How can arts organisations become more sustainable?

Are there too many arts organisations? Too many arts buildings? In the context of global recession, the UK budget deficit (and future cuts in public spending), and global warming – what needs to happen to make the arts more sustainable?

Recently I attended ‘Steady State’: a debate organised by MMM/ ERA 21 about sustainability of the arts sector where panel – and invited audience – responded to these questions.

What I found fascinating about this debate is the way that discussing sustainability in the arts brings together the most burning issues facing arts leaders today including:

• The shift from thinking about audiences as passive consumers to participants.
• The recognition of a continuum of participation from viewing to creating – encompassing both ‘amateur’ and professional activity which has hitherto often been seen as entirely separate.
• The importance of digital (and specifically web 2.0) technology in driving change (particularly in relation to the two points above).
• The implications for cultural gatekeepers of changing relationships with audiences/ participants.
• How do we move away from business models that constrain us towards new models that support the artistic mission and better meet the needs of the audience?

Clearly there is a crisis of sustainability, and partly that’s because to date we’ve relied too much on a model (in the subsidised sector) of supporting the arts through investing in buildings – but what to do about it is less clear.

Many felt that the existing buildings (by which was really meant venues) could be used better – more efficiently (whether in terms of energy consumption), or inclusively (in terms of how they work with artists and audiences), or just used more (there are too many arts buildings being used at less than capacity).

Others felt that there are already too many buildings and this drain on the public purse means it is hard for other models to develop or be sustained. I certainly subscribe to this view in terms of the visual arts.

And in the visual arts we have an additional problem – in that our infrastructure is fragmented for historic reasons with collections-based galleries having been funded by local authorities or central government, and contemporary exhibition galleries having been developed and supported by ACE. Since 1946 ACE has promoted the temporary gallery exhibition as the paradigm for public support . In  theory gallery exhibition delivers against all 3 of ACE’s Charter objectives (I’m paraphrasing but roughly speaking):

• It supports the artist (through providing somewhere to show their work)
• It provides access to the arts for audiences (through temporary exhibitions)
• And it levers other support for the arts (as much of the existing infrastructure is funded by local authorities).

However – and I won’t bang on about this in detail here as it is literally my PhD subject  – the gallery is only one possible model and has skewed the type of work that is now made and limited the range and quality of opportunities for engagement for audiences.

Artists have tried – for decades – to escape the limitations of gallery exhibitions. But with limited success. Of course there is Artangel – but that’s the exception not the rule. In the late 1960s and 1970s plenty of artists experimented with participatory practice and art outside the gallery – and there are plenty of artists today working in the same way. But still the gallery model dominates resources and attention (public and professional).

Coming back to the arts overall – I think we understand what’s wrong – in terms of sustainability – and how we got here. The interesting (and important) questions is where do we go from here?

Perhaps it’s because I used to be a funder – but I certainly lay part of the opportunity to change things at the feet of funders. I don’t see how – without releasing the finite RFO funding from galleries into other presentation models – we can begin to offer artists and audiences more interesting options. That’s not an easy or popular strategy and whether funders – and the sector – have an appetite for such radical change remains to be seen. Wales [link] seem to be already heading down this track and I will watch their Investment Review with interest – although their gallery sector is far smaller than England’s.

The other area where change really needs to happen is with the gatekeepers – the curators. Artists – such as Jeremy Deller – are raising many of these issues in their work – and challenging institutions to reconsider the position of the audience as creator or participant. But at the moment there appears to be no long-term change in how art museums and galleries engage with audiences. Wonderful, life-changing, inspirational, creative stuff happens in the education rooms, the offsite projects etc – but the gallery space continues as ever – perhaps with the occasional show which shakes things up for a few weeks, then its back to the hallowed, white cube space and looking at beautiful things on walls. Lots of artists get it, lots of gallery education staff get it, but most curators still want to retain complete control of what and how content is presented.

What excites me about this focus on sustainability is that the business case – and the audience case – become linked (which might sound daft if you are used to box office but in free entry museums and galleries the two aren’t always linked). And if we don’t focus more on the audience – and invite them to join us in a discussion, rather than just keeping on lecturing at them, then it’s all going to come tumbling down.

Discuss!

A video podcast of the event and further information can be found on MMM’s website.