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

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #22

Amongst artists working internationally on similarly ecological themes are Lyn Hull and Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison whose work focuses on an examination of the impact of industrial and economic development on the world’s eco-system and Viet Ngo whose work as an artist involves developing water filtration systems for cities. Such work is therefore not concerned with creating participation in the arts in the traditional manner. Rather, it is focused on making new alliances across communities, across cultures and across disciplines, and [about] improvising creative solutions to complex problems…”[1]

Looking at case study groups in terms of the assessing their perceptions of what constitutes the audience for their work and how they set out to ‘develop’ that audience, an underlying feature is the notion of the empowerment which derives from adopting long-term approaches to engagement.

The Pioneers summarised their approach as being concerned with “developing…projects as an empowering tool for individuals and communities, using visual arts… to make works which have a lasting impact on the lives and environment of those who take part”. Similarly, Isis Arts “believes that the visual arts enrich our lives and the environments in which we live and can create a unique sense of place and ownership”.

The notion of empowerment works both ways however, in that a relationship developed over time between artists and people is more likely to provide a genuine interchange and thus benefits which are mutual. For example, although the opening of studios across Cambridge would appear to offer merely another kind of ‘visitor experience’, it could also be described as the means by which artists there can gain in status because their life-style interests people, whilst studio visitors can become comfortable about discussing and buying art or gaining arts skills for themselves.

Such ways of working, because they are concerned with the broader issues of society’s needs, question traditional notions of how artists’ work is or should be made publicly available, and thus its relationship to the resources which are provided at present by the arts infrastructure.

Equally, it raises issues, which will be discussed in more detail later in the report, about how such work is best evaluated and whether the mechanisms which are applied to measuring the ‘success’ and ‘quality’ of mainstream art practice in traditional settings are necessarily appropriate to judge the outcome of work which derives from different aspirations and values.

[1] See transcripts from the ‘Littoral: new zones in critical art practice’ conference held in September 1994 and ‘The End of the Trail’, Ian Hunter, Mailout, November 1995 for discussion of work by these artists and others from the UK and elsewhere who employ similar strategies.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #21

This [audiences approach] suggests that neighbours and people from the community who already knew the artists may have used the opportunity to develop their relationship with local artists further.[1] The case studies also show that the definition of audiences for the work of artist-led organisations also extends beyond a specific geographical location to what might be described as ‘interest groups’. For example, these may be people whose common link may be a particular building or who are brought together through concern for a social or environmental issue.

The work of groups such as TEA is crucially concerned with audience development, although this is not a term which the artists themselves would use to describe the interchange. The TEA case study describes the projects as “process-based investigations which involve reseeing and re-presentation” almost always involving multiple forms of public participation through which art making is demystified and critical perspectives encouraged. Projects are shaped by the experiences and perspectives of all those who participate in them. Other people are engaged with the work not because they are provided with interpretative material nor with educational opportunities, but because the structure of TEA’s projects is intrinsically concerned with involving people in a project’s visible manifestations. The interest groups have, for example, included people with memories and views of the ‘30s who contributed to Anxiety and Escapism at the Royal Festival Hall and users and tenants of the Liver building in Liverpool for Looking Both Ways.

TEA’s work is part of a growing field of work which has variously been described as ‘process-based art’ and ‘new genre public art’ and which is concerned with an engagement with life issues rather than the making of artworks per se, and within which the relationship with other people creates the artistic aesthetic. It is an area of visual arts practice which offers a way of thinking about art “not primarily as a product but as a process of value-finding, as a set of philosophies, as ethical action, and an aspect of a larger socio-cultural agenda”.[2]

Such an ideology, for example, underpins the work of the London-based group Platform, an interdisciplinary team comprising artists, writers, ecologists, green economists, scientists and community activists. For this group, “Art is not primarily about an aesthetic – it is creatively applied to real situations: initiating a 168-hour forum of international dialogue; setting up a support fund for striking hospital workers; creating a ten-week performance in a tent that crossed a city; installing a turbine in a river to generate light for a school”. The group’s projects have included activating a campaign to re-locate and celebrate London’s lost rivers and setting up a mobile discussion space and information centre to highlight the relationship between “our consumption of the everyday commodity of light with the people and lands who make it possible for us to have it”.[3]

[1] From a conversation with Colin Robson on analysis of survey forms for this event.

[2] From ‘Bridging Extremities, an article arising from a symposium at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art which led to publication of Mapping the Terrain, edited Suzanne Lacy, Bay Press, Seattle, 1995.

[3] From Platform documents 1992-1996

[4] See transcripts from the ‘Littoral: new zones in critical art practice’ conference held in September 1994 and ‘The End of the Trail’, Ian Hunter, Mailout, November 1995 for discussion of work by these artists and others from the UK and elsewhere who employ similar strategies.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #20

When referring to the need to be more creative within urban planning, Landry and Bianchini[1] have talked about the need for those concerned to find “new ways of talking” in which normal routes and networks are set aside and a more open system set up which enables people of different skills and disciplines to talk and listen to each other and find “new ways of describing things”. Such a concept could equally cross-refer to the way artist-led organisations, as matter of course, engage and negotiate with other professionals in business, industry and the cultural sector and with communities when they set out to realise their ‘ideas’.

The notion that because artists are predominantly concerned with artistic practice they are not sufficiently attuned to the needs of audiences was raised by some arts officers within case studies. Some groups were said to be out of step with “the more innovatory approaches to audience [development]” and too focused on the needs of artists… than on looking outside at audiences”. Clearly, however, artist-led organisations are in general highly conscious of the need to engage with audiences, although equally clearly, how artists interpret audience need and activate the relationship may not necessarily immediately fit within in the definitions used by funding bodies.

‘Audience development’ has become a key objective within the arts infrastructure. In the performing arts, this can be achieved by creating and marketing programmes which have a broader appeal and which will lead to that important performance-indicator, ‘bums on seats’. Some aspects of visual arts programming can use similar tactics to increase visitor numbers, for example, a gallery may run outreach activities for schools and communities and public art projects may be accompanied by practical workshops for community groups. Such strategies can be measured by quantifying audience figures and producing written evaluations of the outcome of community programmes, etc.

Some areas of visual arts practice, however, are less easily measurable, particularly those which are dependent on creating a dialogue or a mutually-beneficial interaction with people over a period of time. In such situations, the notions of engagement with and empowerment of people through an extended collaboration based around common concerns become more appropriate descriptions than ‘audience development’ of what artists are seeking.

Artists-led organisations tend to have a defined geographical location for their practice, based on where the artists themselves live and work. Although in some cases other artists may be invited into a particular project, there nevertheless tends to be a core group of artists whose intimate knowledge of the arts environment and the social and political make-up of an area forms an integral part of defining the group’s artistic visions and the development of new work. In terms of encouraging the involvement in or participation of, other people in a group’s activities, it is arguable that because the artists are carrying out their practice on their ‘home territory’, they have an acute interest in maintaining a rapport with their ‘audience’, who are likely in many cases to live in close proximity to them or with whom they otherwise will regularly come into contact.

The interest in attracting an audience which includes the artists’ own neighbours, who want to see what people they know who are artists actually do, is cited in the Cambridge Open Studios study. An artist concerned in that event has reported that as a result, one of her neighbours has become a regular purchaser of her work. It could be argued that this type of relationship – between artists and their neighbours – although less readily quantified by ‘normal’ audience measurement methods, provides an interesting indicator of how the visual arts might have an impact on the lives of more people in the long term.

The level of interest in studio visiting shown by neighbours and others with whom artists regularly come into contact is further demonstrated by the artist-led ‘Real Art Tour’ held in the rural area of Tynedale in June 1996. This attracted over 1,300 visits to twenty-three artists over three weekends. Although it formed part of Visual Arts UK in the Northern region which specifically aimed to increase visual arts audiences, it was significant that a third of all visitors had not visited any other visual arts event in the previous three months, and that twenty-seven percent had heard about the event by word-of-mouth rather than through the printed publicity which was widely available.

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



MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #20

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #19

Because they are not primarily concerned with business values or running their organisations in ways which mirror the way mainstream institutions operate, artist-led organisations may not show a willingness to fulfil the range of expectations and aspirations funding bodies and others have for them. There is, therefore, a potential for conflict between artists and funders. Although funders may perceive that the solution lies in encouraging artists to be more businesslike through providing of training and advice from experts, artists may feel that this doesn’t acknowledge the inherent value of their creative practice or their reasons for pursuing it.

Looking across at current attitudes within the business world provides some useful cross references, in terms of locating artist-led practices within current arts strategies. Sir Ernest Hall has noted that in order to be a successful entrepreneur “one needs to think like an artist”.[1] Such a philosophy is held by many management specialists who are encouraging businesses to adopt artistic approaches to their thinking and the organisation of work.[2] It is based on the view that ‘ideas’ and having the ability to think creatively, to adapt and change according to new circumstances, are more relevant to business success than the implementation of proscribed organisational structures or hierarchies.

Businesses are encouraged nowadays to focus on the dynamics which occur when people get together for the express purpose of developing ideas, and are encouraged to think in ways which are very different from those which occur when working in isolation. Examples include equating ‘managing’ a business with running a carnival, jazz jamming sessions and presenting improvisational theatre. Businesses should expect to undertake ‘creative audits’ of their organisation, to identify how and where ideas are developed and thus to maximise creative potential within it… The term “creative capital” is used to describe the innovation which arises from investing in people’s ideas.[3]

Artist-led organisations in general are cited within the case studies as having the ability to generate this essential resource. They are said to demonstrate “ambitious, innovative approaches to the creation and presentation of work” (TEA), to be “interestingly non-institutional, very productive and [gain] the respect and support of audiences and artists” (TEA), “pro-actively seeking out new areas of work, being experimental and risk taking in order to produce work that breaks new ground” (The Pioneers), “take greater risks… have a stronger sense of artistic vision and direction” (Space Explorations), “play an active role in stimulating and contributing to debates around specific areas of visual arts practice” (Space Explorations) and “have a passion which drives them to succeed” (ArtSway).

In artist-led organisations, because artists do their own mediating, negotiation, fundraising, etc, other professionals become engaged with the process. Although an immediate outcome may be focused on decisions to allocate resources to a specific project, the dynamics of such a situation provide the potential other kinds of outcome which are as much to do with long-term cultural change as with any immediately quantifiable benefit.

In such a situation, artists are playing a crucial part in developing and sustaining a ‘visual arts critical mass’ within a locality. This is created when opportunities for new ideas and relationships to be tested are contextualised within the framework of a dynamic interchange between professionals and communities. This has the potential of impacting not only on the quality of visual arts practice per se, but also on the broader fields of cultural and environmental planning.

[1] In his introduction to the 1995/96 Annual Report of Yorkshire & Humberside Arts Board

[2] See Jamming: the art and discipline of business creativity, John Kao, Harper Collins, 1996; Liberation Management, Tom Peters, Macmillan, 1992 and ‘Business needs artists’, Birthe Warnolf, Artists Newsletter, October 1996

[3] Jamming: the art and discipline of business creativity, John Kao, Harper Collins, 1996

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #18

A ‘life-style’ philosophy is apparent in the aspirations of many of the artists’ groups which have been studied: “to provide opportunities for the public to become involved in the arts by meeting artists in their studios, seeing their work and how it is produced” (Cambridge Open Studios); ‘[Because we believe that all people are creative], we want to enable a large number of people to participate in the visual arts… and build up confidence in themselves… [to use] the visual arts to make works which have a lasting impact on the lives and environment of those who take part” (The Pioneers); By collaborating in sharing a building [we] become a community, interdependent, self-sustaining and with its own morale. [We] become ideal shock-troopers in the battle to revive the inner city, bringing back vitality to an area, giving it life, giving it people… giving it pride” (Lime Street) and “We aim to make the visual arts accessible to a broad section of the community [because we] believe that the visual arts enriches our lives and the environments in which we live and can create a unique sense of place and ownership” (Isis Arts). In this way, artist-led organisations demonstrate a commitment to locating visual arts practice outside mainstream art practice and within the broader fields of social and environmental development.

In addition, the studies show that although groups sometimes receive assistance because of a funding body’s aspiration to improve the economic climate for, and status of, artists, the opportunity for financial reward is not a prime motivation for the artists themselves. Although income-generation is sometimes quantified, advantages tend to be measured against different values, as typified in the comment “Artists have always been the role model for a fulfilled life. They may face financial problems, but they are motivated by a higher level of fulfilment and purpose than survival”.[1]

Benefits cited by contributors to the studies include “enabling isolated artists to plug into local networks”, the opportunity for artists “to re-evaluate their motivations and methodologies… to question individual preconceptions and assumptions”, “creating a relevance for artists and their work”, the value of “talking to people” and “broadening the understanding of how artists can engage in dialogue with others”.

Artists within such organisations appear to be committed to ploughing any money which might be available back into their current and next projects rather than seeking to pay themselves any kind of realistic wage or partaking of any other financial indulgence. Because of this artistic driving force – to make regardless of any practical or financial consideration, something which has been described as a “form of neurosis or compulsion”[2] and “a fundamental relationship in evolutionary mechanisms”[3] – it is no surprise to discover that an artist’s level of income does not tend to rise in tandem with his/her status or reputation within the art world.[4]

Ironically then, the term ‘cutting edge’ which is often applied to artist-led practice, may apply both to the artistic product and the artists’ own financial status whilst undertaking their practice. However, this is likely to be the case when a creative life-style is put before other considerations and when success and well-being is measured against artistic or social development rather than in terms of economic benefit. Such a philosophy is encapsulated by a comment from painter Jenny Saville who, although she has been highly successful in terms of gaining prestigious exhibitions and prizes has said “I am not interested in having a regular [income], I just want enough money to buy materials”.[5]

[1] Introduction by musician and entrepreneur Sir Ernest Hall to the Yorkshire & Humberside Arts Annual Report 1995/96.

[2] ‘The Business of Being an Artist’, Dr Nicholas Pearson, The Business of Being an Artist, edited Janet Summerton & Eric Moody, City University London, 1996

[3] ‘Creative urges’, Jacques Rangasamy, Artists Newsletter, November 1996

[4] “Neither how established and experienced artists were… apparently exerted any influence on arts earnings”, see The economics of artists’ labour markets, Ruth Towse, Arts Council of England, 1996.

[5] Jenny Saville, interviewed for Artists’ Stories, AN Publications, 1996.