This discussion for Spotlight on Arts was recorded in the basement gallery at the Adult Education Centre during the Intangible Labour exhibition, bringing together a group of artists whose practices sit deliberately outside dominant institutional pathways. What emerges most clearly is not a single aesthetic position, but a shared experience of working independently in a system that routinely demands artists chase funding, approval, and legitimacy at the expense of time, wellbeing, and creative focus. The exhibition itself resists conventional gallery logic. There is no wall text, no hierarchy of names, and no prescribed route through the space. Visitors are invited to slow down, construct their own narratives, and engage on their own terms. For the artists, this approach mirrors how the work is made: relational, exploratory, and grounded in lived experience rather than market expectation. Several contributors describe practices shaped by working-class backgrounds, neurodivergence, street culture, performance, music, and autobiographical reflection. These are forms of cultural production that rarely sit comfortably within formal funding criteria or commercial gallery models. A recurring theme in the conversation is the burden of what Miffy Ryan describes as “intangible labour”: the unpaid hours spent applying for grants, paying submission fees, networking under pressure, absorbing rejection, and navigating systems that reward conformity and confidence over care and experimentation. Artists speak candidly about how monetisation structures distort practice, pushing them towards output-driven production or self-promotion strategies that undermine the very reasons they make work. For some, these environments are actively exclusionary, reinforcing classed expectations about language, behaviour, and appearance. What stands in contrast is the value of mutual support, trust, and shared space. Rather than waiting for permission or validation, this group has created its own conditions for making and showing work. The process of installing the exhibition, performing live music, and simply spending time together in the space becomes part of the artwork itself. Relationships between artists and curator are collaborative rather than transactional, and participation is shaped by invitation and care rather than competition. The discussion does not offer a neat alternative funding model, nor does it pretend that independence removes precarity. Instead, it points to something more modest but more sustainable: locally rooted, artist-led ecosystems that prioritise process, presence, and peer support. Several contributors express a desire not for scale or visibility in abstract terms, but for continuity: spaces where artists can return, develop, and take risks without constantly having to justify their existence. Taken together, the conversation suggests that supporting independent artists is less about refining application processes and more about recognising where value already exists. Time, space, trust, and modest financial security matter more than branding workshops or competitive calls. Intangible Labour demonstrates that when artists are freed, even temporarily, from the demand to chase approval, they produce work that is generous, challenging, and deeply human. Source
