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

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #28

An example from within the case studies shows how artist-led organisations can gain the specific expertise needed to handle a complex project and a large budget whilst the artists remained in overall control. For Other People’s Shoes, TEA had to handle a budget of some £90,000. However, rather than hand over that responsibility to others, the group opted to improve its financial systems and the artists’ own skills by taking advice from a financial adviser made available through a Business in the Arts North West placement.[1] Having revised their systems, the group employed a part-time book-keeper and at monthly meetings, handled all financial matters themselves. The quality of the system they had devised was noted in the group’s own evaluation of the project, which said that “at no time did [TEA] pay an external creditor outside the 28-day period or become overdrawn at the bank”.

TEA’s experience also points to the advantage of what I have described earlier as “a genuine interchange between professionals”. The report notes that “Consultants were found to be useful to help the team to look closely at an area… and at some methods and models for dealing with it. Often, suggestions put forward were not the best possible, but once the focus had been achieved, we were then able to respond and find a better solution which was more integrated into the project.” The outcome would appear to be artists with improved managerial skills, professionals from other disciplines having gained insights into creative planning, and a highly satisfactory project as regards fulfilling the funders’ requirements.

As the case studies demonstrate, artist-led organisations tend to take on paid staff once their activities have escalated beyond a scale which can be handled voluntarily and because this is felt then to be the most effective way to get various tasks done. Within artist-led organisations who adopt a formal legal status, paid staff are felt to be a way of ensuring good communication between the board and others and of being able to produce results within the time-scales and planning schedules of funders and supporters.

In some cases paid staff are, or used to be, the artists who originated a project. The voluntary process tends to identify which artists within a group are best at particular functions and even in a group’s early days, administrative or planning activities generally become the responsibility of particular artists. There are many examples of artists who have taken this role, going on subsequently to become an organisation’s paid director or administrator. Where originating artists move on to direct an organisation, they provide a continuity which tends to ensure that an organisation maintains a relationship with the artist-constituency whilst at the same time enabling it to forge the new links which are necessary with other bodies and sectors. In such cases, the vision of the originating artists which was crucial to the initial development of the organisation is more likely to be retained and be enhanced as it is shared and developed with others who have an interest in the organisation’s work.

The case studies demonstrate that organisations which are managed by artists do not always make good employers. Because there is a tendency for artist-led organisations to learn about managing staff on a trial and error basis, this in some cases has resulted in friction and a breakdown of the working relationship. This is perhaps because artists make the assumption that administrators are there to ‘do all the donkey work’ whilst anything creative or to do with decision making remains the domain of the artists. The method used in other types of arts organisations, where staff are asked to investigate a proposition and present an argued case to a board for discussion and approval, will only work within artist-led organisations if the artists are familiar with that way of working and acknowledge that paid staff have a right to make decisions within agreed terms of reference and need to be empowered by the group to do so.

[1] The final report on Other People’s Shoes noted that “The systems of financial control, projected income/expenditure and cash-flow forecasts were devised with the help of a financial adviser provided free through Business in the Arts North West. A book-keeper and accountant were appointed, and linked current and deposit accounts were operated. A statement of the current position was reported at monthly administration meetings when all financial decisions were made and invoicing took place”.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #27

The move to clarify professional advice and peer group input to the arts funding system through adoption of an Integrated Advisory System for England suggests another way in which the operation of artist-led organisations could be strengthened to the mutual benefit of groups and the funding bodies. Overall, there are already some 1,500 advisers on lists held by the Arts Council of England and English regional arts boards. Advisers are drawn from the broad base of professionals involved in the arts including artists, staff of arts organisations, local authorities and agencies, independent arts professionals and people with experience in fundraising, marketing, business planning, etc. Their role is to advise the arts system in various ways and at a number of different levels, through membership of advisory and task groups and evaluation of the work of arts organisations.[1]

Allocating advisers from this list to specific artist-led organisations would provide regional arts boards and councils with a mechanism for offering professional advice and support to artist-led organisations. In return, the advisers would gain valuable information as regards their input to discussions on the development of arts policies and strategies within the funding system. Such arrangements need not necessarily be linked with financial support to an artist-led organisation, although where they were, they would ensure that grant aid requirements were met and provide the ‘independent eye’ in order to fulfil the requirements of public accountability. In addition, because arts boards and councils often find it difficult to maintain communication channels with groups who are not funded by them, this arrangement offers a means of ensuring that the work of such groups can also directly inform policy development.

The mechanisms suggested above could, in principle, provide the skills and checks generally offered by members of trust boards, without making a firm distinction between what artists do (ie concentrate on the art) and what other people do (ie deal with everything else). Dispensing with the hierarchical model, which places ‘experts’ at the top and ‘artists’ underneath, has the potential of providing the genuine, even-handed interchange between professionals and the “new way of talking” which Landry and Bianchini[2] have suggested is a vital element within strategies for cultural development.

Such mechanisms also suggest ways of extending the support and training options which are readily available to other arts professionals into artist-led organisations. One study of the training needs of visual artists and arts administrators[3] indicated that as short courses were less appropriate to artists than they are to administrators, a multi-stranded approach needed to be taken to delivering the training and information needs of practitioners. Amongst recommendations was the suggestion that “artists’ groups should be encouraged to identify their own training needs” and that arts boards should “encourage [the use by groups of] placements… and mentor schemes”. In other words, arts boards were asked to acknowledge that artists needed more flexible opportunities for personal development and professional advice. With this, they could better facilitate their own projects and develop their careers and continue to make valuable contributions to the arts environment in their region.

[1] Paper on the Integrated Advisory System, Arts Council of England, 1996

[2]The Creative City, Charles Landry, Franco Bianchini, Demos, 1995

[3]Training of Visual Artists and Arts Administrators, Lee Corner, Susan Jones and David Patten, Eastern, East Midlands and West Midlands Arts Boards, 1994.

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.