In Transition

Brett Jones

First published on Midwest, March 2006.

In my previous article I outlined some of the issues that artist-run spaces necessarily face when working towards a sustainable and ongoing operation, in particular the role of human resources in developing an artist-run organization as a longer term proposition. In this article I will look at three organizations that have addressed the issue of sustainability in different ways, and consider some of the factors that have enabled them to evolve into artist-run institutions.

It is often the efforts and actions of artist-run organizations that have influenced arts policy to support their activities. Through the work of individuals; their commitment, expertise and organizational skills, their interest in broader cultural issues and their belief that artists need to determine the contexts of their professional development each organization has worked to change the funding culture both for their benefit and for others who follow. So what have the individuals involved with Para/Site Art Space in Hong Kong, The Western Front in Vancouver and West Space in Melbourne done to get over the hurdles that frequently prevent artist-run spaces becoming sustainable propositions? What structures have they put in place and how have they capitalized on the local cultural conditions of the time?

Because artist-run spaces generally form spontaneously as a response to the cultural conditions of a local context, they rarely begin with any kind of operational structure. Rather they work with certain shared ideas and values that are applied operationally through trial and error. In other words, there is no business plan or programmatic approach to their operation. However, as time passes and the demands of recurrent government funding step in, it becomes necessary for the organization to translate ideals and visions into calculated operational planning.

Shifting an organisation built on a friendship circle with consensus decision making processes to one with strategic plans and formally conducted meetings may test the resolve of the members, challenging the notion that the existence of the organization is invested in the founders, and raising the question of who really owns the organization. In the characteristically direct fashion of a five year old, my daughter recently asked 'who owns West Space'. She asked this question from the perspective of a society that attributes ownership through financial interests to most things, presuming that I had a financial stake in West Space. When I told her that a group of people owned West Space and that those people could change, she did not quite understand.1

And so it is with artist-run spaces that notions of ownership are generally forged not through normal societal presumptions of labour exchanged for money, but belief in a common cause, though made more complicated as artists frequently mix the notion of a common cause with professional ambitions and benefits. Of course volunteers work in many areas of society for common causes, but they generally are not responsible for the management of these organizations, the people ultimately responsible are paid for their labour and skills.

Perhaps one of the defining criteria of an artist-run space becoming an artist-run institution is when it begins to pay people to manage its operations. But does this necessarily mean that the organization has established a technocratic level of administration and is technocracy not the engine room of mainstream society anyway?

The transformation of artist-run spaces into artist-run institutions does not happen with ease as some supporters may feel the organization has betrayed its core value (being run by artists). However, what exactly is meant by artists running their spaces or centres? Does this automatically mean that artists must fill all the operational roles (director, program manager, curator etc) and make up the majority of members on the board or management committee as well?

The transition of Para/Site Art Space in Hong Kong into a more sustainable model has resulted in the appointment of a non-artist in the role of director/curator signalling an increased professionalization of Para/Site's operational structure. Moreover, this appointment was filled by a non-Hong Kong person of European origin.

It was a bold move to employ a person with solid 'western' credentials at the head of an organization with a strong grass roots following in a context of deep cultural pride. These debates have been given air on the Para/Site on-line guest book and though they are often personalised to the appointee they are also fundamentally challenging Para/Site in its new incarnation as a contemporary art space. Ironically, the new Para/Site is quite consistent with similar spaces across the west, including Art Space in Auckland where Tobias Berger was previously director.

Yet it can be argued that Para/Site has retained its artist-run mission as it still has four of its original artist founders on its board and the original vision and direction is maintained through the presence of these individuals. In this scenario one must remember that the director/curator is employed by, and accountable to, the board who remain responsible for strategic planning and policy. Therefore though the director has some autonomy the board still guides, monitors and evaluates his performance in relation to the objectives in the business plan and the curator/director's position description.

In 1995 the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) was established as part of a governmental arts policy that recognised the importance of local contemporary art practice, a move which reflected a heightened interest in local culture caused by the impending handover of Hong Kong to China by the British in 1997. Just as the HKADC had been formed with pressure from the local arts community2 the organizations that grew out of its support were artist initiated and led. Since being established in 1996, Para/Site Art Space's growth has been rapid in relation to the development of artist-run organizations in other parts of the world. In less than 10 years it has gone from a tight circle of seven peers showing their own work, to an organization that is not disimilar in structure to contemporary art spaces in various western countries with national and international profiles.

The first phase reflected its location in Western (a district on Hong Kong Island west of Central) largely consisted of the founding group presenting a series of installations for 12 months. This initial program set the tone and method of the organization for its future activities through the emphasis on site specific and installation work, with a nod towards the implicit narrative qualities of photo based media. From 1997, with its move into Sheung Wan (closer to Central) Para/Site was conscious that contemporary Hong Kong art needed international networks and connections.

When I travelled to Hong Kong in 1998 for the first West Space exchange project with Para/Site, it immediately stuck me how important access to adequate resources was to its development; most noticeably that they could employ two staff. However whilst Para/Site could not have achieved what they had so quickly without government funding they also had another ingredient central to their development, namely a group of artists with shared values and ambitions. I also observed how the group's outward looking attitude emanated confidence in the rapidly developing local contemporary art scene to which they were integral. This synergy between individuals, organisations and the context of their emergence is often about being in the right place at the right time, but also about an awareness of each others's role in a newly developing culture.

The Western Front was similarly established at time when the local culture was exploring and questioning its relations to artist led activity in other parts of the world and, as Para/Site was established by a group of friends and peers, The Western Front was founded by eight friends who each purchased a share in a historic building3 in Vancouver in 1973.

It is quite unique in the history of artist-run spaces (or centers as they are called in Canada) for the founding group to purchase their own premises, especially with the forming of the organization. The global property boom of the 1980s has made this option impossible for more recent artist-run organizations, however even then it would have taken a fair amount of foresight and belief for a group of artists with very modest means to take such a step4. Several of the founders also had living space in the building and so they developed a kind of fraternity built on interpersonal relations and cultural activity. Indeed, one founder (Eric Metcalfe) and a previous long serving member (Hank Bull) still live in the building today.

I worked with The Western Front in 2004 on the Organization for Cultural Exchange and Disagreement (OCED) project and this gave me a valuable insight into how the vision of the founders can be manifested after more than 30 years of operation. The building continues its living history through the many artists who have had residencies in the building and the sense of life and society as being inseparable from art and ideas remains, partly due to several founding members continued involvement into the early 2000s. Policies and procedures were not documented until more recently because the practices of the organization were embodied in the continued involvement of founding or long serving members; a kind of common law passed on through their interaction with others.

In an essay in 'Museums by Artists' AA Bronson refers to the 'national attributes [of] the bureaucratic tendency and the protestant work ethic'5 as a condition important to the shaping and development of artist organized activity in the late 1960s and 1970s in Canada. In particular, it is worth noting that Canada was amongst the first countries to provide direct operational support to artist-run centres (ARCs) through government funding. Therefore, before I went to Canada I had a picture of an 'artist-run centre industry' with well healed hard working cultural workers dutifully going about their tasks with the zealousness of the Shakers and, as it turned out, this was pretty close to the reality though with a little more humour and play. Most interestingly for me, in a cultural environment not dissimilar to Australia's, ARCs were recognized as critical components to the culture industry in terms of their contribution to the development and exploration of new ideas and practices.

The main policy differences between Australia and Canada are that the Canada Council recognizes the need for ARCs to be properly funded so that they can pay staff and exhibiting artists. Essentially this means they recognise ARCs as ongoing operations, rather than projects, a move which enables ARCs to receive recurrent funding through specific programs. This differs fundamentally from Australia where artist-run spaces have not received Australia Council recurrent funding. In order to achieve this level of support they need to become contemporary art spaces6. Contemporary art spaces are also known as public galleries in Australia. They can be equated with small museums for contemporary art without collections.

Despite these different cultural conditions West Space has been leading the lengthy battle to obtain recurrent funding for artist-run spaces in Australia's. If Canada as a nation has a 'bureaucratic tendency' and 'protestant work ethic', then Australia has a technocratic tendency coupled with an inherent skepticism and fear of change. With all its so-called progressive social values, Australia is basically a conservative country and so bringing about change in arts policy to provide better support to artist-run spaces is a slow process7.

West Space is pioneering the transition of artist run spaces in Australia into more sustainable models though pressure and practice. It has been a challenge, but gradually funding bodies are realizing that artist run spaces are legitimate visual arts organizations that require ongoing support. Not all of them are projects and some such as West Space have similar levels of infrastructure and professionalism to contemporary art spaces (but we have no desire to be one). There is no good reason why artist run spaces should not also be properly supported, as alternative industry models with their own unique attributes.

Whereas Para/Site and The Western Front were founded by a peer group with shared values, this was not the case with West Space . We do not own any property and did not receive any adequate funding until 2000, seven years after we were established. Our development has been built on a resolute belief in the right of artists to determine the conditions for the presentation of their work and ideas. Underlying this belief is the attitude that the industry (and society) needs to change its preconceptions to better meet the needs of artists.

West Space emerged at a time of recession and in some ways was a response to the effect this economic situation was having on artists. Sarah Stubbs and I, the founders, did not see the organization as a career vehicle or a social project and when it came to recruiting committee members we simply looked for people we could work with, i.e artists with a generosity of spirit and reliability. As the organization developed we sought people with specific skill sets to meet operational needs and creative visions. Now, though the board and staff are ultimately responsible for the organization, many other people have a stake in its ownership and in this sense West Space has become a public organization that is accountable to its different constituencies.

History has a lot to do with shaping an organization. If these histories are well documented and still living then the organization should survive because it stands for something. But it still needs to communicate what it stands for and articulate its beliefs through its activities. In a tough and competitive cultural climate generous people, largely artists, have enabled West Space to develop through their work and commitment. They have shared our founding vision while bringing their own ideas and energies.

In all three cases I would argue that the resolve of the founding members has ensured their organizations became sustainable This is not to dismiss the critical role of funding, but one must put it in perspective. Art and artists came before funding bodies, and funding bodies exist to serve culture and society through the support of contemporary art. There is no such thing as 'free money'8.

Brett Jones.

 
Notes

1 Ironically, a few days later she also asked 'Who owns the government?' to which I had even more trouble answering.

2 Hong Kong Art: Culture and Decolonization , David Clarke, Hong Kong University Press, 2001; Chapter 3.

3 The building still remains much of its character from when it was originally built by the Knights of Pythias in 1922, 'a charitable organization founded in 1964 to heal the hatreds instigated by the American Civil War' (Wallace)

4 Loans from family and friends needed to be obtained by many of the founders due to their irregular and/or low incomes. Whispered Art History: Twenty Years at The Western Front , ed. Keith Wallace, Arsenal Pulp Press, Vancouver, 1993.

5 Museums by Artists, ed. AA Bronson & Peggy Gale, Art Metropole, Toronto, 1983

6 This transition has not happened since the 1980s. Artist-run spaces that have made the shift include Praxis in Perth, which became the Perth Institute of Contemporary Art in the early 1980s and Gertrude Artists Spaces, Melbourne which was founded by a group of artists but quickly became a contemporary art space soon after its establishment in 1984.

7 In particular the intransigence of the Australia Council is a reflection of the values of our very conservative federal government, which has held office for the last ten years. Though the Australia Council is meant to be the 'governments arms length' funder of the arts, as in other areas (notably science, environment and social welfare) it has proven to weigh its influence to suit its political cause.

8 This is a reference to William Wood in his essay 'This is Free Money?' in Whispered History (see above cit.). His reference come from a statement in an ANNPAC letter, but also ties it to a Patti Smith song.

First published on Midwest, March 2006. See www.midwest.org.uk
 
< Prev   Next >

Projects

Yakumo Honjin

Structural Integrity

The High Life

The Devolution Project

West Space East

Rules of Engagement