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.
