MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE – 8
Do artist-led organisations improve with age? Are the ones which only last a short time ‘unsuccessful’?
Many organisations in this report have lasted many years and are now as much a part of the visual arts scene as any other type. Sometimes, however, it is difficult to assess whether they are still ‘artist-run’ or have grown, organically, into something else, or indeed whether it matters either way. Debbie Duffin[1] comments in her book that the initial enthusiasm for artists of running their own gallery may wane after months of long hours of unpaid work (with no time to do their own). It doesn’t necessarily follow that the appointment of an administrator will solve that problem, because as some groups have found, this can affect the fundamental nature and intentions of the space in various ways.
The practicalities of operating as a group are often an issue for visual arts people who are highly individual and whose art school courses have focused this characteristic even further. The level of ‘democracy’ inherent in a truly artist-run venture may mean that making decisions about what a group does, how it is financed and other key issues become a long and sometimes unhappy process, and one which has caused many groups to drift apart, or more dramatically, to self-destruct.
Given the responsive nature of visual arts practice, it is perhaps inevitable that a group of artists, sharing a common concern, may come together at a particular point in time to take action in a particular way. For example, the Lepton Artists Group played a mayor part in the campaign to stop the E11 motorway demolishing their (short-term let) houses. Despite their efforts, the scheme went ahead and the artists’ community was broken up and the group, by default, disbanded. The work of the live art grouping Nosepaint grew naturally into the creation of Beaconsfield as a formally constituted organisation, retaining the same artists but with new perspectives gained from previous experiences.
This sort of flux and change may bewilder funding bodies, because it does not fit comfortably into their long-term planning processes. Eilis O’Baoill[2], writing about the difficulties said “Funding bodies may never fully understand or support these innovations” although she added that “but for the [artists], social intervention rather than financial gain is the ultimate objective.” And because of that, it may never be realistic for artist-led organisations to expect to be supported through the traditional funding structure.
By the time Leeds Arts Space got agreement for funds from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts towards their gallery/installation space, the building had closed down and group transfigured into two separate ones in different buildings.
It may come as no surprise to conclude here that artist-led organisations which work ‘best’ are those in which the artists already know and like each other, have ideologies in common, and in which issues of ‘leadership’ aren’t a contest.
That an artists’ building may act as a catalyst for development, rather than as a visual arts resource is indicated by Sussex-based Red Herring, that formed in 1984, and moved buildings several times. Despite the upheavals, its artists have contributed regularly to arts activities in the area including the Brighton Festival, and by doing so appear to have made a not inconsiderable contribution to raising the profile of the visual arts there. Artists from the group played a major role in the council’s decision to adopt a percent for art policy. Although at one point the group employed an administrator to develop projects instigated by artists, they later returned to handling everything themselves in preference. Collaborative projects now being developed by members and former members of this group include Fabrica, a major new visual arts centre in Brighton due to open in 1996.
In my article in 1993[3], I said that “An artist-led approach brings a greater degree of autonomy and empowerment. By choosing to create the terms of reference and creative parameters of a project, artists make conscious decisions about collaboration, change and compromise.” Clearly not all artist-led organisations are innovative or exemplary. But whilst some provide stimulating examples, others perform a more simple role and create the framework which enables artists to survive and thrive, and to relate to and engage with the art world, with communities and with society. All are part of the ‘critical mass’ which is crucial for the healthy development of visual arts.
[1]Investigating Galleries, AN Publications 1994
[2]‘Growing Visibility’, a-n July 1995
[3]‘Empowerment’, a-n April 1993
