Advertisement
Advertisement
Hardeep Pandhal: [Laughs] All I'm talking about there is positive discrimination and, you know, pointing out that that's the situation. But it's like a very Catch 22 thing, isn't it? Because there's interpretation that goes along with making an exhibition and making artwork. A part of that is to communicate to people that may not know much about art, or whatever, where they're [the artist] is coming from. I think also that happened [the quote] because the people I did the work for, in the interpretation they used that label. So I thought "well, that's interesting, I'll play off that."
Advertisement
Yeah. It all depends on the work as well. Because of what I'm doing, the images and stuff, if a white person did it they'd probably get accused of being racist. You know what I mean? That's positive discrimination… It's like, black rappers can say the "N" word and white rappers can't. Same thing.Do you think this definition can add additional substance to your work? Say if an audience knows a bit about your background?
It does for me because I use, you know, personal references.Like your home movies?
Yeah, it's not just things I've made up. I mean, obviously there's art history that I'm acquiring, and it's public money—most of the things I've done on a commission basis—and that's mediated by the curators and people that work for "charitable organizations." So I communicate with those, and between my own personal stuff and the climate, a lot of the interpretation comes out of that.Do you feel limited by working with public money?
No, not really, because it's like, that's one of the biggest points of doing art…As a kind of social tool?
Errm… yeah, I think it should edify people's conscience [laughs]. You know, it should make things better, a better life… [as an artist] you've got a license to not worry so much about confusion and saying the right thing. You're accountable in a different way.A different way?
Different to, say, official discourse, policy makers. People who run the country, basically.
Advertisement
Part of me says no because I'm not trying to make people laugh, but a part of me says yes, because the idea of the work—some of it—is to put viewers in a position of self-reflection, which is what satire does.And do you feel like you have a certain amount of responsibility?
I do a little bit, more so now because the audience is getting broader, bigger. And if you're in that position, then you might influence other people from the same kind of background. So there's that responsibility because you don't know how much influence you might have.What about how you classify yourself—would you refer to yourself as a British Sikh artist?
No, not really. I use imagery and things that I know about, because I come from that background and have inherited the traditions; it's a part of my make-up. I wouldn't [label myself that way], but I don't correct people if they do.And it still communicates something. Say for instance humor, it's a culturally coded thing. It's not universal—the humor of British people is quite distinct, so it does help to say someone's British if they make work that uses, or where there's an echo of, tropes of the culture.
Yeah that's kind of like in the back of my head, I guess.But in contemporary UK art, it's pretty white-saturated. There's very few mainstream "minority artists." As far as British-Asian artists are concerned, do you know of any?
There's a guy from Birmingham called Harminder Singh Judge. He's a bit older than me, he does stuff about the mystical, religious experience. So again, it's not really about politics.
Advertisement
There's a film artist—Shezad Dawood. He's an accomplished filmmaker and again, it's about rituals and that kind of thing.From where I'm standing—as someone outside the industry—most of those established artists, the ones managing to support themselves as professional working artists, all tend to be, like, 80 to 90 percent white.
Well, this is a generalization but from my experience it's to do with upbringing. Say like, from a parent's perspective—there's like no point encouraging art development because it's not gonna make you any money basically [laughs]. It has to do with the relationship between class and race, I guess.Do you feel like it's more privileged kids who have the opportunity to practice art from an early age, without having to worry about money? That it's a certain upbringing?
It's hard to speculate on that, but obviously there are statistics out there. The issue for me is that it can be quite patronizing, being the recipient of positive discrimination. It's a part of the world and it's a part of curating as well. Say, if someone does a show that only has men in it, then it will get heavily criticized on that basis.How would you like to be seen? As a British artist?
It depends. If I was in a show in like, India, or Africa, or whatever, then it'd probably make sense to say I was from Britain. But if I'm in Britain, then there's no need to say it I don't think.Your work's been described by Frieze as "purposely slippery in its exploration of cultural identity." Do you think this is an accurate description?
That exhibition was in a triennial, which was curated around the theme of Asia, so you either had to be an artist of Asian descent or make work about Asia to some degree. It's quite an unusual, broad, and also specific remit. It was about curating, so I kind of wanted to question that as well. That's why that work was about the pitfalls of positive discrimination in a sense.We need [positive discrimination] for the sake of cultural progress—the arts need to be diverse. You need to have it, to make the world more equal, but it only does it by using these terms that are problematic. It's just a mental situation.Hardeep Pandhal is currently exhibiting a solo show, 'Plebeian Archive,' at The David Dale Gallery in Glasgow, which runs until October 24, and has another forthcoming exhibition at the Collective Gallery, Edinburgh, which opens November 13.