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

MEAUSURING THE EXPERIENCE – 10

Does a studio group or any other artist-led resource provide anything more than affordable space or access to equipment?

As my Survey of group studio provision [1]indicated, nearly half of studio groups are involved in some kind of group activity, although it follows necessarily that the other half aren’t. Providing ‘affordable space’ was an oft cited aim, and in many instances, groups only undertook one collectively-organised activity annually – an open studio event or group exhibition in another venue.

In short, many group studios are simply a collection of individual spaces used by different artists at different times of the day or night rather than any kind of catalyst for visual arts development. Not withstanding this, they do provide a valuable arts equivalent to ‘starter-units’ for other kinds of business.

Communities of artists (whether in group studios or not) have sometimes played in leading role in community action. For example, the London Field Renewal Partnership’s campaign against a council plan to develop the area, and the E11 campaign, where artists and others in a community worked collectively to stop the building of a motorway.

[1] Produced in May 1995 as part of Stage 1 of this study



MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE – 9

I studied300 artist-led groups in 1995 so one thing I’ll be doing to update my original research is reviewing how many of that original number remain now and of those who do, finding out whether they are actually still ‘artist-led’.

Interestingly perhaps there were 15 listed as ‘professional bodies’ – some with membership in their 100s – and at first glance I reckon that all but three have disappeared. One of these is now more broadly based – Society of Sculptors in Ireland merged into Visual Arts Ireland.

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

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE – 7

The Stage 1 study threw up a range of areas of questioning to be tested in the detailed case studies including:

What kind of relationship should there be between artist-led organisations and public funding bodies?

Increasingly in recent years, arts funding bodies have found it difficult to fund artist-led organisations – let alone individual artists – because they often don’t have a formal or legal structure which conforms to ‘public accountability’ criteria by which funders are bound. The on-going constraints on public funding mean that flexible schemes to which such groups might have applied have been reduced. And when funds are offered, they are tied to specific targets for income, programme, patterns of work and reporting mechanisms. Because of the planning time-scales which overall arts strategies and ‘corporate plans’ now require, agreements tend to have to be reached months in advance of a financial year.

Examples exist of artist-led organisations with a proven track-record being required to adopt charity status in order to continue to receive funds, this despite the fact that this could irrevocably change the organisation’s way of working and their unique ‘artist-led’ principles. This is not just an issue for visual arts groups though. Fiachra Gibbons[1] remarked recently that “Not even the smallest poetry circle is exempt from pressure to become ‘properly constituted'”. Running alongside these issues however, is the importance which funding bodies seem to attach to the work of artist-led organisations. For example, in its 1993/94 report London Arts Board states “support of artist-run spaces such as City Racing has enabled this gallery to develop its risk-taking programme, show new work and… allow artists to be in control of what and how work is presented.” Notwithstanding this, their annual grant of £10,000 is equivalent to around £3,500 an exhibition and which can’t reflect the time which five artists must spend enabling the gallery to do its work. It is notable, however, that whereas the LAB 1994/95 Corporate Plan pledged “continued support and development of infrastructure (galleries, studios, resources), in the 1995/95 version the main objective of the visual arts and crafts programme “is to consolidate support to artists and arts organisations with a particular focus on increasing support for commission [although] in the longer term … to contribute to the support of a range of resources for the professional artist, thereby helping to create the best possible conditions for the production of work.”

A recent survey[2] of cultural trends in Scotland, where policies have over many years supported artist-led organisations, shows that in 1993/94, grants from the Scottish Arts Council to artist-led galleries, workshops and studio spaces which totalled over £600,000 enabled them to generate income and grants from local authorities to a total value of over £1 million.

It is also worth noting however, that the presence in the Northern Arts region of thirteen artist-led studio-based groups, and a further seventeen other types of artist-led organisation, does not appear to be reflected in the document outlining the main strategies and ‘programme highlights’ for Visual Arts UK 1996[3]. Of the 144 exhibitions, commissions and other visual arts events only ten are artist-led ventures.

And although may be desirable for public funds to support both artist-led ventures and those run in other ways in events like Visual Arts UK 1996 because both contribute to the ‘critical mass’ on which the visual arts thrives, the general shortage of funds for the arts as a whole means that funding a ‘new’ client or project is often only possible by cutting an existing one, a situation likely to promote competitive rather than collaborative attitudes amongst visual arts organisations.

[1]‘The show must run’, The Guardian, 11 July 1995

[2] Cultural Trends in Scotland, Policy Studies Institute 1995

[3] Revised document, circulated for information July 1995

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE – 6

Stage 1 report – Refreshing alternatives collected short information from c300 artists’ groups/organisations including

– artist run festivals/events

– community arts groups with visual arts prominent

– education groups

– exhibition-based groups

– fine art performance groups

– galleries and exhibition spaces

– print, photography, sculpture, media workshops

– professional associations

– public art groups

– studio groups

Several groups commented when they sent in material on the value of the study: “We are glad to be able to contribute to such a worthwhile study, as well as having our work and achievements recognised.” [1] and “The comparative knowledge which will be provided by the study is sorely needed.” [2]

[1] Contact Gallery, Norwich

[2] Cubitt Artists, London



After having explored various other options, the following categories are offered here as a starting-point for further study. Groups have been divided into two types:

(A) Groups in which individual activity is enhanced or supported through a group structure

This covers groups which in some way support, promote, or otherwise provide advocacy or resources for individual visual arts practice.

Studio-based groups (eg which hold open days, group exhibitions, run educational activities,etc)(22%) Exhibiting groups (9%)

• Galleries and exhibition spaces (9%)

• Workshops (eg print and sculpture studios) (8%)

• Artform specific groups (eg acrylic painters, women photographers,

textile artists, etc) (6%)

• Professional bodies (eg national, regional representative/lobbying organisations, etc) (6%)

• Joint promotion/marketing initiatives (eg marketing co-ops, publications, networks, etc (3%)

• Information resource (eg slide index, archive, etc) (2%)

• Critical debate (eg about contemporary art practices) (2%)

• Specialist training organisation (1%)

• Campaigning/lobbying (eg on specific issue not necessarily related to visual arts practice) (1%)

• Cultural action (eg concerned with cultural differences) (1%) 

(B) Groups where collective activity supersedes individual activity.

• Community action (eg works generated through participation, education-based projects, etc) (8%)

• Public art (eg concerned with temporary or permanent art making in public settings and including exhibitions in non-gallery settings) (6%)

• Environmental (eg including cross disciplinary groups where engagement with people may not result in ‘artmaking’) (3%)

• Celebratory events (2%)

• Live art/performance events (2%)

• Symposium (eg where art works are made) (1%) 

69% of groups surveyed were in category A, with studio groups making up a fifth of the overall survey.

Thus a separate study Survey of Group Studio Provision 1995 was produced through a collaboration with the (then) National Artists Association which I will cover in separate posts.