Whilst here in Beijing on a five-week artist residency at HomeShop, I co-organised a public discussion on artist-led spaces, questioning the challenges to establishing and sustainably running such venture’s within the current Chinese context. Unlike the UK, public funding for independent arts activity does not exist here.
HomeShop’s own future was a catalyst for the discussion. The artist-led and local community-focused project funds itself through leasing desk and studio space and is shortly due to face a rental hike. It is one of only a handful of independent spaces (others include Arrow Factory and Institute for Provocation) based in the city centre hutong areas, with Beijing’s main and almost exclusively commercial art activity concentrated in a number of distinct areas (798 district and Caochangdi), approximately an hour’s bus ride to the north east of the city.
Following the end of the cultural revolution, the early 1980s saw the emergence of a new Chinese contemporary art, with artists often working in their homes or in public space due to the lack of an arts infrastructure. This period was followed in the decades after by the Chinese art market boom, bringing us up to the present. The arts landscape now consists of concentrations of vast commercial gallery spaces and studios, state sponsored national museums and only a few small-scale, artist-led projects. A key question for the debate at HomeShop was how some of these artist-led projects could mature into something that might begin to fill some of the missing middle ground.
From mill to factory
With a skype link-up to Bill Campbell and Mark Carlin, my two co-directors at Islington Mill in Salford, we presented the model that we have been developing: an artist-focused space facilitating a wide range of creative practices via a mix of funding sources, from earned income at public events to one-off grants.
Next up was an introduction to Institute for Provocation from Max Gerthel and Chen Shuyu, who talked about the cross-disciplinary focus for the project and their residency programme, funded by the Mondrian Foundation and aimed at Dutch-based artists. With this income stream allowing some medium-term security, they are developing a similar residency co-operation with Sweden, this time with a specific focus on artists working in public space.
A number of others present talked about their projects, two of which are, intriguingly, located in factories. Italian artist Alesandro Rolandi has set up an in-house residency in collaboration with the owner of French company Bernard Controls, a factory in Beijing producing water valves. The Social Sensibility R&D Programme has undertaken eight residencies so far, with artists working with factory employees over two-month periods to produce something for the workplace.
Alesandro described the encounter between artist and factory worker as being one negotiated by them both in whichever way they feel is appropriate – no set time, space or direction is designated for how this should take place. Another similar project was outlined by a factory owner who attended the discussion. He invited artists, architects and engineers to join him in “reinventing the industrial workplace” as something which values the social relationships between people, rather than “profit and exploitation”. Echoes of the 1960s Artist Placement Group and Victorian era philanthropy were brought to mind by these initiatives.
Distinct and precarious
A potential solution to address HomeShop’s financial situation came from the suggestion to forge a number of residency cooperations with funders from outside China. However, viewing themselves as an organisation that is there for its neighbouring community, there is a reluctance around embracing this model, due to the fear of becoming an expat ‘island’ – a criticism that has been levelled at them before.
After four long hours of debate from a large assembly, no clear or easy solutions emerged as to how artist-led spaces might become more sustainable in Beijing. Whilst the overall picture is complex, a general impression I have is that many of the grassroots projects here are driven by a sense of becoming something other to the buoyant commercial scene, represented by the 798 art district.
Many seem to have rejected the idea of being a space for art, instead focusing attention on projects which directly and in some cases exclusively address specific communities, perhaps perceived to not normally engage with art. While this seems entirely understandable, it may also be preventing the emergence of a visible alternative to the commercial scene.
Having visited the 798 district earlier in the day, I witnessed throngs of families and other groups enjoying a day out (the area has become a popular destination for this). Perhaps it’s ironic that once art finally gains the acceptance of a broad audience, many of the more critically minded artists choose to opt out. That said, it seems as though the very particular situation here in Beijing is producing some genuinely distinct projects, however precarious. I look forward to seeing how they develop.
Open Discussion – Artist-led spaces in Beijing, took place at HomeShop, Beijing, 7 April, 2013.
Maurice Carlin’s Beijing residency has been supported by the Artists’ International Development Fund, jointly funded by Arts Council England and the British Council.
More on a-n.co.uk:
Maurice Carlin’s Artists Talking blog on his Beijing residency
