BLACK DOGS - PAWING OVER YORKSHIRE'S HOTTEST ART COLLECTIVE

As they celebrate the publication of their second Black Dogs Almanac, art collective Black Dogs' Lawrence Molloy, Dave Ronalds, Dan Carey, Andy Abbott and Jon Slight discuss the trials and treats of working as a pack. How and why did you get involved with Black Dogs?

LM: We met at Leeds Uni, mostly in the pub and just used to talk, that was the best bit, arguing and discussing ideas. When we had ideas we wanted to present them to people just to see how they reacted, see how they responded. We all wanted to make art and put on events but there was a lack of resources locally so we decided that instead of waiting for someone to help us we would try and do it ourselves.

DR: That's pretty much it. It was definitely a response to the fact that thee was nothing to do (apart from making things that lacked meaning without an audience), nowhere to show etc etc etc. Like Lawrence says, we just got a bit sick of waiting for someone to help us out and did it ourselves. In that way I think it was all a bit punk really. Even now I feel like it's much more like belonging to a band or a gang than it is an 'art group'. I like it that way.

JS: Ditto, I just wanted to have a go.

AA: As I remember it, Black Dogs formed to put on an exhibition. Then once we had done that we realised it was a fun use of our time, so carried on doing more stuff than we originally intended. However, I think there was a final objective in sight when we discussed forming a group. I'm very happy that we have done many things that were originally unexpected and unplanned though, they are always best.

What do artists gain from collaborating on projects?

LM: When making art I often think that you sometimes can't see the wood for the trees, by collaborating you come across new and interesting methods of working as well as having people to question what you're doing.

DR: I think I've sort of started to answer this... I'm sure there's more to it for others though. You get to share skills and knowledge, share workloads and split costs and all that practical stuff. For me though it still boils down to the fact that it's more fun: working on your own is dull and lonely. It's also true that there is indeed strength in numbers.

JS: Friends.

DC: As Dave says, there's the strength that comes from pooling our finances and technical skill, but also the opportunity to discuss and argue ideas that we all have an active interest in. It gives us opportunities that simply wouldn't have come up if we were working individually, and so we have the chance to work in a variety of areas and on diverse projects.

AA: Fresh perspectives and practical support are totally right. I also think the confidence boost you get from a friendly and relaxed group discussion about ideas and work is very valuable. It's too easy for artists to get caught up in their own world and begin to feel lost or self-conscious (and very serious) if they think about stuff too hard. Most of our meetings are spent laughing about how crap but possibly brilliant each others' suggestions for work/exhibitions/events/titles are, which makes for a group of more laid-back individuals.

As a group, have you come up against problems that wouldn't be faced by individual artists?

LM: There are disadvantages as well as advantages when working in a group. One is time, being involved in a group takes up a lot of time and energy. Another is that as a group we hardly ever all agree on something so a lot of the time different things get tried out that not all of us agree with. The problem is that the audience will see what we have presented as a group and assume that we all agree or think the same and this is not the case.

DR: I can see what Lawrence is getting at... but I think I'm usually much more content with what we do than he is - or at least not that bothered when I think something's a bit crap or doesn't really represent me as an individual. There generally has to be a bit of 'the group being more important than the individual', which I suppose can be a bit difficult - but at the same time the group is nothing without the individual characters which make it up. In this way I think everyone is always represented. I also think that when you're working alone you obviously have absolute power over your output whereas in a group the things you'd like to do are moderated by the opinions of others. This can be tough but (if you trust the opinions of your colleagues) it can be a blessing, because it makes you think twice about executing ideas that aren't worth bothering with yet encourages you to pursue the ideas that make you shine. Having said all this, I think it's nitpicking - I never have a problem with working in a group.

JS: I don't think any of it is problematic. It's a learning experience, so I enjoy it all.

DC: Nothing that we've come up against has suggested to me that working alone would be a better idea. The greatest potential problem is that if we don't voice our opinions when discussing group work then we'd come out with something that is an unsatisfactory compromise, which would defeat the point of the group. But I feel that it's important to make mistakes otherwise we won't actually learn anything substantial.

AA: I agree, I think the mistakes that could be identified in Black Dogs activity have taught us more than the successes. The hurdles are the most interesting part of the (dog) race. So the problems aren't really problems in the end. If there were one particular logistical drawback to working in a group as opposed to working individually, I'd say that it was that you have to communicate all your ideas to at least five other people, which can take a lot of time. In the end, of course, that is probably one of the biggest factors in our individual development and the most useful skill that you can pick up from working in a group.