Something to possibly look at are the organisational histories of the London Film Co-Op and London Video (Electronic) Arts (LEA), which merged to become Lux. They might be relevant to Netbehaviour given their co-locatedness in London, their media-based ontologies and similar historic shifts in politics and public support for the arts that largely determined their economic circumstances and the choices they had to make.
The Co-Op was a horizontally organised cooperatively run non-profit. LEA was, to begin, a smaller cooperative organisation that, as it grew, adopted a more structured organisational model. It always remained a non-profit charitable company limited by guarantee. I was Chair of the Board of Directors of LEA in the late 80's and early 90's and a member of the Co-Op. I was not involved in the merger that created Lux but was involved in organisational changes that led up to that. Lux took on some aspects of LEA (its management and employment structures) and the Co-Op (a more open, even anarchic, political ethos determining how members interacted with management). It also took on a lot of baggage from the funders, especially the BFI, which eventually brought Lux to its knees. Happily, it survived what was a bad car-crash, perhaps because of some internal strengths inherited from its earlier manifestations. All three organisational models had pluses and minuses. The lessons that came out of the merger suggest that the issues to watch out for include ensuring membership involvement in decision making (most members want other's to carry the can whilst expecting the organisation to continue to serve their primary interests - which is sort of reasonable in theory but difficult in practice), transparency in all matters (especially finances and employment), a clear mission and financial probity. External oversight of accounts and returns needs to be rigorous to ensure the longer term survival of the organisation. This will be the Achilles' heel others (eg: funders) will use as a stick to beat an organisation. The question is whether Netbehaviour can retain the characteristics that make it special whilst widening its remit and satisfying the funders' demands for greater rigor and public value? This will be what is demanded if Netbehaviour is to sustain public funding. The issues identified in the above paragraph are those Netbehaviour will find itself struggling with as these external pressures exert themselves. One benefit Netbehaviour has, and which is intrinsic to its identity and mission, is excellent communications, internally and externally. It this infrastructure that defines it as a community and it will be this that will make a positive difference in how things play out over the critical next 12 to 24 months. The new web platform you are building will be key to that. Looking forward to seeing it. Best Simon On 01/01/2011 12:38, "Ruth Catlow" <[email protected]> wrote: > And a Happy New Year to you : ))) > > Thanks Helen, Rob, Richard, Sal, Mez and Renee for your encouragement > and suggestions. > > We think that we have a bodacious thing going here at Furtherfield! This > is all down to the energy and persistence of the people who take part in > the ongoing exchange of the content and contexts of our lives as > artists, explorers, thinkers and doers- not forgetting the all the > things that make up the ever-changing infrastructures in which this > takes place. > > It's pretty rare to have a shared space where people bother to grapple > with the complexities of hyper-connected network culture in the way - at > once scrappy, rigorous and unexpected - that happens on this list. > > In addition to giving me a warm fuzzy feeling, your comments have > crystallised a practical thought we hadn't quite got to yet... online > donation facility. > > A group of Furtherfielders have been holed-up in the sweat lodge of web > development and data migration at Furtherfield for the last 9 months (at > least). We hope to have the new Furtherfield site live by the end of > next week. The purpose of this work has been to make the every day life > and work of this community more visible and open to newbees and also to > create a more sustainable and flexible back end (now running in > Drupal). > > So Helen, thanks for the prompt! We are going to attempt to set up a > donations facility in the new site. At this time all donations will go > towards technical work on the site (hopefully with everyone's feedback > and suggestions). Great stuff! > > Over the last few years, funding from the Arts Council has made it > possible for us to run an exhibition programme and to develop tech > infrastructure. In the face of the coming landslide in public funding > for the arts in the UK we are doing what we can at the moment to argue > for the ongoing public value of this work- both Furtherfield's > contribution and the wider contribution and impact of this area of work > (do we still call it new media art, media art?) to wider society. I > think what is interesting is that orgs/communities like ours produce > extraordinary value but not necessarily in terms that relate to GDP. > > Your answers on a postcard please :) > > I may ask this again soon- be ready with your postcards : ))) > > Once we are awake to the new year it would be good to have a proper > conversation about different organisational and constitutional > structures for a small group such as ourselves too. > > Furtherfield is currently registered as a not-for-profit LTD company > Richard what is your experience of a company LTD by shares? > > The only reference I have is my father's description (he's a cellist) of > the running of the London Symphony Orchestra where the players own the > orchestra - and they appointed their own executive. It seems to work > really well. > > However I have a feeling that these kind of structures work best to run > more traditional, established kind of operations. It might become more > difficult when working with emerging cultural forms where lots of people > contributed different things and different times and with different > intensities both to artistic and organisational stuff.There is also the > connotation with "shareholders" of a membership motivated by financial > gain. > > A cooperative sounds more like it...but we don't know enough about it > and it isn't so easy to take advice about these things as the people who > are purported to know also tend towards establishing more fixed and > permanent things. > > Finally, thanks Rob for this - Art after Neoliberalism > http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/10/art-after-neoliberalism.html > You didn't mention Hirst's "For the Love of God" (perhaps you didn't > want to give him more air) but I think its an excellent example of > neo-liberalism expressing itself and finding representation through an > artwork. I was reminded of something I heard on the radio a while back > that said that Koons's and Hirst's market success could be put down to > hedge-fund managers needing somewhere to park their millions and having > an affinity with these artists' 'entrepreneurial' spirit ie > I think I have been struggling for years to really resolve the > philosophical arguments for and against artists becoming > "entrepreneurial". I do know that if everything becomes about money; > ways to get more money, faster, more efficiently, we will not survive > and perhaps we won't even live before we die. > > thanks everyone. > warm fuzzies all round > > x > Ruth > > > -----Original Message----- > From: helen varley jamieson <[email protected]> > Reply-to: [email protected], NetBehaviour for networked > distributed creativity <[email protected]> > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <[email protected]> > Subject: [NetBehaviour] supporting furtherfield? > Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:35:09 +0100 > > > yesterday i received an email from rhizome requesting donations. i've > been a rhizome member since "forever", i.e. before they started charging > a membership fee, & have been dutifully paying the basic membership of > US$25 for the last however many years. but the reality is that i almost > never read the emails & almost never go to the rhizome web site. i last > updated my profile in february 2009 & it's not even my own profile, it's > for avatar body collision. > > so, why give $25 to rhizome, which is largely irrelevant to me now, & > not to furtherfield, which is a much more interesting, useful & relevant > part of my life? the only reason i have is that i can't find anywhere on > the furtherfield site to make a donation ... > > h : ) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst > [email protected] > http://www.creative-catalyst.com > http://www.avatarbodycollision.org > http://www.upstage.org.nz > ____________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Simon Biggs [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ [email protected] http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
