The Goo Thickens...

by Anthony Schrag, 3 Oct 2007

September 20th

We all have those instinctive responses to issues or problems that we return to when faced with a new problem or project. Some deconstruct it logically, and others may go for a more emotive response. My first impulse is to climb on stuff. I think this comes from being raised by monkeys in Africa. I’m not sure. Either way, I began this project by vaulting into the physical. (See Photos)

In my practice I often use my body’s (or a body’s) immediate physicality and those universal responses as tools to explore the topics. Dealing with bureaucratic institutions – such as the Glasgow City Council and its Health and Safety dictates – this became quite difficult (more on this later) and this has forced me look at different “tools”. Also, quite early on, I became uniquely aware that this – being a social issue – needed to have more than just a simple representational response. Climbing on a building just ain’t gonna cut it as a comment to the very real poverty and violence within the city.

I had suggested I take some of the young guys on “parkour” or “free-running” tours of their area. Get them physically active, engaged and validated – promote some positive self-esteem. However, this was virtually impossible when there are serious restrictions on limiting our movement through the city, especially with ‘children’. Rules like: You cannot raise your body more than one meter off the ground; You cannot climb on City Council property; Running in public is dangerous. And despite the fact that the youth were already doing such activities, and doing something with the validation of a cultural institution would have vast implications for their self-esteem, it was obliquely discouraged, due to legislative and legal concerns.

Over the past couple of months, Magi and I have been charting the youth groups’ responses to this topic. Most of them couldn’t care less if they were from the catholic or protestant camps. Yes, we found examples of gangs, of violence, of deep-seated, oppositional, social problems. But we found these were all rooted in poverty, not Sectarianism. In fact, we found few examples of religious violence within the youth groups. It was, however, present, ironically, in the council and churches and older generations. It all crystallized after an interesting discussion in GoMA entitled: How Sectarianism Hurts Our Churches.

In it, the religious leaders (Episcopalian, Anglican, Catholic) discussed how upset they were that Sectarian violence happens, how they were dedicated to its eradication, but, Gosh Darn It, they were sick of the graffiti the kids left all over the buildings and this, really, was the scourge of Sectarianism. Children, I got the impression, were the real problem.

Afterward the debate I had a conversation with someone in the GoMA office. It went a little like this:

“There seems such a disparity between those people living on the schemes, who experience violence & poverty everyday, and those who sit around and talk about them (& make art) in safe & hallowed halls.”

“Yeah, but its always been that way. And what’s the alternative?”

So, it became clear that not only were there rules and restrictions limiting the movement and free-will of youth groups, and not only were there geographical restrictions of their estates and limited travel opportunities due to poverty, but it seemed like ‘powers that be’ – be they Council, Church or older generations – were imposing Sectarianism onto a younger generation. There were ‘People’ deciding that ‘Sectarianism’ was an issue, perpetuating it, and exhibiting it, and creating policies about it, but very little actual engagement with the youth who were living it. … Things about this issue were finally coming clear to me. The structure was revealing itself, and more importantly to my work, was revealing how to subvert that.

Ideas begun to form. Goo began to have a shape.