Hi! and Huh! ...and HAH! Rob >>Human beings are grossly inefficient. The market is optimizing them out. The grinning skull of pure market value unmade flesh with only its teeth remaining confirms this. The market is Skynet. But patronage is patronage, and the distributed patronage of the market may be less awful than religious, state or party patronage in some ways. http://robmyers.org/weblog/2009/01/pure-aesthetic-2.html <<
Emerging ecological thought among social scientists like Tim Jackson (who I respect for his weirdly unpolemical but persuasive argument) suggests that inefficient but stimulating and developmental social processes (playing chamber music, gardening, baking bread, playing chess, weaving baskets, weaving clothes, hand-building houses from straw, building the difference engine from lego) are the way forward for the human species and the planet in general. I don't agree that the market is automatically a less awful patron than the state patron, though it could be. I suppose that most artists' ideal patron would by one who was interested enough and invested enough to enable the artist(s) to get the work in the world (in the inspiringly right place, form and time)without wanting to fiddle too much with the effect of the work but this returns us to the fantasy of artistic autonomy. But perhaps the only thing we CAN really say is that there is NO ideal framework for funding and resourcing art in the contemporary world, if you believe that art is where ethics and aesthetics get mixed up to extend and change the way people live and perceive their lives together- looking inward and outward all at the same time - and I think I do. It seems that a tactical and responsive (and lucky) approach is necessary; always matching act to resource if we are to acknowledge that context makes meaning and funding contributes to context. Thanks to all for your advice and for sharing your experience of different organisational structures and traumas. All extremely valuable! We will take heed. As for Simon's "Keep control of your accounts and resources and ensure you are squeeky clean." Squeek! : ) Ruth -----Original Message----- From: Simon Biggs <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] supporting furtherfield? Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:03:24 +0000 Richard is correct. Although Lux was not solely rescued because of its archive I doubt it would have sustained the government support it has if had not had the archive as a bargaining chip. However, it's not quite right to describe the leaving of Hoxton Square as a decline. The process was more rapid. At the insistence of the BFI Lux was required to have its building built through a PPP and for the freehold to be held by a private company, Glasshouse. The deal was a 5 year window of subsidised rent. When that window closed and Hoxton land rates went through the roof (partially due to Lux contributing to the gentrification of the area) the rent went through the roof. Lux had to move as it couldn't, as a non-profit, afford those rates. Lux had the money to own the freehold at the outset but was disallowed to do so, which is where things went wrong. That was a political decision by the funders. That was the warning bell I was seeking to sound in my prior post. Keep control of your accounts and resources and ensure you are squeeky clean. Best Simon On 01/01/2011 19:01, "Richard Wright" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd agree with Alan that group governance or collaborative management > can become unexpectedly manipulated (especially when money or status > is at stake). Accountability and communication may be more practical > goals. And "professionalism" is an unfairly derided term. > > A lot of non-profit organisations are now juggling with the option of > becoming charitable bodies so they can take advantage of taxes and > donations. But it seems to impose somewhat restrictive regulations on > what you can do (e.g. nothing remotely political) and is heavily > bureaucratic in its management. So take lots of advice on that route. > One alternative is to become a Community Interest Company which is > easy but the only real advantage is to advertise the fact that your > org operates for the public good. So it may prove an additional > attraction for more institutional "donors" and partners and so forth. > (Of course this all begs the question of who to target as potential > "donors"). > > My recollection was that the Lux was rescued after its Hoxton square > decline for similar reasons that the banks were recently bailed out. > Because of its large library and distribution of publicly funded > artists moving image it could not be allowed to fail completely. So > an analogous "ransom" scenario might be that Furtherfield archives so > much artists work and documents and texts and databases that it > simply has to be funded! > > Happy New Year, > Richard > > On 1 Jan 2011, at 17:30, Alan Sondheim wrote: > >> >> >> Do let us know about the write-in campaign! >> >> I want to add that I'd be careful of group runnings of a non- >> profit; I've seen politics develop constantly that way, and almost >> always not for the better. One of the things that, in the US, >> seemed the most problematic, was the idea of matching funds - >> suddenly the *donor* appears who wants some decision-making powers. >> One of the great things about Furtherfield is its openness and the >> kindness of people here - it's wonderful - and in a way that, and >> the creative work that emerges - are the most important things! >> >> Happy New Years! >> >> - Alan, glad we have the prime number (2011) back >> >> >> == >> email archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ >> webpage http://www.alansondheim.org >> music archive: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ >> current text http://www.alansondheim.org/qv.txt >> == > > On 1 Jan 2011, at 12:38, Ruth Catlow 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 > 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
