Hi Ruth, Although I don't know much about it, an option can be to transform Furtherfield as a social enterprise. Some info are here: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?topicId=1077475650
G On 2 January 2011 17:06, Ruth Catlow <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]<simon%20biggs%20%[email protected]%3e> > > > *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 [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 > -- Graziano Milano M: +44(0)7970 071590
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
