History
Policies And Practices
Bob LingardAim: to see the appearance of a thing (even an inanimate thing) as a stage in its growth - or as a stage in a growth of which it is part. To see its visibility as a kind of flowering.
– John Berger1
INTRODUCTION
This publication basically provides a documentary history of the Institute of Modern Art's exhibition programme since the Institute's inception in 1975. To this end it includes essays or texts by former directors and the current director which attempt to explicate the specific raison d'etre of their respective exhibition programmes. The publication also includes extensive photographic documentation of the programme through the inclusion of a substantial number of installation shots of various exhibitions across the Institute's almost 15-year existence.
The directors' statements provide accounts of the Institute's functioning at different times in its history. Context is important to the nature of the programme at any time, for instance, compare and contrast the artistic and cultural environment and ambience of 1975 with that of the present. Some aspects of context remain more constant, of course, because at the most general level the broader structural framework within which art operates has not changed, for example, witness the apparent ongoing relevance of the so-called provincialism (and core/periphery) debate. So that, while all the directors were concerned to 'coordinate a programme of activities which (would) address the concerns and issues associated with contemporary visual arts practice',2 those issues have changed substantially over time. The directors' statements provide some primary documentation of that. Other aspects of the narrower art environment have also changed across that time, as have the intellectual debates.
The directors' programmes have also had to operate within the formalised aims and objectives of the Institute, notably;
(a) To establish and maintain a public art gallery for the exhibition of works of modern art.
(b) To disseminate amongst members of the public knowledge and information concerning modern art.
(c) To hold local, Australian and overseas exhibitions of works of modern art.
(d) To exhibit such other works of art as may further the objects of the Institute.
(e) To acquire works of art for public exhibition.
(f) To promote research and experimentation in art.
(g) To establish, maintain and conduct an Institute for persons interested in modern art.3
These formal aims have framed the programme and bear witness to the Institute's broader educational and experimental functions. To date the Institute has not acquired a permanent collection and does not seem likely at this stage to do so. This particular publication, however, concentrates on the exhibition programme, which in no way is to denigrate the other purposes, but is rather a concession to limitations of time and space and an attempt to put on public record some documentation of the IMA's curatorial practice across the period of its existence.
The publication then is preliminary to a more complete history of the IMA. It is conceived as primary source material for future historical work; that 'bag of clues'4 which constitutes the rockbed of a history. There is though clearly some interventionist selectivity involved in choosing images from the archive in the first place. Hence, the publication moves from being archival material to being documentary. At another level this publication is an attempt to widen the access to the IMA's extensive archive. It is to be hoped that at some future date this material will be used to reconstruct a fuller picture, as it were, around a written text. There has, as yet, been no history written of the development of government funded contemporary art spaces throughout Australia since the mid 1970s, apart from the policy-oriented Visual Arts Board publications and a small number of articles, some of which are listed elsewhere in this publication. This publication then may be seen as some further 'Notes Towards A Critical Discussion Of Curatorial Practices'.5 It is also hoped that this publication provides some contribution towards that important task of constructing a history of contemporary art spaces.
In some ways the state galleries seem to have amnesia with respect to the conceptual art of the 1970s;6 the contemporary art spaces must eschew any comparable selective memory, but of course memory will always, perhaps even subconsciously, edit the past in some way or other. This publication then is a conscious effort to jog the collective institutional memory, as it were. It also contributes towards an understanding of what has happened at the cutting edge of Australian contemporary art since the mid-1970s. The IMA since its inception has been concerned with what Gary Sangster has called 'critical contemporary art'.7
This publication stands beside the Experimental Art Foundation's ten year celebration publication and the Praxis publication from Western Australia – Praxis In Practice: An Overview of Ten Years at Western Australia's Contemporary Art Space.8 However, it is probably less overtly celebratory than the EAF publication and more documentary than the Praxis publication. This documentary history is not overtly celebratory simply because it was conceived to function as something other than that; perhaps the quality and range of the work provide their own celebration. The publication has been constructed within a minimalist frame which, along with conceptualism and post-conceptualism, has dominated at the IMA since John Nixon's time as director, and as such has eschewed the more 'folksy' nature of the EAF publication. Here there has been an attempt to allow the work to speak for itself. In this way, The Institute Of Modern Art 1975-1989: A Documentary History is about art work and exhibitions.
As indicated above, the documentation is also selective; this cannot be avoided. All history, as Raymond Williams has suggested, involves a 'selective tradition'.9 Honest historical writing requires acknowledgement of the bases of one's selectivity. As Blackham has put it, 'Only from a point outside existence would it be possible to survey the totality of existence'.10 In Kierkegaard's terms life is lived forwards, but understood backwards;11 thus understanding, it would seem, requires an historical perspective. Something, then, must be said about the basis of the selection of the installation shots for inclusion. It is hoped that the provision of such a rationale inhibits the possibility of any covert and incipient political purpose in making such a selection. In choosing images for inclusion the existence of a photograph and quality of the photo qua photo were factors. A desire to provide a representative selection of the sorts of exhibitions the IMA has presented since its inception was also a factor. Thus in this way the selection attempts to be representative. A balance was also sought between local, other Australian and overseas exhibitions; on gender grounds and on type of work. The relevant director was given some say as to which photos ought to be included to represent what each was attempting to do in their curatorial practice. However, Sue Cramer and I are responsible for the final selection.
There is, of course, another form of selectivity operating here – nearly all of the photos were taken by Richard Stringer and as such he frames the selection, as it were. Richard Stringer has made a very considerable contribution to the IMA as a photographer. It is the quantity and quality of the photos which form a very significant part of the IMA archive. In some ways this publication is a tribute to Richard Stringer's contribution to documenting the IMA's exhibition history.
As institutions become more formalised over time, their administration tends to become more routinised and subsequently more bureaucratised. The inclusion within a systematised and formalised funding framework also enhances this bureaucratisation, which is not to be naively critical of it, but simply to provide a description of an inevitable sociological process. However, all of the contemporary art spaces in Australia, including the IMA, need to retain a direct working relationship with artists and the art community, while continuing to operate effectively within the bureaucratic funding arrangement. Any potentially homogenising effect of the latter must be resisted, as must any potential goal displacement whereby bureaucratic means become more important than organisational goals.
Clearly, public funding arrangements have to operate within an ostensibly bureaucratic framework and require accountable practices. It must be stressed though that the bottom line for contemporary art spaces ought to be the quality and range of the programme in all its facets. The question of how one measures this quality is, of course, another question altogether. However, product accountability for contemporary art spaces has to be measured in terms of their programmes, in the same way that Ross Harley has argued that the bottom line for a publicly supported art magazine 'is not how many copies of a magazine are sold, but how successful it is in terms of the writing it publishes'.12 While there are some positive aspects to the new emphasis on outputs in public sector accountability,13 this must not be reduced to measuring only the easily quantifiable. In these terms the documentary history provided here of the IMA's exhibition programme is a clear indication of its success in achieving its stipulated aims and thus a manifestation of its accountability. The quality of the programme in all of its multifarious aspects is an indication of the IMA's efficient, effective and accountable practice.
It seems that this documentary history does present a view of the Institute from the top, as it were, with its emphasis on directors and selective exhibitions and the like. No apology is made for that, given that an exhibition programme has been the core of IMA practice and that this programme has, by and large, been formulated by the respective directors operating within institutional guidelines. Barbara Campbell raises this question of the right to speak in her essay on her time as gallery coordinator of the guest curatorial programme. Indeed in her essay she comments specifically on the apparent contradiction between her right to an authorial voice in the IMA's history and her role as 'exhibitions coordinator' 'which was one of facilitating the speech of others'. It needs to be stressed though that the Institute is just that – an institute made up of members. There is a danger then, as has been suggested in another context, that 'the construction of a "corporate identity" suggests that the organisation is somehow different from those who operate under its title'.14 It also needs to be stressed though, that at another level, the Institute is much more than its (400) members. It also consists of all of the artists, curators, and writers who have worked there over the years. It also has connections with the national and international art communities and even with broader aspects of the culture. This becomes very clear when one considers the nature of the IMA's programme over its history and when one considers the context of its foundation. The IMA has also been productive of culture, with its newsletters, forums, lectures, publications, film screenings and so on, as well as a site of cultural consumption. One danger in this documentation is that this productive aspect of the Institute's operation is neglected, even though some mention is made of it in Peter Cripps' and Sue Cramer's essays. The ongoing production of an Institute newsletter since its inception has served an important function. The newsletter has documented many of these productive activities.
The other arm of this 'top-down' problem is that there does not exist a unified, consensual art community. To emphasise the need for contemporary art spaces to be responsive to the art community is potentially to dangerously reify the notion of community and to hide power relations behind the concept of community. Any contemporary art space must take a stand and thus at times will be unpopular with some sections of its members. It must though take account of its members' views. Thus, while the director needs to consult with the committee and be cognisant of the range of membership views, ultimately the director has to direct. The relationship between the director and the committee and the director and the membership is full of potential conflicts and has been across the Institute's existence. In some ways, such conflicts are endemic to the art world whose structure of rewards seem to operate in inverse relation to closeness to the actual art/productive process itself, for most people, most of the time. Conflicting interests also make different demands upon the Institute and, as such, the Institute cannot please all of the people all of the time, even within its narrow art constituency. The director also has to have executive power to act and increased remuneration for the position across its history reflects this expectation.
As suggested earlier, while the funding arrangements for contemporary art spaces have required a bureaucratic response, their internal administration has not been bureaucratised to any great extent. The director has a wide range of tasks to fulfil in adclit ion to curating, which seems to have gained in importance since the inception of the contemporary art spaces, paradoxically perhaps at the same time as the post-structural concept of the 'death of the author' took hold in relation to cultural practices. Thus for example, the newspaper advertisement for the new IMA director in late 1975 required a person with 'gallery administration experience' and the duties were listed as:
To coordinate all the activities of the gallery, organise temporary exhibitions, to liaise with other Australian art galleries for special projects, to expand an education programme and to act as a public relations officer and administrator.
No bureaucratic specialisation of tasks here! The IMA is still only staffed by a director and an administrative assistant. The demands upon the director are substantial indeed and increasing, particularly with the push for private sponsorship. This small-scale arrangement does allow ease of access for artists, writers and others. The contemporary art space curators most often work directly with artists whereas curators in the state galleries tend to function in a different manner. This is an aspect of their practice which must be strongly defended. James Pomeroy, in making the case for spaces such as the IMA (but writing in the U.S. context in 1978), emphasises the importance of this one-to-one relationship between artist and curator. He contrasts this situation with that in state galleries. On this latter point he has this to say,
The artist working in experimental or critical formats has not a chance to entertain the audience of curators which is sandwiched between confining spaces and schedules, watchful trustees eyeing their programs like investment portfolios (which they are), and proven, profitable blockbuster 'hits'.15
The contemporary art spaces are important in this respect for such artists.
In what follows comment is made on the beginnings of the IMA, a fuller account of which is provided in Peter Anderson's essay contained in this publication; a brief overview of the IMA's exhibition programme is provided; then a conclusion which looks at some options for the future of contemporary art spaces at a time when so-called 'new right' or 'economic rationalist' (non-labor and labor species of a similar phenomena) ideologies demand cuts in government expenditure in so-called non-productive areas.
THE BEGINNING OF THE INSTITUTE: PEOPLE AND CONTEXT
The creation of the IMA must be seen in the context of political and cultural developments of the 1970s at both the national and international levels. Within art, the traditional museum was coming under vehement attack in both theory and conceptual art practice. Structures alternative to the museum and the dealer galleries were seen as essential to alternative and critical practice. This was a world-wide phenomena – the growth of a range of alternative art spaces.
At a conference held at The Los Angeles Institute of Contemporary Art (26-29 April 1978) entitled The New Arts Space, James Pomeroy provided the schematisation of the essential differences between the established museums and the new art spaces,16 as outlined in the Appendix. It should be noted that no allowance is made within the scheme for a distinction between contemporary art spaces, as they came to be called in Australia, and artist-run spaces. The scheme does allow for a consideration of the most important characteristics of the new spaces, in the first instance at least; it does also provide a broader cultural frame for a consideration of the foundation of the IMA.
Now clearly the contemporary art spaces have developed since that time, becoming more like museums of contemporary art, albeit museums without permanent collections. John Nixon makes the point in his 'text' in this collection that during his directorship the Institute operated like a European Kunsthalle. The on-going temporary exhibitions of individual artists and of groups of artists have been crucial to the life of artists in this country. In one sense the contemporary art spaces have had to take on such a function, given the substantial neglect of contemporary art exhibited by most of the state galleries, New South Wales being the real exception here. The utilisation of Gallery 14 at the Queensland Art Gallery for contemporary/experimental work may improve the situation a little in Brisbane, but even that practice never seems to be particularly secure. The existence of James Baker's Museum of Contemporary Art in South Brisbane has also changed the Institute's context. Certainly in the Sydney situation the establishment of the Museum of Contemporary Art at Circular Quay will have an impact on the operation and function of Artspace, the contemporary art space in that city. The neglect of contemporary art by most of the state galleries was a central factor in the creation of what were to become the contemporary art spaces; it was very obviously a factor in the founding of the IMA. This continuing neglect does place pressures on contemporary art spaces to almost become museums of contemporary art.
A clear perception of the IMA's functions in relation to both the state and dealer galleries comes through in the early material written about and by the Institute. Thus in IMA Bulletin 3 Betty Churcher wrote about the Robert MacPherson exhibition, 'This exhibition needed the excellent space and noncommercial orientation of the Institute gallery'. There is obviously implicit here a notion that the Institute would exhibit work that would not be shown in a commercial space. The Australian newspaper (23 September 1975) reporting the opening of the IMA stated, 'The Institute is the product of local artists who are seeking to give Brisbane a gallery that will exhibit art not normally displayed by state or commercial galleries.' In an interview with Hugh Lunn in The Australian (23 September 1975) Betty Churcher stated, 'We are trying to cover areas of work the public should see which was not made available through the state art gallery'. These statements bear witness to one major reason for the creation of the IMA. At another level they provide a critique, however muted, of the practices of the Queensland Art Gallery at that time; this has been an ongoing critique, as suggested above, which raises important questions to do with an appropriate practice for the IMA. Hal Foster has argued that 'when the modern museum retreated from contemporary practice, it largely passed the function of accreditation onto alternative spaces.'17 This accreditation function has left spaces such as the IMA open to a range of criticism from a variety of groups, some of whom want the IMA to function more as an artist-run space and others who want it to be the bastion of non-commercial avant-gardism. Yet others want it to be almost a proving ground for the commercial galleries.
The broader structural context was also very important to the creation of the IMA, more specifically the peripheral status of Queensland within Australia and internationally. In the interview referred to above, Betty Churcher points out that Queensland had been missing out on a number of important exhibitions which had loured Australia. Specifically, she mentions the Some Recent American Art exhibition which toured the Eastern states in 1974, but which did not come to Brisbane. Thus, she states,
It should have because it was very controversial and would have been a wonderful opportunity to introduce a whole lot of discussion around it. This is the sort of thing we realised we were missing. It is the very thing we hope to attract in the future.
In her Australian review of the IMA's 1975 Robert MacPherson exhibition, Churcher also points out its significance in the light of the failure of Some Recent American Art to come to Brisbane and makes some allusion to Robert Ryman's white paintings included in that exhibition in talking about MacPherson's concern with painting qua painting.'18 Later, as a perusal of its exhibition programme will indicate, the IMA became an important space for exhibiting conceptually-based work, as well as participating in the postmodern debate.
The conceptual art movement of the late 1960s and early seventies and its critique of museums and their form of display was also part of the broader backdrop. As far as the contemporary art spaces have become concerned with history, it is that period they have been concerned with, for example, at the IMA the Q Space + Q Space Annex 1980 + 1981 and the forthcoming Inhibodress 1970-1972 exhibitions. The contemporary art spaces have been important in keeping experimental art, including non-painting, on the agenda.19
Regarding the context of the development of the IMA, Roy Churcher said in The Australian (23 September 1975):
We have created the Institute because there is a bigger need here than anywhere else. Our state gallery is extremely limited in resources and space, and most art seen here anyway is the type state and private galleries handle. State galleries tend to put on exhibitions of general popular appeal and the commercials have to take their rent.
He went on to add, 'By the time art is sifted down and official institutions get hold of it it has lost its edge and become a little bit fossilised.'
All of these statements indicate the original perception of the sort of art that the Institute was established to exhibit: new art not shown at either the state or commercial galleries because of a variety of reasons such as the need to attract popular support and the need to exhibit saleable work. There was less of a commercial market for such work in Brisbane than in, say, Sydney or Melbourne where Walters (1964) and Pinacotheca (1967) galleries exhibited such work.'20 Thus the IMA was to show new difficult work which was not apparently marketable in the Brisbane context.
The juxtaposition of difficult or sophisticated with non-marketable is an interesting norm which has been ever present in debates surrounding public funding of the arts.21 At the official IMA opening, James Mollison, representing Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, stated that, At all times there have been artists working in advance of the generations of their time' (The Courier-Mail, 23 September 1975), clearly implying that the Institute was established to exhibit such avant-garde art. The inaugural President Desmond Derrington asserted in the same newspaper article that the purpose of the IMA was to 'interest people in art in its highest form'. Thus as well as showing avant-garde work, the Institute had something of a proselytising function in relation to critical, contemporary art practice.
Clearly, the establishment of a centre in Brisbane to exhibit avant-garde art was seen as a manifestation of Brisbane's cultural emergence as a cosmopolitan/metropolitan centre or at least a move in that direction. In Bernard Smith's terms, 'By 1970 there were indications that Australia was beginning to create nascent metropolitan situations of its own in its main capital cities'.22 Of course, as Burn et al have argued, the structural conditions of dependence for Australia still remained; this was even more true for Brisbane.23
The IMA also can be seen to have a lineage going back to an earlier generation of non-commercial spaces, including the Gallery of Contemporary Art established in Melbourne in 1956 by the Contemporary Art Society which was to become John Reed's Museum of Modern Art and Design (closed in 1966) and to the alternative spaces such as Central Street (1966), Yellow House (1969) and Inhibodress (1970), Sydney. Barbara Blackmail's statement concerning the function of Melbourne's Gallery of Contemporary Art that it was to excite and nourish public interest in all and especially the most avant-garde aspects of contemporary art'24 is a clear indication that it was a progenitor of the later contemporary art spaces such as the IMA. Furthermore, all of these developments must be seen in the light of both international and national developments within politics, culture and the arts.
Regarding the IMA's educational function, lan Hatcher in an article in The Courier-Mail entitled 'They Aim To Explain Modern Art' (19 July 1975) states that one major motivation behind the Institute's establishment was to educate people so that their resistance to contemporary art would be broken down.
Understanding would weaken such resistance. In Hatcher's own words, 'They felt that the resistance to and non-acceptance of contemporary art by the public was due largely to ignorance and lack of understanding'. In this way education was one major idea behind the IMA. Betty Churcher in Bulletin 3 points out the importance of IMA talks, lectures, art criticism forums and informal discussions. In that particular Bulletin she makes mention of talks by Robert MacPherson and by American artists Janet Fisk and Kenneth Noland, emphasising with respect to the latter artist that probably nowhere else in the world (and certainly, she stresses, not in New York or London) would people be able to discuss art matters with him in such an open and informal way. In her words, 'Providing this luxury is perhaps one of our Institute's major contributions'.
The other major perceived function of the IMA, as outlined in its formal statement of objectives and espoused in early Bulletins and publicity, was to provide a meeting place for the art cognoscenti of Brisbane. This social side of the IMA seems to have been more important in its early days than subsequently. There seems to have been a change over time in the social characteristics of those who participate in the offerings of the IMA. As a generalisation, it would seem that the participants now are younger and possess the requisite 'cultural capital', to use Bourdieu's apposite phrase,25 to participate in the arcane debates which surround contemporary art practice, whereas in the past it would seem that the participants were on the whole perhaps older and possessing both economic and cultural capital. Compare the crowd at the opening party (photo elsewhere in this publication) with the crowds at more recent forums, say. In a way the IMA appears to have become more 'serious' and less social.
The changing nature of the participants reflects a number of factors. Raymond Williams has argued that all cultural practices, including art, 'serve societal purposes of the deepest kind: not as food, or as shelter, or as tools, but as 'recognitions' (both new and confirming marks) of people and kinds of people in places and kinds of places ...'26, basically what Pierre Bourdieu has called 'distinctions'.27 A variety of marks of distinction is now available in Brisbane, certainly more than in 1975. Kippax, Koenig and Dowsett have argued that:
The arts tap into the lived worlds of people, their personal, social and political experiences. It is their ability to resonate in the private and personal sphere and to mark one off and distinguish one in the public sphere that constitute their meanings. And the meanings the arts and arts practices have for people provide the answers to why people participate.28
Herein lies some potential explanation for the changed nature of the IMA's audience. The nature of the programme changed over time, for instance compare John Buckley's term with that of John Nixon, a move perhaps from mainstream modernism to the avant-garde variety, which possibly made more demands upon the viewer. It is also interesting in this respect that the generation of avant-garde conceptualists nurtured by the contemporary art spaces have now, by and large, become successful mid-career artists.
In talking about the foundation of the IMA some mention must be made of the national political context of the time. The Whitlam Labor government had been elected in December 1972 after 23 years of conservative rule; a period the historian Manning dark has referred to as '23 years of unleavened bread'.29
Throughout the world in the late 1960s/early 1970s there had been the flowering of a whole range of alternative practices in all spheres of life and culture. These alternatives existed in the formal political realm, as well as at the individual level, the 'personal as political'. In a sense, globally there was a cultural revolution; the election of the progressive Whitlam government in Australia was one manifestation of this opening up of society at the end of the post-war economic boom. Women's liberation, multiculturalism, self-determination for Aboriginal Australians, free tertiary education, progressive child-centred educational practices, avant-garde art practices, alternative lifestyles, alternative art spaces and so on constituted a new heterogeneity and provided a critique of the slumber of the earlier post-war period. Whitlam's progressive Keynesian welfare state expenditure contributed to this new, more tolerantly diverse and more confident Australia, which was manifested in a whole range of policy areas, including foreign policy where a new independence emerged and, of course, in the area of arts policy.
Rowse has documented the gestation of Commonwealth patronage of the arts in Australia, beginning with the formation of the Commonwealth Literary Fund in 1908 and the Commonwealth Arts Advisory Board in 1912. The establishment of the Australian Council for the Arts in 1967 during Gorton's term as Prime Minister saw increased government patronage. It was, though, during the Whitlam era that such patronage increased substantially and moved onto a more even footing. On the appropriate role for government in the arts, Whitlam has said this about his time in government:
I recognised from the outset, however, that even with the most generous and imaginative schemes the arts could not be grafted onto a society that was barren and hostile to them. In the long run public appetites for literature and the arts would depend on the kind of society we created. Our policies for the arts have therefore to be judged in conjunction with our broader policies for education and social reform.30
In speaking to the Australia Council Bill on the 21st March 1974, Whitlam had this to say:
I regard this Bill as an historic development in the promotion of the arts in Australia. It fulfils a long-standing commitment to the Arts which I proclaimed in the Australian Labor Party's policy speech in 1972 and which the government has pursued since coming to office. I believe that the formation of an independent Australia Council will inaugurate a new era of vitality and progress in the Arts, that creative artists of all kinds will enjoy a new measure of security and status in the community, and that the Australian people as a whole will have new and wider opportunities to participate in the Arts and enjoy the emotional, spiritual and intellectual rewards which the arts alone can provide.31
This then was part of the national political context in which the idea of the IMA came to fruition. It must also be said that the state government contributed towards the rent of the first IMA premises in Market Street; Arthur Creedy from the State Department of Cultural Activities was interested in and supportive of the Institute in the formative stages. The ready availability of federal government funds, however, was of great significance. The context of the IMA's foundation then is an interesting manifestation of the coming together of particular material and cultural conditions.
THE PROGRAMME
The Institute's exhibition programme is listed in full in chronological order elsewhere in this publication. As well, installation photographs of more than 80 exhibitions are included. Four directors (John Buckley, John Nixon, Peter Cripps and Sue Cramer) and a gallery coordinator (Barbara Campbell) talk about their respective programmes. Thus, only a brief comment will be made here of the changing nature of the programme and its relationship to changing context.
John Buckley (1976-9) mentions his experience with Canadian art, his contact with the government funded parallel gallery system there and makes the point that the development of the IMA needs to be seen in the context of such world-wide cultural developments. He makes reference to his feeling of having travelled back into the past, in art terms, when he arrived in Brisbane to take up the IMA directorship. This was at a time before contemporary art spaces had been established as a stable funding category for the Australia Council, when the Queensland Art Gallery was still housed in temporary premises and when there was a smaller network of dealer galleries than today.
Buckley documents the nature of his programme and how context and funding constraints limited what it was possible to do. The Australian Gallery Directors' Council and the British Council were the two major sources of financial support for the exhibition programme. Given this situation, he attempted to establish a presence for contemporary art in Brisbane and a presence for the IMA nationally; the latter to be achieved largely through international exhibitions. Buckley's programme can be read in terms of this intention. The juxtaposition of established Australian artists with more experimental work from both Australia and overseas was part of this strategy.
Buckley also mentions his disappointment that financial constraints prevented the Institute from producing properly researched, professional catalogues during his term. He concludes by stating that by the end of his directorship the Institute had established a presence and reputation for itself. In his words, the 'IMA could now ... move into its next phase – whereby it would begin to take a tougher stance – both in terms of its exhibition programme and the issues it might address'. John Nixon as the subsequent director pursued this tougher stance'.
John Nixon (1980-1) instigated an 'almost exclusively Australian' programme as a counter balance to the overseas orientation of Buckley's. Nixon curated a programme of avant garde Australian artists with 'overground/underground' reputations, but whose work had not been seen in Brisbane. Documentation was provided with these exhibitions. For Nixon, the IMA was to be an avant garde beacon in a conservative environment, the work exhibited contrasting starkly with the '1950s expressionism'32 which he has suggested dominated Queensland art at the time. Nixon's emphasis was on the difficult and controversial, the orientation educational and uncompromising.
Nixon's directorship was followed in the period 1982 to mid-1984 by a guest curatorial programme coordinated by Barbara Campbell, who was assisted by Ted Riggs. The focus of the programme was now directed at the 'needs of local artists', as Barbara Campbell puts it. This was part of the general move for artists to 'determine their own contexts' and it could be argued that across this time the Institute operated more like a collectively managed artist-run space. Certainly during that time the committee had greater influence over the exhibition programme than has subsequently been the case.
1984 saw the consolidation of contemporary art spaces as a funding category for the Australia Council33 and a consequent definition of their functions as distinctive amongst alternative spaces, certainly as different from that of artist-run spaces, particularly in relation to the role of a director. Under pressure from a number of sources, in particular that from the federal funding body, a director, Peter Cripps, was appointed in the middle of 1984. In his essay, Cripps talks about how he attempted to take account of the IMA's history and its context in formulating his programme and how he attempted to construct a coherent programme where each exhibition had to be seen in relation to the overall programme. Cripps also explicitly states that he wanted to confront the 'hegemonic perception that Brisbane was the end of the world artistically speaking'. The Robert MacPherson Survey Exhibition (exhibited in two hangings September to October 1985) was one manifestation of his commitment here, as well as a manifestation of context, for this exhibition surely ought to have been initiated by the Queensland Art Gallery. (Robert MacPherson's place in the IMA's history is indicated in the number of exhibitions he has been in and in the number of installation photographs of his work included in this publication.)
Another point to note about Cripps' directorship is the number of researched and professional catalogues and other publications produced during his time. Q Space + Q Space Annex 1980 + 1981 and Recession Art And Other Strategies were important exhibitions, both attempting to recuperate, historically, alternative exhibition practices, with the former also seeking to reduce the selectivity of local art history. Most of Cripps' publications resulted from successful Visual Arts Board special grant applications.
In Sue Cramer's programme, solo exhibitions by major and emerging artists have set the curatorial direction with a view to, as Cramer has said, 'furthering the Institute's commitment to experimental and advanced art'. An emphasis on work with strong conceptual content and 'the notion of the artist's individual project, a strong and individual spirit of enquiry' has characterised the selection. Cramer makes mention of her desire to take account of the IMA history and context in her programme; Inhibodress 1970-72 documents alternative and conceptual art practices at one of the (artist-run) precursors to places such as the IMA and furthers the line of enquiry of the Q Space exhibition. A programme of guest-curated exhibitions of Brisbane work and solo exhibitions by younger artists has supported the work of local artists and the activities of curating and writing within the Brisbane community. Forums and publications have also played a role within Cramer's programme; in particular the upgrading of the IMA Bulletin to a catalogue with a contemporary critical essay to accompany each exhibition should be noted.
The IMA's context is now substantially different from what it was in 1975. The Queensland Art Gallery has new premises and a new director; there is the Museum of Contemporary Art and a number of artist-run spaces; there is an expanded dealer gallery network; a larger potential audience and a Brisbane based art magazine, Eyeline, published by the Queensland Artworkers Alliance. The three-year funding status recently granted to the IMA by the Visual Arts/Craft Board is just one indication of the place the IMA has created for itself in the Australian contemporary art scene.
CONCLUSION
This publication documents changes in IMA practice since 1975, the move from an idea to a publicly funded contemporary art space. These changes relate to broader political, economic and cultural developments at local, national and international levels, as well as to more specific political changes in funding arrangements and to local art community developments, including matters such as Queensland Art Gallery policy on contemporary art, the size and nature of the dealer gallery network, the existence of alternative spaces, the range of outlets for art publishing and the nature of the local artist community. Even though the funding arrangement for contemporary art spaces has become formalised since the mid 1980s, the IMA has created its own history different from that of other comparable spaces. The focus has been upon artists and exhibitions, a focus evident in this documentary history. The exhibition programme since 1975 has established a reputation for the IMA on the national scene. There have been many artists and many exhibitions of critical contemporary art – in a sense like ongoing Perspectas and Biennales – exhibitions and work of museum standard, but also work by younger and/or less established artists of a critical kind. The IMA has been involved in launching the careers of a number of important contemporary Australian artists.
In its Brisbane context, the IMA has been expected to serve a variety of functions, while moving almost inexorably towards a very professional museum practice as the Australia Council's 'flagship' contemporary art space here. In a sense there has been a 'real diseconomy of scale'34 with too many, often confusing, demands being made of the IMA. This diseconomy of scale inevitably has resulted in, sometimes enervating, sometimes stimulating, debates over what the Institute should be doing. The solution to this 'problem' does not lie solely in the hands of the IMA (apart from the necessity to clarify its goals at any one time), but in the need for a variety of venues and spaces for discussion and exhibition of critical contemporary art in Brisbane.35 From the early 1980s a number of artist-run spaces developed in Brisbane to serve functions different from that of the IMA.36
The establishment of a network of publicly funded contemporary art spaces around Australia has been important for contemporary art and artists, one of the real success stories of Australia Council policy. Perhaps too much is expected from what in real terms is a small amount expended. In some ways the existence of contemporary art spaces has allowed the state and national galleries to continue to neglect their responsibilities to contemporary art. The Art Gallery of New South Wales with its Perspectas, Biennales and Project Exhibitions has been the notable exception here. Pressures need to be exerted continually to ensure that they engage with such art. The utilisation of Gallery 14 at the Queensland Art Gallery for contemporary art is a positive step on the local scene.
It seems certain that a variety of non commercial spaces for contemporary art is required within the art support structure; a range extending from an institution which might simply be a centre for documentation, discussion and support for contemporary art, through to fully professional contemporary art museums. At this time, the professional practice of the IMA needs to be complemented by a number of more collaborative spaces for younger, less established artists. Such funding though has a negative potential for homogenisation and control. There is also the potential for censorship of the controversial, be it political, cultural or artistic. 'Arms-length' funding, so-called, is necessary lo ensure free expression and must be argued for and strongly defended.
Since the mid 1970s the 'new-right' and 'economic rationalists' have argued for the reduction of public sector expenditure and for a concomitant 'peeling back' of the state in all spheres. This post-Keynesian rhetoric has framed the policies of governments of all persuasions in all policy areas to a lesser or greater extent.36 It is against this background that public funding for the arts must be defended and arguments proffered for increased expenditure. The nature of the defence ought to provoke much thought within the art community. In such a defence it is very easy to slip into the prevailing discourse and argue in terms of the economic contribution of the arts in a variety of ways. We must, however, defend the social wage generally for it seems essential to the creation of a decent society. The arts and the public funding of them, also must be defended in terms of the contribution they make culturally, not just on straight instrumental grounds, for their real importance exists at a level beyond the economic.
We have to be wary of knowing the economic value of everything and the real value of nothing. It is hoped that this documentary history of the IMA bears witness to the important cultural contribution and value of one publicly funded institution.
APPENDIX
|
|
MUSEUM |
NEW ART SPACE |
|
building: |
designed (owned) |
found (rented) |
|
location: |
civic centres, parks |
industrial or warehouse districts, declining zones of transition (a process that is often reversed as these areas become attractive real estate again and the artists are displaced) |
|
audience: |
upper-class white |
artist, frequently ethnic or other affinity (sex, media, etc.) |
|
ambience: |
sterile ('white cube') |
natural (studio) |
|
ideal: |
perfection |
risk |
|
overhead: |
ponderous |
skeletal |
|
scope: |
painting, sculpture, photography, |
video, performance, music, dance, film, arts and community services, interdisciplinary forms, painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking |
|
bias: |
modern, historical |
contemporary, work in progress |
|
flexibility: |
inertial |
reactive |
|
funding: |
public and hard private |
public and soft private |
|
annual budget: |
multiples of $100,000 |
multiples of $10,000 |
|
staff: |
large, paid, professional |
small, volunteer, part-time |
|
director: |
male |
both sexes, (with a high incidence of women directors) |
|
curatorial staff: |
extensive, specialized, usually a part of the museum with the highest population of women |
usually the part-time or volunteer gallery coordinator |
|
curators: |
historians |
artists |
|
security: |
controlled access, electronic detection and surveillance guard force (usually the part of the museum attracting the highest population of minorities) |
informal (locks), volunteer (usually only sound and video equipment require extra precautions) |
|
governance: |
hierarchical, with an active market/ collector/corporate inffluence and no input from artist sector or community-at-large |
usually democratic, although a significant number of NAS reflect the goals and energies of one or a few individuals, with little or no accessibility to governance or program direction |
|
attendance: |
large, diverse |
small, medium (usually identified with affinity/ focus/peerage) |
|
affiliation: |
galleries, other museums, collectors, auctions, art historians |
artists, other NAS |
|
exposition: |
static |
nonstatic |
|
posture: |
conservative |
radical |
1 'On Visibility' The White Bird Chatto and Windus, London, 1985, p.219.
2. K. Brown and J. Aqnino Review Of Visual Arts Board's Program Of Assistance For Contemporary Art Spaces Visual Arts Board, Australia Council, 1985, p.112.
3. ibid., p.88.
4. G. Swift Waterland, Picador, London, 1983, p.92.
5. Gary Sangster 'Partial History: Notes Towards A Critical Discussion Of Curatorial Practices' Praxis M 22 1988 pp.4-13.
6. See on this general point Victor Burgin The End Of Art Theory: Criticism And Postmodernity Macmillan, London, 1986, particularly pp.29ff.
7. Gary Sangster 1988, op cit, p.4.
8. John Barrett-Leonard Praxis In Practice: An Overview Of Ten Years At Western Australia's Contemporary Art Space Fremantle, Praxis, 1986; and Stephanie Britton (ed.) A Decade At The EAF: A History Of The Experimental Art Foundation 1974-1984 Experimental Art Foundation, Adelaide, 1984.
9. Raymond Williams 'Base And Superstructure In Marxist Cultural Theory' Schooling And Capitalism: A Sociological Reader R. Dale et al. (eds.) Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1976, pp.202-10.
10. H.J. Blackham Six Existentialist Thinkers Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1952, p.20.
11. Soren Kierkegaard, ibid., pp.20ff.
12. Ross Harley 'Mission Impossible' Praxis M 20 1988, p.15.
13. See P. Wilenski 'Social Change As A Source Of Competing Values In Public Administration' Australian Journal Of Public Administration Vol. xlvii, No.3, 1988, pp.213-22.
14. Peter Anderson (1989) 'The Politics Of Space: From Alternative Spaces To Artist-Run Initiatives' Art Monthly Australia 19 April 1989, p.27.
15. J. Pomeroy 'Viewing The Museum: The Tail Wagging The Dog' The New Arts Spaces: A Summary Of Alternative Visual Arts Organisations (prepared in conjunction with conference, April 26-8) Los Angeles Institute of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 1978, p.15.
16. ibid., pp.16-7.
17. Hal Foster 'The Problem Of Pluralism' Art In America January 1982, p.l3.
18. For a contrary view of the Some Recent American Art exhibition as an example of cultural imperialism, see Ian Burn, Nigel Lendon, Charles Merewether and Ann Stephen The Necessity Of Australian Art: An Essay About Interpretation Power Publishers, Sydney, 1988, particularly Chapter 7 'The Provincialism Debate'.
19. See here Bob Lingard and Peter Cripps 'Flattening Australian Art History?' European Installation Art E3 Australian Centre for Contemporary Art, Melbourne, 1988; and a review of this essay by Ann Marsh Antithesis Vol.2, No.2, 1988/9, pp.41-5.
20. See J. Sweet Pinacotheca 1967-1973 Prendergast Publishers, Melbourne, 1989.
21. See T. Rowse Arguing The Arts: The Funding Of The Arts In Australia Penguin, Ringwood, 1985, Chapters 5 and 10. On p.117 Rowse states: 'The cultural world seemed to be two worlds – commercial entertainment and subsidised quality'.
22. Bernard Smith Australian Painting 1788-1970 Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1971, p.324.
23. See Ian Burn et. al., op cit.
24. B. Blackman Broadsheet Contemporary Art Society, Victoria, November 1956, p.8.
25. Pierre Bourdieu and J. Passeron Reproduction In Education, Society And Culture (English translation) Sage, London, 1977.
26. Raymond Williams Culture Fontana, London, 1981, p.128.
27. Pierre Bourdieu Distinction: A Social Critique Of The Judgement Of Taste (English translation) Routledge, London, 1986.
28. S. Kippax, S. Koenig and G. Dowsett Potential Arts Audiences: Attitudes And Practices a report prepared for the Australia Council, 1986, p.38.
29. M. Clark Occasional Writings And Speeches Fontana Collins, Melbourne, 1980.
30. Goff Whitlam The Whitlam Government 1972-1975 Penguin, Ringwood, 1985, pp.553-4.
31. ibid., p.561.
32. John Nixon interviewed by Ted Riggs '1980: The Institute Of Modern Art, Brisbane, And Related Cultural Issues' Art-Network 2 Spring 1980.
33. See Peter Anderson 1989, op.cit; and Terry Smith 'The Visual Arts Board: Part One: From A Ministry Of Mediocrity To Rational Reform Art-Network 14 Summer 1985, pp.22-7.
34. A phrase used by Terry Smith to explain the acrimonious internecine conflicts almost endemic to the art world. See Terry Smith 'Critical Possibility, Here And Now: The Practicalities Of Art Writing Today' Practices Of Criticism In Australia Art Association of Australia, Melbourne, 1986, pp.28-38.
35. See Nancy Underhill 'MOCA in Brisbane: A Realised Vision' Australian And International Art Monthly 2 July 1987, pp.1-2, where the argument is proffered that a range of art options is what 'separates a proper city from a large provincial town'. The comment is made in relation to the establishment of the privately sponsored Museum of Contemporary Art in South Brisbane.
36. See regarding these developments Urszula Szulakowska 'Brisbane Dada: Collaborative Art In A Stagnant Culture' Eyeline 1 May 1987, pp.14-7; Michelle Helmrich 'That's THAT, But is that all?: THAT Contemporary Art Space 1985-1988' Eyeline 5 June 1988, pp.16-9; P. Andrew 'Arch Lane Public Art, Brisbane' Eyeline 8 March 1989, pp.33-4.
37. See R. Wolfe 'The Future Of The Visual Arts Under Australia Council Restructuring' Australian And International Art Monthly 3 August 1987, pp.25-6, for one consideration of the impact of so-called 'economic rationalism' upon Australia Council policies and practice.