Information, Analysis & Advocacy This issue of ARCCO's e-bulletin covers the Infest International conference, the founding of the ARCCC/CCCAA, Canada Council funding issues and advocacy on many fronts relevant to artist-run culture. Mark you calendars and reserve the first three days of October for ARCCO's AGM and Members Forum and please take note of the urgent appeal from Artspace our member centre that was devastated by the flooding in Peterborough.. arcco e-bulletin vol.2 #4 contents:
|
||||||||||||||
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Important Member Dates and Information July 1, 2004: ARCCO Membership Fees are due. Membership Renewal Forms will be emailed and mailed to you. October 1 to 3, 2004 in Toronto: ARCCO AGM & Members Forums October 2, 2004 in Toronto: Consultation with Carfac National Representatives to discuss the proposed CARfac fee schedule, to take effect January 2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Call for Help - Peterborough Arts Umbrella and Artspace joint appeal On July 15, the Boards of Peterborough Arts Umbrella and Artspace jointly issued an appeal for moral support, professional advice and financial aid arising from damage to their organizations in the July 15 Peterborough flood. Both organizations, key to the Peterborough and Ontario arts communities, have lost artwork, equipment, archives and facilities. Their Boards have organized that donations to the Peterborough Arts Umbrella and Artspace can be made directly through Canada Helps or by calling (705) 749-3220. "The water is gone from our streets but a vast amount of work now lies before us."
The combined boards of Directors
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
||||||||||||||
 Jewell Goodwyn (centre) and Danielle Tremblay (bottom right) participate in the meeting founding the ARCCC/CCCAA. |
ARCCO President's Letter to the Members Danielle Tremblay My first year as President of ARCCO has been very exciting and I am proud to have had the opportunity to work closely with Jewell Goodwyn, our Executive Director. She has been very thorough in handling every one of ARCCO's dossiers regardless of whether it's political, organizational or educational. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of ARCCO's accomplishments over the year: In January 2004, ARCCO was approved for $157,000 over 3 years from the Ontario Trillium Foundation. This grant will be used to help ARCCO set its foundation, grow the capacity of the organization, expand its outreach and develop services for its members ARCCO provided professional development support for our full members to attend both a national and an international conference within the past year. ARCCO secured funding through the Canada Council's Outreach Program to subsidize member's travel to Off Printing, in Quebec City in October 2003 and InFest in Vancouver in February 2004. The past six months has been extremely important politically and ARCCO has been very active in advocating at all levels of funding agencies. - Over the last few years ARCCO has contributed to the formation of the new national association for artist-run centres: ARCCC/CCCAA. In April 2004 ARCCO submitted the first small grant to formalize ARCCC/CCCAA. - On the provincial front, ARCCO was the only ASO that submitted an advocacy package on behalf of its members to the Ontario Arts Council. ARCCO's brief presented a selection of success stories supporting a request for increased funding to the ARC program - ARCCO published a timely and comprehensive report on the cultural policy debate that took place in Toronto during the federal election campaign I would also like to thank this year's board members for their energy and commitment to the committees and their time spent on various projects of the organization. To Laura Margita we thank her for her contribution as secretary to the board until April 2004. We wish her well on her leave of absence from Galerie SAW. Thank you also to our newest board member David Poolman who resigned from the ARCCO board when he left the Forest City Gallery early this spring to pursue his career as an artist and instructor at UWO. We wish you both success in your future endeavours! On behalf of the board, I wish to welcome our newly appointed board member Jessie Lacayo, director of Gallery 101, Jessie accepted her appointment in May 2004. On behalf of the board and the nominations committee, I will be updating and reporting to you in the next ebulletin early in September prior to our next AGM in October. Wishing you all a very good summer! Passez un bel d'été! Danielle Tremblay President of ARCCO
|
|||||||||||||
 Conference organizer Keith Higgins welcomes participants to InFest: International Artist Run Culture February 25 to 29, 2004 Vancouver.  The auditorium at Emily Carr Institute of Art & Design was filled to capacity for the discussion forums.  The first Discussion Forum entitled Mutations: What are Artist Run Centres? Moderator: Lorna Brown, Artspeak, Vancouver. Speakers: Bastien Gilbert, Regroupement des centres d'artistes autogÈrÈs du QuÈbec, Sofie Sweger, United Net-Works, Stockholm. MontrÈal, and Jin-suk Suh, Alternative Space LOOP, Seoul, with interpreter.  Audience overflow: People seated in the hallway use the headphones supplied for simultaneous translation to tune in to the proceedings.  InFest nightlife - an opening at the Helen Pitt Gallery 
InFest nightlife 2: The Saturday night party with CyberRAJ was held
at Open Studios. Alain Paiment's installation at Presentation House Gallery.  Paul Couilliard, FADO, Toronto, and Glenn Alteen, Grunt Gallery, Vancouver, outside Video In prior to the meeting.  The ARCCC/CCCA founding meeting. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
InFest Article Kirsten Forkert I attended the Infest conference in February of this year, organized by Keith Wallace and Sadira Rodriguez of the Pacific Association of Artist-Run Centres in Vancouver, and which was held at the Emily Carr College of Art and Design. According to Keith Wallace, one of the key motivations for organizing the conference was to 'shake up' the present definitions of artist-run centres (as organizations with gallery spaces and operational funding). ARC's in fact can take many forms: some have spaces, some don't, some operate more as collectives, some exist to program the work of other artists, some receive government funding and some don't. The conference was structured around panel discussions of approximately two hours over a four-day period. There were panels on topics such as the definition of artist-run centres, on funding, on the artist as curator, on international exchanges, on publications, etc. There were also smaller breakout sessions that followed the panels, to allow for informal discussions of the topics. Conferences are contradictory events: part networking session, part theoretical discussion, part social gathering, part professional performance, part job fair. They reflect many different, and contradictory desires, needs and ambitions. It could be argued that artist-run centres in Canada are in an interesting, and contradictory situation right now. So after attending a conference for artist-run centres, I was left with many questions, mainly around what we are doing, where are we going, and what our relationship is to why artist-run centres started in the first place. While individual ARC's hold specific mandates, it could be argued that in a general sense, they historically served as an alternative to larger institutions and commercial galleries, in terms of supporting experimental and critical practices, and as spaces for self-representation, especially by marginalized communities. Canadian ARC's were often started with little or no money, and came out of a sense of political urgency, a belief that artists should control the means of production and create their own culture, rather than being dependent on dealers, collectors and curators. However, at this point in time, some artist-run centres are ten, twenty or thirty years from that original moment. Most Canadian artist-run centres represented at the conference have regular operational funding, although, predictably, those that receive the most tend to be those closest to being institutions. However, the situation now in some ways feels precarious, signalled by the Canada Council's potential shift in direction towards market criteria. There is also the larger context of neo-liberal government policy, motivated by the intrinsic belief that everything should be run like a business, use business language and be justifiable on business terms. This raises questions around whether we are witnessing a potential shift from supporting working artists, and a mandate to artistic production that is experimental and critical, towards supporting venues and artists (who in this case function as 'cultural ambassadors') that promote a city, region or country's 'self-image' on the international stage (and in this context, criteria of prestige and showcasing become more important, rather than experimentation). What are the implications for Canadian ARC's? This situation leaves ARC's in the awkward situation of having something to lose, creating a momentum towards trying to maintain the status quo. We are left with little room for change or growth, especially those radical shifts that might make us appear administratively unstable or unprofessional (again, notice the business language/criteria sneaking up on us again). In this context, it can become too easy to focus so much on survival, and the professionalization that is increasingly a criteria for survival, that we lose a sense of urgency and/or perspective. Although these questions were hovering around the air at the conference, there wasn't much of a sense of debate or oppositionality, which was interesting given the histories of the organizations present. Although I didn't attend all the sessions, I noticed that the panellists seemed to mainly describe their activities in a factual sense (such as how many exhibitions a year the centres programmed) and seemed to avoid speaking about the issues, concerns, political positions, etc. that motivated their activities. The exception to this was the Artist as Curator panel, but it may have been due to both the tendency of the panellists (Matthew Higgs in particular) to draw attention to themselves as personalities, and to the moderator's (Laiwan) attempts to get the panellists to reveal their political positions. However, people seemed to feel freer to speak their minds during the question periods and the breakout sessions. The general absence of debate provoked larger questions for me (beyond the scope of this text) about whether an oppositional role becomes neutralized when artist-run centres are seen as a 'stepping stone' to institutional or commercial spaces, rather than an alternative. In a larger sense, does this reflect a neo-liberal political/economic climate, where alternatives are managed as part of a larger hegemony, functioning more as niche markets than as a challenge to the established order? Infest was an international conference, and there were participants from artist-run centres around the world. At the same time, the purpose of the conference was also to develop a national artist-run centre network, to replace the former ANNPAC network while not repeating its mistakes. These two agendas made it difficult to balance the Canada-specific discussions with those with a broader scope, and which would have been useful to participants from outside Canada. One participant from the UK mentioned attending breakout situation on funding, that was entirely about the Canadian funding situation. However, this also raises questions around the term 'international'. Is 'international' a sign for prestige, glamour and external legitimization, tied to that sneaking feeling that we in Canada are 'behind' recognizable centres of (cultural) capital such as London or Berlin? Or does 'international' mean an attempt to look at things on a broader scale? Claudia Fontes from Trama (Argentina) offered an interesting model for internationalism where countries in the global South would collaborate, and share knowledge and resources, rather than seeking legitimization from the North. And it could be argued that if our government, and by extension our funding bodies are increasingly motivated by neo-liberal policy, then we can learn from ARC's in other countries who have already experienced this situation. During one of the breakout sessions, one of the UK participants commented: "You never had Thatcher." We are in a situation where we will likely have either a Harper or Martin government, and it may prove useful to look at how others have dealt with similar situations. And this is what I felt was the strength of the conference: creating the space where connections, collaborations and information sharing can develop. It also created the space for us to learn from each other and to develop a broader global perspective, which I feel is increasingly important in the present political/economic climate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Founding of the Canadian Artist-Run Centres and Collectives Conference Since the Convergence conference, in 2002, the artist-run centre community en masse have met to discuss the reformation of a new national Artist-Run Service Organization. On March 1st, 2004, after the international conference InFest held in Vancouver, representatives of forty-eight artist-run centres from across Canada joined forces to create a new national association, the ARCCC/CCCAA, the Artist-Run Centres and Collectives Conference / Conférence des collectifs et des centres d'artistes autogérés. The new association will give artist-run centres a stronger voice for affecting positive change in cultural policy and funding at the Federal level. The new ARCCC/CCCAA is comprised of six regional associations and a national aboriginal association. The founding members are: Atlantic Region Represented by Jennifer Dorner (Eye Level Gallery, Halifax, Nova Scotia) RCAAQ, Regroupement des centres d'artistes autogérés du Québec Represented by Bastien Gilbert, Executive Director ARCCO, Artist-Run Centres and Collectives of Ontario Represented by Jewell Goodwyn, Executive Director PARCA, Plains Artist-Run Centres Association Represented by Cindy Baker, (A.K.A. Gallery, Saskatoon) Aboriginal Caucus Represented by Steven Loft (Urban Shaman, Winnipeg) AAARC, Alberta Association of Artist-Run Centres Represented by Anthea Black, (Stride Gallery, Calgary) PAARC, Pacific Association of Artist-Run Centres Represented by Jonathan Middleton (Western Front, Vancouver) The governing council has applied for funds to assist with the formation of its regional members in the Atlantic region and Alberta, as well as for funding to formalize itself. The governing council members hope to meet in the near future to begin the process of creating a structure for the organization. ARCCO will update our members on the development of the ARCCC/CCCAA at our AGM this fall. ARCCO's note: The New National ARC Association will not replace the role of Regional Associations In April 2004, ARCCO and the other regional associations met with Canada Council officers, by teleconference to discuss the recent ARC competition. During the teleconference François Lachapelle extended his congratulations to the ARC community for their (quick) decision to form a new national ARC association: ARCCC/CCCAA. With his congratulations he said that this new association will be able to better articulate, and strategize on the national front with national issues. He stressed that he didn't think that this new association should replace the role of the regional associations. He noted that the Canada Council and the regional associations have developed a good relationship. The Council is very interested in going to the Regional Association's respective AGMs. He underscored that ARCCC/CCCAA will not replace Councils' relationship with existing Regional Associations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANNPAC vs the ARCCC/CCCAA Clive Robertson The most recent issue of Fuse magazine (Volume 27 Number 2) features a 10 page article by Clive Robertson Looking Back While Moving Forward: A response to InFest: Artist Run Culture and the formation of a new national association of as artist run centres. ARCCO presents a excerpt from the original draft published with the permission of the author. For more information or to obtain a copy of the magazine contact www.fusemagazine.org. Champagne and history for the
birth of ARC 3 /C 3 A ANNPAC's first challenge at its inception was
to establish the relevance and need for interdisciplinary centres
(funded largely with visual arts funding) that variously could offer
production and display resources allowing for programming mixes
of visual art exhibitions, video, performance, audio art and music,
spoken word, new dance, archives, exchanges and residencies. Public
objections came from within CARFAC was saw the new Parallel Galleries
program as an opportunity for gains by visual artists they had formed
to represent. ANNPAC was accused of being controlled by "non-visual
artists... [who] should under no circumstances be allowed to pilfer
[visual arts funding]." The question of who or what did such an Association represent took on more complexities in the 'first phase' of professionalization in the 1980s. ANNPAC's management incorporated arts administrative models from ACE (Association of Cultural Executives) and elsewhere circulating both a management and policy manual, A Handbook For Cultural Trustees published by the Waterloo University Press. Such introductions, which for the most part did not take into account what might be specifically different about artist-run centres in a sense, shifted concepts of 'artist-run' and 'artist-controlled' into concepts of 'artist-directed.' At times ANNPAC simultaneously chose to develop resources and speak on behalf of individual artists from emerging fields of artistic practice, artist-run centres, and employees of artist-run centres. The implication, I suggest for focused advocacy has continued significance. Do artists who choose to work for artist-run centres see it as part of their integrated intellectual and social practice, is it 'simply a job,' or has it long become a training facility for artists, curators and critics? If it is the latter then perhaps in the simmerings of more professionalization, such training should be formalized with official educational accreditation; if it is just a job then perhaps artist-run centre employees should unionize (there was at least one instance of this happening). If the new body ARCCC/ CCCAA re-visits some of these matters, it might choose to update the detailed study, "Employment Survey on the Working Conditions in Artist-Run Centres in Canada," (1989), a joint project of CARO and ANNPAC/RACA. ANNPAC/RACA and in its immediate aftermath, ARN
(Artist-Run Network) both addressed the 'politics of speech' assumptions
of how ideas and cultural experience informs meetings, how decisions
are best or fairly made. Under attempts at gender equality ANNPAC/RACA
moved to a feminist Consensus Trust model and ARN (Artist-Run Network)
reportedly used an aboriginal talking circle. Difference 1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Changes at the Canada Council Jewell Goodwyn, ARCCO ED On February 27, 2004 (while most of the ARC community was in Vancouver attending the Infest conference), John Hobday delivered a speech at the Chalmers Conference, which outlined some changes that would be taking place at the Canada Council for the Arts, which included the Council "placing a stronger emphasis on improving organizational health in order to sustain the excellence of arts organizations... [and] help organizations self assess their organizational well being [through] tools and hopefully grants to aid in... change... The council will be establishing "new criteria for entry of deserving organizations into its funding programs and the exit of organizations that fail to maintain the highest standards of excellence". Hobday went onto explain that the Canada Council has been at times overly generous with organizations that have gotten into financial or artistic difficulties. Is this reflected in this year's ARC competition for 2004-06? Whether intended or not, Canada Council has sent a strong and disturbing message to the ARC community, by placing 19 clients on annual funding this year, compared to 8 in 2002. Despite assurances from the officers (who pointed out that placing centres in the annual stream of funding allows for very good centres to move up and creates more possibilities for good changes), there is concern that this two- tiered system is also creating an easier way to exit the centres that are struggling. We may be seeing a wave of newly funded artist-run centres with the expense of bidding farewell to others. In conversation with officers, ARCCO learned that of the 17 applicants who did not get into the ARC program this year, some scored very well in the adjudication process. They didn't receive funding from Canada Council because there wasn't the budget to bring new organizations in. It is reasonable for the ARC community to expect stiffer competition in the years to come, and to expect that the cultural landscape will shift. But are we headed for a landslide? The Canada Council is in the process of drafting their Corporate Plan for 2005-2008. In addition to looking at the health of cultural organizations in this country, the council will also be looking at the level of professionalism and quality of management. François Lachapelle wants to talk about this further with the ARC community within the next 12-18 months. Canada Council's time frame to develop their Plan falls within the same time as ARCCO's Member's Forum & AGM in October. We will want this at the forefront of our discussion with the Canada Council. For the Member's Forum, members will be invited to bring issues they'd like discussed prior to our meeting with the funders. You can see Hobday's 7 page speech on the Canada Council website http://www.canadacouncil.ca. How is the "health" of your organization? Canada Council is not the only funding agency now addressing the "health" of art organizations. At a recent ASO meeting with Ontario Arts Council, Executive Director John Brotman also mentioned that OAC will be paying attention to the health of Ontario's arts organizations. So how will the ARC community fare in the face of the changes to come, with the CARfac proposed fee schedule commencing January 2005, followed by the possible end of supplementary funds in the ARC program at Canada Council, with the council raising the bar, with "business model" expectations on ARC's operations? ARCCO aims to address these issues at our next Member's Forum. Stay posted for our next e-bulletin in September which will provide more details of the meeting days. Also stay tuned for information on ARCCO's "Best Practise Workshops" to begin next season.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Canada Council - Supplementary Funds: Commitment to Professionalization or Lip Service? David LaRiviere There is not an artist-run centre in the land that would eschew supplementary funding. After all, in a sector where professional cultural workers are vastly underpaid and overworked, even in comparison to the public gallery model that ARCs "parallel", every little bit of additional funding is of great relief. The supplementary funding introduced by the Canada Council in the fiscal year 2002-2003 has been reinstated for the present fiscal year 2004-2005. The announcement that the Canada Council would maintain supplementary funding levels for the current fiscal year was heralded by a letter from the office of program officers Annie Gauthier & Jim Logan, a letter that included an initiative to earmark the funds as directed towards "projects" that the Council would like to nurture: 1. Improvement of wages and benefits to full-time employees 2. Improvement of professional development for full-time employees or board members 3. Improvement of exhibition facilities In each of the centres' proposals, program officers will be ensuring that priority is given to the artist and cultural worker of the organization. The overarching concern articulated by Council is the need to create more stable environments within the artist-run net and thereby enhance our collective levels of professionalization. Again, who among us would contest the value of increased professional standards and a more stable work environment? Perhaps it was our collective enthusiasm for new money to the pool that caused us to overlook a few obvious questions that are becoming issues on our immediate horizon. For example, what happens to the "improvement to wages" when the supplementary grants are gone? How is such a precarious, even dubious source of funding supposed to nurture stability? There is no commitment from Council to renew supplementary funding in the next fiscal year. What is more is that several centres have already been impacted with substantial cuts to their funding in what appears to be a highly volatile environment at Council. Of course here I am speaking to centres that received high marks last year and poor marks this year, in some cases moving to annual funding and/or losing their supplementary funds altogether. Whether you are involved in a centre hard hit by recent decisions or if your centre has enjoyed an increase of supplementary funds, several of these concerns cut across all positions. We need to begin the process now to petition Council to get its own house in order. In part Council must address the de-stabilizing effects of the supplementary funds initiative. It is of prime importance that new money is added to the operational funding pool in a manner that lends to stability because it is, in and of itself, a stable source of funding. David LaRiviere Director, Artspace ARCCO's note: One year of Supplementary Funds, and Need to Lobby Government In the ARC program for 2004-2006, the supplementary funds are available for one year only. Determination of supplementary funds is based on the 25 million set by parliament. At this time they have not extended their commitment beyond this next year. There are no big hopes that this will be renewed, and François Lachapelle has underscored that the art community will have to lobby the government for these funds. If, the Canada Council receives additional funds then Francois Lachapelle plans for the supplementary funds of $425,000 to be transferred into the Assistance to Artist-Run Centres permanently. If any kind of lobby campaign is successful then ARCCO hopes that the ARCCC/CCCAA, the National ARC Association will request that more funds to be committed to the ARC program.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Report From Quebec - The RCAAQ Meets with François Lachapelle Original french text by Bastien Gilbert, RCAAQ General Director Translated by Daphne Naponse
François Lachapelle, Head of the Visual Arts Section, Canada Council for the Arts address at RCAAQ's Annual General Assembly, held on June 4, 2004. Translation by Daphney Sancé, June 25, 2004 [The following is] a general overview of the speech delivered by François Lachapelle. Before this presentation, the Chair of RCAAQ had sent a letter highlighting the points that needed further explanation and clarification. RCAAQ agreed to be part of the discussions surrounding the future allocations of supplement funds, if future funds are re-directed under a new government in Parliament. News François Lachapelle announced the hiring of Jen Budney, former Artistic Director of Gallery 101, as the new acting officer to replace Annie Gauthier. Her term begins June 28 and she will meet with artist-run centres in Québec throughout the summer months. Report on Funds allocated to Québec centres The number of centres increased from 22 to 23, with an increase of $ 911,000 to $913,000. Seven centres experienced a decrease in operating funds, four of which received a 10% decrease, the other three received decreases of less than 10%. Seven centres received increases as high as 33%. Ten received supplements; seven centres that had received supplements in the past have received none this year. Seven centres in Québec were placed under annual assessment. From this number, five centres experienced cuts, and two are receiving less than $20,000. The fact that a centre is put on an annual supplement is not necessarily viewed as a punishment. Such review might be due to an evaluation of a centre that is experiencing major changes, prompting the assessment committee to recommend annual funding during periods of flux. Multi-year funding to organizations could be re-installed upon the completion of these changes. Assessment Criteria The Visual Arts Section communicated that no hidden agenda was in place, nor was any regional agenda directing cuts to centres. (A comment made after a remark by Lise Clément with regards to the decrease in funding to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean centres). It was stated that, in fact, 10 of the 20 centres that were assessed highly were located in non-metropolitan areas. Lachapelle stated that artistic excellence remains the fundamental criteria of evaluation. Supplement Funds No decision has been made yet surrounding the future of supplement distributions. Lachapelle furthered this thought by stating that Council does not aim to establish a pro-rated system if these funds become permanent (as was the case at CALQ). Nevertheless, if $25 million is permanently allocated to Council, then the supplement could become permanent. If the amount is renewed for 2005-2006, plans for allocation will be discussed with the regional associations. Lachapelle stated that centres receiving supplement funds should possess a project focusing on professionalization of the centre. In 2004, the Visual Arts Section sent only one letter to announce the supplement grant and not two as in 2002. The questions surrounding supplement funds by the centres continue to be confusing, as certain criteria accompany the supplement. Since 2002, there has been a 54% increase to the program assisting artist-run centres. It is far more superior to what museums and other art organizations have received, even though operating a museum or public gallery is more costly. Artist-run centres received $3.3 million dollars. History of the Peer Assessment Committees There is a policy from Canada Council for the Arts not to nominate the same person to sit on a committee that evaluates on a bi-annual basis, but it is possible for this to occur if the evaluation takes place on a three-year basis. Lachapelle suggested that centres write to the Board of directors at Council to request a review of this policy. Nevertheless, the role of Officers remains the same. Lachapelle is aware of the various changes in officers, and recognizes that this has made the relationship between centres and officers difficult. However, it is the responsibility of the centres to submit high standard submissions. Lower and higher funding levels for centres Centres located at the lower level of the list have been brought to $20,000. Council does not have sufficient funds to move these centres up to $30,000 as was previously expected. To do so would mean cutting other centres and that would not be a fair measure. On the other hand, centres funded at a higher level have almost reached $100,000. Publications Following the symposium "Tiré à part", the Visual Arts Section followed up on specific issues that were brought up at the conference. It was identified that publishers have difficulty evaluating and promoting publications produced by artist-run centres. Council will look at this situation and will work with centres to allow a portion from the present project funding pool of $400,000 that will be reserved for publication projects which have a distribution plan and intend to make co-edition. The Publishing Section at Council will also allocate funds towards this initiative. This assistance will be managed by the two sections and will provide an opportunity to educate publishers about artist-run centre publications and will aim to improve better distribution. ARC Data Base The Visual Arts Section will develop a database of artist-run centres that will include financial information and activities in order to produce statistical data. This data-bank would be generated from within the section with the help of an external consultant. Museums and public galleries have already had a data base for two years. Grants to Individual Artists News has travelled from a tour, organised in a dozen cities, with regards to changes to grants to individual artists. here are 15,000 artists in Canada to whom the Council distributes 220 grants. This is not enough - a success rate of 10%. Some of the consultation reports can be viewed at the Council website. The Visual Arts section is planning to present propositions to the Board of directors in October of this year and wants to establish an action plan for consultation on the new program. Artists work individually or in collaboration with others within the context of presenting exhibitions; they are multi-tasking and spreading their energies as they meet various jobs and roles. Council focuses its activities on professional visual arts and finances projects to be held in a professional context. Council would like to assist artists on a triennial basis (granting 50 projects) and 200 others on an annual basis. Council plays a role in the diversification of the revenues of the artist at the level of developing the markets; there are also different organizations who wish to help artists. Council wants to better understand the situation of the visual artist and develop research on their situation to provide information to other funding organizations to help in improving the condition of artists. The Council has also noticed that artists want better visibility and recognition at large through rewards, distinctions, promotions and better and more critics. Published with permission of RCAAQ Special thanks to Bastien Gilbert, RCAAQ, General Director, Daphney Sancé, Jessie Lacayo, and Galerie 101.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Advocacy
Ontario Arts Council
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ARCCO's
Advocacy Role During City of Ottawa Proposed Budget Cuts Jessie
Lacayo
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CARFAC Increases Artist Fees All artist-run centres should be aware that CARFAC is proposing a major revision to the artist fee schedule that would gear artist fees to the operating budgets of exhibiting galleries. Under the proposed system galleries are divided into six budget categories ranging from under $50,000 to over $1,000,000. For the first time since artist fees were introduced 35 years ago, major public institutions at the top of scale would pay fees 300% higher than galleries with budgets under 100,000. Also for the first time fees would be reduced below the current minimum for emerging galleries with budgets under $50,000 a year. A full report written by Karl Beveridge appears a recent issue of the CARFAC Calendar. To read the article "A Living Income for Artists" by Karl Beveridge in the CARFAC Newsletter Volume 7, No.1 Winter/Spring 2004 follow this link to CARFAC's website: http://www.carfac.ca/english/eng_calendar.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ARCCO P.O. Box 44026, Market Tower Lane Postal Outlet 141 Dundas Street, London, Ontario N6A 5S5 email: jewel.goodwyn@sympatico.ca
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|||||||||||||