MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #37
As pool of creators, artists might be visualised by the arts funding system as the material in which the arts system ‘tree’ is planted, the seemingly naturally-occurring resource which nourishes the roots so that the tree grows stronger and brings forth healthy leaves and fruits. An alternative visualisation might be to place the artist-constituency around the rim of a wheel which also contains the other enablers and promoters of the visual arts and which is therefore driven by the interaction between, and the combined strengths of, each of its parts. Because such a diagram recognises that all elements hold a equal role within the arts infrastructure, it is a model which offers the “new ways of talking”, describing and understanding things which are crucial not only within the specific area of urban planning[1], but within other areas of social development. This approach also suggests the possibility of interaction and exchange between artists and other disciplines and interest-groups, as well as with the movers and shakers whose beliefs and energies shape the cultural identity of the country and define the part the arts plays within it.
However, regardless of which philosophical framework the arts funding system opts for in future, there will be a requirement to invest more heavily in creativity and in practice of artists, with at the same time an acknowledgement that artistic risk and experiment have the potential to result in failure or no tangible outcome in the short term. As has been noted previously, there is already a renewed interest amongst funding bodies in providing artists with grants for personal artistic development and which, at the same time, contribute to the quality of art activity overall. Ruth Towse has suggested that this is not only justified on artistic grounds, but that “short-term grants for specific innovative purposes to… creative artists are justified on economic grounds; the analysis of artists’ supply functions suggests that such grants could be cost-effective”. Joan Jeffri, however, cautions against the funding system having a too simplistic an approach in terms of the impact of such funds, commenting that “The impetus behind public funding is not that we put this dollar here and we get quality back for that dollar, [but] is to create a critical mass so that quality can emerge”.[2]
Looking specifically at the role of artist-led organisations within this context, the studies show a growing interest across the visual arts profession and the within the arts funding system in this way of working. This is in part because artist-led practice is perceived as being experimental and innovatory and of filling some of the gaps which funders have identified in the range of visual arts provision which exists. Equally though, a practice-lead approach can suggest ways of delivering arts provision or approaching audience development which are new to the funding structure and which provide interesting alternatives which are worthy of investigation.
[1] See The Creative City, Charles Landry and Franco Bianchini, Demos, 1995
[2] Joan Jeffri, Columbia University, USA speaking at ‘The Artists in the Changing City’ conference, 1992.
