Published in 1976, Keywords remains a crucial resource for cultural and social criticism due to its examination of active words in culture and debate through essays (Durant, 2006, pp.2;
Project, MacCabe and Yanacek, 2018). Benefiting from a resurgence of writers concerned with
‘exploring the complex uses of problem-laden words’ (Bennett et al., 2005, pp.xvii), Keywords has been updated and expanded on over the past fifteen years in reaction to shifts in political, social and economic conditions (pp.xvii).78 Sometimes described as a ‘glossary’ (MacCabe and
77 In part this was done by a complete overhaul of mima’s website and visual identity by graphic-design studio Kellingberger-White, paired with a restored approach to their gallery interpretation.
78 As recently as 2018, there have been new texts published that extend the legacy of Keywords. The most recent is titled
‘Keywords for Today; A 21st Century Vocabulary’ and is led by Professor David McCabe, linguistic Holly Yanacek and supported by a collaborative research group; The Keywords Project. Originally a project taken up by Tony Bennet, Lawrence Grossberg and Meaghan Morris in 2005, then revised in 2010, ‘New Keywords; A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society’ argued that words change over time. Williams himself even published a revised version of Keywords in 1983 to include a further 21 words,
Wright, 2018, no pagination), the text has been a cornerstone in my practice since the touring exhibition Keywords: Art, Culture and Society in 1980s Britain took place at TL in 2014.79 Thus, the text activates my research enquiry; first as a reference in my masters dissertation80, and now as a formative philosophy for this research. Significantly, I was drawn to Williams’
rationale to elucidate vocabulary used in multiple senses; showing how words can be used as vehicles to attach multiple meanings. Famously for Williams, this was epitomised by the word
‘culture’ which he had heard used in two senses;
one at the fringes, in teashops and places like that, where it seemed the preferred word for a kind of social superiority, not in ideas or learning, and not only in money, or position, but in a more intangible area, relating to behaviour; yet also, secondly, among my own friends, where it was an active word for writing poems and novels, making films and paintings, working in theatres. (Williams, 1976b, pp.12)
This passage is particularly relevant because it elucidates the proposition that words change depending on where they are used, when they are used and who they are used by. For example, when used in the context of a contemporary art museum, words like ‘radical’,
‘labour’, ‘collective’, ‘development’, ‘community’ and ‘work’ are changed from their usage in society generally. It could be argued that their political potency might melt away (Rule and Levine, 2012, no pagination); or, they could become coded to address people (Kinsley,
reflecting the open-ended nature of the Keywords proposition (Williams, R. (1983) Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. Flamingo ed. London: Fontana Paperbacks.).
79 The exhibition showcased British art from the 1970s and 1980s produced by artists such as Sonia Boyce, Sunil Gupta, Lubaina Himid, Derek Jarman and Stephen Willats. Hung around culturally significant keywords borrowed from Williams’ essays such as ‘criticism’, ‘exploitation’, ‘technology’ and ‘media’, over sixty works were used from Tate’s collection to reimagine how a collection could be hung and informed by common word usage (Searle, A. (2014) Keywords at Tate Liverpool explores 1980s Britain. [online],
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/28/keywords-tate-liverpool-exhibition-williams [Accessed: 04/06/19]
80 Titled ‘Reimagining the Landscape of Language Used by Contemporary Art Institutions’ my master’s dissertation provided a critical analysis of two press releases from TL and Van Abbemuseum as an example of how institutions are attempting to engage with new audiences and communities in order to open up a structural dialogue for change.
Middleton and Moore, 2016, pp.58); or, feel alien when applied to other fields of discourse (Williams, 1976a, pp.64). Williams illuminates this for us;
If representative, for example, is set in a group of political words, perhaps centring on democracy, we might lose sight of a significant question in the overlap between representative government and representative art. (Williams, 1983, pp.25)
Like Williams - and his peer, linguistic Norman Fairclough – I would argue that language is
‘important enough to merit the attention of all citizens’ (Fairclough, 2001, pp.3). Consequently, in the early stages of the research I found it frustrating to be dismissed for my interest in ‘just’
the words’.81 Arguably, ideologies associated with ‘the participatory museum’ (Simon, 2010, no pagination) and the ‘social turn’ (Bishop, 2005, pp.178) have moved the focus away from text as primary interpretation devices. Other methods that visibly embrace the ‘architecture of participation’ (Simon, 2006, no pagination) such as live, social interactions with visitor assistants, tours and events; or technological devices websites, iPads, films and audio guides are now prioritised (Simon, 2010, pp.152). By reframing their focus this way it is my argument that collections are failing to acknowledge the constructivist effects of written discourse to produce ‘social identities’ (Fairclough, 1993, pp.64) and ‘subject positions’ (ibid). Hence, collections maintain their authoritative tone and their regulation of social hierarchy. By this I mean, the roles of curators as ‘experts’ and users as ‘laypersons’ are sedimented and remain contingent on how individuals are able to understand the discourse used by curators – which some have called ‘curatorspeak’ (Waldmeier, 2017b, no pagination).
In Fairclough’s manuscript Language and Power (Fairclough, 2001, no pagination) he borrows keywords from Williams to illustrate that ‘a word is not an isolated and independent thing’ (pp.94). Chiefly text-based, Fairclough’s theory of Critical Discourse Analysis82 helps us to understand that ‘power is partly discourse, and discourse is partly power (…) they flow into each other’ and ‘can be internalised’ (Fairclough, 2010, pp.4). When used within the context
81 Documented throughout this research, I have kept an ethnographic diary which documents interactions with staff members and professionals that dismiss text and wall-based interpretation.
82 Mouffe and Laclau’s conception of discourse theory views the social world as being wholly constructed by discourse whilst
‘CDA distinguishes between discursive and non-discursive social practices’ (Rear, pp.12)
of an art museum, words enter into relationships that assert power by condensing, simplifying and assimilating; creating a system that puts ordinary people last (Harvey, 1996, pp.83).
Considering recent efforts to multiply communicatory and productive experiences with publics to generate knowledge (Sitzia, 2018, pp.74), this raises the question; do ‘those at the heart of museum representational practice (…) resist the dialogic turn?’ (Styles, 2011, pp.12)83 This is a question that I return to throughout this research when investigating the efficacy of dialogue to collaborate with publics.
Lastly, Williams sees Keywords as a collective opportunity to discuss knowledge and difference. In the text, he requests his readers share our own interpretations of words by leaving blank spaces. He adds; ‘that the author will welcome all amendments, corrections and additions’ (Williams, 1983, pp.26). Above all, Williams wanted Keywords to be useful (Bennett et al., 2005, pp.xxv)84 to speakers of ‘our common language’ (Williams, 1983, pp.26) and to relay the idea that ‘this is the only spirit in which this work can be done’ (ibid).85 TPG shares this philosophy.