|
STUDY DAY Institutional Support For British Experimental Film And Video
A.1 Welcome - Malcolm Le Grice Malcolm Le Grice welcomed the participants to the Study Day and drew attention to the information leaflets on the AHRB Centre for British Film and Television Studies and the British Artists' Film and Video Study Collection, which it has created at Central Saint Martins. MLG reported that CSM's application to the AHRB Resource Enhancement Award Scheme had been successful; the effect of this award will be to make the Study Collection more accessible. The credit for this success goes to DC. MLG congratulated MM and Nina Danino on the publication of the Undercut Reader.
Laura Mulvey welcomed the group to Birkbeck and expressed pleasure at seeing such a mixed group - different generations, memories and experiences. The Study Day represents an important aspect of the Centre's research programme - avant-garde film. MLG's research strand in the Cemntre's Corporate Plan was on funding policy/history for artists' film; this overlaps with other policy work within the Centre. Sylvia Harvey of Sheffield Hallam, the Centre's Principal Associate Director, was unable to attend the Study Day, but Margaret Dickinson will be taking up a Centre Senior Research Fellowship at SHU in about a year's time. A second Centre partner, South East Film and Video Archive at University of Brighton, has also received an AHRB Resource Enhancement award to build on their Centre research on enabling access to moving image archives. Patrick Keiller, AHRB Fellow in the Creative and Performing Arts and the Royal College of Art - which is also a Centre partner - is working on a project using archive material. The Centre's recent event at the RCA, Films Beget Films, was a first step towards a larger event on the use of existing material. The Centre has used the Study Day format to gather small groups with common interests for informal discussion but with a larger event in mind. MM is planning a conference at Tate Britain on 6/7 June 2003. The Study Day is coherent on its own, but is also a stepping stone. DC has had great success in getting Tate Britain to run a rolling show of British artists' moving image work.
Michael Maziere introduced his research into institutional support for artists' film and video by summarising the paper circulated in advance. MM reported that the paper contained some gaps and possible inaccuracies - he his aiming to gather more information. The research is structured around a series of interviews. The research covers the period from 1973 to now. Interviewees are asked to speak factually and to offer opinions. The research is timely for a
number of reasons:
The project will look at documents from the funding institutions and, where possible, make these available at the Study Collection. Transcripts of the interviews will also be made available. MM will also write a paper based on his research. MM's summary includes a graph showing the shift of funds from individual artists to exhibitions and organisations. In 1996 0.3% of the total ACE budget went to film. ACE has been the bedrock of support for film and video artists; bfi funding has tended to depend on the nature of the funding board at particular moments in time. In the mid '70s MLG was on the board and at that time funding was given to artists' feature work. London has suffered in terms of funding support in terms of the percentage of artists based in London. Regional bodies have been constantly restructured. Mid '80s to mid '90s: a lot of work in broadcast area - Illuminations has been very important in this context, JW will speak later. There was also an explosion in the art school system with many new film courses with close workshop connections. Coupled with the increase in the number of film courses artists have been able to attract research funding. Organisations like Exploding Cinema stayed outside the institution. FS felt that it was important to consider the reasons for the formation of the IFA - television was becoming interested in showing artists film and independent film but the makers were treated as amateurs. The IFA was formed as a lobbying group. B. SESSION ONE: FROM UNDERGROUND PRACTICES TO INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT B.1 The BFI's Experimental Film Fund - Christophe Dupin Christoph Dupin: PhD thesis is on the history of the bfi Production Board and its predecessors from an administrative rather than an aesthetic viewpoint. The research has been narrowed down to encompass the period up to the late '70s - the political context changed in the '80s and this is not covered.
CD found a huge archive of papers on the Production Board at the bfi - hundreds of boxes - there is space for more research particularly since there are even more boxes relating to more recent times. KG reported that the existence of this material is a result of the bfi members action committee which had a significant effect of archiving of material. Members had the right to look at papers - hence the bfi was forced to retain them. CD reported that the boxes had not been readily available and that the material remains uncatalogued. MD stated that she was an IFA nominee on the Production Board in 1980-81; there was conflict about whether to give money to low-budget features or to more alternative work. The Production board was trying to colonise the low-budget feature area as other funding stopped. FS added that money started coming to the Co-op from other parts of the bfi - the bfi was rethinking itseld. MLG stated that this was driven by the Production Board but the money came from the regional funds budget. DC reported that there was correspondence from MLG and Peter Sainsbury regarding responsibility to groups rather than individuals. JW was curious to hear reflections on Jeremy Isaacs role as chair of the Production Board - this was crucial experience for Isaacs, shaping Channel4. CD felt that there was conflict between the bfi board and the Production Board - the former was more conservative. MLG was interested in the earlier period - before the 1930s. There was experimental film being made in the '30s and the idea of the bfi being run by industry starts in the '30s.
David Curtis: key question is whether institutional support influenced the work made. How did it change the climate? Consider 1973 as year 0 - this was when Arts Council came on board. DC circulated pages from his database of artists' film. The page from 1955 shows various funding sources but the bfi is the most consistent; the 1976 page shows a lower proportion of subsidised works, with the bfi still predominant but some Arts Council. DC felt that this suggested that funding availability doesn't account for the increase in production. There are two other key factors:
In '55/6 people were beginning to work in art colleges such as Brighton and Hornsey with access to film society cameras etc. DC's list of work in commercial distribution published in 1967 shows there was avant-garde work in circulation. Distribution often through artists taking work to festivals. Arts Council and bfi funding for distribution supported home grown distribution but there was already a strong culture of bringing work into distribution. TK felt that this was largely to do with cinemas showing short films before the main feature. FS added that when she was at the Co-op there was an organisation for independent film distribution. Duncan Reekie: alternatives to state funding in the contemporary scene. Exploding Cinema collective started in squatted suntan oil factory in Brixton. Some had been unsuccessfully applying for funding others hadn't applied. The collective emerged from a series of convivial screenings; it evolved as an open screening non-selective group. The collective didn't watch the films before the screenings. Audiences initially small 30, 100 etc but grew so that larger events were held. Exploding cinema not the first to try this approach; influenced by Halloween Society, M2C2, Men with Hats. Approximately 10-12 other groups in London, also Vision Collision in Manchester and other groups elsewhere. In addition to this network of groups, contacts are formed through counterculture groups such as Undercurrent (videos on road protesting, hunt sabotage etc) and Consciuos Cinema (Brighton). In 1996, Exploding Cinema toured and made contacts internationally. In the same year the Volcano Festival saw all the London groups putting on shows within one week. Meanwhile there was a resurgence of the 'underground' film festivals in the US and the emergence of microcinema groups and self-distribution through video shops. Also in the US fringe cinemas were created attached to cafes/bars etc (eg Two Boots Pizza Café in NY). Another model is the post-war amateur movement:
The amateur cine movement distributed films on super 8; Bob Godfrey and others set up a distribution company, Grasshopper Group. MLG suggested that DR should be included in the conference in the summer and asked how the resurgence of the underground was funded. DR responded that Exploding Cinema operated as a non-profitmaking collective; door money is used to purchase equipment. Omsk don't make money. Some groups have tried to pay filmmakers but this is problematic. FS asked how the amateur movement funded itself. MD responded that it was very middle-class, self-funded. MM asked DC about the effect of funding levels on the volume of work. DC responded that it seemed to be relatively insignificant; self-funding becomes more worthwhile when there are clear opportunities to show the work.
Keith Griffiths: interested in the amateur movement. Stanley Reed was influential, also Rodney Wilson, B Beresford. KG was involved as a regional film office for Lincolnshire Arts. Key figures were Nina Hibbin, Simon Hartog. Also Stuart Pound - an experimental filmmaker based in Lincs. KG moved to GLA which was crippled by lack of funding and the question of whether London is a region. GLA couldn't finance individual production; money went to distributors and decisions based on access and engaging with the community. KG was on the bfi Production Board 1975-80 - different perspective. Key factors:
The influence of the opening of the distribution department lead to significant conflict about how to distribute, what is distributable, narrative versus non-narrative etc. Some of these issues are repeated now with the Film Council. MLG stated that he had been asked onto the Production Board (1972-5) - saw role as educating and pressuring the board as the only person representing independent approach to cinema. Challenging the idea that the Production Board was there to give a first foot on ladder into commercial cinema. MLG had felt that funding should go to workshop groups. He looked at film groups around the UK and reported on how they should be funded - this did lead to a shift in policy. It was expected that places on the board would be filled by IFA people. KG felt that Caroline Heller was a highly neglected figure, she was highly influential - chair of GLAA film panel.
Felicity Sparrow started working at the LFMC in 1976 having previously been at the Arts Council. This was a transition period for the Co-op - infrastructure was put in place for distribution. Distribution activities were not funded though the GLA funded cinema screenings. The Co-op now had production, exhibition and distribution under one roof but the hitherto spontaneous artist-run organisation was put under pressure from funders to restructure as either a limited company or an registered co-op (though ICOM). The Co-op registered as a charity mainly through distribution activities. Staff turnover was high, though FS stayed 4 years. Money was pooled. Money from rentals was sacrosanct - 70% to the artists. There was institutional interest in showing artists work held by the co-op, however the Arts Council went straight to the artists rather than the co-op. Inroads were made though, for example prints were given to the co-op at the end of tours. The co-op received small funds for distribution from the Arts Counciland the bfi and the bfi would normally buy films for distribution. The co-op was much more than the sum of its parts. It was a key meeting place for other groups such as Cinesisters, which became Cinema of Women. Circles, formed in 1979/80, was revolutionary - about artists taking control - it dealt with film, video and performance and was not funded. Circles didn't seek funding since it didn't want to be defined by the funders. Initially Circles was funded by its members, who each paid £20. In addition the Arts Council gave £50. The organisation existed for two years unfounded and it made money. Circles was important in its own right; like the co-op it was artist-run. The Lux ceased to be artist-run. FS also worked with Artists Placement Group - another artist-run organisation. Artlaw important in helping organisations set themselves up. MLG felt it was difficult to quantify artists' funding. Artists often fund their own time, work on unfounded initiatives etc. FS responded that many made the decision not to seek funding since it comes at a price. Circles was funded in 1982/3 - organised the first women only screenings in Britain.
Malcolm Le Grice: Around 1960 polytechnics like Derby and PCL had photography departments which expanded into film production (with a fairly technical bias). Universities had film studies departments which developed out of English or drama. In the late '60s art schools started to get involved in filmmaking:
With film and video in the art college context came spaces for distribution - major venues were within educational establishments. These screenings were open to all - this was generally a condition of funding. Screenings also held at art centres and public libraries. The production base has changed to included web etc. The notion of research in area of arts - funded from 1962 onwards. As a result fellowships exist allowing people to work in experimental area. Also practice-based PhDs have emerged. The academic framework permits more experimentation. With filmmakers working in art schools, in addition to college galleries providing venues for screenings, college materials and equipment budgets often provide hidden subsidies. FS pointed out that artists shown as having been funded for a project may only have received a small subsidy, sometimes the only funding might be the cost of a distribution print. The co-op distribution section mainly distributed works by US artists. DR felt that funding was not just about the money - also about power and legitimisation. The involvement of state agencies - art schools, libraries, Arts Council, Tate - result in the creation of an industry within the state. MM responded that the co-op was not a state agency - but for all artist-run organisations there comes a point at which the organisation either institutionalises or closes down. Professionalisation is part of the cycle. LM pointed out that though the co-op was not a state agency it still needed Arts Council money for distribution printed - it is hard to untangle the hidden state subsidies. MW felt that it is inevitable that organisation start with enthusiasm of the group but that subsequently reality sets in. PC pointed out that bfi funding was attached to ownership of copyright and distribution - this is state intervention. The Arts Council initially took the same approach - in the early '70s the Arts Council owned copyright of funded works and promoted them through the Film Tour. DC uncoupled this and left copyright with the artist and involved other distributors in promotion, but this didn't work that well and it may have been better to stick with the bfi model. MM pointed out that the bfi charged for promotion - it was possible to get negative royalties. DC pointed out that Film and Video Umbrella grew out of Arts Council distribution.
Tina Keane was on the Arts Council panel in 1984 and in the early '90s and felt that this had been positive. Grants from the Arts Council legitimised the work and enabled its distribution. Filmmakers on Tour mainly showed people who got Arts council money. The tours went round art colleges and other venues and the audience/students got the opportunity to see the work and talk to the makers. Cutbacks in education funding mean that there are fewer visiting lecturers now, When TK was back on the ACE panel in the '90s she felt that often projects which looked promising in script form really didn't work when made - artists don't necessarily work from script, works are often made by a much longer, more experimental process. Michael Maziere posed the question of the most appropriate form for artists to apply for production grants; there is a need for convoluted skills for putting together grant applications. The Arts Council returned to a simple process - previous work plus an A4 proposal; the bfi require a script. If the maker is working digitally then the production technology is quite cheap and the process may be less collective, hence exhibition money may be more useful. Future models of funding for individual bursaries might be quite different. MLG asked whether the system of funding had altered the work made. TK piece Neon Diver was made for Channel4 - it is her only work to be fully paid for - looks very different to her other works. When working for TV there are a different set of considerations - conflicts in filmmaking between artist and professional. LM had had a similar experience. MD picked up on the question of scripts. MM spoke as if this was a particular problem for artists making films - MD has also seen this in documentary. There can be similar issues for artists and other filmmakers. How much is driven by funding? MM felt that there were moments when artists were awarded funding in a form which wasn't appropriate. MD returned to the question of the creation of discrete and separate worlds - is this nudged by funding or by artists wish to be separate? MW asked MLG to answer his own question; MLG responded that funding did affect his own practice - there is a pressure to come up with something successful since failure may affect further funding for artists. The first Artslab cinema offered widesrceen and double projection - MLG may otherwise not have thought to use two screen. MM raiosed the question of the gallery context. TK has worked in galleries since the 1970s and felt that a particular type of film had emerged from the co-op - single screen and not suitable for galleries. DC pointed out that the Arts Council had supprted multi-screen work. FS said that when she was at GLA she had been amazed at the quality and quantity of work which was produced from such a small amount of money; unlike the Arts Council and bfi, GLA trusted the filmmakers. LM responded that she had been completely trusted when working with the bfi. CD added that the majority had been happy with the level of support they received - even the most experimental makers - there had been real trust. FS felt that the films had been over-produced and that this argument was borne out by the works, particularly from the new directors programme. DR suggested the impact of funding bodies on the funded filmmakers is minor - the major impact is on those who are excluded. GT added that several artists have opted out on the basis that they did not want to be defined by whether or not they were awarded funding. MLG asked how much of the underground work is funded; DR responded that the work varies - there is an unfounded hardcore which exists through a mixture of exclusion and positive choice. If there is a scene offering regular screenings then the practice reflects that.
C.1 The IFA and the development of Channel 4 - Margaret Dickinson, Laura Mulvey Laura Mulvey: in the 1970s there was a climate of optimism - important intellectual climate plus emergence of new technologies. The arrival of 16mm allowed a lot of films to come into distribution. There was a willingness to fund a marginal area. At the end of the decade Thatcher was elected - dashing hopes. However there was also the important plus of the launch of Channel 4, which allowed a news sector of people to get things shown; but this demanded professionalisation which some could cope with whilst others couldn't. Through the '80s there was a gradual decline in the use of 16mm. Margaret Dickinson spoke about the IFA and the issue of unionisation. FS spoke earlier about the birth of the IFA. A letter lobbying for the IFA - of which LM was a signatory - was published in the union journal. In the mid '70s there was a document on independent filmmaking defining it as a form of critical practice. The IFA moved to become a trade association for independents - a varied group which included artists, independent makers and students. The ACTT worried about people working on low wages as the independent sector grew. There was conflict in the IFA between Simon Hartog and Murray Martin at Amber. Hartog had previously been at the ACTT where he had prepared a document on nationalisation of the film industry, he knew the union and knew that it wouldn't back a culturally radical position. He predicted that the IFA would be split. Murray Martin came from a very working class background and was pro union membership. British art had been very middle class until that time. Union membership - entirely posited on the workshop model - people were earning little but had long-term employment and were multi-skilled. Complicated dispute - connected to class and collectivism versus independence. The wider the income span the more problematic self-funded work became. An agreement was made - those ale to work under the workshop agreement joined ACTT. Some joined both but many left the IFA for the ACTT and others left to form a separate organisation. The workshop agreement came out of a period of optimism but not many signed up to it; it was only really used within the context of grant-aided work. It was difficult to work under the agreement unless you were grant-aided since it was difficult to fulfil the terms. MLG said that he had the impression that Rod Stoneman and Alan Fountain (main Commissioning editors at Channel4) thought that workshops hadn't been producing enough screenable work. MD responded that she'd had the impression that they hadn't agreed with workshops. The initial idea was that TV would fund collective by funding part of what it did. State funding was unsatisfactory so the idea was that workshops would produce a few films for TV and the money would also fund outside work in the wider community. JW asked whether workshops perpetuated the split in the avant-garde between radical political and aesthetic engagement? Workshops perpetuated the political avant-garde at the expense of the aesthetic avant-garde. MD responded that many moved into making more commercial TV - Amber and Cinema Action were informed by an art philosophy. KG felt that the partnership between Rod Stoneman and Alan Fountain should be looked at. Jeremy Isaacs - when he knew he was going for the C4 job - was interested in the confusion of experimental and documentary work - how to establish something flowing and experimental. DC pointed out that C4 wasn't the only organisation to sign up - most RABs did, making it harder for individual artists to get funding. The Arts Council didn't and instead steered towards materials-only grants. MLG felt that he impetus to bring the radical and artistic within the union structure was quickly undermined by the arrival of Thatcher and the consequent defeat of the unions.
John Wyver: the originating moment of C4 is one in which the artist is deeply written. Previously TV had fragmentary and sporadic engagement with funding and showing artists work. There was an Arena programme in 1967 which featured work by David Hall amongst others. Take 6 showed work by artists including Peter Greenaway and John Smith. But generally artists were excluded. C4 was in part the product of rich debate about the idea of TV within society. There was discussion of foreign initiatives and a new dimension was introduced by structuralist/post-structuralist theory. Part of the original C4 statute is to encourage initiative - Simon Hartog's phrase. Once C4 was in place much of the creative documentary work was in the independent film and video department which was much engaged with groups like Cinema Action and the Berwick Street Collective. There was little engagement with artists work. 1985 - Video 123; 1986 - Ghost in the Machine, six 1hr slots, work purchased, overall budget £100K. The second series featured new commissions and co-productions - 8 with the Arts Council (this was the first time the Arts Council had worked with a television company). This was scheduled for 10:30pm on Friday; when Michael Grade became Chief Exec his first action was to get it moved to 12:30am on Tuesday signalling that there was no place for artists work on C4. Other work was funded by C4 through the late '80s and '90s. By the 1990s the BBC had become interested and started to work with independents. There are several interesting questions: 1. When looking at artists work
in a TV context, where is the boundary of the work? (Spreading into commercial/documentary
practice.) TK felt that Midnight Underground had been very successful - works were bought in not commissioned and were shown without context. This would be a good programme to look at. LLF added that it had had an obsessive audience - people gathered to watch it and it was seen as proper art. JW said that there had been context - the films were introduced. MLG stated that C4 had started from a very centralised model of broadcasting - the context is changing with cable/digital/on-line etc.
Ben Gibson said that there had been a lot of lobbying from artist filmmakers for all kinds of different approaches, hence it was easy to divide and withdraw possibilities. There were various different parallel projects. BG was interested in the Peter Sainsbury project - narrative cinema. BG was interested in a broader range of experiences than had been funded previously; his method was to contact DC at the Arts Council. The basis of the New Directors programme was the question of how you would know if - for example - the next Jarman walked in; the method was to fund 16mm shorts, £25K maximum. The programme funded - among others - John Maybury, Patrick Keiller, Jayne Parker, Anna Thew, George Barber, George Shaw. The programme allowed people to emerge from artists' film into narrative work. The films made were the films the makers wanted to make rather than showcasing skills for the next project. There has been a disaggregation of film culture in the UK which is not seen as extraordinary. Alan Parker has said that people should be middlebrow to succeed. There was a constant struggle to avoid the closure of the bfi in favour of the NFT. MLG asked for clarification - BG is criticising the industry idea of being a kindergarten to Hollywood but New Directors was essentially a nursery. BG responded that New Directors was deliberately not about people wanting to make feature films, though many had been making films for years it drew artist filmmakers into narrative filmmaking and gave them access to better production values and a more collaborative process. However the makers were not pushed in a set direction. Feature film funding was generally in the range £450K to £1.2m, the maximum awarded was about £1.8m.
Julia Knight gave some background to the project and her interest in the subject area. JK's interest came from having worked for Albany Video Distributors for 4 years in the late 1980s and early '90s and was on the board of Cinenova. The research project emerges in part from the demise of the Lux. There was a meeting of artists whose work was in distribution and was suddenly unavailable - this represented 70% of such work then available in the UK. With the future in doubt there was the potential for records to disappear. There is a lack of understanding about the role of distribution organisations - distribution takes up to 50% of royalties and artists wonder what they get for that. How do distribution organisations work - how do they get the work out? The AHRB-funded project will examine in depth distribution in the UK in the '80s and '90s - distribution organisations as mediating institutions between artists and audiences including understanding of how distribution works. The project is currently in its set-up period - no archive work or interviews yet carried out. Issues:
The proliferation of distribution initiatives: Circles, LVA, LFMC as well as smaller scale organisations such as Leeds Animation Workshop. Additionally artists often distributed their own work - MM has done this, also George Barber. If an organisation is distributing a range of work then it may be opening up a range of audiences which can tap into the other types of work. The smaller the scale the fewer opportunities are available. Distribution is a time-consuming task - artists can do it when they have the time but this isn't consistent. MLG asked what case histories would be studied. JK responded:
Peter Thomas looked at a special case of Filmmakers on Tour South West Tours. 10 or 11 people would travel to the region and tour the venues from Bristol to Penzance annually between 1977 and 1985/6; not all the makers would be at all venues but additionally critics and other communicators joined the makers. The tour was aimed at finding new audiences. Looking at the files significant doubts were raised very early on about whether new audiences were being generated or whether the tour simply provided cheap visiting lecturers for colleges. Admission was free - the venue paid the Arts Council £10-15 and the Arts Council paid the costs. The main complaint was that it was used to provide cheap teaching. The programme was reviewed - DC wrote to people asking whether it was right that the scheme should be used in the main by colleges. On the theme of developing audiences, JK stated that in the 1980s some distributors operated non-exclusive distribution contracts with the aim of tapping into different audiences. However this meant that each distributor got less money for from the tapes. Some distributors - such as NYFMC - had an open acquisition policy, however this means that the work could not all be promoted properly. Those whose work isn't promoted get disgruntled. MLG pointed out that LFMC and
NYFMC couldn't promote work - this was in the constitution. MM responded
that LFMC dropped this policy shortly before the move to the Lux. LVA
operated a two tier policy: MM added that now that more work is shown in gallery spaces the screening market has dropped considerably. EAI in NY don't distribute tapes, they represent artists. FS responded that this is also what Circles did. MM said that LEA tried to do both. F&VU was set up by ACE to promote specific artists - it is the only organisation to receive sustained funding since 1987. JW was curious about JK's project - only interesting when public money is used to distribute work. Needs quantitative research - how much money is spent to get a viewer in front of a film. JK felt that people use the term distribution to cover a range of things. The project is looking back historically at how different initiatives operated and what has and hasn't worked in terms of delivery to audiences. They will look at distribution but also at other structures such as F&VU. GT reported that when F&VU did their cinema programme the cost was approximately £8/head; this contrasts with roughly £60/head for the Royal Opera.
LLF organised independent exhiobitionsin the early 1990s. The first problem is when using video is the need for equipment. The means of display often relates to the available funding - a monitor is a fraction of the price of a projector. There is some funding to hire equipment from LEA but this cannot be relied upon; similarly corporate funding is unreliable. Film and video represents a cultural difference to galleries which may be unused to the idea of paying a hire fee for the work and equipment for the duration of an exhibition. LLF is working freelance at Tate Britain - film and video comes under education. Working at the Photographers Gallery, LLF instigated a programme of evening events which included screenings. This was seen as extra to the core activity and the series won't continue. Film is often seen as an add on or an education element, or as a way to raise money through ticket sales. There is a question about how galleries contextualise the work. At both Documenta and the Venice Bienale film and video are included throughout. TK said that most exhibitions of film and video at Tate Britain are organised through the education department. FS added that it depends on how the films are acquired and whether or not they are seen as art. If a film is seen as documentation of a performance then it can be shown however they chose. However the Education department has acquired a lot of films it doesn't have the right to show in the gallery. TK reported that in 1982 LVA put on an exhibition of film and video which was shown in the gallery but on monitors. The Tate now buys film and video works as art works and so is now connected with the way in which distributors and agencies promote the work and sell it. JW suggested that over the last 8 years or so the power has rested with the commercial galleries and asked whether artists regret the ambition of presentation of the likes of Sam Taylor-Wood's and Douglas Gordon's exhibitions at the Hayward? DR felt that JW had touched on an area of interest - assumptions underlying this debate. The is a wide range of experimental films which include protest, rave visuals, etc. Within this DR can't see integrity of category of artists' film and video - connected with occupying the institutions. MLG added that when he started to make films he - and others - rejected both cinema and the art institution, creating a situation for themselves by being anti-commodity. Artists like Richard Long were equally anti-commodity. With film one buys the experience rather than the object. MLG described himself as philosophically attached to art but institutionally attached to cinema. LLF raised the availability of DVD, the possibility of editioning and the reduction in the cost of projection technology as allowing artists' film and video to fit the commercial gallery model. Additionally film works are often broken up into installations. MM added that he shows in galleries now. JW responded that he recognised that it was possible to work in both contexts. TK added tha artists were also showing in small East End galleries - it can cost very little to show video work.
Gary Thomas stated that the sector was under constant assault - ACE closed its film and video broadcasting department, lottery money has shifted to the Film Council and other money has gone to the RABs. ACE has lost:
Evidence that RABs were taking on responsibility for film was scant - and in some regions non-existent. ACE acknowledges the value of moving image but interest doesn't mean support and sectoral arguments are subordinate to corporate objectives. Current changes informed by:
There will be two open funds - individuals and institutions. The existing national touring fund and the strategies fund will continue. There won't be a specific budget for the moving image but will have access to the generic budgets. The moving image officer won't be exclusively for artists work and there will be manoeuvring to be done for some specifics. FS felt that this was fine as far as it goes but where is the Film Council - artists should be lobbying them. There is a gap between what is art and what is film. GT responded that ACE haven't yet started talking to the Film Council. MD asked GT to clarify the new systems of funds - would it be a case of one fund many panels? GT responded that decisions would be made by officers not panels but the detail is yet to be worked out. GT added that he doesn't yet know what the remit of the film agency will be in relation to artists. JW said that he shared some scepticism but there is a significant increase in money.
|