Memorandum submitted by Deborah Rawson,
Executive Director, ETA
"A PARTICULAR FOCUS IS WAYS OF SUPPORTING
AND ENCOURAGING LIVING ARTISTS AND THE PRODUCTION OF NEW WORK."
1. ETA is a development agency based in
South East England. We provide professional development services
for visual artists and craftspeople in the region which take the
form of skills training, information and mentoring. We help artists
make connections to the contemporary art markets principally through
our mentoring schemes.
2. At ETA we believe that a healthy art
practice is one in which the artist has the resources to take
time to reflect, plan and act upon the conditions of their practices.
We support artists who want to "stand back" and take
stock help and them reconnect with their markets and audiences.
We also bring regional artists into contact with writers, critics,
curators who have an active role in the contemporary art markets.
3. We pioneered the first mentoring scheme
for artists 10 years ago. Our mentors spend 18- months working
with small groups of artists and offer ongoing critical dialogue
about their work. We find that strengthening the practice itself
results in tangible outcomes such as commissions, exhibitions,
new contacts and so on. We deliberately work at a high level and
believe there is a direct correlation between the time spent on
support services and the quality of the experience.
4. Regional artists are particularly disadvantaged
because of the concentration of art markets in London. What is
lacking are opportunities for regional artists to (a) improve
their art; (b) earn income directly through sales of their art;
(c) connect with art markets and (d) to present work.
5. Artists are adept in responding to changing
climates. For example they tailor their outputs (their art) to
service other agendas (such as social inclusion, health, education,
regeneration) and in recent years job opportunities and funding
for artists have tended to lie in these fields. However, these
agendas tend to distort artists' work and hamper the development
of their art.
6. There are initiatives which focus on
business start-up (advice and information) but few address the
quality of the art itself and its place within the Art Markets
and audiences for art. Also, there are few differentiated initiatives
pitched at an appropriately high level which suit mid-career practitioners.
7. As the Committee is interested in supporting
artists and the production of new work I would suggest that it
starts with an understanding of the characteristics of mid-career
artists. My 20 years' experience in the field tells me that, because
artists work in isolation, they can:
7.1 Become prone to uncritical repetition
of models of activity that have been successful in the past.
7.2 They become increasingly unsure of the
relationship between critical thinking and production; they can
fail to refresh their ways of thinking in response to new developments
in their field; their established professional networks can remain
static.
7.3 They can fail to assimilate changes
in types of opportunities, audiences and markets into their thinking
about the practices' direction and purpose.
7.4 They can become unsure of their position
in relation to other practices; production can become a refuge
from an increasingly disconnected field.
7.5 They lack the experience to present
work professionally and to deal with curatorial or commissioning
relationships.
8. We believe our work is valuable and makes
a considerable contribution to artists' chances of success because
it addresses these difficulties directly. Our work is informed
by, and delivered by, experts at the top of their profession.
9. However, it is difficult to sustain this
type of support because of a lack of resources. Whilst there has
been unprecedented levels of funding for the arts in recent years
(Arts Council, Lottery, NESTA et al) we find that our work
does not fit easily with the criteria of these Government funded
agencies because:
9.1 We cannot claim that the artists we
work with are particularly disadvantaged (many are educated to
degree level).
9.2 Our work is not specific to a particular
community apart from the SE region in general.
9.3 Our work does not specifically deal
with social inclusion issues (although if artists are helped to
make better art then their work in these fields will be better).
9.4 We want to focus on offering high quality
services which need a corresponding level of investment.
9.5 Our work doesn't immediately benefit
others because we are investing in time for artists to reflect;
the benefits come two to three years down the line.
9.6 Our work has matured over 10 yrs so
we cannot claim it as a new initiative.
9.7 Our organisation is too small (turnover
£150,000, one employee, 15 casual freelancers) to reach large
numbers of artists.
9.8 We are looking for resources to sustain
that which we already do, so that we have stability which will
enable us to direct our resources towards expansion.
10. We believe it makes economic sense to
invest in mid-career artists (but not exclusively) because they
are in a better position to make use of the investment. Mid-career
or mature artists are largely ignored by existing support structures
mainly because they require sophisticated services, which demand
expert knowledge. The current trend for artist-led initiatives
and peer critique groups, whilst laudable, does not actually help
artists to make connections with the host of professionals who
make up the arts arena (writers, critics, curators, commissioners,
etc) and these are the connections which lead to real opportunities
for new work.
11. There is more training available and
access to good information as never before, but the gap lies in
serious critique—paying attention to the quality of art
produced, and how it is presented to audiences. The support system
for artists is skewed. The majority of artists can run a good
workshop and understand their rights under contract law, but many
haven't been able to attend to their fundamental and primary job
which is to create art which is located within contemporary discourse
and markets.
12. I would recommend that the committee
consider broadening the scope of existing funding opportunities
(ie NESTA, Arts Council and Lottery) to encompass support structures
for artists which address art itself. The DCMS could also consider
direct sponsorship of activity which promotes critical development
and the production and presentation of art.
February 2005
| 
