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

MEASURINGTHEEXPERIENCE #18

This should not be interpreted as being because artists aren’t sufficiently experienced to get their businesses going within the same time span as other types of business, or because they aren’t well enough versed in the ways of the visual arts world to get a project off the ground. Rather, it is because artists are generally as much concerned with the products of their practice as they are with reviewing and redefining the environment and aesthetics for them. For many artists, this could be described as having a concern for what Ian Hunter has described as “deep cultural workings”. Such an approach is centred round an artists’ desire for his/her practice to permeate and be an integral part of a social and environmental situation rather than to offer an immediate response or ‘solution’ to an aspect of it.[1]

Looking first at the notion of artists as small businesses however, it is apparent that ventures which are instigated by artists are likely to need a different kind of support than other types of business. Janet Summerton[2] has argued that artists’ motives are not similar to those of other businesses: “…the artist is most often not interested in expansion… beyond a level s/he can manage on their own, in co-operation with others, or with a little help. Also, many artists are not interested in profit in the usual sense of the word”. Artists who are primarily concerned with self-development, self-sufficiency and creative independence are described by her as pursuing a “life-style” as an artist. In other words, they are concerned with defining the terms of reference by which they engage with society and with setting their own agenda.

Such an ideology was exemplified by a comment from an artist on a business course for artists in Liverpool. One participant described his ‘life-style’ aspiration as being “More a free agent. I am allowed to be my own person. I can do the work I want to rather than having to have a particular product all the time, and I can set my own agenda”.[3] Notably, the course was led by experienced artists who offered advice based on their real-life experiences as visual arts professionals rather than by business advisers.

Although Janet Summerton was writing about one or two-person businesses, the term ‘life-style business’ could apply equally as well to the work of some artist-led organisations. In both situations, the artists are seeking a greater degree of personal autonomy in their work practices than other professionals, and are running their practice less as a ‘businesses’ than as “a statement about who you are and what you value… creating meaningful work that parallels all that is important in your life”.[4] In both situations too, expansion is viewed with caution.

[1] This acknowledges conversations with Ian Hunter of Projects Environment and a study of documents pertaining to this organisation’s on-going research into artist-led practice.

[2] ‘Mechanics and Metaphysics: empowerment and the artist’, Dr Janet Summerton, The Business of Being an Artist, edited Janet Summerton & Eric Moody, City University London, 1996

[3] From a description of a Merseyside Training and Enterprise Council funded course for creative people, ‘Artists who mean business’, Simon Kent, Careers Guardian, 4 November 1995.

[4] See Running a one-person business, Whitmyer, Rasberry and Phillips, Ten Speed Press, 1989



MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #17

Role of artist-led organisations

“Visual artists are the experimental branch of a larger cultural movement investigating the politics of representation.”[1]

In defining what artist-led organisations provide, contributors to the study characterised artist-led organisations as being clear-minded, ambitious and innovative. Because artistic vision is paramount and groups have to seek out and make the opportunities through which their ideas are manifested, they are recognised as providing an important part of the range of activities which constitute contemporary visual arts, and highly inventive in terms of creating the resources and partnerships which are necessary.

Artist-led ventures are identified as a way for the arts funding system to both deliver support to artists and at the same time to provide opportunities for participation in the arts for others. Although analysis of the case study material offers an articulation of the economic and other tangible benefits which this area of practice offers, it also raises some key issues as regards how this practice might otherwise be quantified, and its particular relevance within the planning of future arts strategies.

Definitions of artist-led practice and definitions of audience

“The artist appears to create real objects but actually provides mechanisms of exchange exercised by the imagination.”[2]

The case studies demonstrate that most funding bodies’ perceive the work of artist-led organisations to be valuable in some way. This may because they define it as being capable of fulfilling requirements for visual arts development, audience growth, community participation, access for disadvantaged groups and the improvement of provision in rural areas or outside the main urban conurbation, or because they see it as a way of supporting artists’ businesses and marketing enterprises because these contribute to an area’s economic well-being.

However, these are unlikely to be the reasons why groups have instigated the work in the first place, although they are likely to have recognised at some point where their artistic plans co-incide with the interests of funders and other cultural and economic strategists. Artists’ motives in generating work may be best described as being concerned with personal and artistic development and with realising a vision. Whether the vision manifests itself through setting up what others may describe as a small business or whether it is concerned with identifying new working processes, collaborations with other professionals and in generating different kinds of social relationships, the common factor is the length of time required to achieve any significant outcomes.

Whereas the organisational structures of arts funding bodies are constrained by government planning time-frames, and has been indicated previously, schemes and strategies may run for relatively short times before they are superseded by new ones, artists tend to work, knowingly or unknowingly, within much longer time-frames.

[1] Suzanne Lacy, speaking at the conference Littoral: new zones for critical art practice, September 1994.

[2] David Butler, writing in Taming Goliath, a report on a city-wide public art project in Aberdeen in 1996.



MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #16

In effect, the visual arts world is now experiencing an over-supply of artists, that is when there are too many artists chasing too little work. Although this will be discussed in more detail later on in this report, it is worth noting here that this will have a considerable impact on the nature of artists’ practice and the types of opportunity and interaction available to artists in the future.

In particular, it is likely to impact on the future policies and strategies of the arts infrastructure overall at a time when all arts bodies are seeking to demonstrate their commitment to professional practice and to making the arts more accessible to a broader cross-section of the community.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #15

Projects Environment [now Littoral], the North West artist-led organisation, has played a major role in generating debates about the role of artist-led practice within arts and social planning. It organised the conference ‘Littoral: new zones for critical art practice” in 1994 and by doing so, placed the work of UK artist-led organisations in an international context. The event looked at “new kinds of artist-led organisations and initiatives which aim at more direct engagement with real life issues and processes through extended collaborations, interdisciplinary ways of working and the improvisation of new strategies for art practice in life world contexts”. The conference encompassed a range of work taking place in the UK and elsewhere, highlighting how artists are working across the fields of ecology, community development, education, urban regeneration to find ways of making a response to community experiences and to social and political situations.[6]

The particular and highly significant contribution of artist-led groups to the UK visual arts scene was highlighted in ‘Life/Live’, the exhibition held at Museé d’Art Modern, Paris in late 1996.[7] Resulting from visits to artist-run ventures across the UK, the exhibition set out to convey the exemplary and stimulating vitality of current artistic practices and artists’ initiatives in the UK, and to show that the “degree of development and influence attained by these artists’ collectives in the UK is unique”.

Recent comments from within the arts funding system point to a renewed interest in the work of artist-led organisations which, because they are driven by creative desire rather than organisational need, have the ability to invigorate and challenge the arts infrastructure. For example, in their recent annual report, London Arts Board noted that “Artists are closely in touch with the… new forms of collective identity that make sense for many Londoners. [They]… understand that dissonance, difference and fusion often produce creativity… they understand about tolerance and responsibility. The way they organise their work is often a model for decentralised democratic processes… they seek a deeper more lasting form of change. A major challenge is for London Arts Board to find ways for artists to help shape London’s future and to continue championing their cause at every opportunity”.[1]

Another major challenge for the arts funding system and others concerned with visual arts development is the steep growth in the numbers entering the visual arts profession. Analysis of the 1991 Census reveals that over a ten-year period, the visual arts profession has increased by seventy-one percent, with the number of people citing their profession as being an artist, commercial artist or graphic designer rising to over 93,000.[2] Amongst reasons given for this were the increased number of places available on full and part-time art and design courses, government policies and schemes to encourage self-employment, and the growing trend across all professions for ‘portfolio’ careers in which a range of skills are combined in order to offer services to a range of client. In addition, it is apparent that the up-coming generation of artists is taking a more pro-active approach to the development of their professional careers. This includes generating their own opportunities rather than waiting for others to offer them, being aware of the need to market and promote their work right from an early career stage, and recognising that collaboration maximises resources and the impact of their work on the public.

[1] London Arts Board annual report 1995/96

[2] Employment in the arts and cultural industries: an analysis of the 1991 Census, Jane O’Brien and Andy Feist, Arts Council of England, 1995

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.