A few thoughts on the “legacy” issue…

One of the greatest challenges for any organization is to avoid the negative aspects of what you have called the “buildup of organizational legacy code ” (I prefer the term “codified overgrowth” myself).

CARFAC deals with many organizations, authorities, agencies and levels of government, all of which have profound influence and effect upon the lives of artists. These other entities sometimes exhibit extreme rigidity in terms of their understanding and appreciation of art practice and artists. They may also have complex codified structures…including laws, rules, regulations and requirements.

One of the most important roles for organizations like CARFAC is as a carrier of information and a “translator”. We try to collate and distribute information, and to de-codify or translate the information so that it can be of use in our sector. If that proves to be impossible, it is important to then try open up routes which circumvent the problem.

At this point, confusion can occur … when a person is confronted with the massive wall of codified overgrowth they may react by shooting the messenger.

It is vitally important to understand the differences between message and messenger, and not to attribute the content / intent of the message to the messenger

I worry that CARFAC often finds itself in this position, and its difficulty in understanding alternative forms of exhibition, practice, and professional standards (in this case or others) seems to me to be a key symptom of a buildup of organizational legacy code.

Since we’re talking a bit about CARFAC, I’ll continue using it as an example, but I think you could substitute most organizations. I believe one of the core challenges CARFAC faces is the fact that the membership has become somewhat self-selecting. It was founded to do certain things, has its own history and legacy, and is attractive to like-minded people. So rather than attracting artists working under within contemporary contexts, it attracts artists working in the contexts of its founding and legacy. As a result, rather than speaking for all artists, CARFAC speaks for all artists except those served by the IMAA (which, funnily enough touts its 25-year legacy) and those artists served by other organizations, and those who have yet to form organizations. In the absence of deep pockets, it’s much easier for organizations like CARFAC to continue serving its own members incrementally rather than to take risks by expanding into other markets, so to speak. I guess the big question is: how does one recruit new members without pissing off the majority of the existing membership, while maintaining a secure funding base, and without taking over someone else’s turf?

Or, to put the question another way: if “people like us” join the organization, how do we keep the organization attractive to “people like us” while reaching out to “people not like us.” How “not like us” should those people be? What if they don’t want/need us?

I’ve been meaning to write this for awhile but have been busy with my new duties at the Mendel. I take issue with your statement:

This is not a dismissal of the need for professionalism or certain protocols, but as artists I think we should also be questioning presumed defaults like business and legality. Isn’t that the point of us–to destabilize, interrogate, subvert and revolutionize the expected, the status quo, and the norm?

The questioning of defaults seems to be the dominant trope of contemporary art practice, especially among academics and academically-trained artists and arts-workers. But I don’t believe that it’s a system that can be applied as universally as you imply. I’m not sure what I’m advocating for, but I’m definitely opposed to an unquestioning questioning of the status quo. Such an approach can—and has—led to a culture in which the destabilization, interrogation, subversion, and so-called revolutionization of the staus quo is the status quo.

I’m going to jump in here as the host of this discussion and say that I’d like the conversation to stay constructive. I’m really happy to be able to provide a forum, but I’m worried that it could devolve into a he said/she said situation.

Hi Ed, Cindy, Lee

I am mystified by comments publicly posted on this blog which allege that CARFAC SASK in some way attempted to “shut down” the AKA ARTWALK/ garage art project, or “to threaten to have a group of artists who may or may not be licenced taken down… “ or “if the project went ahead, CARFAC might just make certain that the city WOULD find out about the project…a veiled threat.”

This is simply not true.

At no time and in no way did CARFAC SASK make any of these statements or make threats against anyone.

CARFAC SASK replied to a proposal questionnaire from AKA in a respectful and professional manner, to assist AKA in planning the event and in minimizing any risk to AKA, the artists, the Oilspots, the garage owners and the public (please see the e-mails pasted below).

In a follow up phone call, we related further information, including some cautionary examples about dealing with cities and bylaws.

Cindy, it appears that you have confused several of the elements of our telephone conversation…

-the examples I gave you were of an artist who threatened to report other artists to city authorities regarding issues over business licences in another city … as I explained to you, it was that artist who exhibited the “F.U. attitude” which you mention

-the police were never mentioned in our conversation…

-we never insisted that the city would consider the garages to be businesses, we only asked that you investigate the matter before proceeding.

I have no difficulty clearly recalling the conversation or the elements of our discussion in detail.

I am concerned with what appears to be a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

________________________________________________________________

[Note from Ed: This quoted email originally appeared at the end of Patrick's comment.]

—–Original Message—–
From: AKA Gallery INC [email address removed]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:44 PM
To: AKA Gallery
Subject: AKA ARTWALK

The AKA Gallery Programming Committee is planning an ARTWALK for September 23rd 2006. It will be a tour of exhibitions in garages (yes, that’s right….garages!). If you’ve always wanted to have an art show in a garage then we’d love to include you!

In order to help us with our planning we would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions and return the survey to [oilspots email address].

1. Are You an Artist who would like to participate in this project?

2. Do you have access to a garage you would wish to use to host your own or another artists work? If so, what neighborhood do you live in?

3. If you answered no to the first two questions, would you be interested in participating in some other way?

Feel free to forward this notice to anyone that you feel might be interested – everyone is welcome. We appreciate your help!

Contact: [oilspots email address] for more information.

[Note from Ed: The following quoted email originally appeared before the above-quoted message in Patrick's comment.]

—– Original Message —–
From: Patrick Close – CARFAC SASK
To: [aka programs email address] ; [aka admin email address] ; [oilspots email address]
Cc: Carol Samuels
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: AKA ARTWALK

Cindy & Clark

CARFAC SASK has some concerns which we would like to share with you regarding your proposed ARTWALK.

Our comments do not reflect on the exhibitions, or their merits, but raise issues of risk management and fees which we believe to be of great importance to your proposal.

The first of these concerns arises from of discussions and experience which CARFAC SASK and the Saskatchewan Craft Council have had with municipal authorities in Saskatoon.

We respectfully suggest that AKA investigate the following:

- bylaws and zoning regulations regarding the use of garages for this purpose (the City of Saskatoon has comprehensive bylaws which govern residences and acceptable uses of garages)

- whether or not sales will be made

- bylaws and zoning regulations regarding garage sales, sales in residential areas

- bylaws and zoning regulations regarding home occupation / home businesses (studios)

- liability and insurance issues with respect to the safety and well being of artists, works, organizers and visitors involved in the exhibitions

- any possibility that garage owners or participating artists may be subject to municipal fines or penalties

In our experience, it often helps to have a supporter at City Hall (councillor or staff) who can assist you to research these issues.

We strongly suggest that artists who agree to participate in the exhibitions be made aware of the information gathered above.

Our second concern regards artists fees paid to participants…
artists fees are not mentioned in your announcement…
as this appears to be an off-site group exhibition of AKA, it will be subject to exhibition fees, and we offer our assistance to you in determining the level of fees.

Please call me if you would like to discuss our experience or our concerns further.

patrick

Patrick Close – Executive Director [email address removed]
CARFAC SASKATCHEWAN VISUAL ARTISTS
206-2314 11th Ave, Regina SK S4P 0K1
T 306.522.9788 F 306.522.9783

CARFAC SASK http://www.carfac.sk.ca
CARFAC NATIONAL http://www.carfac.ca
COPYRIGHT COLLECTIVE http://www.carcc.ca
CARFAC FEE SCHEDULE http://www.carcc.ca/fee_schedules.html

And a feeling of serious rising bile.

***

Hey Cindy and Ed, good to e-see you again!

I’d like to respond to some of this first by saying that if ARCs like AKA Gallery are being called “The Man” in the provincial art scene, we’re kinda screwed. No offense to AKA Gallery or its peers but I hardly consider it to be the gatekeeper of work that has “made it” in any kind of state- or commercial- or academic-approval sense. Of course, it’s easier for people to label all organizational forms of arts culture as establishmentarian (in the Church of Art context) than it is to grade them on such criteria. But I think in the sliding scale between informal, grass-roots, diy arts culture and crypto-fascist mercenariality of same, AKA leans heavily to the former side. And well done, btw.

I’d also like to mention that there’s a similar project in Ontario that’s been running for a number of years called Alley Jaunt. I’m pointing this out not as a comment on the idea, but as a comment on the mechanism and the fact that this kind of thing has happened before to the point where cities perpetuate it (or at least allow it to be perpetuated).
http://www.alleyjaunt.com/

Of course, cities in Ontario are different from cities in Saskatchewan, and that’s part of the point too–I have no idea what, if any, red tape awaits Jeff and Sheila. Hopefully none–Regina isn’t the same city as Saskatoon, either. And given that Rob Bos was able/”allowed” to run his Art Projects Gallery space for a good three years, with the full knowledge of the city (he received a “Mayor’s Arts Award” for, in part, his guerrilla gallery space), I imagine they won’t hit much of a stumbling block on that front.

To speak about this in more general terms, however, I do have to admit a certain degree of trepidation when it comes to CARFAC and its ilk. Namely, that an organization can purport to speak “for artists” is troubling; realistically (and ethically), it can only claim to speak for a majority of its own members. It will do itself even greater disservices if it attempts to speak _to_ or even _at_ artists.

On a riskier scale, though, is the question of whether Arts Organizations can or should interfere with members’ (or non-members’!) art practices, and I think that for my part that comes as a resounding “no.” If an artist is engaged in illegality–note that that isn’t synonymous with unethical behaviour–then we might just be stuck with the postmodern response of leaving them to their own devices and reading into their motives. If I appropriate films for my video work, then you should by all means ask me why I do it illegally and why that’s important, and feel free to criticize me for my methods–bring it. But I’d be choked if you called Warner Bros. to narc on me.

This is not a dismissal of the need for professionalism or certain protocols, but as artists I think we should also be questioning presumed defaults like business and legality. Isn’t that the point of us–to destabilize, interrogate, subvert and revolutionize the expected, the status quo, and the norm?

As organizations age, they build “legacy”… while we use this term to describe the long-term benefits of a shorter-term thing, this is also the term programmers use to refer to code that was part of an earlier version of a software but no longer serves any purpose in the current version…in fact, it often results in the current version being bloated and sluggish. I bring it up because the legacy that served an organization at one point in time may no longer serve it currently, while the organization finds itself unable (unwilling?) to quickly adapt.

I worry that CARFAC often finds itself in this position, and its difficulty in understanding alternative forms of exhibition, practice, and professional standards (in this case or others) seems to me to be a key symptom of a buildup of organizational legacy code.

I can understand your reaction to my perhaps too harsh and overly broad generalization about artists being unbusinesslike. I know that different art practices call for different terms of reference. I find it easy look at my practice with a business mindset.

And while I agree that the administrative side of being an artist takes a great deal of time away from the actual practice, in my case I see it as an armature that supports my ability to keep making work. Again, this doesn’t work for everyone.

In this situation, the threat was that CARFAC was going to go completely outside of what was actually happening to imply to authorities that there were businesses being run out of garages just to make trouble so they could make a point.

They could do exactly the same thing on any day to any Saskatoon-based artist in any exhibition at any gallery anywhere – tell the city and the police that the artist exhibiting inside doesn’t have a business licence, and that therefore they must be in violation of some bylaw because they have to be making their art somewhere. In all likelihood, any place any Saskatoon artist is making their art violates some bylaw or code.

I kind of resent the implication that artists are doing us all a disservice by not being better businesspeople. I sit right on the fence between wanting to be a better administrator of my practice, and wanting to screw it all and spend more time making my art. It sucks up a hell of a lot of time and creative energy!