History

Barbara Campbell / 1982-4

What is it that interests us about looking at someone else's family tree, meticulously plotted on a large sheet of paper? Is it the formal and regulated structure that is almost incidentally aesthetic? Has it something to do with our emotional bind with the past, even someone else's past – a reassuring reaffirmation in the continuity of the human race? It's probably all of these things and something else – something which bears a direct analogy to my task in writing for this publication five years after my departure as gallery coordinator of the Institute of Modern Art, and that is the way history, or the temporal flow, is suspended, condensed and notated in such a tangible form. The family chart and a 14-year book are both contrived substitutes for something which can never be captured – time itself. This is not to say tlial they are not useful – I have already named some very important reasons for recording relationships to a proper noun. Nor do I want to argue the value of a documented history of an institution but, rather, examine one of the interesting issues it raises and that is one of positions and positioning.

I have been asked to write something because I held the position of gallery coordinator. My former title apparently gives me a licence to speak. But I am also aware of being positioned within the historical superstructure of the IMA through this publication. I could articulate this position in a number of ways – a 'coordinator' between two 'directors', a 'female' between two 'males', a 'Brisbane' figure between two 'Melbourne' figures. Seen like this, I am something like the illegitimate child, to mobilize the analogy of the family tree again. But of course, I have only named distinctions between signifiers. The more important distinction between what came before and after my period of employment at the IMA was the institution of an exhibition programme that was entirely guest-curated and if the reader has discerned a certain cynicism in my commentary until now, it is because I can not help but be bemused at the difference between my authorial position in this instance, that is speaking on behalf of a period, and my position then, which was one of facilitating the speech of others.

By this I do not want to imply that a case should be made for one structure against another (guest curators versus directors) for neither are inalienably 'correct'. What needs to be recognised however, is that an institution should seek whatever structure is most appropriate to the community's needs. In the period 1982 – mid '84 this was perceived to be a series of guest-curated exhibitions complemented by an ancillary programme of lectures, reading groups, film-screenings and workshops catering directly to the needs of local artists.

At that time, the role of curator had not yet been foregrounded in the way it is today. During the guest-curatorial period artists became aware of how their practice could be contextualised in a larger art-historical framework. With this, artists began to question their own position and to determine their own contexts. Artist-run initiatives in the form of share studios, exhibition spaces, exchanges, publications and the art workers union exemplified this tendency towards greater autonomy. From then on, the position of 'Director of the Institute of Modern Art' could only be problematic and commendably so, for the direction of contemporary art in any city is not the domain of one individual nor one institution.

All I would wish to do now is give up this authorial stance by sincerely congratulating the many people who contributed to the life of the IMA while 1 was there. In no particular order, I'd like to thank the artists and guest-curators (named elsewhere in this publication); my co-worker, Joan Sherriff; the committee, especially Royce Perkins as President and Ted Riggs who conceived of the guest-curatorial programme; Brian Doherty for instigating and coordinating the film programme; Malcolm Enright for design expertise, advice and enthusiasm and all those who contributed to the guest lecture series, reading groups and workshop programmes. There were many who supported the IMAs programme while I was there and I hope they feel they are represented in this publication.