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

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #26

It is true to say that artists do not necessarily automatically hold the skills and expertise necessary to run an organisation. To fulfil all the things required of them, artist-led organisations must undergo a steep learning curve. This is because artists have few opportunities to gain first-hand experience of participating in decision-making processes and thus suffer from a lack of practical experience. Few artists sit on arts or other voluntary committees and thus many of them are unfamiliar with how committees ‘operate’. Loss of advisory panels in regional arts boards meant that a valuable method of gaining committee experience was lost to artists. This suggests that the funding bodies, as part of their overall support of artists’ practice, should consider ways of assisting artists to gain such experience, to benefit not only the organisations artists run, but enable practitioners to make a more productive input to arts decision-making processes. It should be noted however that the case studies show that both informally and formally constituted artist-led organisations demonstrate a high level of commitment to accounting for public funds and being a properly constituted body serves only to minimise rather than prevent risk.

It is worth considering how such requirements might be met adequately without recourse to adopting the type of legal status favoured byarts funders, and creating the sort of board described above and in which artists are in a minority. It is valuable to explore ways in which artist-led organisations could run organisations effectively and remain responsible for all of their work including financial control. This could be achieved by assisting them to gain the additional skills and expertise needed. A group may seek to draw in expertise from a number of sources

For example, a local business sponsor might be encouraged to offer secondment of staff or staff time to a specific project, peer group organisations might give a professional opinion on project development, a bank manager or accountant could provide financial expertise, and arts officers in boards or local authorities could support a group’s progress through a regular interchange of ideas, and by assisting with fundraising bids. There is no reason, of course, why discussions with these people should not take place at regular intervals in the form of collective and smaller meetings.

Such a model suggests a genuine collaboration between all the various professionals. Because leadership isn’t passed over to people who are not themselves practitioners but is formed through a partnership between artists and others with a commitment to the practice, there is the potential of maintaining the vision which started the group in the first place whilst at the same time enhancing and strengthening its operation and effectiveness through interaction with others. Strengthening the role of artists on trust boards would also ensure that artistic vision, rather than other considerations, continued to be the driving force in an organisation’s work. Louise Stephens has described this approach as one of shared leadership, in which “the skills of people outside the artists’ world are brought into the decision-making structure, not to have sole authority, but to share both authority and responsibility with artists”.[1]

Her research into artist-led organisations in the US suggests that when founding artists are encouraged and empowered in this way, organisations were able to survive the development curve and went on to be successful but when the artists became disengaged from active organisational leadership and the organisation became board or administratively-driven, it failed. Although her findings were based on organisations which had been created by one artist, they would seem to apply equally well to organisations which have been set up by groups of artists. The case studies have demonstrated various ways in which originating artists hope to maintain a strong input into artistic direction and the decision-making processes once an organisation has become a trust board, although it is notable that the artists are in the minority on these boards or hold an advisory function outside them

[1]See ‘Stages in Growth in Cultural Organisations’, paper presented by Louise K Stevens at 5th International Conference on Cultural Economics, USA, 1988 as part of a three-year research study of small arts groups in the US, published as The Road Map to Success: A Unique Development Guide for Small Arts Groups, Massachusetts Cultural Alliance, USA, 1988.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #25

In Care, Diligence and Skill: a handbook for the governing bodies of arts organisations[1] the general criteria for assessing suitability of proposed board members are described as:

• Quality: regardless of age, profession and other characteristics, each board member should have integrity, intelligence and a successful record of achievements so as to command the respect of fellow board members, the staff and also the outside world.

• Ability to co-operate: each board member must be able to work as part of a team. A brilliant person can make a negative contribution to a board if s/he is unable to work easily with other people. Members must be able to discuss issues vigorously but harmoniously and move quickly towards a group consensus.

• Genuine interest: a person should have a genuine interest in the organisation’s activities and its art form.

• Discretion: Members should have a proper respect for confidentiality

• Time available: a potential board member must be willing to devote enough time to attend to the organisation’s business

• Absence of conflicts: people should not serve on a board if they have or are publicly seen to have interests that conflict with those of the organisation itself.

• Willingness to retire: the needs of an organisation change over time and the right mix of skills today may by unsuitable tomorrow. Members must be willing to retire when their skills are no longer relevant.

Although artists may be able to fulfil some of these requirements, at issue here is whether they are perceived as being able “to command the respect of… the outside world”. Also at issue is whether artists who are board members can undertake paid work for the organisation, (for example undertaking residencies, commissions, etc or even renting studio space) or whether this is regarded as a pecunary benefit.

The booklet goes on to describes the “mix of professional skills” needed by the board of an arts organisation. To be successful, it needs to have one or more members with professional knowledge of the relevant art form, a person with a knowledge of finance, banking, accounts and law and a business executive. It is also said to be important to have people with marketing skills, good contacts and proven fundraising skills.

By default then, it would appear that whilst artists are perceived as being well qualified to deal with the ‘ideas stage’, other sorts of people are felt to be more capable of leading, directing and managing the organisation which has been created out of the artists’ ideas and energies. Notwithstanding the constraints dictated by the Charity Commission as regards remuneration of trustees, questions arise as to the motives funding bodies may have in this respect. Do they anticipate that artists, because they are first and foremost practitioners, are too single-minded and self-interested to perform this broader function? Are they deemed to be financially or managerially naïve or irresponsible? Is it that they are insufficiently experienced in the ways of the world as regards influencing supporters and raising the necessary funds? Is it too difficult for funding bodies to deal with artists who may not necessarily share their values or ‘speak the same language’ they do? Alternatively, is giving the direction and leadership to a group of people with different backgrounds felt simply to be the most expedient way to get an organisation ‘up to speed’ within a time-frame which the funding bodies feel is appropriate, whilst at the same time ensuring there will be no problems about meeting the requirements of public accountability?

[1]Care, Diligence and Skill, a handbook for the governing bodies of arts organisations, Scottish Arts Council, 1987

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #24

Although there are advantages in becoming a charitable trust if a group needs capital or other major funds to take on a building, in that this status gives them access to a wider range of funding sources and offers relief from business rates, not all groups need to take this approach. Neither should an expansion of operation and becoming formally constituted be perceived to be something which automatically has to happen after a group has been running for a period of time.

It is pertinent here to refer to the experiences of artist-led organisations in the USA. In a report for the National Association of Artists’ Organisations, Don Adams and Arlene Goldbard described the tendency for arts funders to seek to deal with organisations which look and act like them and who speak their language. “They tend to be organisational technocrats… treating management structures and techniques as handy, value-neutral tools for making things happen. You don’t encounter a lot of debate in funding circles about alternative modes of organisation…. That’s because… the board-led structure is [thought to be] the best tool for getting just about any job done.”[1]

A report which reviewed the development of organisational structures in US arts organisations concurred with this analysis, commenting that “The most commonly applied model for organisational stability, that of the board driven, hierarchical model is not applicable to arts organisations and is, as it is applied as a funder’s ‘ideal’ and academic model, counter to the realistic model of growth needed by the field. The pendulum towards administration has swung too far… to the point where the commonly-accepted models are not in sync with the realities of growing organisations.”[2] It is significant that the author’s comments referred to arts organisations as a whole rather than just to those led and managed by artists.

Nevertheless, the trend in the US and the UK over the last fifteen years has been to endorse artistic credibility through setting up institutions with charitable status. The boards of such organisations comprise professional people such as accountants, lawyers and upstanding members of the local business community who will ensure that an organisation’s finances are properly handled and crucially, that all aspects of the organisation’s work can be publicly accounted for. The broad guidelines which pertain to the selection of members for a trust board serve to indicate why the artists who originate an organisation tend not to sit on the board which assumes responsibility for running it.

[1]Organising Artists: a document and directory of the national association of artists’ organisations, National Association of Artists’ Organisations, USA, 1992

[2] ‘Stages in Growth in Cultural Organisations’, paper presented by Louise K Stevens at 5th International Conference on Cultural Economics, USA, 1988 as part of a three-year research study of small arts groups in the US, published as The Road Map to Success: A Unique Development Guide for Small Arts Groups, Massachusetts Cultural Alliance, USA, 1988.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #23

Structtures and accountability

“…One of the aims of a comprehensive arts policy might be to combat the growing compartmentalisation of the modern economic systems and to restore expressive freedom to the individual…”[1]

As the case studies demonstrate, artist-led organisations have tended to grow organically, treating changes in legal status and the development of management structures as a means to an end; as part of the overall process of getting something done. Some contributors to case studies felt that this was an entirely viable approach, believing that artists’ creative approaches are relevant to all aspects of their work whether organisational, managerial or artistic. It was argued that as artists are inventive and capable managers of time, money and resources, they are equally capable of identifying any development needs as they occur and of acquiring the support and skills necessary to achieve them.

Although some groups have moved seamlessly from a loose association to becoming a charitable trust with a number of artists on the board, feeling that this is a natural step as they become better established and integrated into the arts infrastructure, others have questioned the implications of, or not felt ready for, such a move. In some cases, where adoption of a formal legal status has been made a condition of grant aid there has been friction leading to an impasse between organisation and funders. There does appear to be a tendency amongst funders to make a direct correlation between certain types of organisational structure and the requirement to be publicly accountable. Because of this, informally-constituted groups are encouraged to strive to become fully-fledged institutions, as this is perceived as being the best way to create stability for, and sustainability in, the arts. This is particularly the case where an organisation has come to be funded on a regular basis. Overall though, it would seem that local authorities place fewer formal conditions on financial support than the arts bodies. For example, although in some case studies groups were required to change their legal status in order to continue to receive funding from local authorities, this was not at issue in others, where a voluntary committee was considered to provide adequate accountability.

As the case studies indicate, groups with no formal status or who operate as unincorporated associations or co-ops tend to remain within the more flexible confines of project budgets, whilst those which are charitable trusts are more likely to be offered revenue funds or be recipients of major awards. There are indications that the large sums now being made available to the arts for capital and which from 1997 will be available for programme from the National Lottery are acting as an encouragement for groupings to formalise their status more quickly than they might otherwise have done. This is often at the suggestion of the regional arts funding bodies who are keen to fulfil regional strategies and strengthen their arts infrastructures through access to National Lottery funds.

[1] ‘The Economy of the Arts: the big picture’, speech by Michael J Higgins at the conference ‘Arts and the Economy, Dublin December 1994.