Solution: Tear Down All Museums

New Museum facade. Image courtesy of collaborator Shauna Thompson.

The title of Richard Flood's (Chief Curator, New Museum) Power Talk during the Toronto International Art Fair, "Tearing Down the House: Notes on Contemporary Curating" developed out of a discussion he had with Helena Reckitt (Senior Curator of Programs, The Power Plant) about what should be done to solve the current problems faced by contemporary arts institutions. Response: just tear them all down. Why bother with such a bold (and sarcastic) statement if you're not about to incite an exciting movement from it? Artists-run centres (ARCs) back in the day made their own spaces in response to what artists weren't getting from the major institutions, and now, maybe we can just tear them down and re-build yet again...if anyone wants to. Just as the ARC model is outdated, so is the idea of an all encompassing survey institution as described by Flood and his other panelists at another discussion at TIAF called "Curating in the New Economy" with Louis Gracos (Director, Albright-Knox), Sarah Milroy (Toronto art critic) and Daina Augaitis (Cheif Curator, Vancouver Art Gallery), so it lends the question as to whether we should in fact tear them down. Unfortunately, lacking anarchist conviction, Flood never elicited a call to arms.

One question that beat on the brain is "What are the problems that are so unsolvable that would cause us to consider utter destruction?" Well, none. But the current economic climate makes things more difficult. During his "Tearing Down the House" talk, Flood instead offered advice on how to be a good curator in order to improve the perceived situation rather than starting again from scratch. This advice was in the form of a list of things to remember, or what, in his opinion, should be the new focus of curators today. Keep in mind, this is the type of curator with a PhD, caring for a large collection, working for a significant international institution - think Art Gallery of Ontario, National Gallery of Canada, and the Museum of Modern Art (in any city) etc. - who is also well seasoned in the field:

• Analyze your collection;
• Know your institution's mandate;
• Create a long-term and short-term collection plan;
• Know the markets in which you plan to purchase items for your collection;
• Be charming;
• Know the difference between opportunity and impulse;
• Know your director, your personnel, your trustees, and the philanthropists, knowing that they have different expectations [enforce the hierarchy];
  
• Understand the importance of facilitating artists' production and promote artists' residencies;
• Know how your institution will develop its 'online presence' (my quotes);
• Hold a willingness to overcome convention.

Some of these seem a bit off the mark for someone in my position who has no desire to fit into the hierarchy of a larger institution as a curator, nor to necessarily work with a collection. Oddly enough, from my narrow and obsessive focus within contemporary art curating and non-profits, I forgot that curators are sometimes in charge of collections. Therein lies an intrinsic problem: Flood never acknowledged that curators could be anything else than what he is (except maybe less progressive and pleasurably unaware).

The New Museum's programming appears culturally rich in Flood's description, drawing from its permanent collection as a method of saving money in reaction to budget cuts, and doing it in a very smart way. Many of these exhibition spaces are on high rotation and are presented in public areas that you don't have to pay to access as a visitor with some even visible from the street for passersby. There is also a strong programme to promote young artists, which reflects the mandate of "New Art, New Ideas" quite well. Flood was emphatic about the promotion of new talent, saying that museums have to act as conduits for cultural production, not simply as preservers and presenters. It also follows his line of advice to my colleague and I after his talk that, even when you find yourself unemployed or not attached to an institution: you must remain a cultural producer. Welcome to the blog.

Described nonchalantly as a 'revenue generator' by Richard Flood, the Sky Room sits in the highest cube of the New Museum. Image courtesy of collaborator Shauna Thompson.

In response to an audience question asking Flood how the New Museum is surviving in the 'Recession', Flood offered his observation on a recent trend of institutional collaboration, or what I would call 'relational aesthetics for administrators'. Museums around the world are coming together to share resources (and money) to plan projects that have mutual promotional and cultural benefits for all the participants. The New Museum's programme called "Museum as Hub" brings together institutions from Egypt, Mexico, Holland, Korea and others on the premise of exploring new ways of communicating, collaborating and planning exhibitions. Flood described this sort of project as a positive response to the poor economic times because it has developed a space for open dialogue and collaboration between heretofore autonomous institutions. There is no criticism in concern of nepotism or shallow meaning in the practice of 'institutional relational aesthetics' since there are real and successful results among internationally respected institutions. The only problem for me is that it still looks like a glossy, well-funded project presenting ideal forms of production and dissemination without the grass-roots, real community appeal.

There remains a divide between grand institutions like the New Museum in relation to the smaller public institutions like an ARC as to how they have been effected by funding challenges brought on by the 'Recession' along with how a curator operates within each context. The New Museum upholds the ideals of a well-funded, hierarchal museum that all of us expect to exist through time; sure they struggle, but they still have enough money for the shellac to polish things over....often assisted through low-level layoffs *cough* AGO *cough*, while the big-wig Directors and Curators with the recognizable names spearhead the programming that valiantly continues (well, they're keeping the institution afloat, right?). In the case of smaller institutions, with few people filling many roles, relaxed hierarchy among curators, contributors and directors, focused programming, locally involved: they get closed down, like the Helen Pitt Gallery in Vancouver (R.I.P, and hope for the walking dead).

Another Art Fair: The Canadian Version

The Toronto International Art Fair has transformed slowly in the past three years since I have been attending. This year I worked on Friday and Saturday of the fair at the C Magazine booth. The fair now includes curated sections, namely Jeffrey Spalding's HEARTland exhibition at the top of the escalators/entrance to the fair grounds and the solo exhibition spaces including samples of the work of Canadian Art Magazine's imposed "10 to Watch" (Fall 2009 issue) including Hannah Adad, and Jennifer Marman and David Borrins among others (although the works by these artists in the solo spaces were also for sale under their present dealers, the space was positioned as a non-threatening-to-the-wallet sort of exhibition space). HEARTland was a well selected smattering of Canadian artists, with a noticeable and possibly reviewer-biased Nova Scotian representation with works by David Askevold, Eric Fischel and a few from Gerald Ferguson. The exhibition showed its experimental presence in its inconsistent didactic labels and its crooked vinyl title. Remarkable that an art fair set to make money, with months of planning and set up, still lacks in the presentation details that are meant to make products appear respectable, desirable and therefore sell-able. Because the exhibition was not for sale maybe not much time was spent as a non-profitter like me would have hoped.

This exhibition has replaced the space where all the arts magazines set up their booths the past two years. Canadian Art, C Magazine, Esse, Border Crossings, Mass Art Guide, Allure and any others that have passed through before. Herein lies the indication of the political lay out of the TIAF.

At the entrance of the fair, the visitor is greeted by an exhibition in the form of a promotional survey of Canadian artists with goals to "advocate on behalf of [Canada's] diversity, vitality, and pertinence within this context"...the context being the international art scene. A reflection on Canada's lack of recognition in the international art world disguised as a passive comment on multiculturalism and diversity. Economic politics, not altruistic artistic promotion (yes, I know, extremes).

Red indicates international vendors; Yellow indicates Canadian (outside Toronto) vendors; White indicates Toronto vendors; Blue indicates publishers.

Many of the Toronto commercial art galleries, along with comparable international examples, are positioned to the right side all labeled as "NEXT" to imply their up-and-comingness. International exhibitors are concentrated in the middle (with many simply from other provinces, so not quite international). The modern and historical art dealers to the left...and a bit towards the back. The arts magazines are plunked in a line next to the back toilets and the cafe, while other non-profit and public galleries making attempts to hold their own are positioned along the perimeter of the fair grounds (also by the washrooms in the case of the AGO and the RBC Canadian Painting Competition): the Art Gallery of York University, The Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art, The Art Gallery of Ontario, and the Leona Drive Project among others. With a largely Canadian focus, the question of who is using the fair becomes pertinent: are international buyers visiting Toronto or are international galleries looking for Canadian patrons? Or is this a play for Toronto to enter the international stage by continuing to participate in the phenomenon of the art fair? With send-off letters of congratulations from Michaëlle Jean, Stephen Harper and David Miller at the front of the TIAF catalogue, I would say it's more of the latter.

The TIAF can't be a display of wealth and exchange but more of a participation and promotion of economic and cultural positive thinking. Since the recession has taken hold, and supposedly relieved, people couldn't have been spending money on something potentially considered by buyers as frivolous. The business association with Canadian Art Magazine and the "10 to Watch" smells suspiciously like incestuous promotion on a debatable world stage.

The HEARTland exhibition's goal to present a survey of Canadian artists as an indication of support and promotion, or a sort of rallying cry, is as much for the Canadian audience as it is for the international. Since Canadians are as desperate for cultural identity as we are to display that Canadian identity within the context of international culture, both HEARTland and the "10 to Watch" presence of Canadian Art are microcosms of TIAF itself: an attempt to participate as an independent and distinct cultural producer on the world stage.

Some Generational Differences and Self Promotion

The old boys club. Left to Right: Robert Barry, Douglas Huebler, Joseph Kosuth and Lawrence Weiner. All part of Seth Sieglaub's group exhibition "January 5-31, 1969"

Opinions about the arts community vary greatly within the arts community. By now, I've talked to a few people working as funders, administrators and curators in Toronto, and I've discovered that there are generally agreed upon regulations (galleries exist through funders, curators organize artists, galleries promote their artists and exhibitions), but the details get confusing: what money should go where? who should be giving money? which type of gallery should be exhibiting which type of artist? along with investigation into what the desirable and effective relationship between artists and institutions should look like.From the perspective of someone trying to make it into the field, it seems like my best option would be to play along, promote copacetic relationships and learn to play the game using the guidance of the general, agreed upon regulations. Or at least to begin with.

Some choose not to play along, instead forging a more divergent path; something I had forgotten how to do after battling with stifling university curriculum for the past 6 years . I recently met with Derek Liddington, Director of XPACE who has indeed trodden a path of internal ideological and action oriented resistance. If you look back through the history of art, it is easy to be reminded of the many arts professionals - artists, writers, curators - who have found success through rustling some feathers, being independently minded and asserting their opinions, whether they were popular or not. Remember when we could stick up for ourselves and have independent ideas? While searching for a job it seems to be the opposite goal, instead trying too hard to mold one's identity and experiences into the desires of any given institution; making ourselves into an alternative version of ourselves when we should be approaching things as real, independently minded people with a specialized and particular skill set applicable in many different and creative ways applicable to many aspects of the cultural field (I say 'we' as recent graduates with cultural degrees). It's a tension between what we ideally want out of the job market with what the job market wants out of us.

Liddington is a great 'advocate' (a word with stronger political associations than he desires) for the under-30 crowd. During our meeting, he happened to reinforce an observation I made in the September 19th post (Gallery TPW: Round Two) about the abrupt and alarming lack of networks and structures after post-secondary graduation. There is a multitude of opportunities for students, but institutional focus and funding seems to have run out for recently graduates. It's possible that the people, committees and advisers in charge of creating work grants and new positions are convinced that graduates have already gotten all the experience they need by the time they are handed their diplomas. Surprisingly, that's not real life. Liddington's personal interest lies in promoting a shift in focus from a structure of training to one of continued support. What are arts organizations doing for the younger generation ready to apply their new exciting ideas and initiatives to the community? Not much. If you're a 25 year old arts administrator, curator, artist, writer like myself, you already know the situation.


There's a generational divide, and it's blatant. The people in charge of galleries and funding distribution today, both artist-run centres and larger public institutions, are run by older men and women with impeccable educations and experience in multiple facets of the arts and culture field but, in many cases, they are ingrained in older methods of practice (maybe more to the academic side than the practical business side?); once-upon-a-time radicals in the festishized hey-days of the 1960s and 1970s, but not so much today where the economy and community has changed drastically. Funny thing is that these older models persist - take a look at any of the institutions called artist-run centres today and the vast differences from one to the next in Toronto - they aren't artist-run centres any more. Then there's my generation, who understands what has come before and knows that things need to be taken in new directions, or at least wants to desperately find out for themselves what these directions could be (what do new artists need? where's the money at...or where will it be next? what's the relationship of critical writing to the physical exhibition? what's the role of the curator after the realization of the curator-as-artist vs curator-as-facilitator and the new era of post-relational aesthetics?). Then to follow us will be the graduates with real university degrees in arts administration programmes.

No generalization implied.

Liddington's 'radicalism' comes from his insistence on a network for us in-betweeners, the new graduates, below 30 years old with applicable education and experience. This shouldn't be radical, of course. It's probably time to demand opportunities for ourselves within the field by first recognizing, that yes, it's not working for us and then deciding that something really needs to be done about that because it simply isn't beneficial for any of these generations involved (except maybe for the ones that want to keep their jobs until they're pried from their desks in high towers after rigor-mortis sets in).

CAR/FAC: A Parallel and Perpendicular Organization.

I recently met with Kristian Clarke, the Executive Director at the Canadian Artists Representation/Le Front des Artistes Canadiens, Ontario about what the organization does, where its located within the Toronto and Canadian arts communities (what's it's role), how it's surviving and, of course, what kind of people work for the organization and if I could be one of those people in the near future.

CAR/FAC Ontario is an independent arts advocacy organization in that its mandate is separate from other arts organizations like the Ontario Arts Council (OAC), Toronto Arts Council (TAC) and Canada Council (CC) and its board and staff operate independently from these organizations as well. However, CAR/FAC is still integrated in to the same funding system, receiving support through the TAC and OAC (along with earning revenue from membership fees and publications), and its mothership, CAR/FAC National in Ottawa, does get a chunk of funding through the CC. It is an organization started out of the desire for artists to be able to live off of their art practice: to be paid commensurately for exhibiting their work and to also ensure that their work is protected (ie: they're not getting ripped off), right along with the artist-run centre movement in the 1960s where artists were looking for better representation in the gallery circuit. Solution: create your own that runs parallel.

Although CAR/FAC allocates certain projects to representatives in the field who meet with institutions and organizations actively advocating for artists' rights, it mostly operates as an organization that artists seek out on their own terms, when needed. Member artists are meant to employ the organization as a resource to learn more about professional development, obtain legal advice through courses/workshops (with a new OCAD course on professional development), self-promotion strategies and financial management. Without CAR/FAC, artists would be on their own without a unified professionalized support network or information service pertaining to how to survive as an artist, you know, like in the real world where money has to be made, work is exhibited and property (art) must be protected and preserved.

The one component of CAR/FAC with which I was already familiar, from both my gallery work and my independent curatorial work, was their artist-fee regulatory documents. These fee schedules are maintained by an affiliated CAR/FAC body called the Canadian Artists Representation Copyright Collective Inc. (CARCC), and although the fees increase by 3-5% annually, the minimum requirements are still surprising low--based on individual institutional funding, not much more can be accommodated in some cases I'm sure (I have also found that galleries will often pay far above the minimum anyway). In 2007, a 'Memorandum of Understanding' was signed by Canadian Art Museum Directors' Organization (CAMDO) and the Canadian Museums Association (CMA) so that the associated galleries and museums would promise to pay minimum fees as dictated by CAR/FAC's fee schedule. Even since 1975 there has been a legal agreement with Canada Council that applicants must adhere to CAR/FAC's fees for living artists as a stipulation of the receipt of the Program Assistance Grants to Public Art Galleries, making the volunteer agreement much more real. Certain larger arts institutions still do not comply with this volunteer agreement, because it's simply that: not legally binding and only for the moral betterment and respect of the arts community.

CAR/FAC is the shining example of an organization that artists needed to establish in order to obtain basic legal rights for the exhibition and dissemination of their work. Although this can be considered as another aspects of the increasing business side or commoditization of art, having to participate in the system, or create its own system in order to play along; it's also simply a survival response made to ensure that artists have recognizable and binding ownership over their production. Without CAR/FAC, no one would be sticking up for individual artists on a case-by-case basis or a larger scale. Great things have been achieved since the organization's inception in 1968: http://www.carfac.ca/about/carfac-history/ and the comunity continues to improve.

Talking with Kristian, he concluded that job opportunities at CAR/FAC are few and far between, and that their staff had indeed been significantly reduced in the past year, with only a couple full-time workers and the odd part-time and intern contributing alongside. Is this due to the "recession", causing a tough year? In fact he said "no way". The recession has shifted emphasis off of big business and the regular ways of generating revenue since they have now proven to fail. The arts and culture sector can be healthily placed within the tourism sector, and along with things like Nuit Blanche and the Toronto International Film Festival, sometimes it can also seem like there's no lack of funding or attention being paid to the culture sector in Toronto. Kristian believes that this shift in focus has been good for the arts community, now that we're perceived as an asset that can be invested in: something with measurable success and revenue, and not just a bottomless pit with no quantifiable pay-back?

The tide seems to move back and forth depending who I talk to on this matter of art funding- bountiful or depleted?

image: http://tuningmeister.com/Tutorial/CelloSarabandeFull.PNG