Artist-led culture/Artist-Curator
This week I have learned about the unique strengths and limitations of ARI through my study of ARI, which has reinforced the fact that ARI and large organizations interact with each other.ARIs is developed and managed by unpaid artists, not professional managers. Artists are responsible for all aspects of the organization. In contrast, large art institutions are characterized by strong hierarchical relationships, with responsibilities divided through chains of authorization(Brown et al., 2018).
Independent Research based on lecture:
Arts development now focuses on how ARI and existing organizations can and do negotiate with each other, as well as recognizing the interpenetration between arts organizations of different sizes (Jackson and D. 2014). Such interactions can help facilitate collaboration, knowledge exchange, and resource sharing between arts organizations of different sizes and natures. This is because even though the presence of ARI artists can be a good judge of the cultural vitality of a community, for small and medium-sized cities, artists are highly mobile, and large cities with good facilities and ample space tend to be more attractive to artists (Keeley and M. A. 2008). For larger organizations, this can be remedied. This is because ARI lacks the resources and visibility that major public art organizations usually have (Blessi, et al, 2011).
Meanwhile, after my research, I found that a fusion of ARIs and major organizations is in the form of the Lacey Prize established in Canada, which was set up by Dr. John Lacey in conjunction with the National Gallery of Canada and supported by the National Gallery of Canada Foundation to honor artist-run centers and other small arts organizations (Anon, 2019). There is also the Ideas City program at the New Museum in New York which works with artist-led organizations to explore urban development and creative practice. This project encourages ARI participation and provides a platform for experimental and socially oriented art to be presented and in dialogue.
https://www.newmuseum.org/pages/view/ideascity
I believe that these forms of collaboration allow arts organizations of different sizes and natures to complement each other, grow together, and contribute to the diversity and inclusiveness of the arts ecology.
Individual Curatorial Project and collective project:
Lastly, During this Wednesday’s panel discussion, we established the curatorial mission statement that belongs to our group:
As curators, we will be responsive, experimental, innovative, open, inclusive and flexible in our approach. We will see ourselves as mediators.We will always aim to engage new audiences and underrepresented communities and cultures, with a focus on inclusion. Our goal is to engage with audiences both locally and globally.We intend to pay special attention to multimedia art works that exist both inside and outside the gallery space.Our forms of communication will include online and physical Spaces, as well as various blends of text and non-text outputs.
References:
Anon (2019) The Lacey Prize for Artist-Run Centres in Canada. Ottawa: PR Newswire Association LLC.
Blessi, G. T. et al. (2011) Independent artist-run centres: an empirical analysis of the Montreal non-profit visual arts field. Cultural trends. [Online] 20 (2), 141–166.
Brown, D. et al. (2018) Artists Running: Fifty Years of Scottish Cultural Devolution. Visual culture in Britain. [Online] 19 (2), 139–167.
Jackson, D. (2014) Shifting focus of the traditional centres of contemporary art : Scotland’s evolving position from periphery to prominence. The University of Edinburgh.
Keeley, M. A. (2008) The Benefits And Limitations Of Artist-Run Organizations In Columbus, Ohio. The Ohio State University / OhioLINK.
Leave a Reply