Measuring the experience: the scope and value of artist-led organisations

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #15

The [information in the prior post] is not provided in order to suggest that there is, or necessarily should be, a direct relationship between the intentions and aspirations for visual arts policies and the financial situation for artists. Neither is it intended to imply that how arts policies impact on the income levels of artists should be part of measuring their success or otherwise. Rather, it serves to look at the development of one field of work and to note its impact on the working practices of artists. It has been included to provide one indication of why some artists in recent years have formed their own groups and devised alternative mechanisms through which to pursue their artistic vision, and to do so, have instigated practices which directly relate to their needs as creative people rather than in response to the current strategies of arts bodies.

Clearly, too artists have found strength in working collectively. As the case studies show, by forming groups, they have been able to raise the profile and visibility of artists locally and regionally, to increase public awareness of their profession, to instigate and raise funds for large-scale artistic collaborations and substantial public art programmes and to establish major visual arts resources for the benefit of current and future generations of artists.

Reviewing 1996/97 visual arts scheme guidelines[1] suggests that amongst the funding bodies, the emphasis has shifted a good deal in a decade. There are now fewer mentions of art in public places and artists in school schemes[2] and several of schemes which aim to provide “personal development”, “a period of exploration and experimentation” and “support for research projects and career breaks that stimulate the production of new and innovative work which experiments with ideas, issues, materials and technology”. These aspirations seem somewhat similar to the policies of the early 1980s when schemes offered by arts bodies were intended to “buy time to concentrate on new work”, offered “the opportunity to continue work free from other pressures or commitments” and aimed to “foster an individual’s creative development…”.[3] Notably also, a commentary on the mechanisms for support of individual role artists for Year of the Artist 2000, said that “More resources… should be established, particularly providing increased opportunities for [individual artists] to experiment and reflect”.[4]

Such a shift seems to suggest a general revival of interest in artists because they are creative people concerned with pursuing and developing ideas rather than because they can deliver goods or services which fulfil specific market needs which have been identified by other professionals. Notably, cultural planners have also emphasised that artists’ thinking processes, and thus their problem-solving techniques, can be applied to a wide range of social situations. This is because they are characterised as being “holistic/flexible/lateral/networking; innovative/original/experimental; critical/enquiring/challenging/questioning; people-centred/humanistic; ‘cultured’/knowledgeable about [an area].”[5] Such characteristics are equally apparent in the way artist-led organisations think and operate.

[1] See ‘Financially challenged’, Lee Corner, Artists Newsletter, April 1996 and Grant guide for craftspeople 1996/97, Crafts Council, 1996.

[2] This is in part because such work may no longer be the direct responsibility of the arts board or council because it is now handled by independent bodies or dealt with through strategic policies with local authorities or other partners.

[3] Artists Newsletter, September 1980

[4] Summary of Arts Council of England think-tank proposals for Year of the Artist, 2000

[5] ‘Liverpool as a ‘work of life’, Franco Bianchini, The Role of Museums and the Arts in the Urban Regeneration of Liverpool, Centre for Urban History, University of Leicester, 1996

[6] The conference led to the ‘Chimera’ symposium in Australia in 1995. Projects Environment plans include further events in 1997 and a major publication on artist-led practice envisaged for 1998.

[7] This included Bank, Cairn Gallery, City Racing, Cubitt Gallery, Imprint 93, Independent Art Space, Locus+ and Transmission who each had a mini-show within the main exhibit.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #14

The Arts Council of Great Britain’s enthusiasm for percent for art, a mechanism for commissioning art and craft work within public building schemes, was highlighted through a campaign launched formally in 1988 which subsequently echoed across the country. By that year, there were already seven organisations whose specific job it was to promote and generate public art in partnership with public and private bodies. These public art agencies, which had largely been spawned by the arts funding bodies, provided another layer in the arts delivery infrastructure.

It was hoped that public art, with its access to large new funding sources and its high visibility, might also raise the profile of artists and enhance their employment prospects. Percent for Art: a review contained the comments that “percent for art might be used more widely… to the mutual benefit of artists and craftspeople, architects, landscape designers, the commissioning bodies, the public and the environment as a whole” and “If I were asked to identify a significant factor that would enable artists and craftspeople to make both a valued and challenging contribution to the development of our environment, that would undoubtedly be percent for art”.[1]

Research in 1990 had suggested that twenty-one percent of artists derived their main income from commissions for public and private clients with a further forty-eight percent gaining some income from that field of work. The opportunities for artists to work in the field of commissions and residencies doubled between 1989 and 1990.[2] By 1993, some twenty-one percent of local authorities were employing specialist public art officers or agencies in order to fulfil policies for environmental improvement, entertainment, conservation, community provision, tourism and the arts.[3]

Current information, however suggests that work in this field has not yet substantially improved the income-generation prospects of visual artists that such a ‘boom’ might have suggested.[4] Of the ten categories of income cited in a review of artists’ income and fees in 1994/95, commissions for public and private clients were the most important income source for thirteen percent of artists. The review found that sixty-two percent of artists earned less than £10,000 a year.[5] Artists also appear to be worse off in real terms. In 1990/91, the average income for artists was the equivalent of eighty-five percent of the national average gross income, by 1994/95 the percentage had decreased to seventy-one.[6] Indeed, a recent statement from the Visual Arts Department of the Arts Council of England noted that “For most British artists who have yet to benefit from the flow of new funds from lottery commissions, conditions have worsened: part-time teaching has virtually ceased, and tax and social security problems remain unresolved”.[7]

[1] Preface by Sandy Nairne, Director of Visual Arts and cover statement by Lord Palumbo of Walbrook, Chair of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Percent for Art: a review, Arts Council of Great Britain, 1991

[2] The Visual Arts Survey, Susan Jones, Arts Council of Great Britain/London Institute, 1990 and Business Plan for AXIS – visual arts exchange and information service, 1990

[3] The Benefits of Public Art, Sara Selwood, PSI, 1995

[4] It should, however, be noted that the impact of National Lottery funds for public art projects and for artists’ involvement in capital projects in general has yet to be measured as regards specific income-generation for artists.

[5] Artists fees and payments, draft report, Phyllida Shaw & Keith Allen, National Artists Association, 1996. This figure is comparable with the Socio-economic study of artists in Scotland which found that 67% of artists earned less than £10,000 year for 1994.

[6] See ‘Rights in Sight’, Millie Taylor, Artists Newsletter, September 1996 which reviewed research by the National Artists Association into artists’ income and made comparison with previous surveys.

[7] Contextualising statement for a Public Forum for the Visual Arts: the status of the artist, held by the Arts Council of England’s Visual Arts Department in Newcastle upon Tyne, 14 November 1996.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #13

My intention when setting out (in 1993-96), to study the work and activities of artist-led organisations – that is those in which the ideology and artistic practice of artists are the starting point – had many strands. I wanted to determine how work which is developed largely on the basis of artistic need contributes to the raft of activities which together form the contemporary visual arts milieu. I felt it would be valuable to set this work against the strategies and policies which drive the ‘arts infrastructure’, the increasingly complex framework through which money from government and elsewhere trickles down through various bodies, agencies, galleries and other organisations and which enables art to be created and an engagement with other people to take place.

Running alongside was my desire to find out whether this way of working could have an impact on artists and the public which might be significant as regards long-term development of the visual arts and role of artists I wanted to know whether artist-led ventures might provide a platform from which artists could more readily embark on making relationships with the people and other professionals around them and by doing so, suggest a redefinition of the position of artists and their work both within the arts infrastructure and within society. I also wished to know how such an approach might impact on the ability of artists to make some kind of living from their practice and also the potential to increase numbers of people who might engage in some way with the visual arts.

Some key decisions made over a decade ago by the arts funding system set a pattern which have determined how artists and their practice fitted into the arts funding framework and thus, by default, the status artists’ practice has within current development strategies. The Arts Council of Britain in their 1984 policy document The Glory of the Garden described a visual arts strategy which by enhancing partnerships with local authorities and galleries would strengthen the position of contemporary practice by placing it within an historical context and at the same time provide an increased funding base for the arts by drawing in local authority support. By reallocating existing funds to support this, mechanisms which had provided funding for individual artists would have to cease and “public support for artists would remain for the moment an aspiration for the future”.

Within support for artists schemes by regional arts associations,there were those offering funds purely for artistic practice, experiment and risk-taking were others which more precisely defined the role of artists and with whom they should consider working. A review of visual arts policies for 1986/87[2] included mention of several schemes which would place artists in industrial, educational and community settings and others concerned with commissioning art for public places. Partnerships were a way of supplementing the funds of the arts bodies but of ensuring that local authorities, business sector and others demonstrated a financial commitment to the arts.

Various surveys around that time suggest that income levels for artists were low[3], with a fifth of artists gaining their main income from work unrelated to the arts. Nearly a fifth of artists received social security and for a sixth of them, artistic activity was supported in some way by their family. Having an exhibition in a public gallery created an average loss for an artist of £389 (including the value of sales but excluding costs for materials and the artist’s making time). An average annual income for painters from sale of work was estimated to be £1,200 a year.[4]

The arts funding structure later went through an upheaval as ten regional arts boards were created from twelve regional arts associations. As part of their new role, regional arts boards further cemented relationships with local authorities as a strategic way of heightening regional identity and maximising resources.

[1] Defining Values: Evaluating arts programmes, Francois Matarasso, Comedia Working Paper 1, , 1996

[2] Artists Newsletter, August, September 1986

[3] survey of artists in Devon in 1989/90 suggests average income of £8,344, 75% of national average gross income (The Economics and Social Characteristics of Artists in Devon, Ruth Towse, South West Arts, 1991)

[4] Artists Newsletter readership survey August 1994, from Artists Newsletter survey 1985 of artists’ exhibiting costs, from Marketing Art survey by John Kaser, and Tony Warner’s survey of artists in Norwich, all published in Artists Newsletter, October 1986.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE – 12

“The Arts Council…has handed down responsibilities to the regional arts boards who in turn have farmed out functions to mini-quangos. Every step of the way a new little bureaucracy has been born to ensure the most cost effective way of the little money left.”

Fiachra Gibbons, The Show Must Be Run, The Guardian, 11 July 1995

Other biographic references from my report Refreshing alternatives (preface to Measuring the experience):

Happening near you’, Andrea Phillips, Artists Newsletter February 1995

‘Growing Visibility’, Eilis O’Baoill, Artists Newsletter, July 1995

‘Group hits lottery jackpot’, Piers Masterson, Artists Newsletter July 1995

Empowerment’, Susan Jones, Artists Newsletter April 1993

‘The show must be run’, Fiachra Gibbons, The Guardian , 11 July 1995

Art with People, ed Malcolm Dickson, AN Publications 1995

Art in Public, ed Susan Jones, AN Publications 1993

Investigating Galleries, Debbie Duffin, AN Publications 1994

Directory of Exhibition Spaces, ed Janet Ross, AN Publications 1995

Fundraising: the artist’s guide to planning and financing work, ed Susan Jones, An Publications 1993

Papers by David Butler, Gail Boardman, Janet Summerton and Lee Corner for the City University Symposium on Artists’ Enterprise July 1995

Survey of Group Studio Provision, Susan Jones/NAA (produced as part of this study) 1995

Survey of artists in Cardiff (for Cardiff City Council) by Emma Gelliot for Old Library Artists 1994

The Artist in the Changing City, British American Arts Association 1993

Organizing Artists, USA 1993

Stepping Stones, study of artist-run galleries, MA thesis, Sarah Clarke 1994

Cultural Trends in Scotland, Policy Studies Institute 1995

A Socio-Economic Study of Artists in Scotland, Scottish Arts Council/Glasgow University 1995

London Arts Board Corporation Plans 1994/95, 1995/96

Schedule for Visual Arts Region UK 1996, Northern Sights July 1995 

“The most significant factor of the artist-space movement is that art has been put back into the hands of artists and artist-curators. Artist run spaces have given art and artists a higher degree of validation and importance in their own cities and communities.”

Cheryl Jackson, Organising artists, USA 1993

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE – 11

Are artist-led organisations more successful at attracting or retaining audiences?

Quantifying ‘audiences’ as regards visual arts activities is not easy because although it is possible to cite how many children participated in an residency, it is less easy to say how many have been ‘touched by art’ because there is an artists’ studio group in their area. The following, however, is one example of the latter. Because of its location in an industrial part of the city, Sunderland Artists Group gained the respect of other professionals and artisans who worked there, creating a common ground partly because of shared tools and techniques. These people became a day-by-day ‘audience’ for the work of some 15 artists and had no problem in regarding them as ‘professionals’ regardless of any comparison between income levels. These people also came along, with their friends and relations, to the artists’ exhibitions and events thus the audience for gallery art was also increased.

More specifically, groups such as Rochester-based Art for Life, set up in 1988, has provided 40 people with learning difficulties with effective ways of gaining fulfilment from the visual arts through classes, joint projects and open exhibitions. Many other groups within the ‘community action’ category also bear witness to this.

By holding their events outside normal gallery situations, artists in groups like Fine Rats International have to ‘sell’ what they do to everyone from Department of Transport and police officials, to prospective sponsors as well as to art funders. The 1994 event held at a disused coal-mine now used as a museum, contained a piece by one artist which deeply offended the former miners who staffed the building. But because the artist ‘mediated’ his own work, he could address the criticisms immediately, set out his intentions, and by discussion turn his critics into supporters. Although situations like this do not necessarily create ‘audiences’ for art galleries, they do help to shape a particular group of people’s perceptions about a particular set of artists, and by doing so, create new audiences or supporters for the arts. Fine Rats was also cited in the Arts Council of Great Britain’s 1993/94 report as having “attracted many people [to Under Spaghetti Junction] who had never attended an art event before. “

Space Explorations, which also makes exhibitions outside galleries, is similarly interested to have more people see their art work. They described the audience for their 1994 event ‘One Million Cubic Feet’ as a total of 1,300 people over 17 days. This was broken down as “8% from the local community including members of the public interested in the history of the building, ex-workers, ex-users of the space and local business people, 25% from educational establishments through group visits, 2% tourists and 65% from the art-going public.” For them, using buildings such as an old power station, the Royal Observatory and Holborn Town Hall suits their needs to have “freedom and time [to] make a piece of work in a space” and also it “works well as a community thing. People who live around there and have seen the building can look in. You are learning something from the people around you, not just imposing yourself. You pick things up from them…”

Note that Space explorations and Fine Rats International were selected for detailed case studies for this research project.