History
An Invitation To An Idea:
The Foundations Of The Institute Of Modern Art
Peter AndersonLocating the exact moment at which the Institute of Modern Art came into being is a difficult, if not impossible task. Certainly there were announcements in the press, initial exhibitions and an official opening, however any attempt to positively identify a single founding moment is quickly caught up in a plethora of events that are now subject to the vagaries of personal memory. As with the development of almost any organisation, many things just seem to have happened by chance, while others are clearly the result of quite specific decisions and careful planning. Eventually, out of all these ideas, practical activities, desires, plans and accidents, was developed a working organisational structure, a set of specific aims and objectives and the more stable contours of a physical location; an identifiable place called 'the Institute of Modern Art'.
In what follows, a brief sketch of the initial months of the Institute will be provided, with attention being focussed as much on the process of establishing the organisation, as on its first public events. It should be noted that this is neither a sketch from life nor from memory, but a rough outline drawn from a range of sources; the IMA’s archives, contemporary press reports and interviews with some of the founding Committee members. Thus, this is necessarily a partial account, intended to indicate the general foundations of the Institute which, while in operation for well over ten years, could still be seen as 'under construction'.
While there had been much behind-the-scenes work put into the IMA during 1974, the Institute's first public appearance did not occur until January 1975 when the initial press reports of the proposed Institute were published. At this stage the interim Committee1 had yet to locate suitable premises, and had only just begun the process of finding and appointing an executive director. In addition, the financial future of the organisation was still somewhat unclear. However, the Committee was both ambitious and energetic, fired up with something of a missionary zeal for contemporary art. So, in the light of the substantial progress already made, the Institute's first president, Mr Desmond Derrington QC (now Justice Derrington), announced optimistically that the board 'hoped to stage the Institute's first exhibition early this year' (The Courier-Mail 17 January 1975, p.14). Further comments from the Institute's vice-president, Queensland painter Roy Churcher, identified the organisation's role as a public resource, highlighting its key focus on contemporary work: 'We want to house shows of major importance and provide premises where work of an experimental nature can be shown' (The Courier-Mail ibid.).
It was this overriding objective of providing a sympathetic environment for experimental artistic activity, a positive climate for the development of contemporary practice, that was at the heart of the idea for the Institute. Justice Derrington recalls that 'the impetus came originally from Ray Hughes and Roy Churcher' (Interview/DD). At that time Ray Hughes had been running his own contemporary commercial gallery for a number of years, with Roy Churcher being one of the more high profile artists that he represented. While a few of the local commercial galleries offered some opportunity for the showing of contemporary work, Hughes and Churcher 'were pretty dissatisfied with the availability of venues, public venues anyhow, for the showing of the paintings of good young contemporary painters around Brisbane, not only Brisbane painters, but really contemporary art work' (Interview/DD).
At that time the Queensland Art Gallery was housed in temporary premises in a city high-rise, and while it provided occasional exhibitions of contemporary work, its resources in this area were limited. As Justice Derrington remembers it, 'there really was a hiatus in Brisbane for the showing of good contemporary artists' (Interview/DD). It was this gap, between the restricted contemporary showings at the QAG and the obvious commercial constraints that limited the efforts of the local dealer galleries, which the proposed Institute was intended to fill. In moving to fill such a gap, the interim Committee was not presented with any obvious local models, although the Contemporary Art Society is remembered by Ray Hughes as having provided some foundation to the idea:
In the CAS were the bones of what we had as an idea of the IMA. Roy Churcher was involved with it, I was involved with it, lan Still had been Secretary for years – he was part of the IMA group. The CAS used to run a drawing class every Monday night, used to organise an international and a members show, so there were two exhibitions, and it would have a monthly meeting which usually took the form of a speaker of some sort ... When I was at Teachers College – probably '63-'64 – the CAS brought out an exhibition of pop art prints – Wesselmann, Warhol and Lichtenstein – so that stuff was hitting town as it was happening. The CAS had done some pretty interesting things, there was a climate of ideas outside just painting, and I suppose in many ways it's probably fair to say that those sort of activities – I think that Roy Churcher was one of the central forces here – quite frankly formed what I started thinking works of art were about, and therefore sort of had a deal to do with the forming of my gallery and consequently in the sort of notions we had when we wanted to set up a museum of modern art. It just so happened that it was called an 'Institute of Modern Art', because institutes were tax deductible. (Interview/RH)
Importantly, the initial idea of an institute of modern art was backed up by a practical working Committee which dedicated a considerable amount of personal time and resources to the project. Having a Queen's Counsel as interim president no doubt gave the project an air of respectability, but as Justice Derrington recalls, a balance between idealism and pragmatism was vital for success.
We formed a very comprehensive Committee with relatively few people, but it incorporated a nice balance of those who were perhaps a little bit frantic about showing art – and a little bit unreal at times – with a group of people who also contributed something in the way of a general economic stability and respectability. I think I tried to provide for the arty crowd the essentially pragmatic necessity of having a disciplined, organised organisation, that would be able to command the respect of the people who would be funding it in one way or another, so that we could make it clear to them that it wasn't just some ratty artists' group who'd spend the money on wine and cheese parties and great weekends sloshing paint all over the place. I believe I was useful as something of a 'front-man', to deal with ministers of the crown, to cadge money out of them and things of that order. But still, I was interested in art at the same time. (Interview/DD)
Throughout the latter half of 1974 the various skills of the Committee members were put to work in attempt to secure funding and locate a suitable exhibition space. By the end of August applications funding had been forwarded to two Australia Council Boards; the Film and Television Board and Visual Arts Board. In the visual arts area, the formal application was followed up with direct discussion between the Board and the Interim Committee. At the October 1974 meeting Mr Derrington provided account of his meeting with the Director of the Visual Arts Board (Mr Leon Paroissien), and was able report that 'the (VAB) was favourably disposed to the concept of the Institute which could be assured of Board's assistance' (Minutes, 3 October 1974). A delegation from the Institute also called on the Queensland Government's Minister for Cultural Activities. However, while 'the Minister generally approved of the idea of the IMA and expressed sympathy with the proposal (he) could not undertake to help at this stage' (Minutes, 7 November 1974).
One of the dominant problems faced by the Committee throughout these formative months was lack of a suitable building. Many possibilities were canvassed, from Government-owned buildings, such the old Windsor Town Hall and Smelley's warehouse at the bottom of Edward Street, to a rather ambitious proposal to purchase the Kingsley Hotel for 1.3 million dollars (Minutes, 13 February 1975). The Commit also investigated the possibility of becoming involved with the community-arts oriented Coronation Hoi project (Brisbane Community Arts Centre – now the Metro Arts building), however the ideas of the two groups were quite different, and in any case, the VAB's response to such a move was not particularly favourable. In attempting to find a solution to these problems, the Committee was constantly caught between economic viability and physical suitability, with a balance being very hard to find. Even after the location of the space in Market Street, which was to become the Institute's home base until 1982, the Committee were forced to continue investigating other options for nearly four months due to the continuing uncertainty of finances. The minutes of the Committee meeting of 3 March 1975 provide some details of the site, which Ray Hughes recalls was found by chance on the way back from an unsuccessful inspection another building (Interview/RH):
Premises have been located at 24 Market Street, City, approx. 2,000 sq. ft. 2 floors – street access, rear lane with access for loading and unloading, ceiling height approx. 10 ft.. A basement area available for use but not included in lease as it has not been restored to the standard of rest of building. Small kitchen area upstairs also provision for loading and unloading. All walls and ceilings painted white, floors – stained timber, lighting – good. Rent $6,000 per annum – lease – 3 years. (Minutes, 3 March 1975)
However, less than three weeks later the initial enthusiasm for the Market Street site had been dampened by continuing financial uncertainly and the Committee 'decided to temporarily abandon lease commitment for the premises'. (Minutes, 20 March 1975)
This temporary set back led to an intensification of the Committee's lobbying, involving further meetings with the Minister for Cultural Activities and a direct approach to the State Treasurer. This, coupled with the active support of Queensland's Director for Cultural Activities, Mr Creedy,2 led to the provision of a special State Government grant of $2,500 towards the renting of premises. The VAB also provided assistance by offering to guarantee the Institute against loss. However, before being able to take up the lease of the Market Street building on the 1st of July 1975, it was necessary for every Committee member to provide a personal financial guarantee to secure the Institute in the event of any shortfall.
In the months just prior to the Institute's first exhibition the Committee were provided with additional assistance by Robert Jadin de Fronenteau, who took up the position of executive director in May 1975. This position was supported by funds which had been made available by the VAB earlier in the year, but the Committee had in fact begun the process of finding a suitable appointee as far back as December 1974. The new organisation took some time to find its administrative feet as, unlike the present situation with a national Contemporary Art Spaces network in place, no clear operating model was in existence. As a result of these uncertainties, the Institute's first director only remained in office across the first six months of initial development, with June King taking on the role of temporary gallery supervisor until the arrival of John Buckley in early June 1976.
While the Committee took something of a lower public profile after the appointment of John Buckley, the individual efforts of its members in establishing the organisation and providing it with a solid foundation cannot be underestimated. The climate in which their idea took shape was not particularly responsive to modern works of art. For example, only a matter of weeks before the public launching of the Institute, the Committee's vice-president, Roy Churcher, had become embroiled in public controversy over his win in the Garden City Art Show, 'with an abstract, basically red, two-dimensional table scene entitled The Painting' (The Courier-Mail 19 July 1975). Above a major article published in The Courier-Mail of Saturday 19 July 1975, the day after the formal launching of the Institute with an exhibition of works by John Olsen, the headline announced 'They Aim to Explain Modern Art'.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, the Institute's honorary secretary, Joy Schoenheimer, explained the philosophy behind the organisation:
We decided to found the Institute of Modern Art to create a forum for the public viewing and discussion of art works of a contemporary nature. It is aimed at helping people to know and enjoy the arts of our times in all its forms ... One of our aims is to make people look at things as they have never looked at them before, to make them feel things; in fact to awaken their senses to the world about them ... We hope that people will give us a go. We will be saying – 'Here we are. We are showing you something which you mightn't like, but please keep an open mind'. When they understand what modern art is all about and they still don't like it – fair enough.
However, the Institute did not intend to simply restrict its programme to regular showings of art, nor would there be any direct competition with existing public or private galleries. The five key areas of activity were listed as:
(i) Acceptance of travelling exhibitions of significant works of art.
(ii) Mounting exhibitions dealing with all aspects of art and its environment.
(iii) Being available to exhibit works for artists whose work does not fall in the sphere of activity of commercial galleries.
(iv) Establishing a collection of such significant works as the Institute feels should be held in a public collection.
(v) Acting as a resource area for conducting lectures, seminars, workshops and forums.
To cover all these areas it was pointed out that the available government funding would probably not be sufficient, 'private funding will be required for the balance of our operations and we hope that private industry will become interested and help' (The Courier-Mail 19 July 1975, p. 13).
While there has been some assistance from private sector bodies over the years, the Institute's funding has remained almost completely within the public arena. In the light of this, although not solely because of it, the original objective of developing a collection of art works has never been realised, and quickly became an issue which was not given priority; 'We felt that there were enough bodies in town to gather permanent collections, and that the role of the Institute, as we saw it at that time, was more to promote contemporary art ... we felt that a purely promotional body was the best use of the funds' (Interview/DD).
Certainly by placing all its resources in the areas of exhibition and the education of a public, the Institute was able to develop more quickly an energetic profile, with the official opening on Monday 22 September 1975 being something of a public splash. In addition to the formal opening by the National Art Gallery director, James Mollison – described by The Courier-Mail as 'the man with the million-dollar-plus art taste' in reference to his involvement in the purchase of the 'infamous' Blue Poles – the evening also included activities from Griffith University's Theatre 10 group; 'You might call it a happening, an event – art if you like'.
In a frenzy of creativity, they shredded a giant painting ... and threw paint over themselves. As a student in briefs pressed his body against a canvas leant against a no-parking sign, others pushed wheelbarrows around Market Street. Another thoroughly confused guests by running around the block, calling 'wait' each time he shouldered through them. (The Courier-Mail 23 September 1975, p.7)
The excitement generated by this, and other early events, caught the imagination of a broad cross-section of people, from students to socialites, many of whom had not previously been directly involved with contemporary art. So, while early exhibitions were given serious attention in the review pages, Institute openings quickly became a feature of the social columns. For, as Mr Derrington pointed out on the night of the opening, 'the purpose is to remain a fun organisation as well as interest people in art in its highest form' (The Courier-Mail 23 September 1975, p.7). Importantly, this included a serious interest in local art, with the first official exhibition being by Brisbane artist Robert MacPherson, showing recent works completed with the assistance of a VAB grant. It needs to be pointed out that MacPherson's work was not so well known then as it is now, with only a showing at the Ray Hughes gallery to his credit. In an interview with Peter Cripps (published by the Institute in 1986), Robert MacPherson reflected upon the foundation of the IMA and his opening exhibition in the following way:
I have some feeling of responsibility for the IMA. It was formed around works of mine that were seen by foundation members, Roy Churcher, Ray Hughes and lan Still. These works were too large to exhibit in a commercial space. So, when the idea of the IMA was formulated we went looking for a space (Roy Churcher, Ray Hughes, lan Still and myself). Together we found the original Market Street space (for the Institute). So, right from the beginning the IMA was formed around the need to exhibit these large works of mine. The Institute has allowed me to exhibit work without any commercial stricture whatsoever. At that time, in the mid-1970s, it was not possible to exhibit works like that in a commercial gallery in Brisbane.
The IMA was always willing to take risks with the controversial or the unknown, as was the case with the 1976 open invitation survey show Brisbane Painting Today, which gave early exposure to a number of today's more well known painters.
In June 1976 John Buckley took up the position of director and the IMA held its first annual general meeting – the Institute had been formally registered as a company since April 1975. With these two events the organisation reached something of a turning point. The Institute had moved from the initial establishment phase to full operation, from being an idea to a fully fledged contemporary art organisation. Throughout the more than two years of hard work, the members of the Committee and their supporters had given freely of their time, imagination and at times more material resources. There had been setbacks and uncertainty at times, but 'there wasn't failure enough to ever justify losing heart – there was a great deal of enthusiasm' (Interview/DD). For some this continued on with further close involvement over the following years, others such as Committee president Desmond Derrington simply became another visiting 'member of the public'. 'It was healthy, it was running well, and I decided that I'd done my work to get it running, it was time to give someone else a go' (Interview/DD).
1. Interim Committee and Signatories to the Memorandum of Association: Roy Churcher, Leigh Cox, Desmond Derrington, Ray Hughes, Margaret Masel, Darval Miller, Joy Schoenheimer, Alan Shield, Michael Simons, lan Still, Roy Vockler, Marie Watson Blake.
2. Mr Creedy attended many of the early IMA Committee meetings during 1974 and 1975.