Every year the same conversation, about how its getting worse- what was a protest against the commodification of education, and then, an art masters alternative is now a legendary what app group. I can only say one small part of what it was, and now is, as a member of the fourth iteration, Year of the monkey 2017. Below is a document I sent to David Steans who co-founded SOTD. He asked for feedback from alumni after a decade of the project, parts of what I sent are included in his essay which is forthcoming later this year in an academic text book called Cooperative education, Politics and Art. For my part I want to make my notes public as a record to current or new members. It was written in a bit of a rush.

***********************

From the SOTD 2014 archive on Tumblr:

The School of the Damned is a MA course run by its students and overseen by a board of academic advisors. It is intended to provide artist who cannot afford to study on an accredited program with a critical discourse and rigorous re-assessment of their art practices. The course also aims to establish a new network of artists, academics and institutions, which would not only advocate free education, but demand a universal acknowledgement of education as a fundamental right. Further to this aim, by its existence the course acts as a form of protest against a plutocratic state, which preserves aristocracies, promotes rampant avarice and marginalises the poor, dismantling their institutions and restricting their access to learning. By deeming itself a Masters Degree in Art, the course demands of itself a constant assessment of its proposed equivalence to established/accredited courses, yet ultimately understands that it will fail in this goal. The School of the Damned operates outside of the officially sanctioned academic institution, but does this out of necessity because the current system increasingly restricts access to such institutions. This course has been conceived of and produced as a pragmatic response to this current system, therefore, and as a protest against it, should not be construed as advocating or condoning an independent system of education based on values of entrepreneurism, philanthropy, libertarianism or self reliance.

*************************

My answers to DS’s questions about SOTD…

I didn’t know exactly what i’d singed up for, but agreed to meet on the last Sunday of the month for a year, with a mid point exhibition in Leeds and an end of year show to have venue determined by us later on. Morning session talking about something set by the guest artist (in return for labour exchange) and an afternoon of crits. Everyone gets two crits a year and two people to invite. We where given a structure that ran by itself, the school was like a machine that left openings for our input. At the half way point [of the year] we talked about making any changes to the manifesto. We did a call out [with our manifesto] and picked the new 18 or so people over a weekend together. [half from London half from other parts of the UK, picking a balance of different practices and genders plus one wild card]. We added something new by setting up a weekend of talks and workshops to greet the new year. [we wanted more time to meet the new year]

The only thing we changed of the whole structure was the word protest in the manifesto- we thought it was more of a direct action than a protest. A protest involves asking/waiting for permission. Being a genuine alternative is important and for me it was this. The course was seen as credible and I had seen someone get to do a PHD in art from it. SOTD had a strong political conscience I would describe as radical but totally practical. As an anarchist and organiser I was impressed with peoples capacity to be critical and work together. It was the most well functioning horizontal group I have ever been in. We had several well handled discussions over the year as problems arose. I also got exposed to so much art and ideas I never would have come across alone so my understanding of art grew. Both these things are now totally lost. It is not educating anyone and it is soft and liberal. 

I disagree with the idea that SOTD could be or should be for everyone. We talked about letting everyone on because it’s so romantic to give everything to everyone, but rejected it because we knew that too many people would water down the learning. (Larger classes equals lower learning quality). In the year after us there appeared this idea that it was an experiment rather than a protest or direct action. It doesn’t meet the criteria for a good experiment. The funny thing is they took the structure away but still gave people the tyranny of structurlessnes to read, which states that without a good structure informal hierarchies take over. Groups without structure suck the life out of people and it effects the marginalised the most. Ive seen bad groups send people psychotic and good ones bring people back from the edge.

We where told to not change the structure for 6 months, to see what is already happening. The year who came after use removed the structure and didn’t want crits or lessons. Thats ok, but do you need to go to art school to do that? Can’t you do that at home?

When I was in SOTD every time I went somewhere and there was a SOTD graduate I would have a chat with them and learn from them. They had good suggestions for how to deal with different issues. That line has been broken. I find that very very sad, because art schools have just gotten worse and worse and we had an alternative. After us this idea there should be no collective memory came about and they refused to talk to us about how to run the school. They saw us as telling them what to do. I was proud of our hand over because most of us spoke, as a group, no one dominated it. The year before there had only been 3 people at the hand over because they had all fell out. We thought we had cracked it, but the new year didn’t share our enthusiasm.

The point of being able to change it was to suit our learning. But instead people made changes to things that would effect those that came after them, structures or non structures that they had not tried but changed last minute. Today the school is 100 people in a email thread, some are on other Masters programs and some in other countries. I think it should be an MA alternative. I don’t think people who wouldn’t want to do an Ma should be on it, or people who have done an Ma.

I believe that the school should be reset to this original structure. Universities has a responsibility to give everyone who wants to study any kind of art a place to do so, SOTD doesn’t. It isn’t an institution and doesn’t have to beholden to the same rules. We shouldn't be afraid to accept the limits of SOTD. All ideas are limited, it is much better to accept that than to try and stretch something till it breaks.

Overall I got this sense that all the power that I had given away to the art world in was given back to me. I see now how universities capitalise on the need for recourses and peers. It was huge shift of power and we had some amazing artists etc come to speak. The core learning was you can do so much on so little and this went against everything I had experienced so far learning art. I got to learn without having to compromise myself whatsoever. I don’t think I would have been an artist now in the way I am if it wasn’t for SOTD. It gave me so much. I got life long peers and the confidence that had been knocked out of me on my Ba. I can’t express enough how deeply grateful I am for the experience I had, it change my life.

*****************

A quote from David Stean’s forthcoming text…..

“We were keenly aware of the contradictions and limitations of the project, and spent long hours inside and outside of School debating its purpose, presentation, and potential impact. Personally I felt we should embrace such contradictions, push them further even, and that we shouldn't burden ourselves with the responsibilities of established institutions. The School of the Damned had an aesthetic, and an attitude. We used DIY self-organising methods to create a kind of shadow-version of the MA (the 'school'), to protest, but also to provide an alternative, even if only symbolically, for those who could not afford or were otherwise excluded from Postgraduate study (the ‘damned').”

*****************************

My further reflections after reading DS’s essay;

I joined the school because I wanted to study art at Ma level but I could not afford university and was not physically well enough. It is one of the few things I applied for that I got based on my level of obvious dementedness and literacy. Most else prioritises professional, polite and well written stuff.

I tried as many ways as possible to get there for free. One time I cycled from Bristol. Then I figured out how to write fake coach codes. I think the travel cost me £135 for the year. That was just for fun tho, to see how far I could take it. I forgot to mention, because its so obvious, that I don't really think something can be radical without having the potential to include those without money. Even if I could afford a masters now, working my ass off, I wouldn’t want to do it because there wouldn’t be any other working class people there, or very few.

What i’ve realised, is that i’m ready for a new resistance to artists trying to fix social issues- that’s not to say pretending the world is not fucked. But doubling down and saying- I came here to this hell realm willing to put up with fighting and war, only on the condition I can make art. To do that, I must include not just me as an individual, but me fighting for space for people of different classes to mix on equal or ideally working class terms. I’ve been thinking about Mark Fisher talking about the re bourgeoisification of art school a lot. I’ve seen art scenes dividing back into different class interests over the last years- I imagine this is a mirror of the wider world. Mark Says “cosmopolitan fingering replaces engagement and involvement.” For SOTD it means that the instagram handle was of value, and has remained so, but the structure that makes the experince, which is intangible, was not. What’s behind it? I guess fear of freedom, fear of art, and of being an artist. In favour of competition, putting things in boxes, adding the word core to normal things so you can say you get it. Ok, i’m getting of track. Point is in the absence of physical space, structure is the ally here.

The difference between the exclusion people experience from education etc, and being for everybody is really important here and maybe something that hasn’t been picked up on because of the lack of contact between different years of SOTD, and its changing manifesto. It was so nice for me to reread the original text of the founding year. It seems to me that boundaries or structures have been mistaken for oppression. And I have seen this play out in other spaces between generations of horizontal groups. In fact, id say it is the number one red flag for communes.

A friend who is an art teacher asked me if she should recommend SOTD to her class. I said no. I think she thought I was being flippant and a “not as good as it used to be” fuddy duddy. She said it must be better than nothing. But I have seen, in the last years, people I knew who had strong practices give up art altogether or get burnt out after SOTD. If they don’t reset the school back to its original structure, my advice to all people considering it is DON’T DO IT. Don't put your art practice in the hands of fools- institutional or alternatives. It’s too precious.

I hope I don’t create bad feeling here with newer alumni, I’m not aiming to be a prick (though I know it comes to me oh so naturally) just I haven’t fully given up on the idea that SOTD could work again, so I have to respectfully disagree. Because I believe in what SOTD stood for and did. I am happy to be of service to current students interested in restoring factory settings- for the damned.

LINK to SOTD Archive Tumblr

LINK "I've suffered tortures of the damned Sir, tortures of the damned"