the low cultural status of those living on council estates, homeless, unemployed, or working on a low wage. Over the last few years the mainstream media has used this word for celebrities they wish to denigrate as cheap or ignorant. Jones suggests that to understand the social and political contexts of “Chavs”, you have to look back into a period in the UK to what he calls “the Thatcherite Experiment” of the 1980s. Part of a Conservative strategy to devalue the prestige of being working class. This class awareness “encourages you to define your own economic interests against those of others. But, above all, it conjures up the notion of a potentially organized bloc with political and economic power, and one that could wage war against wealth and privilege.” 8 (Jones 2012) Thatcher instead convinced the working classes that their own class was no longer something to be proud of, but instead something to escape from. A strategy promoted by Conservatives for over two centuries, where in order to defend privileged interests, the working classes had to be disempowered. Harwood’s Uncomfortable Proximity, reveals this attack, and shows us historical tensions, between the rich and powerful and the under privileged. My Skin and The Du Cane Boehm Family Group 1734-2000. Graham Harwood, 2000. The first section of Uncomfortable Proximity presents us with a map of high society. The second, uses images of ordinary people - himself, friends and family. To express his resistance to these prescribed ideals, he reedited the digital images of the historically - respected paintings on the Tate Gallery web site, which include works by Turner, Hogarth, Hamilton, Gainsborough and Constable. In using the Internet as his medium, Harwood’s artwork reveals a possibility to us. The Tate’s digital presence, identity, its status and public interface, is hacked by the artwork. Just like the modern day antics of the Occupy movement, where situ-invasion, critique and dissent involves moving into areas not usually considered realms of political protest, or places of discerning debate. Net Art activists have explored their own particular states of agency by finding different places to interfere with the normalized conventions of commercial and mainstream, online interactions. Harwood was not just challenging the classical values of a past enlightenment and the present existing embodiment. He was also hacking the future, reclaiming territory for himself and others who wished to either follow by example, or gain confidence that a creative and critical dissent can evolve as a cultural and artistic endeavour. It declared to an art going public and its connected mainstream art institutions that something had changed, and this was not part of the scripted plan. Britart, Conservatism and Totalitarian Art Haw under arrest before the State Opening of Parliament in 2010. Photo: Jeff Moore. Telegraph. 9 In June 2001, activist Brian Haw began his protest against the economic sanctions on Iraq, opposite the Palace of Westminster in central London. This continued until his death from lung cancer in June 2011. It began with only a few banners and as years passed the number of banners amassed, with its content pointing out to the public and politicians around the suffering and killing of people in Iraq supported by the UK and US governments. “Even as fresh attempts were begun to oust him, he won an award for being that year’s ‘most inspiring political figure’”. 10 (Stevenson 2011) In 2006-7 British artist Mark Wallinger created his art installation State Britain, replicating all of the tents and banners at Parliament Square. It was featured as his main entry for the Turner Prize at Tate Britain. The installation included copies of other people’s contributions to the protest consisting of messages and banners amassed by Haw, and it won Wallinger the Turner Prize that year. Mark Wallinger appropriates Haw’s activist kudos for his own work, and confers a sense political progressiveness on the Turner Prize and the Tate, while the institution incurs absolutely no risk. “Faithful in every detail, each section of Brian Haw’s peace camp from the makeshift tarpaulin shelter and tea-making area to the profusion of hand-painted placards and teddy bears wearing peace-slogan t-shirts has been painstakingly sourced and replicated for the display.” 11 With his close attention to the materiality and appearance to the Haw’s peace camp he achieves a total removal of all its political force. Its installation at the Tate offered no threat to extend beyond the boundaries of the hermetically sealed art object. Wallinger is perceived as the more politically aware of the celebrated artists of his generation, but he’s working with the politics of spectacle. A politics in which the worlds of art, media and commerce exploit the images and stories of politics purely for their sensational and marketable qualities rather than its world changing potential. Emerging artists at the time who were not part of this elite were left out not because of their art, but because of their lack of connections within Young Britart circles. At this time, many artists casted aside their own creative intentions and values and re-invented their art practice in accordance to YBA themes. From the early 80s, and well into the 90s, UK art culture was dominated by the marketing strategies of Saatchi and Saatchi, a formidable force in the advertising world. The same company had been responsible for the successful promotion of the Conservative party (and conservative culture) that had led to the election of the Thatcher government in 1979. Charles Saatchi’s own interest in collecting art forged a path embodying his own hobbyist interests. Saatchi’s work with artists anxious for fame, at whatever cost, provided the perfect partnership for marketing a new generation of so-called art entrepreneurs. A new myth had been wedged into mainstream art culture, that these individuals were more entrepreneurial than artists had ever been before. And the celebrity of the artist was the greatest material for an artwork. Britart’s rise to power arrived at a period of time when in the 1980s, the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher proclaimed to the nation “there’s no such thing as society”. And, in 1987, Oliver Stone’s film Wall Street, demonstrated the spirit of this decade through the character Gekko, played by Michael Douglas. In the film’s most riveting scene Gekko expounds that ‘greed is good’. The Situationist cultural activist Stewart Home suggests that the YBA movement’s evolving presence in art culture fits within the discourse of totalitarian art, “the critics who theorise the YBA understand that by transforming art into a secular religion, rather than a mere adjunct of the state, liberalism imposes its domination over the ‘masses’ far more effectively than National Socialism. The focus, especially in the mass media, must be on the artists rather than the artwork.” 12 (Home 1996) Hans Haacke, known for his criticalness towards the Saatchi brothers and their business links around the world, articulated this clearly in his show Global Marketing in 1987, at the Victoria Miro Gallery in London. It was a meticulously researched work, tracing the history of the Saatchi brothers’ worldwide business empire. 13 (Solomon 1988) The theme was based on their associations with unsavoury regimes and commercial ventures implicated in promoting the abuse of human rights abroad. His exhibition revealed Saatchi’s advertising connections in South Africa as well as their promotion of apartheid’s strategies of the white, ruling National Party of Pieter W Botha. There are strong ties between Britart and America’s promotion of Abstract Expressionism, most prominent in the late 1950s-60s. Both art movements comprised of loyalties endorsing a patriotic identity as a condition of their marketing strategy. At the time, the USA needed a scheme that could win the hearts and minds of intellectuals, artists and the educated, to fight the cold war. From 1950-67, a new era was born, funded indirectly by the CIA mainly through the body of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. 14 It included the likes of Clement Greenberg, Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, David Smith, Willem de Kooning, Hans Hofmann, Barnett Newman, Helen Frankenthaler, and Clyfford Still. Greenberg had been a member of CCF since 1950, and was the main intellectual guardian of this, new American art cool. New York became the cultural art capital of the world. Greenberg spent most of his time arguing that the most critically engaged and best avant-garde artists were only to be found in America. Art celebrities such as the dynamic Jackson Pollock, became the new swashbuckling, paintbrush, wielding hero, who stood for Western values, in harmony with the American dream. “Aided by their powerful patrons, they repackaged modernists aesthetics as the celebration of American modernity. Stripped of its subversive politics, the iconography of this avant- garde was popularised by the dream factories of New York and Hollywood.” 15 (Barbrook 2007) Britart and (American) Abstract Expressionism were both levered into the mainstream art world by a close-knit elite of networks comprising of art institutions commercial interests, high up government contacts, with big budget marketing strategies. Both coups branded their states’ identity and the artists as national celebrities. The Internet and the World Wide Web, have brought about shifts in contemporary art, disputing the power of the elite to dictate what our art can be. There has been much debate about the lack of official branding or acceptance of “media art” alongside its relative genres. However, these net based practices and media art, has contributed to the decentralization of contemporary art enabling artistic emancipation in a wider context. This is evident in cross-cultural art practices such as, art hacktivism, DIWO (Do It With Others), and peer to peer culture. Recent Art Interventions and the Tate The past few years have seen a number of art interventions at the Tate, which further highlight the nature of its position and role in the power system of the art world. They use a range of emerging consumer technologies and tactics that intervene in the image, branding, marketing strategies and impacts the Tate’s relationship with external partners. Augmented Reality Augmented Reality (AR), which adds a layer of data from the network over a digital image of the physical world, has opened up new possibilities for viewing and experiencing the world around us. AR includes applications for iPhones and Android operating systems, video and military hardware. For example, a Canadian company Arcane Technologies has produced and sold AR devices on head-mounted displays. For commercial use you can point at a building and through GPS it gathers information, relating to a particular business or the surrounding area, locate its history or collect details from Flickr, or see their account on Facebook. This finds applications in commercial, domestic and military life. “Consider a squad of soldiers in Afghanistan, performing reconnaissance on an opposition hideout. An AR-enabled head-mounted display could overlay blueprints or a view from a satellite or overheard drone directly onto the soldiers' field of vision.” 16 Julian Oliver, Damian Stewart and Arturo Castro co-engineered in 2008, the urban art project The Artvertiser. The software platform enables alternative art content consisting of images and videos, to replace billboard advertisements in the streets. They produced two other AR tools, the Billboard Intercept Unit, a hand-held device Binoculars V-1, “with a high-quality wide-angle lens, fast CPU and GPU, powerful wireless adaptor, long battery life and plenty of solid state storage space.” 17 Another artist exploring AR is Tamiko Theil. In 2012, Thiel created All Hail Damien Hirst! An AR installation celebrating Damien Hirst at the Tate Modern. Theil was aware how litigious Hirst is with “illegal” use of his artworks. So, she chose to explore issues surrounding his fame and his status as a dynamic force and symbol representing corporate success. Theil has always been drawn towards the power of religious imagery, so Hirst is shown floating in the air in a golden light, surrounded by a circle of gold coins, smiling. Hirst “plays a master hand at making the art market dance to his tune.” 18 Shades of Absence: Public Voids” by Tamiko Thiel, Venice Biennale 2011. Theil employs AR for interventions into art environments to confront those who ignore artists’ human rights, and their social and political expressions around the world. Shades of Absence 19 was an intervention into the 2011 Venice Biennale, as a protest against Ai Weiwei’s incarceration by his own Chinese government. Another AR work by Theil that visually relates to All Hail Damien Hirst! is Reign of Gold. 20 It was made as part of the AR Occupy Wall Street project. 21In this work, viewers could interact through their mobile phones from anywhere in the world and “see an animated rain of gold coins superimposed over the live view of their surroundings.” Images of different financial buildings included the New York Stock Exchange, the Bank of England in London, TEPCO in Tokyo - the company that brought us the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Performance Intervention 'What you see is not what you see, and what you see is not what it means' (IOCOSE 2011) In 2011, the Italian arts activist group, IOCOSE performed an art intervention at the Tate’s Turbine Hall and appropriated Ai Weiwei’s, Sunflower Seeds, funded by Unilever. After performing the ceremony of firing or throwing their own sunflower seeds (previously bought from a local corner shop) onto the installation of a 100 million porcelain sunflower seeds. They renamed the artwork, Sunflower seeds on “Sunflower Seeds”. 22 IOCOSE’s subtle defacement reassembles the art product, but they are also adding their own role to the making of the artwork. A bit like, an unofficial collaboration. Not necessarily with Weiwei himself, but with the 1600 people who made the seeds out of Imperial Porcelain from the small Chinese city of Jingdezhen. Of course, the difference is that we know IOCOSE and we do not know the names of the other, individual contributors from China. “Do we see a label that says “Made in China” and inwardly shrug at the thought of millions of faceless factory workers? […] Do we see those oppressed or killed under the regime of Chairman Mao, cut off before they could grow, or a city full of immensely skilled crafts-people, whose skills are no longer needed in mass-industrialised China? All this, yes, and more.” 23 (McLean-Ferris 2013) IOCOSE. Sunflower seeds on“Sunflower Seeds” Turbine Hall at Tate Modern (2011). In 2012, IOCOSE embarked upon a net art project that exploited crowdsourcing tools to simulate a global conspiracy, called A Crowded Apocalypse. The project was included in an exhibition by Furthefield called Invisible Forces, in 2012. 24 Its theme explored neoliberalism and its impact on everyday life. “Our social, economic and cultural institutions are being dismantled. Control over the provision of social care, urban and rural development, and education is being ceded to the market facilitated by unseen technological and bureaucratic systems.” (Furtherfield 2012) In an interview with IOCOSE in 2012, 25 I asked how A Crowded Apocalypse may relate to the themes of Sunflower seeds on “Sunflower Seeds”, at the Tate Modern Turbine Hall – and, whether they were interested in the questions surrounding the relationship between the workers and the artwork? They said they identified with Ai Weiwei, “as we have in fact commissioned a multitude of molecular, meaningless pieces, which all together came to constitute the project. It was not in our intentions to dismiss the concept of authorship, but to articulate, in both projects, to which extent this is still key in framing the ways we think about the production of art. If there is a similarity (and we believe there can be even more than one) is in the attempt to expand the concept of authorship without falling in the temptation of being merely oppositional to it.” (Garrett 2012) IOCOSE’s artistic intervention is not hostile it is playful. Their other projects usually examine the darker side of mainstream iconography, mass networked and technologically driven cultures. Their decision not to be oppositional is perhaps a gesture of mutual respect to a politically motivated artist. Oppositional stances are not a pre requisite, and different situations and contexts demand critical approaches. Direct Action as Art Intervention However, there are times when standing against something is appropriate and the action of conscious discernment is called for. When a belief or system imposes restrictions into a binary stand off, it is not always the most appealing position. This is where the realm of philosophy ends and the realm of politics begins, and enacting beyond the constructs of demands scripted by culture is also part of the struggle. “This is a hero of a new type who has still not been entirely created by our culture, but one whose creation is absolutely necessary if our time is going to live up to its most radical and exhilarating possibilities.” 26 (Laclau 1996) The chapter has focused on critical art interventions into the Tate, imaginatively executed, art disruptions critiquing established, contemporary art contexts and related structures. Our last example of an art intervention to disrupt the gaze at the Tate is different in that it engages with a specific motivation, to disrupt the institution’s relationship with a major sponsor. The groups, Platform, Liberate Tate and Art Not Oil, collaborated on the project Tate à Tate. 27 This public work takes the form of an audio guide that people can download onto their MP3 players or mobile phones, and listen to as they embark on a physical tour around the Tate Buildings, inside and outside. It is best experienced on the Tate Boat, between Tate Britain and Tate Modern. It features the artists Ansuman Biswas, Phil England, Jim Welton, Isa Suarez, Mark McGowan and Mae Martin. They collaborated on an art activist project, Tate à Tate, against the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House and Tate Britain, who aligned themselves with BP (British Petroleum). This was made to coincide with BP’s sponsorship activities in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics. By receiving sponsorship from BP the artists say that these institutions are “legitimising the devastation of indigenous communities in Canada through tar sands extraction, the expansion of dangerous oil drilling in the Arctic, as well as reckless business practices that lead to the deaths of eleven oil workers on the Deepwater Horizon. BP’s involvement with these institutions represents a serious stain on the UK’s cultural patrimony.” 28 The issue of oil and funding of the arts, Tate à Tate pulls these issues out from an ambiguous and conveniently hidden setting, into an open and public discourse. Questions about the Tate’s association with BP, is now a regular discussion on its board of trustees and newspapers. This would not have happened unless these artists had persistently drawn attention to these issues. Liberate Tate’s guerrilla performance in the Tate Britain galleries, 2010. The Tate’s legacy is intertwined with a complex mix of ideals consisting of genius products, presenting the ‘best’ of its people and its nation, and an accumulation of a divine construction, where the values of a secular and enlightened culture exist alike as universal qualities. This imagined civilisation is a construct born out of a wide-ranging set of changing values that include, colonial wealth, Christian liberalism, social science, and ideals of the enlightenment, all sanctioned and driven from the historical achievements and exploits of the industrial revolution. These attributes convey a nationalism and a self-image with a cultivated sense of authority, where those seen as the great and the good are given pride of place for all to admire. This curated narrative acts as a boundary, separating the bad from the good and the geniuses of the nation are given pride of place, and an almost godly presence over others. The concept of the genius is a form of branding, an investment for (conditioned) guarantees, for those complicit in producing, distributing and making cultural and economical capital out of social division. These limitations can only survive, if these scripted values are immortalised as truths and the natural order of things. 1 Gregory Sholette. Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture. Pluto Press (January 4, 2011) 2 Uncomfortable Proximity at the Tate. http://www2.tate.org.uk/netart/mongrel/collections/default.htm 3 Uncomfortable Proximity. Scrapbook. Graham Harwood. (2006) http://mongrel.org.uk/node/8 4 Beryl Graham. Taxonomies Of New Media Art – Real World Namings. University of Sunderland, United Kingdom. http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2005/papers/graham/graham.html#ixzz2DyqzMeSM 5 The Picture of Dorian Gray is an American horror-drama film based on Oscar Wilde's 1891 novel of the same name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray_%281945_film%29 6 Robert. C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins. A Short History of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. First published in 1974, Republished 1989. Page 151. 7 Owen Jones. Chavs: The demonization of the Working Class. Verso Books; 2nd Revised edition (1 May 2012). Pg 2. 8 Owen Jones. Chavs: The demonization of the Working Class. Verso Books; 2nd Revised edition (1 May 2012). Pg 47. 9 Haw under arrest before the State Opening of Parliament in 2010. Photo: Jeff Moore. Telegraph. (19 Jun 2011) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8585399/Brian-Haw.html 10 Brian Haw: The ultimate protester. Alex Stevenson. 20 June 2011. (Last checked 30th Oct 2011). http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/06/20/brian-haw-the-ultimate-protester 11 State Britain. 15 January - 27 August 2007 (Last checked 30th Oct 2011). http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/wallinger/ 12 THE ART OF CHAUVINISM IN BRITAIN AND FRANCE by Stewart Home. Published in everything # 19, London May 1996. (Last checked 30th Oct 2011). http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/2art.html 13 H Solomon, quoted in, Carter Ratcliff, 'The marriage of art and money', Art in America, Vol. 76, No.7, July 1988. Pg 85. 14 Manfred J. Holler. Artists, Secrets, and CIA’s Cultural Policy. (2002) http://cms.ifa.de/fileadmin/content/informationsforum/dossiers/downloads/eu_holler.pdf 15 Richard Barbrook. Imaginary Futures : From thinking machines to the global village. From chapter 'Leader of the Free World'. Pluto press. 2007. Pg 193. 16 Kevin Bonsor. How Augmented Reality Works. http://computer.howstuffworks.com/augmented-reality3.htm (no date given) 17 The Artvertiser: Improved Reality. http://theartvertiser.com/ (no date) 18 "All Hail Damien Hirst!" Augmented Reality Intervention @ Tate Modern. Interview with Tamiko Thiel by Marc Garrett 2012. http://www.furtherfield.org/features/interviews/all-hail-damien-hirst-augmented-realityintervention-tate-modern 19 Tamiko Thiel @ Venice Biennial 2011. http://manifestarblog.wordpress.com/thiel_venice-2011/ 20 Reign of Gold. Tamiko Theil. http://www.mission-base.com/tamiko/AR/reign-of-gold.html 21 AR Occupy Wall Street project. http://aroccupywallstreet.wordpress.com/ 22 IOCOSE. Sunflower Seeds on Sunflower Seeds. (2011) http://www.iocose.org/works/sunflower_seeds_on_sunflower_seeds 23 Laura McLean-Ferris. Ai Weiwei: Sunflower Seeds, Tate Modern Turbine Hall, London. The Independent. Thursday 14 March 2013. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/reviews/ai-weiwei-sunflower-seeds-tatemodern-turbine-hall-london-2104909.html 24 Invisible Forces Exhibition. Class Wargames, Donkor, The Hexists, Oldfield Ford, IOCOSE, Miller, Picot, Massanet and Aston, and YoHa. 2012. http://www.furtherfield.org/programmes/exhibition/invisible-forces 25 Crowdsourcing a conspiracy. Interview with IOCOSE by Marc Garrett. June 2012. http://www.andfestival.org.uk/blog/iocose-garrett-interview-furtherfield/ 26 Ernesto Laclau. Emancipations. Community and its Paradoxes. Verso publication. First published in 1996. Republished 2007. Pg 123. 27 28 Tate à Tate. Download the audio tour and go to Tate Britain. http://www.tateatate.org/ Culture Beyond Oil. Introduction to oil sponsorship of the arts. Open publication - Free publishing - More art not oil. http://issuu.com/mellv/docs/