IN ART DOGS EAT DOGS & MR. CLEAN KNOWS HOW TO FIGHT DIRTY

1997, Brussels-Amsterdam-London. Unofficial performance X 4 with whispers, texts, photo, slides viewer, plastic cards.

In each of the galleries the unofficial performance started shortly after we had arrived. One of us went up to individuals and whispered either In art dogs eat dogs or Mr. Clean knows how to fight dirty. The other one walked around showing the image, Whispers, with a small slides viewer. The performance ended with throwing a bunch of green, red and blue plastic cards in the air. At each event the text included the name of the exhibiting artist, the gallery in question and our contact info. We had not been invited to do this performance, it was self organised and part of our public intimacy and unofficial performance project.

I. Gallery MOT & VAN DEN BOOGAARD, Brussels, Douglas Gordon opening 25.04.1997
II. Gallery TORCH, Amsterdam, Peter Klashorst opening 18.10.1997
III. Gallery DE EXPEDITIE, Amsterdam, Keiko Sato opening 18.10.1997
IV. Gallery JAY JOPLING/WHITE CUBE, London, Andreas Slominski opening 27.10.1997

See the below excerpt from a talk between Scott William Raby (artist, arts organiser, researcher) and Åsa Lie.

Newspaper clippings from The Independent.

SCOTT WILLIAM RABY (ARTIST, ARTS ORGANISER, RESEARCHER) TALKING WITH ÅSA LIE. BRUSSELS, APRIL 20th 2025


Scott William Raby: What’s interesting, as we continue to think about and look at these different projects and practices, is that this could be seen as a kind of performative intervention, both within a public space and within the context of the art world. How would you say that this work builds on, develops from, or continues these kinds of interventions? 

Åsa Lie: Our public intimacy project, and issues around official, unofficial, etc., came from the fact that we felt we didn’t have enough opportunities to be active and show our work… We wanted more. So we started self organising, which we had already been doing since 1990. This piece was part of our UPP - Unofficial Performance Project. It was inspired by a France Telecom ad stating; We spend millions of dollars a year to improve word-of-mouth technology. It’s a continuation of the work I showed you earlier titled It's about communication between people. The rest is technology.

SWR: Yes, it's the corporate communications advertising language.

ÅL: Exactly. First we saw that photograph and text by Telecom. Then there was an article about politics - it’s from The Independent, I think - in which we found the sentence; Don't be fooled, Mr. Clean knows how to fight dirty. The article was about power games in business and politics. We also felt, okay, of course, as an artist… In the nineties in Brussels, there was a lot of competition. There weren’t that many artists, but there were also very few galleries and very little support, grants and other opportunities were scarce. So the competition was quite strong. Curators and gallerists were also part of that, because they wanted to choose and invest in certain artists, so then it was perhaps important to keep others more on the sidelines and not give them much chance. In connection with that situation we thought, we're not going to sit around waiting to be invited, we're just going to do this. 

SWR: The funny thing is, though, that it’s not much different from what you’d expect today, I’d say. The art world is still more accessible to some people and less to others. There’s still a lot of exclusion, a lot of competition. So in some ways, I don’t think things have changed.

ÅL: This was indeed very much about the inside-outside dynamic. All of us, I think, have felt or feel this strongly: are we included, or are we excluded?

SWR: Who has access to the art sector? Which artists or art workers can exhibit, have studio space, build a career?

ÅL: In the ad, a man is whispering into another man’s ear. Jadran went around with a small slides viewer showing an image of him whispering into my ear, while I whispered to gallery visitors: Mr. Clean knows how to fight dirty, or,  In art, dogs eat dogs. People started wondering what was happening. Then we threw a bunch of small plastic cards into the air, letting them scatter across the floor. Some people picked one up. We did it playfully and it only took a few minutes. I don’t remember any artist being upset about our intervention. Actually they seemed positive, but the gallerists weren’t that happy, some a bit worried. We did this performance in Brussels, Amsterdam and London. Not to critique the exhibiting artist or even the gallery, but to ask: Who gets to show? Who decides? Are opportunities distributed? Why is one artist everywhere while others never exhibit? A reflection on how the art world operates. The intervention also highlighted the semi-public nature of galleries. They are partially public, yet not fully accessible - defining who can act and who can’t.

SWR: What artistic practices are considered acceptable within the context of a gallery space or an exhibition opening? What's interesting to me is the different aspects of the performance that are about political and economic language, and how it was appropriated by you and Jadran into your artistic practice. Through social action and intervention, you temporarily reprogrammed the space, literally gaining access to an environment that is normally exclusive or inaccessible to artists. It's fascinating. 

ÅL: It was also important not to hide who we were. We always made it clear: what we were doing at this space, at the opening of this or that artist, on this date, and here’s our contact number. If someone was upset and wanted to complain, they had the chance. 
We only stayed for a few minutes. On the plastic cards it says Performance for Unrestricted Access in the Network Society. It was meant to echo the language of business people. Of how we thought business people talked. A bit satirical.

SWR: It also speaks to one of the functions of an exhibition opening, which can be a kind of perverse networking situation where artists are expected to perform a certain version, sometimes an exaggerated version, of themselves. In that sense, your performance responds to this dynamic in a more concise, critical, and performative way, challenging or reconfiguring these expectations in a very specific manner.

ÅL: Yes, because it’s about overcoming obstacles in a way. We noticed it was a relief for many exhibition visitors, and artists, that something unplanned and uncontrolled happened. So, of course, it was also entertaining to a certain extent. 

SWR: Did you say Douglas Gordon really enjoyed it? 

ÅL: Yes, we think he did. It was a long time ago... The performance had a questioning side, in the form of an invitation, trying to loosen up the art world a bit. As I saw it, it was also about showing that we as artists can do this. We also want to play! We respected what was being shown, the artists and the spaces, which were chosen because we thought they were interesting. For me, this didn’t exclude doing it, but I understand that others might have seen it differently, some may have thought it was disrespectful. We took that risk.
 

Backside of a plastic card used in one of the performances, with the name of the exhibiting artist, the gallery in question and our contact info.