The Forecasters

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Francesco Urbano Ragazzi

Francesco Urbano Ragazzi is a curatorial duo based in Venice, Italy.

1. How have you maintained your practice in your country with its changing economical and political conditions?

We are a curatorial art duo, so our professional activity has to deal with being freelance curators and managers at the same time, therefore we'll be answering to your questions from this specific point of view. So far, the political and economical changes haven't affected our way of working because, as freelance curators, we always pay attention to the moods of the context, so that we can quickly act and respond accordingly. For us, a pivotal aspect to work on has to do with patronage in contemporary art, therefore we always try to find new models of it. Contemporary art practitioners need to move away from the modern conception of art as autonomous: art should be context-specific and relationship-specific as well as site-specific. Some of the best projects we have developed so far are those in partnership with non-artistic institutions (we never interacted with the Ministry of Culture so far, but with the Ministry of Equal Opportunities, with the Department of Youth Policies, with private companies, etc.). We think that contemporary art needs to distance itself from its current restricted system and serve practical functions. If your project is useful, you'll surely be able to: explain it convincingly, get funds, and then create the need for it. Especially in Italy, there is a lack of funding and everybody complains about it, but, I wonder, have they ever asked themselves if and how their project is actually useful? Semi-autonomy is possible if you are capable of merging your project with other cultural policies, thus keeping control over it while contributing with your unique expertise in the arts. And vice-versa, your private and public partners can share their skills with you. So, always remember that curators need to know in what direction other policies are going, keeping in mind the usefulness of their project. In this way the partnership can work well, you're free in term of contents but at the same time responsible towards the community you're referring to. For instance Io, tu, lui, lei - a heterosexual exhibition (Bevilacqua La Masa Foundation, Venice, 2012) was mainly funded by the Ministry of Equal Opportunities and by a design factory. The presence of both private and public funds saved us from being influenced by private contributions because the public partners involved assumed a role of guarantee.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making what would your concerns be?

It makes sense only in terms of mobility for artists: it could be an international network of residency programs. We think it could be useful in order to consider any regionalism or localism under a new light.

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

The biggest problem Italy has, as a country, is the lack of policy, we don't know if we are socialist or liberal. Also, our government has no long-term policies in general terms and specifically about welfare, culture and equal opportunities. If you're not aware of the government's line of cultural development, as a cultural operator you cannot develop yourself and your long term planning. As a matter of fact, more often we have to rely on European funds. As regards Europe, the main problem has to do with education, since, due to Italy's bad reputation and poor academic system, many young artists I am working with find it hard to be admitted to European art schools. Moreover, Europe is still strongly anchored to the idea of modern “Nation/State”: in terms of mobility and fundings, the Arab world is a better model. Indeed, their inner country-specific differences are grounded on a shared Arab identity: institutions are able to fund Arab oriented projects that cross regional borders. We believe we should learn from them, since they are able to make their differences valuable in the name of an Arab identity. I think we need to build both a European identity and European cultural policies.

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

As you know, artist-in-residency programs often require to design a site-specific work. Instead, we add the possibility for artists to develop a relationship with a specific target of audience/community; this is the main aspect that has to be activated. For example, on the occasion of the Io, tu, lui, lei project, the city of Venice asked us to collect memories of gay and lesbian elders. So, first of all, we identified and addressed to a specific audience, then we started to think about how to get more funds, who could also be interested in our project and be willing to contribute to it. On the occasion of Prima Visione, a residency program in Southern Italy, or during the Sinop Biennale in Turkey we encouraged the artists we invited to work with specific groups of locals: Art History students in one case, teenagers in the other one. More than a matter of site-specificity, it's always a matter of finding a way to exchange different heritages. Coming back to the question about fundings, if you understand which your audience is, it will be easier for you to identify your stakeholders.

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts fundings? Give your forecast.

The first thing we would ask is to clarify their agenda, also through a specific website. After understanding their priorities and programs, we can start thinking of suitable projects. In Italy it's hard to figure out what funds are used and where they come from, therefore we would ask for transparency.

It's difficult to tell the future. We believe that Europe and the so-called Western culture have been losing their cultural legacy and power. We're thinking about the last Sharjah Biennial, that aimed to overcome the hegemony of Western culture by finding new spaces for art production. Its main theme was the "Arab courtyard", an architectural model which is uncommon in Europe and can be found only in Roman villas.

Europe has to rethink its position in the world, and we have to look out and find new ways and models of art production in order to ensure a future bright with opportunity.

Then, we should start to acknowledge intellectual labour: at the moment we are just occasional workers and not legally recognized (the curatorial profession doesn't officially exist). In the Seventies there was a strong interest for these issues (Lucy Lippard is still a model for us if we look back at the fights for labour rights).

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Yongwoo Lee

Yongwoo Lee is a writer, curator and art historian. He is currently the president of Gwangju Biennale Foundation, a position he has held since 2008. He is based in Gwangju, South Korea.

1. How have you maintained your practice in Korea with its changing economical and political conditions?

Today’s cultural practices, art movements, public art projects have raised their ability to adapt to a kaleidoscopic nature of political and economic environment. In particular, the Biennial, a non-systemic, experimental, cultural resistance artistic practice, has developed aesthetic language and cultural political implications which is adaptable to varying changes in the budget and the political ideology. It could respond appropriately to conditions of strong genetic factor in change rather than peaceful and stable conditions. Especially, as Gwangju has politically strong resistance culture attributes and has been accustomed to politically rough periphery.

Gwangju Biennale also can be seen to possess strong autogenous adaptability. I consider this is the ability that makes non-systemic art movements and art events able to preserve their own aesthetic language autonomously.

2. If there was an international governing body of contemporary art what would your concerns be?

I prefer cultural practice field that is like a wilderness. I believe that the critical practice is much more vivid than art historical practice, and the curator who is able to answer the social interests and social urgency owns much wider playground than the curator who deals with aesthetics. Art galleries have a guaranteed stable and secure number of audience, but it is insufficient in DNA to induce macro changes. Of course, the biennial is also in need of enormous self-development in terms of political constraints, censorship, the budget, communication with citizens, as restrictions follow. In that sense, the discourse, which is much more flexible than the truth, can be a device guaranteeing the platform of discussion.

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures? 

The government only guarantees the system and ideological space. Nevertheless, the Korean government is seemed to be making considerable efforts to ensure the infrastructure up to the same level of the extended awareness of its people. The representative examples are the projects being promoted in Gwangju such as Asia Culture City project, Asian Culture Complex, and Institute of Asian Cultural development. The State is not liable for the private sector. The experimental level of more sophisticated device and infrastructure ensuring rapid progress is the area to be pioneered by art practitioners and enthusiasts.

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

There is no restriction on institutions, corporations or private funders that support Gwangju Biennale financially and administratively. Gwangju Biennale is the only biennial that has endowment in the world, and full amount of the endowment comes all from companies. Expenditure for events and other labor and maintenance costs is guaranteed 50% each by the local government and central government. Special projects are performed by the budget that comes from audience (other sponsors).

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding?

I believe that the audience is growing rapidly into powers (decision making consumers). Although it is not the consumer determining products as Economics says, today’s cultural audience has a high level of desire related to the quality of life of the people or citizens. Local policy makers are aware of this, therefore, to lay stepping stones for multilateral communication with the audience and active participation of the audience secures reliable reinforcements which guarantee financial support, as well as, the prospect of the event. Finding sponsors for contemporary art is never easy. However the spectrum of art movement and practice, from the project of very individual artist to the global event, is still seen to be glamorous, since art, just as grass, has an acquired nature of autogenous to survive persistently.

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Joseph Gaylard

Joseph Gaylard is the Director of the Visual Arts Network of South Africa (VANSA). He is based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

  1.    How do you think artists can maintain, or have maintained, their practice in South Africa, with its changing economical and political conditions?

 Artists need to be more in control of and more imaginative in relation to their professional lives. The training of artists in tertiary institutions generally addresses this need in very weak ways, producing a situation in which the conception of what an artist is and does can often be somewhat mythologised and very limiting to the ability of young artists to proactively and thoughtfully engage with the complex realities that they inhabit.

  2.    If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns around such an organisation be?

This seems like a quite strange proposition in some ways – in my experience, getting contemporary art people to mobilise around policy issues at a country/national level is already quite a complex and difficult proposition. One would wonder about the precise purposes, remit and powers of such an organisation. And then there is the question of what constitutes ‘contemporary art’: what would be in, what would be out, and where the conceptual centre of gravity would sit.

  3.    To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

 Insofar as the South African government has been involved in supporting contemporary art infrastructure, it has largely concerned itself with maintaining an inherited colonial and apartheid infrastructure for contemporary art. This infrastructure is a bit like a very ill patient on a very uncomfortable life-support machine, who continues to hold onto life. The large investment that has recently been made in the Venice Biennale also seems continuous with this essentially very conservative trend. It is regrettable that a more imaginative, and both a more radical and considered approach have not been taken in the government’s approach to this infrastructure.

  4.    How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

With difficulty. VANSA’s approach has been to move away from traditional grantmaking structures and models to work that is sustained through partnerships, working with other institutions and organisations around areas of shared concern and interest, rather than applying for funding just for things that we think are important.  These partners may be other arts organisations and businesses, funding bodies, government departments or international agencies.

  5.    If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding? Give your forecast.

I would have to say more support for structures that in turn support the sector in a diversity of ways, and less indiscriminate funding of stuff that generally has the effect of producing greater levels of dependency on government, producing expectations that government is then unable to deliver on.

A healthy sector requires informed and considered approaches to policy-led intervention, and industry structures play a really important role in bringing benefit to a much wider pool of people and organisations than traditional funding models.  Financing the points of connection between things rather than the things themselves.  The Cape Craft and Design Institute (ccdi.org.za) is an exemplary instance of such an organisation in an adjacent sector.

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Judha Suwanmongkol

Judha Swanmogkol is an art historian and art critic base in Thailand. 

 1. How have you maintained your practice in Thailand with its changing economical and political conditions?

 The economical and political changes haven't affected my practices much, though they can be truly frustrating me. Earning life with art could be really tough because of the economical constraints. Also, political conditions do not fully allow talking/discussing freely possible. To be more precise, I am talking about the political conditions in the broadest sense: culture - such as hierarchy, norm, belief - these all  immensely hamper the path of intellectual development as a whole. However, I believe that art has its own power to challenge people's thoughts, so this faith still keeps me working, and drives me forward no matter what.   

 2.If there was an international governing body of contemporary art what would your concerns be?

 Cultural hegemony. The governing body can determine perception of art, therefore, I seriously concern about hegemonic power. 

 3.To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

 Thai government participates in producing contemporary art infrastructure in a very narrow and conservative sense. Due to a very rigid and limited point of view regarding contemporary art, for authority, art is seen as a tool for propaganda, or a visual element for promoting conventional culture - art in this sense, therefore, is very passive/powerless itself. Any infrastructure that will be constructed by the government  has to support this sort of paradigm. Most of infrastructure are museums and galleries, but sadly, all of them still have a below standard art management, and very near empty content of art. In my opinion, what we urgently need from the government is promoting art education in parallel with supporting artists, because the development of art relies on both practices and theories of art. Infrastructure is only key in some other important keys, such as art management, curatorial knowledge, art criticism. In other words, I don't think we lack of infrastructure, but we severely need more  support about art education from the government. 

 4.How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

 I have not yet gained enough experiences in moving different funding system, so I may not be eligible to answer this question.

 5.If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding?

 If I could work with a local policy maker, the first thing I would do is to unlock the art from tradition and grand narrative, to question and to de-construct them through education. I would also give funding to improve a visual literacy among young generation, make art space a non-alienated place to everyone, and encourage to establish an "art council" which will will be supporting art activities - artists, curators, and researchers, in a very progressive way. And I would emphasis the important of critical culture, which is not only important to art world, but a whole society; it's part of factors in intellectual development. A proper art library covers all categories of arts should be funded, and opened for public. 

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Stefano Arienti

Stefano Arienti is an artist based in Milan and a professor at Iuav University, Venice, Italy.

1. How have you maintained your practice in Italy with its changing economical and political conditions?

My artistic practice spans over two decades during which there have been major economical changes as well as important transformations in landscape (not just natural but also human). My point of view is mostly connected to Italy and the West, where I have spent most of my time in recent years, I can’t speak from other perspectives or about other contexts. The persistence of a tradition of local collecting has supported my artistic work for many years, but in time I have also started two more activities which have grown alongside the development of other parallel economic and political contexts. Teaching art through workshops, favouring a method based on dialogue and practical confrontation over theoretical explanations, has enriched my artistic practice by broadening the institutional side of my work.

Lastly, what I call “third profession” involves me as an artist in projects which have to do with production, collaboration or corporate consulting; foundations; architectural studios; editorial partnerships, entertainment or exhibition collaborations; often, institutional partners or private citizens are involved in these activities and they have a weaker link with the economic and cultural system of contemporary art. In this perspective I foresee, or hope for, a growth and integration of these three areas, together with a partial reduction of work related to private or institutional collecting.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns be?

Actually, a capillary system of international production and distribution of contemporary art is already active, with strict rules of inclusion and exclusion. Nevertheless, it is true that when art and political power run in parallel, it’s hard to see a perspective of effective global integration. Regional tensions and the formation of cultural and political localism precisely due to globalization prevent a complete integration, both political and related to art policies, and I don’t even wish for it to happen.

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructure?  

Historically, in Italy there is a heavy government presence in the creation of infrastructure for art, just think of the Venice Biennale. In the last decades, local and private institutions have been able to increase their scope of action and their visibility, in the field of art education as well, just at the time when local collecting was turning markedly international. But the Italian Government hasn’t developed localism accordingly, as its own cultural heritage.

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

In Italy I don’t see the development of really distinctive systems of art production, but there are several areas where the organization of production differs and that involves various professional identities, who usually work better when paired side-by-side. For example, working for the art galleries circuit, for the art publishing industry, fairs, museums and biennials; or working in the education field: with schools or art colleges, residency programs for artists, production and art training workshops; or working in the third sector.

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary art funding? Give your forecast.

First, the awareness that cultural and linguistic localism is a valuable asset and an important heritage. That cultural growth and economic development work well if there is a natural aptitude to work with specific and local elements. That there can be no prejudice or closures on who should be involved in the creation of new opportunities.

Reshaping professional specialization is the key element, and the example of skilled professionals who have developed and combined different areas of expertise, offering a high quality of intervention, proves that this is possible. The Italian tradition of the versatile, intellectual artist who is also a skilled craftsman or an entrepreneur goes in this direction, and many are rediscovering it.

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Francesco Bertelè for Carrozzeria Margot

Francesco Bertelé is artist & artistic director of Carrozzeria Margot, house for contemporary art production run by a group of art professionals and based in Milan, Italy.

1. How have you maintained your practice in your country with its changing economical and political conditions?

Actually, the activity of Carrozzeria Margot hasn’t been significantly affected by the changes in the economic (the so-called crisis) and political (tightly connected to the cultural sector) context. It is so for the following reasons: the activity of CM, which is the evolution of previous independent organizations I founded and run, for example Mobeel in Venice, have always been on the fringes of the current market and funding system, with the presumption of reaching an economical autonomy over time. As a consequence, in contrast to the current scenario of enterprises  that have structured their activities on economic regimes of grants and subsidies, our working conditions haven’t varied significantly. In other words, we have always been relying on economic self-support and self-production to pursue our practice with obstinate conviction.

Also, from a political point of view, we were born during the “Berlusconian era”, characterized by the functional aberration of the social quality of culture and of the impoverishment of its political value (in the sense of enhancing its collective function): this era saw the progressive neglect of a culture capable of generating spaces of collective cohesion and of evolving its critical thinking. Now we are at a plateau, beyond which there will be either total denial or rebirth. So now, us and those who like us have always tried to fill the voids left in the civil function, who have remained autonomous and with an intact critical sense, well, we all find ourselves in a very difficult situation: we need to become capable to evolve beyond the stage of resistance into a new phase of active production and to generate a new and autonomous economy. If we do not succeed, we’ll simply disappear.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns be?

I think that a government characterized by policies of “doing” can only derive from a collective awareness of the reasons for the current total absence of a “public” government and for the ineffectiveness of policies imposed by a system of vertical government, which has proved to be unable to recognize the variety and multiplicity of those identities which composed and still constitute the cultural landscape of contemporary art.

The only organ of government, at the local level as well, which I think may develop and be helpful, should derive from a collective sense of responsibility of all the individuals who over time have continued to create, sustain and identify themselves with activities of research and professional development.

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

It doesn’t participate in any ways and above all with no usefulness or effectiveness, especially for non-institutional, small-scale enterprises.  

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

We are currently experiencing a further evolution of CM’s identity: we were born in an informal and autonomous context, going through productions financed by third parties with sufficient budget to cover certain costs of production but not the costs of labor, to finally reach the current evolution stage where we believe that we should abandon the search for grants and instead be able to do business, to become economically independent, generating market demand without sacrificing and compromising the political function and artistic value of our work.

For this reason, we don’t turn to sponsors and funding anymore, but we are searching for new commissions and committees, clients across various market sectors, not just focusing on that of contemporary art, but clients who understand the cultural as well as economic value of our product.

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding? Give your forecast.

I wish that contemporary art professionals were valued more and that first of all they began to think of themselves as any of the other sectors of economy and society, that they could count on a fair legislation and law from the point of view of guarantees and duties, that they could acquire organs of government and protection democratically determined and recognized. 

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Anastasia Ryabova

Anastasia Ryabova is an artist, Kandinsky Prize winner (2011) and curator of the “False Calculations Presidium” exhibition. She lives and works in Moscow, Russia.

1. How have you maintained your practice in your country with its changing economical and political conditions? I started my artistic practice in mid 2000, when structures supporting young artists practically didn’t exist. None of the existing art school suited me. And I was not a natural artist who stored his artworks behind the wardrobe and then was discovered by a gallerist. Since the very beginning the tactics and strategy of my work was based on the practice of validation and reviewing the existing conditions of artistic production. This is how artistsprivatecollections.org project has started. It was a sort of micro model of an alternative infrastructure legitimizing and demonstrating art works.

The next step for me is to create a strong competitor to the existing infrastructures, a real collective actor that won’t only highlight the drawbacks of the current system or suggest new ideas but will test and check institutional changes on its own. The task is very difficult as you are not an average person in specific conditions anymore, but a creator of these conditions, and this is a challenge. In other words you have to replace responsibility from the shoulders of institutions to your own shoulders.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns be? Practically every international body is haunted by similar problems. Being global on the one hand, on the other they always support the interests of the strongest countries. I would not play with the fantasies about international governing body, rather talk about multiplicity of networks, that would develop diverse types of grassroots artistic policy. 3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures? It's difficult to answer and the difficulty starts with a question – where are the borders of influence and responsibility of Russian state laid. Is it a collaboration between power decision-making and big business, which is based on exploitation of state resources? It might sound naïve, but for me the question of who rules the cultural policy in Russia is still open. 4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects? My experience with funding institutions is not so extensive. Usually local private foundations supported me. Also I have some experience in working with European state institutions. Though I cannot compare. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Usually it takes a good deal of management and tricks, it requires new types of money flow. Managing that is art in itself already. This anarchic economy adds a specific poetics to the artwork that is being created in these conditions. 5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding-give your forecast? I would suggest giving every art worker 5000 euros per month without demanding any explanations!

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Haisang Javanalikikorn

Haisang Javanalikikorn is an art networker and exhibition officer at Bangkok art and cultural center (BACC), Bangkok, Thailand.

1. How have you maintained your practice in Thailand with its changing economical and political conditions?

I've been working in association with Thai contemporary art circle for a little bit more than a year now, not directly with any artist or group of artists in particular though. I can say that economical and political changes don't affect my practice as much. I'm working at Bangkok Art and Culture Centre (BACC); part of the funding from the city and another from rental fees, and some from sponsorship. The city has been ran by the same political party so the policy and such have not been altered much. However, due to umm.. I can say increment in popularity and expectation of BACC then we are improving anything possible for the public so with the same funding but more demand and expenses, we need to work harder regarding sponsorship and management.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art what would your concerns be?

At the moment, I can't think of anything regarding international influence on Thai contemporary art, I think that's the question right? Nonetheless, I think Thai contemporary artist is institutional based. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing though. But I believe Thai contemporary art has not been gone through deeply enough even the concept of modern and contemporary. Again I could be wrong about this since my view on this is somehow can be seen as from outsider since I wasn't educated in Thailand for the past five years and have not been working directly with any Thai contemporary artist.

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

I don't believe they are doing the best they can at the moment. It was great division like OCAC is founded but the management and such don't flow. All that because of the funding, I beleive. I can say similar thing about BACC and it's city's resources.

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

It depends on the project. For example, I'm managing 'Han Nefkens Foundation - BACC Award for Contemporary Art', and it's H+F and BACC's fundings. This case we are equal parties, BACC funds a bit less but we provide infrastructure and the managing part, hence, we don't seek for sponsorship elsewhere. However, at the end of this year BACC is having this ASCC thing going on called BAAF (Bangkok Asean Art and Culture Festival: more on http://en.bacc.or.th/event/BAAF.html) which we initiated. For the best outcome on this project, we cannot afford everything on our own so we are trying to get sponsor from different sorts of organisations like embassies, airlines, etc.

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding?

I would focus on supporting different groups of artists as well as art practices equally. I'd make sure theatre performance has a place to practice and perform and for visual artist to have somewhere to exhibit their work distinctively. I believe we need to see what are the problems and solve them according. For example, I feel like percentage of collectors and artists are low. We need to see cause of the problem. It's not because Thais don't have enough money nor artists aren't producing good works but it's due to the cultural value towards contemporary art. So I'm convinced education and social value important. On top of everything, policy and practice toward corruption is crucial.

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Julio Cesar Morales

Artist, Professor, Curator at Arizona State University Museum, USA.

1. How have you maintained your practice in your country with its changing economical and political conditions?

The maintaining of practice has always been instinctual one in regards to being able to anticipate change within the funding and its relationship to curatorial practice. I remember in the mid 2000’s within the West Coast funding was going to thematic projects such as Science+Art, Magic+Art, Ecology+ Art ect..

You end up asking yourself-How you do fit or not in that pocket and in one that seems as a fad. Community-driven programs, artist-run spaces and other hybrid models all seek to creative alternative methods for artists to create work and dialogues. In the current extended recession period, the art world has seen an increasing reliance on these models – moving, however tentatively, away from the U.S. economy and its shadow - the increasingly volatile commercial and secondary art market. These hybrid models are not without precedent – echoing utopian projects of the 1970’s (including the Black Panther’s Survival programs – Free Breakfast for Children and the Intercommunal Youth Institute) as well as ideas tied to Marxist theoretical efforts to restructure the system. Yoshua Okon’s SOMA art school in Mexico City provides an alternative space for critique and dialogue outside of the traditional education system; giving opportunity for artists the continued sense of community MFA programs have, while also being autonomous from the gallery/collector system. New Langton Arts in San Francisco, founded in 1975, took a non-profit model of supporting artists – commissioning new works in the then emerging fields of video, installation, performance and time-based art, electronic music and experimental writing. New Langton encouraged experimentation in making work and in curating exhibitions, supporting those who lay outside of the traditional avenues of artistic production. Models such as these (and the many more like them) are alternative systems for artists – resisting the commodification of their works and an over-reliance of a fiscal system driving the production of work suitable for sale. These programs are markedly different from the competitive art market and provide models that encourage dialogue, critique, mutual support, experimentation and above all, creativity.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns be?

Perhaps is not fair to say but one of the closest examples can be found in say The Venice biennale where countries have their own pavilions and showcase it’s selected artist all in the spirit of the history of the United Nations the only catch is that each country needs to raise one million dollars to be part of this “collaborative” effort. My concern with an international governing body would be the same as an art fair  -one of a hierarchy and commerce. How can we surpass these limitations that are based on issues of power and accessibility or could it be possible to have a singular taste and view of worldwide art, but a cross-section highlighting the vast landscape of art made today. An international governing body of contemporary art should have no curatorial thesis, no agenda to push forward; rather it would be a collective that reflects global vibrancy and creativity.

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

Last month the U.S House of Representatives Interior Appropriations Subcommittee approved its initial FY 2014 funding legislation, which includes a proposed cut of $71 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). This would bring funding of the NEA down to $75 million, a level not seen since 1974! You really can not rely on this type of government funding anymore, more creative ways of funding are actually coming from States with art programs that relay on the growth of its city and give a specific percentages to the arts by the construction of new buildings being erected. As a prime example the city of San Francisco funds about 8 million dollars a year to artists led programming from innovative public art programs to more traditional arts education projects.

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

Depending on the project you usually need to align yourself with one or more institutions or communities, it also really is a question for the artist involved in regards to how they want to be positioned. The main ingredient is to be able to know the funders well and what they fund or will not fund- too radical? too traditional- too left or too right? One must know the funding officers well- its almost like going out to eat with a vegan to a steak house or sushi restaurant- you need to acknowledge they will never put a piece of flesh into their body!

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding-give your forecast?

The only thing that comes to mind is to make contemporary art more accessible and to make the artist and curator disappear and only its essence and influence is left behind and letting the content or thematic of the artwork resonate almost like a feed back loop or tape delay – to use sound terminology. My forecast is innovative residency programs and project based programs that place artists in the same playing field as policy makers by having the accessibility to affect change through a creative field such as in the work of Superflex or Suzanne Lacy. Diverging from this traditional notion of the policy maker – a single authoritative voice, uniting works under a theme taking a more rhizomatic approach. The imagined collaboration should engage not as “experts” in their respective fields or locales, but rather as peers, proponents and fans of their fellow artists and culture makers.

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Jeanne Gerrity

Jeanne Gerrity is Curatorial Associate at the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco, CA United States. She is an 2010 alumni of the GBICC.

1. How have you maintained your practice in your country with its changing economical and political conditions?

Living in New York and San Francisco-- both very expensive cities-- I have found it necessary to have a full-time job in addition to working independently on my own projects. I have been fortunate to have held 9-to-5 jobs in the arts that allowed me to work with artists and gain skills relevant to my practice.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns be?

If there were an international governing body of contemporary art, I would be concerned that artistic endeavors rooted in the local would be overlooked. I also would worry that current global art trends would be privileged over art that was more autonomous, and artists with the funds to travel around the world would be at a distinct advantage. On the other hand, I would love to see art communities connect across national lines and for artists and curators to become aware of artists working in other parts of the world.  

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

I feel as though the United States government has given up on creating contemporary art infrastructures for better or worse. We no longer fear censorship like the NEA Four or the Giuliani backlash against Sensation of the 1990s, but artists, museums, and non-profit galleries can no longer rely on government support. Private museums funded by individuals, like the new museum in LA run by the founders of Guess, are becoming more prevalent than government-funded museums, like the Detroit Institute of Arts, which is threatening to auction off its collection. Museums are ceasing to be run by a group of people, and instead represent the interests of a select few. 

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

I have moved back and forth between institutional and grassroots curating. When curating for an institution, you have much more support, both financial and otherwise. However, many other factors come into play that may seem tangential to the art work, such as ticket sales, pleasing donors, appealing to children, etc. At smaller non-profits and artist run spaces, you have more freedom to focus on the art and ideas.

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding-give your forecast?

I would want unrestricted grants to be available to fund innovative risk-taking work at all levels. The government needs to be willing to fund conceptual, ephemeral, ambitious, site-specific, and political art, so that contemporary art does not become dominated by the whims of the market. Also, the government should make admissions to all museums free!

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Katya Krupennikova

Katya Krupennikova is a curator at Ujazdowski Zamek (Poland, Warsaw) and an art writer.

1. How have you maintained your practice in your country with its changing economical and political conditions?

I believe, that the dynamics of economical and political conditions is a good catalyser for art environment. I constantly get inspiration in political and social contexts. And it is fascinating for me to work in Moscow for my current exhibition Playing Nature, as Russia proves itself an ultimately complex environment for delivering a critical perspective.

2. If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns be?

I'm not entirely sure, that I understand the role of an 'international governing body of contemporary art policy making', but I'm afraid I can't support globalization or unification in the sphere of culture. However, I see spreading of international knowledge, gathering and sharing information as a strong force to develop awareness and to bring positive change into less advanced territories. That would be great, if there was such an international organization though, which would consist of international jury and would contribute to projects all over the world based on their quality in a local and international level. I see it important for the 'international governing body of contemporary art policy making' to combine the international and the local perspective.

3. To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

Unfortunately I can't speak for Russia here, as I have never received any support from Russian state authorities, opposite - I think it oppresses criticality crucial for art by implementing censorship in social sphere. Speaking of the Netherlands, even after the fierce budget cuts in cultural sphere, contemporary culture is supported on the highest level as an important part of social life of the country.

4. How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

I tend to apply to non-commercial European funds. I'm totally against commercial or private funding, which in my opinion serves the interests of certain brands or personalities. I believe, that this type of funding destroys the whole idea of art as an intellectual and educational practice.

5. If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding-give your forecast?

I genuinely think that the best and only way to support contemporary art and culture, is creating international non-commercial funds, which are established to deliver international progress of contemporary art and interested into educational and intellectual function of contemporary art.

[forecasters]

Questionnaire: Molemo Moiloa

Molemo Moiloa is the Public Programmes Manager at Market Photo Workshop and is part of the artistic collaboration MADEYOULOOK (Johannesburg, South Africa).

1.    How have you been able to maintain your practice in South Africa, with its changing economic and political conditions?

From my experience in the last 8 months, institutional support for arts organisations has declined quite drastically. There is still quite a lot of interest in individual artists and individuals have numerous opportunities. Currently there seems to be international interest in South African art/artists and in particular Johannesburg or “Johannesburgness”. Many conversations with international curators at some point turn to something like “so your work is quite deeply intertwined with Johannesburg isn’t it?”. And there is currently this exhibition in Paris called My Joburg that Market Photo Workshop is part of.

I’m concerned that this interest is not likely to last long – it’s too shallow and too big to sustain. South African artists are all over at the moment – there seems to be a sense that South African artists are doing something specific/special. But widely, and certainly organisationally, there is also the sense that South Africa is losing its rainbow-nation glow and more and more international funding organisations are more interested in investing in other parts of the continent – where there has been far less development and there are more stark examples of need.

2.    If there were an international governing body of contemporary art policy making, what would your concerns around such an organisation be?

I’m not sure an international body of contemporary art policy makes any sense. Art, like many other things, has very localised requirements and purposes. There is the added struggle that art doesn’t have immediate repercussions, major concerns that the IMF or World Bank easily claim. And like the IMF or World Bank, an international governing body would never truly be ‘international’ and would likely fulfill only the needs of a developed art market. My further concern is that my most recent experiences of the developed world’s contemporary art and curation is that it’s often deeply patronising and insular – unable to relate to a postcolonial perspective.

3.    To what extent does your government participate in producing contemporary art infrastructures?

The State is not particularly invested in contemporary art infrastructure – it tends closer to heritage and what it refers to as ‘culture’. Which often leaves contemporary outside of its funding interests. The State is also deeply preoccupied with increasing employment, and any infrastructural expenditure has to have employment benefits. So many government officials only really refer to the arts in relation to the ‘creative economy’. That said, considering our economic hardships, and arts’ undeniable relation to elitism, The State has made some quite unbalanced investments into contemporary art – such as the purchasing of space for mid-term exhibiting at the Venice Biennale. Considering where one would expect state coffers to be focusing, this is quite generous.

4.    How do you move across different funding systems to produce your projects?

Within the Photo Workshop, funding is sourced from the state and then quite obviously local and international arts funding bodies. However there is the increasing recognition that a more sustainable funding management system needs to be developed – that seeks private and individual funding but that is also able to use it to make more money – where previously money that came in was spent where it needed to be.

As an artist collaborative (MADEYOULOOK) mostly self funded – partly because our projects don’t often cost that much and partly because we are not full time artists and we make incomes through our main occupations. This usually means we keep costs low and are under less pressure to make projects that suit funders or spend money in ways that are ‘responsible’ or ‘within line items’ etc. It’s much more flexible. That said we have in certain cases applied for funding – and have generally found funding limited, and then been frustrated by the need for funders who fund non-tangible and public engaged work (which is limited in South Africa) to have statistical or hard evidence that our work is ‘effective’ or makes some ‘impact’.

We were recently funded to make work for a competition. Firstly we had to come to terms with the fact that we have in the past been anti-competition. And recognise that as emerging artists institutional/corporate support was good for us, even if we knew it was also bad for us. Then we had to come to terms with institutional requirements of expenditure of the competition – primarily we were expected to do what we were told because we were being given money to do so – this included concerns around the security of our artworks, limitations on display, pressure to make the organiser’s lives easier. And while there were constant reminders of the limitation of the budget – the commercial funder of the competition spent the equivalent of all the artists’ grants on just the opening function.

Generally I think we work better when we are not funded. And we make better work.

5.    If you could work with a local policy maker, what would you desire for the future of contemporary arts funding? What would you forecast for arts funding?

I have been thinking for a while about institutional development. The developed art market has so many large and highly professional arts institutions and it’s really from this that an art market/community/professional practice is able to grow.

I remember Gerhard Marx once commenting to me at the Johannesburg Art Fair, how incredible it was how many of us (recent graduates) were either working or showing at the fair. And how there just hadn’t been the established market there is today.

I think this is why we are ahead of the rest of the continent. It’s about institutions. They push people to do better – more cross pollination, more quality.