Statement of Assignment Topic:

Art Ecology—The Ecology of Artist Run Initiatives (ARIs)

Student Name and number:

Pan Pan GONG 374946

Subject Code and Title:

760-442 Arts Policy and Issues

Lecturer’s Name:
Brian Long

Pan Pan GONG 1

 The Ecology of Artist Run Initiatives (ARIs)

Executive Summary

ARIs are integral in the development of the contemporary visual arts sector. It bridges the gap
between private arts practitioners and the larger arts organisations, providing artists the venue,
freedom and opportunity to develop their practices and gain greater exposure to the art world as a
professional. They exist to groom young artists and to support the more experimental and
independent practices of the established ones. Although government funding has been on the rise
for ARIs, the demand for funding is increasing at a greater rate than the growth in funding. The
project-by-project based funding mechanism not only exposes ARIs to high levels of uncertainty in
terms of its sustainability as a non-profit entity, but it also pushes ARIs to the peripherals of the arts
sector as their growths are often restricted by the high turn-over rate in management and staffs.
Funding mechanisms and policy has yet to catch up with the progressive needs of visual artists and
the ARIs. Greater support in public funding and in encouraging corporate support should be given to
ARIs so that they can fulfil their role in stimulating a vibrant and prolific contemporary visual arts
scene.

Pan Pan GONG 2

Prelude

Healthy contemporary visual arts ecology is built on the formation and growth of ARIs. Like water to
flowers, ARIs groom budding artists and support the established ones. Australian government, as
gardeners, should always pay attention to the quality and source of this essential element, and not
leave it up to the uncertainty of the rain.

Pan Pan GONG 3

Overview of the Visual Arts Sector

Statistics has shown that funding for the Arts, especially Visual Arts, has been increasing
considerably over the years, from $1 million in 1968 (23% of total government funding to the arts) to
$276.8 million in 1998 (39.5% of total funding with the inclusion of galleries and other mediums of
visual arts like film, video and photography)1. However, such an increase in government support is
not able to adequately meet the needs of artists as surveys have shown that there is a lack of
opportunities for artists to be fully engaged in their artistic creation in a full-time profession (Fig. 1),
and for those who are, they do not spend enough time in making art (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1: Artistic involvement—Actual vs. Desired2

1
Statistics from Australian Bureau of Statistics website (2007) Public Funding of the Arts in Australia—1900 to
rd th
2000. http://www.abs.gov.au 3 October, 11 May 2010.
2
Statistics from Australian Council for the Arts (1994) But what do you do for a living?: a new economic study
of Australian artists. New South Wales: Australia Council. Only 39% of artists are employed as a full-time arts
professional, when almost twice of them wishes to be a full-time arts professional.

Pan Pan GONG 4

Fig. 2: Proportion of time spent on artistic creations in occupation3

Furthermore, despite the high amount of funding going towards galleries, artists feel the need for
greater promotion and support in their works (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Promotion of visual artists’ work and their effectiveness as assessed by artists4

3
Statistics from Australian Council for the Arts (1994) But what do you do for a living?: a new economic study
of Australian artists. New South Wales: Australia Council. More than half of the artists in arts profession spend
an average of 39% of their time at work on actual arts creation, when they desire for 72% of such time. There
is a high wastage of time at work on doing things outside of their artistic creation.
4
Statistics from Australian Council for the Arts (1994) But what do you do for a living?: a new economic study
of Australian artists. New South Wales: Australia Council.

Pan Pan GONG 5

At the same time, increase in cost of exhibition space5 rental exacerbates the situation, causing
artists to seek alternative ways in the exhibition and promotion of their artworks.

Located in inexpensive areas or the suburbs, ARIs are started by artists to sustain their art practises
with low expenditure on venues and promotion of work. Run by artists themselves, ARIs allow
greater artistic freedom in the artists’ artistic creation and enable them to spend more time on the
actual practise of art-making. The involvement in ARIs also increases the artists’ international
exposure without having to be professionally employed by bigger arts organisations6. ARIs thus fulfil
the role of bridging the gap between what is available to artists and what is desirable to them,
rectifying the market failure in the contemporary visual arts sector.

With the establishment of ARIs, there are more avenues for artists to engage in artistic creations
professionally. ARIs, being artistically driven rather than profit driven, are also conducive places for
artists to spend more time at the space on their artworks as they try to rely on volunteers to help in
running of the spaces. The close-knit artist community that is being forged through many exchange
or networking initiatives among ARIs enables artists to promote themselves and their work among
fellow artists through word-of-mouth. As ARIs are non-profit and heavily subsidised through
government and philanthropic funding, artists could get a space to work and exhibit their works at a
very low cost. Many ARIs have developed international programs or initiatives that promote peer
feedback and interactions among artists, which is a valuable asset to young artists in their road to
becoming a professional.

5
The Myer Report indicated that the level of government support is not keeping pace with rising costs for
exhibitions and touring.
6
As mentioned in Stanhope, Z. (2007) ‘Unfiled notes on Victorian artist-run initiatives’ pp. 2—11 in Heagney, D.
(ed.) Making Space. Australia: VIA-N—the Victorian Initiatives of Artists’ Network.

Pan Pan GONG 6

Fig. 4: Table summary of market failure and ARI’s corrective role.

Pan Pan GONG 7

ARIs & Policies

ARIs are heavily dependent on public funding due to their non-commercial nature of operation.
Since the 1970s, the Australia government has been funding the running costs of ARIs on a project-
by-project basis. However, with government’s establishment of big contemporary arts organisations7
in the 80s, a large part of the funding to visual arts has been channelled away from the ARIs to
support the development of these organisations. In 1996, a restructure in Australia Council brought
about a cut in the administration funding to the ARIs8.

The ARIs have been funded by the government under a specialised scheme “Opportunities for Young
and Emerging Artists—Artist run initiatives” on a year-to-year basis since 1996. The Myer report in
2002 made certain recommendations to the federal government in supporting the ARIs. As a result,
in 2003, a larger amount has been committed under the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy to support
ARIs9. In 2003, the grant amount to ARIs has increased from $89,398 in 2003 to 9 ARIs, to $269,184
in 2010 to 14 ARIs (Fig. 5).

7
“Australia council established its policy for flagship organisations for contemporary art in each major city, to
be called contemporary art spaces” Source: Jones, B. (2007) ‘Why artist-run spaces?’ pp. 18—24 in Heagney, D.
(ed.) Making Space. Australia: VIA-N—the Victorian Initiatives of Artists Network.
8
Source: Maidment, S. (2007) ‘West Space’ pp. 109—111 in Heagney, D. (ed.) Making Space. Australia: VIA-
N—the Victorian Initiatives of Artists Network.
9
In 2003, the Australian Government committed $39 million over 4 years into arts funding. In 2007, the
strategy was renewed with an additional $27.4 million over 4 years. Source: Australia Government Department
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009), Visual arts and craft strategy website,
http://www.arts.gov.au/grants_and_funding/visual_arts_and_craft_strategy 17th July, 10th May 2010.

Pan Pan GONG 8

Fig. 5: The gap between the amount of funding requested and the amount granted widens, as more
ARIs request for funding and the number of ARIs receiving them remain fairly consistent10.

10
Statistics taken from Australia Council website from year 2003-2010. Source: Australia Council, Grants—
th
Assessment Meeting Reports—Visual Arts website, http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au, 11 May 2010.
Amount requested in 2010 was not provided in the funding report, the amount on graph is an estimation
based on the trend.

Pan Pan GONG 9

ARIs—Different running models and relationships with artists

ARIs do not have fixed operational models. In order to sustain themselves, various models are
employed and adopted over the years.

West Space (1993—) for example, has been actively engaging the public since its initial days in
Footscray. Not only did it bring contemporary visual arts closer to the people in the neighbourhood,
it also provided educations on contemporary art practises to youths11. Moving on, it is opening The
West Wing, an off-site space, at Melbourne Central. This move is seen to be another attempt to
reach out to more people in the public sphere and to raise the profile of ARIs.

Utopian Slumps (2007—2009, 2010—) on the other hand, adopted a split strategy in its operations,
moving from an unconventional ARI—a space run by curators—to becoming a commercial gallery.
However, this move was not an entire departure from its non-profit model as part of it has been
retained in the form of a charitable outlet. This model reveals a self-sustaining ARI that utilises its
commercial success to support its innovative and independent practices.

Not Fair (2010) is an alternative model of ARI, organised by very established artists and art critique.
It utilises the vast networks of these people, and the interconnectedness of the artist community in
its organisation. While it is more an event than a space, it can be seen as an innovation and prolific
regeneration in the concept of ARI in serving the role of sustaining and promoting contemporary
visual arts practises.

There exist ARIs that are affiliated to educational institutions as well, such as Victorian College of the
Arts Gallery, which integrate art studies and professional practises. Many ARIs are also extending
their network into the international sphere, collaborating with ARIs from other countries like Canada,
China and Korea. This provides young artists the opportunity to gain international exposure without
being restricted to the limited market opportunity.

11
It organised artists’ talks to VCE students with special attention on relating the talk to the VCE syllabus, so
that students could better relate and appreciate ARIs and the artists’ practises. Source: Bridie, S.H. and Jones,
B. (1998) ‘Interview with Brett Jones West Space Inc. October 1997’ pp. 3—9 in Bridie, S.H. and West Space
Inc. (eds) Artists/ artist-run spaces: Interviews with artists from six Melbourne artists’ spaces/coordinated by
Sandra Bridie. Victoria: Talk Artists Initiative and West Space Inc..

Pan Pan GONG 10

While some ARIs develop to more commercial models or get incorporated into public arts
organisations such as in the case of Art Space12, most ARIs remain in its original non-profit and
independent model or terminate their operations.

Not all artists involving in ARIs treat them merely as a training grounds and stepping stones to
gaining commercial success or access to exhibiting in commercial galleries. There are instances
where commercially successful and established artists become part of ARIs to continue exploring
their artistic practices13.

ARIs remain relevant to artists throughout their career. They assume the mentoring role to young
artists who needed experience to bridge the gap between being a student and becoming an arts
professional. As for artists in their mid-career, they could make use of the network in ARIs in the
promotion of their works. Established artists also practise at ARIs from time to time because the ARIs
could support the more experimental art practices and works created by the artists due to their non-
profit driven nature.

12
Art Space in Sydney “became absorbed by the art system and now functions as a public gallery” Source:
Bridie, S.H. and Jones, B. (2003) ‘Interview with Brett Jones West Space Inc. October 2002’ pp. 3—10 in Bridie,
S.H. and West Space Inc. (eds) Artists/ artist-run spaces: Interviews with artists from six Melbourne artists’
spaces/coordinated by Sandra Bridie. Victoria: Talk Artists Initiative and West Space Inc..
13
An example is Patrick Pound who exhibited with West Space in 2003, when he was already an established
artist. His works have been in the collection of NGV, commercial galleries and auction houses.

Pan Pan GONG 11

Sustainability of ARIs—Issues faced

There is limited sources of funding for ARIs. Government funding to visual arts and craft makes up
only 1% of the total government spending on arts and culture. A large part of this funding also goes
to supporting contemporary art spaces that have more formalised structures instead of ARIs which
are more informal in nature. Tax incentive provided to corporations and private philanthropies
through the Cultural Gifts Program does not apply to ARIs due to its non-collecting nature. The only
encouragement for private ownership and support of ARIs from the government comes in the form
of tax reduction to ARIs as non-profit organisations, which leaves ARIs fighting for private funding
with non-profit organisations from other sectors.

Over the years, with the increase in grants given out, the demand increases too, and at a higher rate.
This suggests that as the sector develops, there is need for greater public funding which the
government is unable to keep up with at the moment. This unresponsiveness to the growing funding
need of ARIs might stifle the growth of ARIs, especially in states and territories outside of Victoria
and New South Wales14.

With limited funding and rising operational cost, the non-profit operational model of ARIs causes
them to be stuck in a vicious cycle of limited growth opportunities (Fig. 6)—economically unviable
model forces ARIs to move to less central and less accessible areas in order to reduce running costs,
thus reducing their ability to publicise and create awareness in the general public, which in turn
lowers the chances of artists being able to sell their works to sustain their practises and the running
of the ARIs. Furthermore, artists need funding to experiment with new media and other
technologically advanced media which would incur considerable amount of money15 in order to
continuous innovate and challenge their artistic creations. The current level of funding received by
ARIs is barely enough to sustain the running of the space, let alone the ability to acquire new
technologies for artists.

14
According to funding breakdown over the years from 2003 to 2010, funding has been concentrated on ARIs
located in Victoria and New South Wales. Funding from the Australia Council caps at $20,000 for individual
ARIs, however, Victorian ARIs can apply up to $25,000 of funding as part of the extra funding committed under
the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy.
15
Myer’s Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry in 2002 estimated the technological cost
for 15 sample organisations and individuals to be $1,096,293 which is much more than what the ARIs are able
to afford with the given financial support from the government.

Pan Pan GONG 12

Fig 6. Vicious cycle in the growth of ARIs as a result of funding shortage

In order to cut running and administrative costs to provide for other aspects of artists’ development,
artists would rely on volunteers or spend a considerable amount of time on the running of the
spaces. This creates a trade-off between time spent on artists’ own creative process and growth, and
the time spent on refining the operations of ARIs to ensure their sustainability and growth (Fig. 7).
While artists gain exposure in operational management and a whole range of functions beyond art,
it would defeat the purpose of ARIs being formed in the attempt to provide artists the environment
to concentrate on their artwork. Being heavily dependent on volunteers and low-paying staffs, ARIs
experience high staff turn-over rate which forbids operational knowledge on efficient running of the
spaces from building up. ARIs are around for only 3—5 years, largely due to the unsustainable model
which they operate under, as a result of the financial constraints.

The non-profit and low financial resource and return aspect of the ARIs, also meant that key
personnel in the management team could not stay on in the ARIs for long. The change of committee
affects the consistent development of ARIs as new staffs develop their own visions and directions.

Pan Pan GONG 13

There is also a disruption with regards to the knowledge in the savoir-faire of the operational aspect
of the ARIs and in their artists’ support with such a revamp in the management team.

Pan Pan GONG 14

Fig. 7 The trade-off between ARIs’ need to grow and Artists’ need to focus on art production, as a
result of the limitation in resources.

Pan Pan GONG 15

Sustainability of ARIs—Suggestions

It is recommended that a recurrent funding scheme be available to ARIs to ensure greater certainty
in sustaining their operations. The amount and value of grants to ARIs should increase at a rate
proportionate to the growth in the demand. Greater tax incentives should be given to corporate
donors to encourage private ownership and support, and to reduce ARI’s reliance on public funding.
ARIs on the other hand, should diversify their funding sources by seeking various alternative ways to
support its running such as venue collaboration or non-monetary sponsorships.

In order to attract different funders, ARIs should also develop themselves into visionary
organisations with differentiating factors from one another to appeal to different funders. The ARIs’
management could look at successful models of ARIs, such as West Space which has sustained its
operation through innovative running models with high differentiating factor, and tap on the
accumulated knowledge in running ARIs as a sustainable entity. In order to create greater public
awareness of, support for and sense of relevance to the ARIs, ARIs should also actively engage the
general public and take greater measures in audience development and engagement. Through
greater recognition of ARIs’ contribution and importance in the visual arts sector, they could in turn
attract more funding or gain greater bargaining power in their negotiations for policy changes.

Fig. 8: Snapshot of the current state of the ARI ecology in the form of SWOT analysis.

Pan Pan GONG 16

Conclusion
ARIs are integral to the development of contemporary visual arts sector, serving the needs of artists
at various stages of their careers. Current funding policies limit the extent to which the ARIs can
grow and support the development of contemporary art and art practises. With greater demand for
funding, and greater recognition in the contribution of ARIs to the visual arts sector, there is a need
for the government to review their funding mechanisms so that funding could be utilised most
effectively to support the growth of this sector. The ARIs themselves are also responsible for
devising flexible and innovative strategies to sustain their operations. Given the right environment
and operational structure, the ARIs have the potential to growth into greater players in the
development of contemporary visual arts. The sustainable existence of ARIs would translate to the
existence of a nurturing and stimulating environment for contemporary visual artists and art sector.

2212 words

Pan Pan GONG 17

Bibliography

Artinfo Press release Online (2010) ‘Not Just Another Art Affair’,
http://artinfo.com.au/notfair/nf/home/Entries/2010/1/25_Press_release.html 25th January 2010,
25th May 2010.

Australian Bureau of Statistics website (2007) Public Funding of the Arts in Australia—1900 to 2000.
http://www.abs.gov.au 3rd October, 11th May 2010.

Australian Council for the Arts (1994) But what do you do for a living?: a new economic study of
Australian artists. New South Wales: Australia Council.

Australia Council for the Arts, Grants—Assessment Meeting Reports—Visual Arts website,
http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au, 11th May 2010.

Australia Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009), Visual
arts and craft strategy website,
http://www.arts.gov.au/grants_and_funding/visual_arts_and_craft_strategy 17th July, 10th May
2010.

Bridie, S.H. and Jones, B. (1998) ‘Interview with Brett Jones West Space Inc. October 1997’ pp. 3—9
in Bridie, S.H. and West Space Inc. (eds) Artists/ artist-run spaces: Interviews with artists from six
Melbourne artists’ spaces/coordinated by Sandra Bridie. Victoria: Talk Artists Initiative and West
Space Inc..

Bridie, S.H. and Jones, B. (2003) ‘Interview with Brett Jones West Space Inc. October 2002’ pp. 3—10
in Bridie, S.H. and West Space Inc. (eds) Artists/ artist-run spaces: Interviews with artists from six
Melbourne artists’ spaces/coordinated by Sandra Bridie. Victoria: Talk Artists Initiative and West
Space Inc..

Commonwewalth of Australia (2002) Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Jones, B. (2007) ‘Why artist-run spaces?’ pp. 18—24 in Heagney, D. (ed.) Making Space. Australia:
VIA-N—the Victorian Initiatives of Artists Network.

Patrick Pound (2010), Grantpirrie website,

http://www.grantpirrie.com/artist.php?g=gallery1&a=9&m=1 , 25th May 2010.

Pan Pan GONG 18

Stanhope, Z. (2007) ‘Unfiled notes on Victorian artist-run initiatives’ pp. 2—11 in Heagney, D. (ed.)
Making Space. Australia: VIA-N—the Victorian Initiatives of Artists’ Network.

Utopian Slumps (2010), Utopian Slumps blog, http://utopianslumpsgallery.blogspot.com/ 15th April

2010, 25th May 2010.

Pan Pan GONG 19