The Lifecycle and Deathcycle of ARIs

Lucy Hawthorne

In 2013, I wrote an essay about a spate of Hobart gallery closures for the online publication The Conversation. Even though the moment was fleeting, I recently saw it referenced in an academic article that implied it the current and ongoing state of Tasmanian arts.  While the period between about 2008 and 2013 was marked by a number of gallery closures and the de-funding of a couple of contemporary art spaces, we’ve since seen a rise in the number of interesting (albeit small) visual arts spaces and events in and around Hobart, many of them artist-run. For instance, MGA ARI Moonah was launched last weekend, the tiny gallery Visual Bulk opened in December last year, and another space – The Gentle Void – is rumoured to open later this year.

MGA ARI Moonah. Photo: Dani Page

MGA ARI Moonah. Photo: Dani Page

The soft opening of MGA ARI Moonah last Saturday night followed Friday’s closing party of the two-year-old Arts Factory in South Hobart. This coincidence is a great representation of the lifecycle of artist run spaces. I’ve written in the past about the phoenix tendencies of Artist Run Initiatives: while it’s often sad to say goodbye to an arts organisation, there’s always at least one new ARI that rises from the ashes. It might seem odd, but I see this turnover as a good thing. After all, one of Australia’s earliest artist run spaces – Inhibodress, established by Mike Parr, Peter Kennedy and Tim Johnson in 1970 – only existed for three years, yet it played a key role in the development of multi-media and installation art in this country. New ARIs tend to take more risks, their volunteer board members are not exhausted from the significant time and energy the running of an ARI demands, their identity is flexible, and they benefit from the novelty that comes with a new ARI in the community.

I asked some of the attendees at last weekend’s events what they thought about the closure of the Arts Factory:

“I’m sad because The Arts Factory’s my local. But I’m glad it’s going quickly and not left to limp on. You might as well do something well for a little bit.”

“The best you can do it do the best job for a short amount of time. That’s what creative people do best. We have a short attention span.”

“It leaves room for new people, younger people to move up the ranks.”

There was also an acknowledgment that creative people aren’t necessarily good at administration, so it’s best to keep projects short and sweet (I loathe such stereotypes, but anecdotally, it’s always difficult to recruit treasurers to ARI boards). The burden of running an art space with regular programming and significant financial overheads is not insignificant. Add to that the fact that ARIs are almost always run purely by volunteers, and receive little or no public funding. ARIs don’t attract the glistering dollars of multi-millionaire philanthropists. Funding bodies prefer long-term organisations with a track record of stability, equating longevity with merit. Yet the lack of stability is what makes these temporary art spaces interesting. Instead, they are supported by alcohol sales at openings and studio/gallery space hire, while extra cash is often provided by the individuals already volunteering their time and labour, and/or start-up crowdfunding campaigns. I asked one visitor if she’d ever start a similar space: “no way, it’s too much work. But I’ll come to an ARI and drink beer in support.”

While the cynic in me believes politicians and other funding bodies like it that way, we run the risk of exhausting the local art scene through this culture of volunteerism. There’s little awareness outside the arts sector of the financial burden placed upon artists; in a recent interview, I mentioned that artists pay to exhibit at ARIs, and the ABC radio interviewer was incredulous, despite the fact that she hosts the regular culture panel show. We hear a lot about the booming ‘cultural economy’ in Tasmania, particularly in relation to the rise in tourism following MONA’s opening in 2011, yet the grassroots art scene relies heavily on free labour, and artists are rightly questioning the beneficiaries of this new economy.

So how do we make ARIs affordable and accessible, while maintaining the spirit and benefits of risk and experimentation that sets them apart from large public institutions? Firstly, I believe ARIs need to move away from the single-use gallery model that emulates publicly funded spaces. It’s a pretty common model: there’s usually a bi-annual call-out for exhibition proposals, and maybe a writing program. Once a month, there’s a new exhibition where the sale of alcohol assists with the ARI’s bottom line. It’s an expensive model that places a financial burden onto the exhibiting artists, and ultimately benefits those from wealthier backgrounds who can afford to pay.

A multi-use model, say, a studio and gallery space with a flexible program and regular events is surely more equitable. The financial burden is then spread among studio residents, punters (through food and alcohol sales), and exhibiting artists. The Arts Factory’s rent was largely paid for by studio residents, and it’s programming was largely based on discrete music, art and food events, rather than a strict gallery schedule with open proposals. MGA ARI Moonah will operate on a similar model.

A third model is the siteless ARI, where temporary sites are used instead of a fixed gallery space. Not only is it cheaper, but it also allows for flexible programming and is administratively less demanding.  The siteless ARI, 10% Pending (2007-10) , was largely funded by cake stalls, for instance. These ARIs provide important opportunities for site-specific and installation artists to work outside the confines of the gallery within an official capacity. In the absence of the automatic validation of a physical gallery space, the siteless ARI legitimises an artwork in the eyes of the arts community.

Tremoure, Anthony's Future, and His Book on 'the Pediestrian City' (2007), performance, 10% Pending. Photo credit: Aaron Horsley.

Tremoure, Anthony’s Future, and His Book on ‘the Pediestrian City’ (2007), performance, 10% Pending. Photo credit: Aaron Horsley.

I’ve found Constance ARI’s move to this siteless model quite interesting. At thirteen, it’s Hobart’s oldest existing ARI, and recently shed its gallery in favour of one-off public art projects. However, it’s also an example of an ARI that perhaps should have folded a long time ago and started anew. In 2013, the then board changed its name from Inflight to Constance, splitting opinions in the relatively small Hobart visual arts community. Between 2003 and 2013, dozens of local artists had served on the Inflight board, and many more had exhibited in the gallery. There was great affection for the ARI, but also a sense of community ownership. But how do you go about shutting down an ARI with such a legacy, not to mention one that had stabilised into an organisation that could receive government funding? (I write this as someone who has exhibited under both the Inflight and Constance names, reviewed Inflight exhibitions, and served on the Constance board. I’m not at all impartial.) There’s so much pressure to stick around, yet unlike large public institutions, ARIs should be celebrated for their temporary nature, their flexibility, riskiness and inability to find a treasurer.


This is the third in a series of blog posts on the state of artist-run initiatives by writers around Australia, for Runway issue #30, Ecologies. You can read the first post, by Melbourne writer and curator Maria Miranda, here. and the second by Adelaide based curator and artist Serena Wong, here

 

 

News Archive

CALLOUT FOR PROPOSALS: Issue #34 Failure

ISSUE #33 POWER LUNCH / LAUNCH

RUNWAY REGIONAL TRAVEL BURSARIES: Be our Cementa17 reporter!

CALLOUT FOR PROPOSALS: Issue #33 Power

Love art? Got skillz? Runway Board Member Call Out for 2017

RUNWAY <3 LIVEWORKS // writers workshop callout

FAIRFIELD FOOD SAFARI // presented by Runway and PYT

RUNWAY REGIONAL TRAVEL BURSARIES

Tribunal: a review

Callout: Runway issue #32[RE/PRODUCTION]

On the threatened closure of Sydney College of the Arts

In Response: A carving out of space that is designed to end

In Response: Community, Criticality and Play

In Response: Strength in ARI Diversity

Callout: Runway issue #31[WEST]

In Response: Revisiting a Melbourne Perspective

“The party becomes the site of knowing”: on the Brisbane sharehouse ARI

The Lifecycle and Deathcycle of ARIs

One year in an ARI

Balancing on the Edge: A Melbourne Perspective

Les Bijoux Indiscrets

On the marginalisation of female pleasure

An account of my encounters with porn

Introducing our guest blogger for issue #29[PORN]: Emily Post Coitus

On Reenacting ‘Dream Merchant’

CALLOUT FOR RUNWAY ISSUE #30 [ECOLOGIES]

Conversations 6

Conversations 5

Conversations 4

Conversations 3

Runway is looking for 4 new board members for 2016!

Conversations 2

Conversations 1

CALLOUT FOR RUNWAY ISSUE #29 [PORN]

Lauren Reid and Vaida Stepanovaité discuss the Project Space Festival in Berlin

The Politics of Listening

A list of other jobs artists do to support their careers as artists.

Australian Artist Run Initiatives condemn cuts to the Australia Council for the Arts

Amina McConvell’s hypnogogic manifestations

Casula

CALLOUT FOR RUNWAY ISSUE #28 [MOVEMENT]

Perth Amboy

Stuart Highway

Wallerawang

GIRLS TO THE FRONT: Hissy Fit

Clandulla

Kandos

Henley Golf Club

Moira National Park

An unusual way of doing politics: Alex Martinis Roe

Strike!

Constructions of the ‘We’

Rights of Nature

The Government Machine

CALLOUT FOR RUNWAY ISSUE #27 [OUTSIDE]

Part VIII: One for the money

Keyboard mash (Caps lock on): Terrence Combos

Part VII: GCC @ KTZ @ FIAC

The Next Big Thing: Reserve your Runway 2014 Artist Edition today

PRESS RELEASE: Become a Founding Member of the Runway Funding Circle

Part VI: Notes on Society, with Susan Gibb

Art can make you soft again: spotlight on Rosie Deacon

Part V: A page on W.A.G.E. (valued at approx. $93.75)

PRESS RELEASE: Runway announces first Annual Commission by Sydney emerging artist Rosie Deacon

Part IV: Some smiles for the Economic Frown

Runway is growing: Callout for new board members

Part III: What is this thing called work?

Regional Contemporary Art Network

Part II: Eyes on the prize

Part I: Lazzarato’s ‘Indebted Man’

CALLOUT FOR RUNWAY ISSUE #26 [KNOWLEDGE]

Introducing guest blogger Eleanor Ivory Weber

“Die Sonne kommt näher”: Otto Piene’s More Sky in Berlin

Fuzzy Logic: Talking Big Data and the Aesthetics of the Infinitely Small at CMA2014

The Pale Fox – Camille Henrot in Copenhagen

Kiribati – Putting a Face to Climate Change

The Flux of Space: Berlin’s Project Space Festival

Guest Editor for Runway Issue#25 – Andrew Hurle

Callout for Runway Issue #25 [MONEY]

8 Propositions for Islands: Part 8

8 Propositions for Islands: Part 7 // Becoming Post-nissological

8 Propositions for Islands: Coda // Those Who Stay

8 Propositions for Islands // Part 5: Island as Island

8 Propositions for Islands // Part 4: Plinth as Island

8 Propositions for Islands // Part 3: Queer Performance as Archipelago

8 Propositions for Islands // Part 2: Stage as Island

8 Propositions for Islands // Part 1: Artist as Island

A Discourse on Prototyping, War Crimes and Artistic Practice

Callout for Issue #24 [ISLANDS]

It’s launch day!

Out with Outsider Art?

21st Century Artist conference, Artspace Sydney, October 2013

Runway’s New Adventure


CONNECT WITH US

Search Runway