External Evaluation of Artists Links England Brazil

8/13/2019 External Evaluation of Artists Links England Brazil

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/external-evaluation-of-artists-links-england-brazil 1/52

External Evaluation of Artist Links England-

Brazil

Final report to Arts Council England and the British Council

Momentum Associates and New Media Networks

September 2010

momentumasociates.co.uk newmedianetworks.org



Contents

Introduction and Background 1Section One: Evaluation design 2Section Two: Programme activity and outcomes 5Section Three: Key findings from artists 10Section Four: Key findings from other organisations 14Section Five: Key findings from Arts Council England

and the British Council18

Section Six: Conclusions 25Section Seven: Recommendations 30

AppendicesOne: List of intervieweesTwo: Analysis of on-line survey



Artist Links England Brazil. External Evaluation. Momentum Associates and New Media Networks. 1

Introduction and Background

Launched in October 2006 and finishing in Spring 2010, Artist Links England - Brazil

was a joint programme overseen by Arts Council England and the British Councilwhich aimed to:

provide artists with opportunities to develop their artistic practice by immersion

in another culture and by cross-cultural collaboration; most usually in the form

of exchanges, placements, residencies and research periods. Through these

individual engagements, the programme additionally hopes to implement a

network of collaborative links of wider benefit to the artistic communities in all

the countries involved. (Evaluation Invitation to Tender)

Building on the experiences of a pilot project in England and China, the programmeoffered development opportunities for artists based in England and Brazil to spend

time working in the other country developing their artistic practice. It was open to

emerging and established practitioners across the arts, including dance, theatre and

drama, live art, literature, music, visual arts, new media and digital work, and other

cross-art-form practice. The programme ran for three years, with total funding from

Arts Council England of £450,000 supported by in-kind resources from the British

Council.

In early 2010, Momentum Associates and New Media Networks were appointed as

external evaluators of the programme and spent two months conducting the relevant fieldwork and desk research.

This is the final report of that evaluation, and is based on an interim presentation to

the Programme Steering Group in March 2010.

We would like to thank the members of the Steering Group for their support

throughout this process; and, in addition, the many artists, organisations and

individuals who gave their time, their opinions and their attention to our work.

Rob Watling, Karen Merkel, Gabriel Gbadamosi , Maria Fernanda Toledo, Mirtes Marins

de Oliveira, Alexandra Campos, Mariana Matoso

Momentum Associates and New Media Networks

May 2010

momentumassociates.co.uk

newmedianetworks.org




Section One: Evaluation Design.

Research Questions

The evaluation was designed to explore three main research questions:-

How well did the programme meet the original objectives it was designed to

serve?

What were its main strengths and weaknesses?

What are the options for the future direction of this work?

And a number of subsidiary issues:-

The volume, range and locations of the artistic activity supported by the

programme

The benefit to the artists during and after the programme

The public benefit of artistic activity

Issues arising from inter-cultural collaboration

Cost-benefits of the programme, including value for money

The effectiveness of the programme in supporting the objectives of Arts

Council England and the British Council

Evaluation Methods

The majority of the fieldwork and desk research for this evaluation took place in

England and Brazil during February and March 2010.

The evaluation team used a multi-method, staged approach to the work, basedprimarily on qualitative research with key stakeholders, supported by quantitative

analysis of outputs and outcomes, and a policy review.

The key methods used were: a document and policy review; a summative review of

programme activities and outputs; an on-line survey of the artists involved (in English

and Portuguese); interviews with key stakeholders at Arts Council England and the

British Council; and a series of face-to-face interviews and focus groups with artists

and other interested parties (also in English and Portuguese).




Each method was used to inform and supplement the development of the others,

and the team used an iterative process of feeding information into the production of

an interim report (by the end of March 2010) and this final report.

Samples and sources

The evaluation team were able to collect information from a wide variety of sources

including:-

• an online survey of 45 artists which produced 38 replies (84%), 23 from Brazil

and 15 from England

• face-to-face semi-structured interviews/discussions with:-

o 25 artists (16 Brazil, 9 England)

o 25 representatives (9 Brazil, 16 England) of 18 other organisations

involved in the programmeo 6 officers from Arts Council England and the British Council (London

and São Paulo).

• policy documents and other papers policy and other documents including Arts

Council England and British Council papers, Steering Group minutes,

background documentation and materials in the project archive

Analysis

We used a simple analysis framework (below) to ensure that we covered each of the

three key research questions with each of the three main groups of stakeholders.




Artists Hosts and other

organisations

Arts Council

England and

British Council

1. How well did the

programme meet

the original

objectives it was

designed to serve?

2. What were the

programme’s main

strengths and

weaknesses?

3. What are theoptions for the

future direction of

this work?

This framework informs the structure of Sections Three, Four and Five of this report

which describe the responses and feedback of each of the groups involved,

beginning with the artists, followed by the other organisations, and finally the two

councils.




Section Two. Programme Activity and

Outputs

Practical Operation

In 2005, when the Artist Links England - China programme was reaching its end,

Arts Council England asked the British Council to work with it on a similar

programme with another major country. Following discussion of various options, it

was decided that Brazil would be a good option as there was clear interest from

artists in both countries. The British Council in Brazil agreed that this was a project

worth pursuing and entered into discussions with Arts Council England and theBritish Council’s Arts Group in London.

The first stage was to agree a joint mission statement. This was then followed by a

scoping document, which set out the parameters of the programme and drew upon

the learning experience of the China Programme. Upon agreeing the scoping

document, a contract was drafted between the two organisations that addressed the

issues of programme governance, responsibilities, finance and accounting. The key

points of the contract were:

•

that it was a programme of mutual interest, with direct funding from ArtsCouncil England and the re-direction of existing staff and other resources from

the British Council to support its administration. These resources formed part

of the core operational and business support structure of the British Council

which is deployed to run all the core operational programmes which make up

their project portfolio

• the residency programme should be applied for through an open application

process in the two countries, using models and standards set up by Arts

Council England

• that it should run for three years, depending on an annual renewal by Arts

Council England on confirmation of their annual grant

• the direct funding from Arts Council England would pay for a specialist

programme manager, located in Brazil, recruited to run the programme; some

direct administrative costs such as air fares for the programme manager; and

communication costs. The bulk of the direct funding would be spent on the

grants to artists. The ratio aimed at was 67% on grants, 33% on staff and

administration.

• the programme governance would be in the hands of a joint steering group of

staff from the two councils, which would meet periodically to review and

decide on future actions




• the British Council would invoice Arts Council England for reimbursement of

agreed expenditure

Upon signing of the contract, a programme manager was recruited by a joint

recruitment committee. She started work on 18 September 2006 on a fixed-term

one-year contract, renewable for one year, as no funding was guaranteed for 2007/8.

The programme progressed through four application rounds with regular steering

group meetings. When funding was secured for 2007/8, the programme manager’s

contract was renewed for a further year. When funding for 2008/9 was secured, she

was made a permanent member of staff (a two-year fixed term contract is the

maximum allowed under Brazilian law). In implementing the first round, it was

recognised that the programme was understaffed in Brazil and a temporary

assistant/trainee was recruited to support the programme manager.

The steering group reviewed progress regularly and decided on the scope and size

of each application round. External reviewers were employed in England and Brazil

to support the selection process, and all applications were reviewed by at least two

of these external reviewers and by the programme manager.

Shortly after the programme began, the British Council had to dramatically reduce its

own financial support to Artist Links. Soon after this, the programme was hit

negatively by poor exchange rates, which had not been anticipated and planned for.

There can be no doubt that the programme was hampered by this early reduction in

its finances, and challenged further by the absence of any formal refocusing of thework to reflect this. The cutback had a direct impact on the programme’s overall

viability, a central problem that played itself out throughout the lifetime of the

programme.

Critically, there were now insufficient finances to support the original target of 100

artists and the envisaged dynamic online environment and therefore the whole

legacy of the programme. We shall explore the impact of this in more detail later, but

we wish to stress that the delivery team worked as hard as it could to compensate

for this lack of resources, and should be commended for their perseverance.

Applications and awards

The programme, organised into four selection rounds, received a total of 726

applications over the three years of its operation. A total of 34 selected residencies

were held in Brazil and England, in which 49 artists/collaborators were given the

opportunity to develop their work. Of these, 27 artists were based in Brazil and 22 in

England.

Final figures for the numbers of artists supported have been difficult to determine,

partly because it was not just those who made a formal application and received an




award who were engaged in the programme. Advice, support and other resources

were extended beyond the selected artists and projects to further the overall aims

and success of the programme.

Range of art forms

The programme supported the development of work across a range of different art

forms, with the largest group being in the visual arts (see Table 1).

A number of the selected artists worked in more than one art form during their

residencies.

Table 1: Art forms involved in the artists’ practices during their residencies

(Source: Report on Survey Analysis, (see Appendix One).

Artists’ level of experience

The majority of artists responding to our online survey described themselves as

established artists, with the rest calling themselves emerging or mid-career artists

(Table 2).

Table 2: Level of experience of the selected artists (Based on responses from 38 participating artists who answered our online survey).

Artists’ country of origin

Several of the artists are originally from a different country to the one where they

currently live. For example, some artists based in England are originally from Italy,

Denmark or Malta; and some of the participants based in Brazil were born in Chile,

Switzerland or Uruguay. Table 3 summarises the city/regions where the participants

Art Form UK BR Total

Visual Arts (includes live art, new media and moving image) 6 18 24

Combined Arts (includes carnival, interdisciplinary arts and sound art) 7 5 12

Music 4 4 8

Dance 3 2 5

Theatre & Drama 1 0 1

Literature (includes live literature and storytelling) 0 1 0

Others (including animation and research) 0 3 3

Level of Experience UK BR Total

Established Artist 9 9 18

In-between/Mid-career 1 9 10

Emerging Artist 3 5 8




are currently based. It demonstrates that the programme mostly supported artists

based in the largest urban centres of each country.

City/Region UK City/Region BR

London 12 São Paulo 15

Nottingham (and Berlin) 1 Rio de Janeiro 3

Leeds 1 Belo Horizonte/Minas Gerais 2

Recife 1

Table 3: Cities/Regions where the participant artists are currently based. Please note these numbers refer to the amount of selected projects rather than individuals (data

extracted from: Summary of Artist Links Residencies, documents provided by the British Council São

Paulo; plus online research on the selected artists’ and host organisations’ websites).

Location of residencies

Our analysis of the regions where the residencies were held (Table 4) shows that a

significant concentration of the artists visited, at some point in their residencies, the

cities of London, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.

Region Region

Rio de Janeiro 7 London 17

São Paulo 6 South West England (includes

Plymouth and Bristol)

7

Bahia 4 North West England (Cumbria and

Manchester)

3

Brasilia (Federal District) 3 Scotland 3

Minas Gerais 3 West Midlands (Shropshire and

Birmingham)

2

Amazon/Belém do Pará 2 South East England (includes

Brighton and Oxford)

3

Rio Grande do Norte 1 Yorkshire (Sheffield) 1

Wales 1

Ireland 1

Table 4: Regions where the residencies took place and/or those which were

visited during artists ’ stay in the other country. Please note that more than one region has been accounted for in individual projects




Organisations supporting the programme

Our analysis of the other organisations involved in the programme shows that most

of these were based in the UK, whereas the number of individuals/collaborators who

supported artists in their residencies remained balanced between Brazil and the UK.

Table 5: Estimated number of organisations/key people who were involved

with Artist Links

(Sources: Summary of Artist Links Residencies and List of Organisations and Institutions from the UK,

documents provided by the British Council in Brazil)

Organisational and Other Involvement UK BR Total

Host organisations, institutes, art centres, galleries, academic

institutions

36 12 47

Collaborators, researchers, curators, critics, programmers,

managers

16 14 30




Section Three. Key Findings from

ArtistsHow well did the programme meet the original objectives it was

designed to serve?

With few exceptions, the artists we spoke to and those who replied to the survey

reported very high levels of approval for the programme. The great majority said that

they had either got what they expected from their engagement with the programme,

or that their experiences and the outcomes were even better than they had hoped for

or imagined.

Between them they described how they had explored many new and rich avenues

for their work, how they had used the experience to develop new ideas and to make

exciting plans, and how their work felt richer and more creative as a result either by

having ‘intensified’ or developed their working process. Even when there were no

specific next steps, they felt invigorated by the experience, spoke confidently about

the future and were clear that the programme would continue to influence their work.

They described how the application process had encouraged them to be clear about

their overall ambitions, and how its focus on the development of their work hadallowed them to do this without having to be specific about particular outcomes or

products. For the artists this was a very welcome feature of the process. They knew

the programme would influence their work, but could not always predict at the

beginning what those influences or outcomes would be.

By the end of the programme they felt able to describe a range of different journeys

that they had taken: some pragmatic, some creative, some entrepreneurial, and

many of them based around research and an openness to discovery.

Most of the artists had also succeeded in their objective of using the programme todevelop networks – particularly through the direct contacts they had made during

their residency and with the organisations that they had been working with. Some,

but not all of them, had hoped to develop even wider networks during the

programme and felt disappointed that this had not happened.

Finally, there was some slight disappointment that the programme had not had a

stronger brand identity and profile. Some artists had hoped to be able to benefit from

the wider reputation of the Artist Links programme and felt that the level of exposure

and success generated was not as high as they had expected.




What were the programme’s main strengths and weaknesses?

The main strengths of the programme as far as the artists were concerned revolved

around the core principle of its artist-focused and artist-led approach. It is

conceivable that some might have preferred a more tightly-controlled and structured

regime, but clearly the programme selected self-organising and highly motivated

artists, and for them this was not the case.

Again, the great majority of the artists we interviewed or who replied to the survey,

welcomed the fact that their creativity, ideas and concerns were placed at the heart

of the programme. There was praise for what they described as an ‘open application

process’ – by which they meant there were no particular prescriptions about who

could apply, what they would be required to produce, or what art forms were

acceptable. The Brazilian artists, in particular, described this as unusual when

normally they have to undertake to deliver a particular piece of work – a product, aperformance, or at least a specific proposal for creating work.

The ability to focus on research and development was therefore hugely welcome.

And, importantly, several of the artists said that, far from reducing the likelihood of

their producing a finished piece of work, this emphasis actually enabled them to

produce more by creating a free space in which they could develop and deliver ideas

and practice.

Some artists appear to have gone through the programme following a clearly

planned path. Others changed their minds, or reacted to opportunities during theirresidency. All welcomed the flexibility that this represented. Without it, they said, they

would have felt constrained, and would probably have been less open and less

successful in their work.

Almost without exception, the artists were full of praise for the practical and pastoral

support made available to them from the Artist Links manager in São Paulo, Roberta

Mahfuz. They appreciated her help at all stages, from the preparation of their

applications to making arrangements for residencies, finding and exploiting

networks, troubleshooting, and reporting back on the outcomes of their work.

Inevitably for such a personal relationship, there were one or two artists who wereless happy with aspects of this support, and many independent enough not to need

it, but most described the availability of this backup as one of the most important and

valuable aspects of the programme. Despite this general appreciation of Roberta

Mahfuz’s support, we did come across dissatisfaction with the quality of assistance

for the Brazilian artists during their residencies in England. While the English artists

were generally pleased with the arrangements made for them in Brazil, those making

the journey in the other direction were more likely to talk about feeling ‘lost’ or

‘isolated’ – particularly in the early stages of the programme.

Similarly, most artists spoke very positively about the quality of the artisticenvironments they found themselves working in throughout their residency, with




British artists also commenting on the impact Brazil had on them – from Belém’s

‘magical realism of the mind and environment’ to the ‘exciting, stimulating’ sound

environment of São Paulo.

Most artists said that the level of financial support for their work was very good or

excellent, with very few needing to subsidise their stay. Several said that they had to

work hard to make the money last, having to be creative and economical, but this

was not necessarily a complaint from artists who were focused on their working

environments rather than lifestyles.

The networking opportunities generated by the programme were another major

strength of the programme. And while, for some artists, these were limited to the

immediate contacts they made as a result of the residency (host organisations or

other artists working in the same area) others told how they had made new contacts

further afield – sometimes beyond Brazil and England. Several artists emphasised

the need to make contacts with communities and non-arts sector agencies and

individuals in industry, agriculture and elsewhere as part of a residency which

actually involves movement and immersion in a host culture and society.

The online survey identified very few weaknesses from the artists’ point of view –

indeed many of them did not even answer this question. Some of the artists we

spoke to in the interviews did identify concerns, however, which suggest that, while

they were not uppermost in their minds, they are worth considering.

The first thing to note is that some of the artists felt the application process was not

as transparent as it could have been. While they were understandably pleased to

have been selected themselves, some said that the process was difficult to

understand at first (and that they had needed to apply more than once). This was

partly because the process was based on the system used by Arts Council England,

an unfamiliar one for artists in Brazil. Some of the British artists told us that they

were not entirely sure of the criteria for selection and that they doubted the

programme had the expertise in their area to assess or quality control their

application other than through recommendation. The programme did, in fact, use a

system of review of all applications, using a network of independent advisors in

England and Brazil, and it would appear that this process was not explained clearlyenough to applicants.

A small number told us that they resented having to pay for workshop space during

their residency, having assumed that this would be provided – either by Artist Links,

or by the host organisation. This appears to have been a problem of communication

between particular artists and the programme managers as the majority recognised

and accepted that this would be the case.

There was also some discussion about the geographical limits of the programme, as

some artists wanted to work in other countries – either from the beginning, or as aresult of their early work. We took this to represent something of a confusion




between the declared ‘artists’ right to roam’ and the requirement to work in Brazil or

England.

Those who spoke about inadequate financial provision did so mostly in terms of the

restricted ability to take up subsequent invitations or follow on with their work after

the residency. Although they were aware from the outset that the grants were for a

single phase of activity, they described it as a serious weakness that there was no

‘second-level’ funding for exhibitions and dissemination, for further networking, or for

continuing the creative work they had planned as a result of their residency. A more

concerted attempt to help artists identify of support would have been welcome.

Finally, there were common complaints about the quality of the programme website,

which many felt did not do justice to their work or their engagement with the project;

that it was difficult to upload materials to; and that it was of no help when trying to

network among or beyond their immediate contacts.


When asked about their proposals for future programmes of this kind, the artists

responding to the survey and taking part in the interviews had a number of clear

recommendations.

Firstly, they stressed the need for a much stronger sense of legacy and continuity for

the work at the end of the residencies, even suggesting continued funding of

promising work as an active legacy.

They argued that much of the real value of these programmes is in the networking

that they can generate, and they would like to see more attention paid to this in

future.

They also suggested that their own knowledge of the fields in which they work, and

of the international and intercultural aspects of contemporary art, could be exploited

more by the programme organisers.

They would welcome more opportunities for sharing and feeding back the results of

their work, including the outcomes of their research, their developing ideas, theirfinished pieces and performances, and their future plans.

They would recommend that the range of practical and pastoral support for artists

needs to be planned more thoroughly in advance.

Some proposed that projects of this kind could benefit from a more formal system of

mentoring for artists as they plan, experience, and build upon their residencies.

And others insisted on the entrepreneurial role of the artist in leading the

development of new international work out of the traditional arts sector into new

cross-sectoral collaborations with social, educational and industrial actors.




Section Four: Key Findings fromOther Organisations

How well did the programme meet the original objectives it was

designed to serve?

The other organisations we spoke to in the course of this evaluation included those

directly hosting or facilitating artists, arts agencies, galleries and foundations, as well

as independent curators and others associated with or interested in the programme

(for a full list, see Appendix Two).

The first thing to report from these interviews and conversations is that there was agenerally high level of support for the principles of international artist exchanges and

residencies. Those we spoke to in Brazil described the UK contemporary arts scene

as vibrant, cutting edge, visionary and highly influential for other countries. They

were in no doubt as to the huge potential value for Brazilian artists of being exposed

to and immersed in the English art scene and they particularly felt it would inform the

development of arts practice and theory in Brazil, including the transfer of new

approaches and technologies.

In addition, they felt the institutions and infrastructure for the arts was much stronger

in England than in Brazil, and that it was important for Brazilian artists to experiencethat strength so that, as and when the context changes in Brazil, they will be better

able to exploit it.

The reverse was also thought to be true – that English artists would find it valuable to

experience the high levels of change and flexibility in Brazilian artistic contexts,

particularly the development of improvisatory methodologies, since the stability of

English artistic institutions is thought unlikely to persist.

The programme had also given some of the organisations in both countries the

chance to identify, meet and work with emerging talent, to spot trends, and to createfurther opportunities for future collaborations.

Most of the galleries we spoke to were very supportive of the programme,

particularly when artists whom they represent were being given wider exposure and

the opportunity and the resources to develop their work – work which the galleries

were hoping ultimately to sell. Some of the host and partner organisations, however,

felt rather “distant” from the programme, feeling they were just being asked to

provide facilities and not adequately involved in the selection, preparation and

support of the artists and their work. Many felt they lacked a wider, strategic sense of




the Artist Links programme and were missing an opportunity to network and

exchange with other participating agencies around the work.


Most of the organisations we spoke to were impressed with the quality of the artistsinvolved. The developmental focus on artists’ processes and research was highly

regarded, particularly in the Brazilian context where it is less common. It is thought

this will have long-term impact on thinking in the Ministry of Culture.

The goals of sustainable, long-term partnerships and of networks for artists and

organisations have met with great interest from those already engaged with

international work.

The programme is already regarded as a rich source of new projects, with showings

of work in both countries having been strengthened by including British perspectiveson Brazil and vice versa, creating a ‘buzz’ around the idea of exchange and the

values of international work and transcultural practice.

While the organisations recognised the value of the international exchange, we did

hear some concerns about a lack of diversity among the artists selected for the

programme. Most of those from Brazil came from the culturally dominant ‘Rio de

Janeiro/São Paulo axis’ and there was a feeling that significant elements of Brazilian

arts practice were underrepresented in all four phases of the programme. Some

organisations commented on the fact that visual arts were the most represented

form, and others raised questions about the lack of artists with a non-European

sensibility.

Additionally, they spoke of the need to reflect cultural diversity in the planning and

application processes and a particular need to support different approaches to both.

The openness of the call for artists emerged as an obstacle to participation, with

some organisations doubting the programme was sufficiently widely publicised, while

in Brazil both the application and selection processes were seen as being geared

towards a UK model with which they were unfamiliar. The selection process for

organisational partnerships also felt wrong to many stakeholders in both Englandand Brazil, often bypassing organisations with established expertise and experience.

Some organisations identified what they saw as an inconsistency of approach in the

levels of support and advice offered across the range of applications and actual

residencies. They were concerned that some artists had been able to get additional

guidance from the programme when making their applications and that, while there

is an obvious case for making this available, it should have been clearer to all

applicants what sorts of advice and support were on offer – especially to those who

might want to amend and resubmit their proposal to subsequent selection rounds.

And in a related impression given to many of the organisations we spoke to, overall




management of the residencies seemed ‘hit and miss’, some going well and others

feeling neglected through a lack of engagement from Artist Links.

The quality of communications between Artist Links and participating organisations

was widely - though not universally - criticised. Although some residencies went

smoothly with a remarked ease and clarity of communication, many organisations

felt confused, rushed and often frustrated by the lack of information, crossed wires

and duplication of effort involved in understanding the nature of the residencies and

what was expected of them.

And though for some this led only to a frustrating “waste of time”, other organisations

felt they were being misunderstood and misrepresented to artists seeking to rent

space or resources, where they as organisations were seeking to develop

relationships and work with a different agenda. They pointed out that a shared

understanding of both partnership and working method were missing. Intermittent

email and Skype exchanges ‘were not formalised’ and no effective reporting

structure existed to respond and offer feedback when problems arose. Organisations

were often unaware of who was coming and when, and had little or no awareness of

what was happening across the Artist Links programme so that no communication or

networking could develop across participating organisations. The Artist Links website

was considered to be poor and to have failed in supporting this wider

communication.

Concerns were voiced about the sustainability of the programme in terms of

networks, the development of further work and legacy. There was no budget for theproduction or dissemination of the work in a ‘phase two’ of Artist Links, or to follow

up on ‘successful’ residencies. Despite individual commissions and further initiatives

arising out of contacts with specific artists, some organisations considered the time

scale of the programme to be too short and the resources insufficient to develop

work and relationships with their own impact and legacy. At the time of this

evaluation, the programme was coming to the end of its work, and many

organisations were unclear about its future or how they might be able to contribute to

any subsequent activity.


Like some of the artists, the organisations we spoke to felt that Artist Links had

missed an opportunity to involve them more in the design and development of the

programme. They felt that they had been approached rather late in the process,

despite having expertise and guidance to offer – particularly on managing the

differing cultural, organisational and structural contexts of artistic organisations in

each country. They would welcome the opportunity to support similar work of this

kind and to be more involved in the planning of any legacy towards networks of

artists into the future.




They also felt that future programmes should be structured more clearly. Lois Keidan

of Live Art Development Agency made a request for clear, open and accessible

guidelines for international exchange, dialogue and collaboration based on research

of past practice and new contexts together with learning from a public symposium on

the artist as researcher. Helmut Batista, Director of Capacete - an establishedprogramme of international artist residencies who provided accommodation for some

of the English artists during their stay in Rio de Janeiro - argues that such

programmes need substantially more time, more funds, and far more support for

artists’ long-term development.

While many organisations would clearly wish to have more control over artist

selection, budgets and planning, and a more structured approach to maximise the

benefits of residencies, most recognise that future programmes should still be artist

led and driven by artists’ passions and interests, noting that ‘they know what’s going

on’ and ‘they are the ones breaking new ground’. A further suggestion has been toadopt a diversity of approaches, platforms and methodologies to ensure that the

cultural diversity of artists is reflected in the development of equally diverse future

programmes of international work.

Finally, these particular stakeholders advocated more coherent opportunities for

networking between themselves so that they can share learning in support of

residencies, particularly for smaller organisations and in diversifying and extending

programmes into the regions.




Section Five: Key Findings from Arts

Council England and the BritishCouncil

How well did the programme meet the original objectives it was

designed to serve?

Building on the pilot programme encouraging cultural links between England and

China in 2003, Artist Links England - Brazil set out to offer development

opportunities for artists based in England and Brazil to spend time working in theother country developing their artistic practice.

The programme was for emerging and established practitioners across the arts in

order to ‘develop and implement a network of collaborative links resulting in

exchanges, placements, joint productions and development opportunities between

countries.’ Additionally, the project aimed to ‘activate the artists’ right to roam and

nurture a cross-cultural environment between Britain and other cultures through

residencies and research periods.’

Applicants were informed in the application notes that ‘Arts projects as a means toother ends (for example, social development or wealth creation) will not be judged by

the value of the ends, but by the intrinsic artistic value of the proposal per se,

reflecting and reinforcing the artist-led nature of the scheme.’

In order to assess the extent to which the programme met these objectives, we first

need to explore the wider context in which the two councils were operating. This

requires a brief analysis of their individual and shared policies.

From 2002 onwards, the decade was a dynamic period for Arts Council England and

the British Council, with both organisations undergoing significant programmes ofreview, consultation and restructure. It is not the role of this evaluation to study all

these processes; however we have noted those which have focused on and/or had

an impact on international and collaborative work in the arts.

Arts Council England was granted a Supplemental Charter on 18 March 2002. Its

purpose was ‘to give effect to new arrangements for regionalisation of its structure

and activities’. During 2002 and 2003, Arts Council England and 10 Regional Arts

Boards merged into a single organisation, with nine regional offices and one national

office – a structure which matches that of England’s Regional Development

Agencies.




Arts Council England’s work is underpinned by two complementary values as set out

on its own website:

‘Participation and excellence are equally valued in a position summed up by

the motto, “great art for everyone”.’

(www.artscouncil.org.uk/about-us/history-arts-council/2000s-and-beyond)

(Our emphasis)

Within one of its core aims to support artists, Arts Council England’s Corporate Plan,

2003-2006, cited these objectives:

To achieve an improvement in international opportunities and connections for

artists living and working in England: - an international policy for the Arts

Council; increased resources for international exchanges, collaborations and

co-productions; and strengthened relationships with other national and

international agencies.

Its International Policy (2005) goes on to say that:

In order to deliver our international policy we will support development both in

the arts sector and our own organisation and we will work in partnership with

others. We are, for example, working increasingly closely with the British

Council to ensure our respective efforts complement and add value to one

another.

And:

We are committed to supporting artists and creative individuals and therefore

our international policy is artist-centred. It aims to complement the strategies

of other key partners and agencies. Working with other key agencies,

particularly the British Council and the other UK arts councils, we will support

artists from this country to work abroad, international artists to work here, and

artists from here and abroad to work with each other. We will also develop

international awareness by supporting work by diverse communities that

conserves, develops and promotes cultural practices.

In 2004, the Government asked Lord Carter to conduct an independent review of

public diplomacy. The review team settled on a definition of public diplomacy as

‘work aiming to inform and engage individuals and organisations overseas, in order

to improve understanding of and influence for the United Kingdom in a manner

consistent with governmental medium and long term goals’. This then led to the

establishment in 2006 of the Public Diplomacy Board to ‘ensure stronger leadership,

strategic direction and ministerial accountability particularly regarding the activities of

the three main public diplomacy partners – the Foreign & Commonwealth Office,

British Council and BBC World Service.’

The British Council’s Action Plan for the Arts (2009) concludes:




Greater international knowledge of the UK and recognition for UK

achievements can only ever be partial without a strong representation of UK

arts and creative economy. The British Council is crucial to this ambition... we

are now committed to a renaissance of arts and creative economy work

across our network, with a budget of £30 million.

The British Council’s global arts team works with ‘the best of British creative talent to

develop innovative, high-quality events and collaborations that link thousands of

artists and cultural institutions around the world, drawing them into a closer

relationship with the UK.’ The aim is ‘to give a modern, diverse picture of the United

Kingdom, and to promote the debate of issues and ideas by challenging opinions

and increasing understanding between cultures.’

The British Council is not an arts funding organisation. It works with the UK’s Arts

Council, UK Film Council, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK Trade &

Investment and others to ‘identify opportunities for collaboration which will meet our

different objectives, to ensure that we capitalise on our different strengths, and that

we respond to the interests and international aspirations of the UK arts and creative

industries sectors.’

In November 2007, Sir Brian McMaster was invited by the Government to undertake

a review to assess support for the arts. He recommended that ‘artists, practitioners,

organisations and funders must have diversity at the core of their work. Out of the

society in which we live today the greatest culture could grow, but this will only

happen if the cultural sector is truly relevant to 21st century Britain and its audiences.Internationalism is essential for artists and organisations to understand their work in

a global context and to achieve and maintain world class status. The Arts Council,

the British Council and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport must work

together to investigate and implement an international strategy that stimulates

greater international exchange, brings the best of world culture here and takes the

best of our culture to the world.’

Working within this context, a very public manifestation of working together was

developed in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Arts

Council England and the British Council. In December 2009, a new agreement wassigned between the two councils. MOUs are not necessarily easy to enact - as is

sometimes said, they often are ‘more Memorandum than Understanding’. The

Memorandum of Understanding was drafted to address mutual needs along with a

requirement to collaborate, which represents an important joint direction for the two

organisations.

Much of the detail of putting the Memorandum of Understanding into practice is still

to be determined. It is probable that this will happen as the result of learning and

making sure that happens will be key to its success. It is likely that the consideration

of real examples will lead to a more effective agreement, built on learning from




earlier collaborations between the councils’ success, and Artist Links England –

Brazil, which provides useful and important experience and lessons.

We will return to these lessons in Section Six: Conclusions.


Our interviews with staff at the two councils identified pride in the successes of the

programme (including all the aspects we have described in previous sections),

disappointment that the programme had not managed to meet some of its original

ambitions, and ambivalence about the general operation of the central partnership.

In terms of the programme’s strengths, Felicity Harvest of the Arts Council observed

that ‘sending the 22 artists to work in Brazil, and 27 artists to work here in England -

and to have them collaborate with their hosts successfully - arguably were exactlywhere the programme’s strengths should be.’

All the officers we spoke to at the British Council in Brazil and England concurred.

Geoff Smith in São Paulo described the ‘deep lasting, emotional experiences’ it had

given the artists, but agreed with his colleagues in Brazil who thought it could have

been better planned, and that far more energy should have gone into the legacy

activities. Sally Cowling in London felt that the programme was:

A glorious offer to the artist. The vast majority had a splendid time. The British

artists who went to Brazil and received the full service from [the Artist LinksManager] had a good experience. For the Brazilian artists who came from a

context where they were used to having less support in country, they'd have

been delighted with the experience.

She went on to describe how:

It's been interesting and remarkably easy to work with the Arts Council and it

has worked nicely. It's added a very valuable strand to the Brazil office's

programme and fulfilled more than it was intended to. And the activity gained

a higher visibility within the overall arts programme in Brazil because itcoincided with a downplay of the wider arts programme. It was there to

supplement the strands of the normal arts programme. It was additional, and

allowed us to work with partners, producers who were independent. It was

interesting to do collaborative work like this and was valuable to be able to

work with individual artists and producers.

Staff from both councils, working in both countries, were pleased that the programme

had supported significant research and development opportunities; and that some of

the artists had used their experiences to establish longer term links and produce new

work which reflected the international ethos of the programme.




However, there was an underlying concern, particularly from Arts Council England,

that far fewer artists than envisaged had been supported over the three years; and

that the pattern of applications and residences had been unequal, with more

Brazilian artists applying to the project and eventually coming to England than vice-

versa. Sally Cowling thought that the total number of artists had not been sufficient towarrant the total effort and staff time, noting that ‘Larger numbers of artists going

through wouldn't necessarily have tripled the work.’

The British Council felt that the programme did not generate the same degree of

support for the artists visiting England as was provided for those visiting Brazil and

that this caused significant pastoral problems which were never properly solved.

There was an acceptance that Arts Council England’s regional offices did not provide

the support to the programme that had been envisaged and planned for. This placed

a serious constraint on the placements of Brazilian artists with English organisations,

and led to choices of organisations that in some instances were more pragmatic than

strategic. The programme was further hampered by there being no consistent senior,

strategic lead officer from Arts Council England.

The role of Visiting Arts, a specialist agency supporting international exchanges

between artists, became unclear here. On the one hand, they seem to have been

expected to facilitate the work of Brazilian artists during their stay in England (in

much the same way as the programme manager was doing for English artists in

Brazil). But Visiting Arts say their role was never formalised, and that this only added

to the confusion.

Felicity Harvest observed that there was too little cross-fertilisation between the

programme and other related work (past and present), noting it required ‘hands on

input that Arts Council England can no longer give and probably did not have enough

unique components for us to learn from’. Arts Council England’s strong interest in

audiences and audience development is equal to that of its focus on artist led work:

More people, more enjoyment - we will lead a campaign to encourage thebroadest range of people across the country to experience and enjoy the arts.

To achieve this, we will work with broadcasters, arts organisations, publicbodies and commercial partners. We will develop strategies for diversity,internationalism and touring in order to ensure that work is provided moreevenly across all regions and to reflect the widest range of artisticexperiences. We will also fund initiatives across the country to increasepeople’s engagement in the arts and the depth of their experiences.(Great art for everyone, 2008–2011)

Anna Jobson felt that from the Arts Council’s perspective there was insufficient

attention paid to the artists’ relationships with audiences and to the fostering of

cultural understanding. She felt, for example, that the programme had missed a

valuable opportunity to tap into the Brazilian community in the UK. She linked this to




the fact that Artist Links was ‘a process-orientated programme and not an output

one.’

The focus on relationships between artists, organisations and audiences describedabove (as distinct from a focus on artists alone) appears not to have been

understood by some of those implementing Artist Links England – Brazil. Similarly,the British Council’s commitment to fostering cultural diplomacy was notacknowledged. They define cultural relations as ‘the building of engagement andtrust between people of different cultures through the exchange of knowledge andideas’, but this aspect of the Artist Link programme appears to have beenunderemphasised. Concentrating so heavily on the idea of an ‘artist-led’ programme(for understandable reasons) had the effect of sidelining major policy areas that aresignificant, strategic areas of concern for both councils.

One area of conflict that has emerged during the course of this research is betweenthe programme’s structure and its relationship to both councils’ wider policies, and

how the programme was implemented by the joint team in the light of their differentunderstandings and interpretations of those policies.

For example, the Arts Council’s England ‘right to roam’ policy sits comfortablyalongside their clearly identified principle of work being ‘artist-led’, and wasappreciated by many involved in Artist Links England - Brazil. However, together,these policies appear to have dominated a full understanding of the programme’sinherent structure as a country-to-country programme. The emphasis on processrather than product and/or outcome as described to applicants did not support theBritish Council’s concern for wider engagement through its explicit cultural relationswork:

Broadly speaking, our definition of cultural relations is about deepening

relationships with other countries through culture and education, part of this

being the ways in which different cultures engage and communicate with each

other … It requires excitement through rapprochements between cultures,

while valuing and celebrating the diversity of cultural differences; commitment

to the process of learning and change, which the work of cultural relations

constantly brings; political and social astuteness; and an understanding of

how politics and society are intertwined with cultural relations rather than

being peripheral to it.

Fiona Bartels-Ellis, Diversity Policy Manager

(see: ‘Rising to the challenge, Developing an international diversity agenda for

the British Council’.)


What need are we meeting? What difference will the programme make? Whatis the purpose of the work?

Anna Jobson, Director, Arts Strategy, Arts Council England




So many operational issues arise from the implementation of an internationalprogramme such as Artist Links England - Brazil that fundamental and sharedprinciples can become subsumed in organisational complexity. The questions posedabove by Anna Jobson are important in focusing on future options for internationalwork for both councils:

The interface of the world's cultures - of the world's peoples - is the most

complex and the most crucial place of interaction and change in the world.

That is where cultural diplomacy presumes to place itself. However, if it lays

claim to such a role, it must assume the burden of conscience, responsibility

and cerebral hard-grind that goes with that territory. It must also be positioned

and properly resourced by its governmental sponsors to do so.

(Speech delivered by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, former Chair of the

British Council at the French Global Cultural Relations Conference, Paris, 23

July 2001)

Put together, the Arts Council’s focus on the ‘right to roam’ and this British Councilperspective begin to frame an answer to Anna Jobson’s line of questioning on theneeds that can be met and the differences made through international work of thiskind. What outcome is Artist Links supposed to serve? What is the future purpose ofthe whole initiative?

For Sally Cowling, the vision is clear. She told us, ‘We should have an Artist Linksprogramme that is bigger with more of an explicit element of cultural relationsactivity. It should have a focus on more long term results - e.g. links, networks and

cultural connections.’

Felicity Harvest feels that for its future international work with the British Council, Arts

Council England would want to see ‘excellence, talent development, and World

Class Art - which means that international residencies simply have to be part of the

menu’. She added, ‘Regarding our international work, success in these terms would

be in the artists' professional development. We want to see excellence and also

potential. We hope of course that the valuable (post hoc) learning from this

evaluation can build on our Memorandum of Understanding with the British Council

and feed into its review.’

Anna Jobson similarly felt that ‘the goal should focus on talent - how best to nurture

emerging talent to work internationally’. Arts Council England wants to see

opportunities for artists to take risks, explore new intellectual lines of enquiry and for

there to be a demonstrable impact on the artists. This is about great art and

everyone – and that includes audiences as well as artists, diaspora communities and

wider social cohesion.




Section Six. Conclusions

This programme provided clear and well-received opportunities for artists from

England and Brazil to visit each other’s country, to engage in high-quality research,

and to use this as the basis for developing their artistic practice. To this extent the

programme was a success. The great majority of the stakeholders we have spoken

to believe that the programme was well-intentioned, highly supportive of the selected

artists and an appropriate use of public resources.

We agree with them. This was a thoroughly worthwhile endeavour. We do, however,

have some key concerns – particularly about the programme’s governance, value for

money (including its legacy) and reporting systems.

The Memorandum of Understanding was finalised while Artist Links was still running

and so became an important part of the backdrop for this programme. As with any

agreement in its most nascent stage, there were not sufficient or relevant precedents

to work from to inform joint decision making. In this case there was, and still is, no

provision to ‘require’ anything from either party. There appeared to be no mechanism

from either council that intervened automatically to oblige the team to produce or

receive conventional sets of monitoring and reporting information for the programme.

The Memorandum of Understanding does, however, describe a great deal of

commonality and shared values on behalf of everyone involved. We would haveexpected that a programme of this scale run by these two organisations would have

the infrastructure already in place to have formal information readily available and in

an accessible form; not least because its absence, however erroneously, suggests a

significant lack of attention, whatever else may have been the case.

As we have reported earlier, the two councils were in the middle of significant

reorganisation and/or establishing new structures and procedures following major

reviews. The shortfall in resources and the detrimental changes in exchange rates

both affected the operation of the programme almost from the start. That both

councils continued with their co-operation in delivering the programme was a feat of

organisation. Running an international programme of cultural activity in collaboration

with another agency is challenging and requires commitment and patience,

characteristics which were amply demonstrated and clearly appreciated by the artists

involved.

However, the budget shortfalls in significant areas have combined to reduce the

programme’s overall ability to have any lasting impact and to deliver good value for

money.




In the light of the new agreement between the two councils, the imperative was for

the joint team to make a difficult situation work, which, to everyone’s credit, they did.

The available resources were principally spent on support for the artists, a sensible

decision and the obvious area to prioritise. However, this was done almost to the

exclusion of all formal reporting and monitoring, which left the programme notablybereft of documentation of its procedures and its impact. There are minutes from the

Steering Group meetings but they are minimal. There appear to be no regular annual

financial returns to Arts Council England with clearly delineated details of income

and expenditure; similarly, there has been no annual projected budgets and

accompanying narratives, no agreed targets/baseline at the outset, no monitoring of

the programme’s annual and overall progress against targets, and no audited annual

reviews. All that said, it does not necessarily mean that these processes did not

happen - only that the information has not been kept available in a ready, accessible

and appropriate form for public scrutiny and for this evaluation process in particular.

This lack of formal monitoring has, by default, diminished the programme’s impact,

as there is so much that cannot be evaluated. Had this area of formal documentation

been present, it would have allowed this evaluation process to focus more of its

effort on the outputs and outcomes of the programme against its original purpose.

Instead, much of the effort has been expended on piecing together the journey of the

project and with insufficient formal evidence to corroborate or disprove assumptions.

It must also be noted that the final number of artists who received financial support is

still a matter of some interpretation. It seems that in addition to the individual artists,

a number of organisations participated, and some unsuccessful applicants weresubsequently supported with help in kind rather than grants. Therefore, we have not

been able to define the status of all of the participants. This makes final conclusions

about the value for money the programme delivered problematic. In addition, whilst

the desire to include more artists rather than less was well intended, the manner in

which they were accorded support was not open. By providing post hoc support in

this way, a fair selection process is compromised and a possibility arises for the

perception of patronage and bias. This could leave both councils open and

vulnerable to criticism.

The Arts Council contributed £450,000 to the programme over its three years. We

have not been able to determine the full value of the operational support provided by

the British Council. The absence of complete information has meant than any

provisional assessment of the financial value for money of the programme

necessitates some assumptions:-

A generous appraisal would be that the British Council’s contribution was equivalent

to the Arts Council’s contribution - i.e. half the total sum. This would bring the total

value of the Programme to £900,000. If 40 artists have benefited, the cost of each

artist’s participation would have been £25,000. On average they received £8,000each for typically six weeks of activity. In this model, two thirds of the resources




would have been spent on infrastructure. This would not represent good value for

money.

Conversely, if only the £450,000 from the Arts Council had been spent on 40 artists,

with each receiving an average grant of £8,000 and with no in-kind operational

support from the British Council, the cost of each artist’s participation would have

been £11,250, which means that the spend on the infrastructure would have been

almost reversed - i.e. three quarters of the spend directly on the artists. This would

represent much better value for money.

The reality of course was almost certainly somewhere in between these two

assumptions. Though we cannot quantify the precise final amount, we do know that

the British Council’s in-kind contribution, whilst substantial, was almost certainly less

than half of the total sum. This obviously has an impact on the overall value for

money, especially given that the number of artists who benefited over the course of

three years was under half the envisaged number of beneficiaries.

An alternative approach to the calculation of cost-benefit was proposed by the British

Council:

Per person and experience, assuming the experiences have been good,

practices change, new relationships form, etc, then it should be valued on the

basis of effort per head rather than cost per head. There were not sufficiently

large enough a number of artists - so it’s not good value in terms of overheads

but in terms of project costs to spend £6,000 or so on people, it's very good,

and cheaper than sending people to conferences. But there was a heavy

administrative burden - it was a lot of infrastructure for 12 people per year.

Sally Cowling (Director, Performing Arts)

The implications of undertaking an evaluation on this scale and not being able to

assess the income and expenditure together are serious. However, we must stress

that we have seen uncorroborated data that indicates that funds and other resources

such as people’s time were indeed used for their intended purpose, and we have no

reason to believe that there has been any misuse of funds.

If there is to be any continuation of this activity within and between the two councils,

the lack of evidence to demonstrate the full extent of the value for money provided

represents a problem, particularly if advocacy is needed to seek further finance. This

is particularly disappointing given the major recommendations around financial

management provided in the evaluation of the pilot Artist Links programme in China.

Unfortunately, the organisation of Artist Links England – Brazil did not take full

account of the experience and learning made possible by this precursor programme.

These are some of the recommendations from the England-China project evaluation

that speak directly to the conclusions within our own study:




• Formalised evaluation systems should be put in place at the start of theprogramme so the data can be easily translated and used tocontinually improve delivery.

• Detailed budgets should be set by the Artist Links team and activity not

commence until funds are accessible.

• The project sits between two large organisations with different reporting

systems. It might be helpful if the project manager had ongoing access

to and support from a Steering Group member with sound financial

skills and an identified role to offer this support. This could help flag up

specific accountancy issues and lend support in the preparation of

project budgeting and financial reports for Steering Group meetings.

Our own overall conclusion is that the programme was a major success for the

participant artists wherever they came from. They extracted value from it, andcontributed a great deal of energy to it. By any measurement, this was an

achievement. The support they received by and large was good or excellent, and

they have said resoundingly how much they and their work have benefited from the

programme. The two councils should congratulate themselves on their joint support

to the artists, especially given that they achieved this amidst periods of major

organisational change, and diminishing funding.

The main areas of weakness, in our opinion, are all ‘behind the scenes’ and

surprising, given that both organisations have long experience and expertise in every

area that did not work efficiently. By proceeding with diminished resources and no

restructured scope for the programme, the councils could be commended for their

optimism, but not their realism. The consequences of these budget cuts on the scale

and legacy of the programme have reduced its value for money. Given the current

climate of reduced spending this is not a good position to be in, and certainly not for

organisations that are both in positions of leadership.

Nevertheless, we believe there is still much that can be done to rectify this situation.

The artists have not disappeared. They have tremendous goodwill for the

programme and many reasons to support its continuation and/or development; anew online environment can be built and aspects of the work that have been

documented can be captured and repurposed, exhibited and distributed, along with

important lessons from what has been a substantial initiative. Our own suggestion

here, given the limited resources and time available, is that the programme team

produce a CD/DVD showcasing a small selection of case studies illustrating some of

the different art forms from the programme and displaying quality outcomes in terms

of its internationalism, diversity, networking, and its emphasis on research as well as

on artistic product.

The lack of formal documentation remains an important cause of concern, andshould be addressed internally by both councils separately and together. Action now




can provide important lessons to feed into how the councils together can make their

Memorandum of Understanding work more effectively.




Section Seven: Recommendations

As a result of our evaluation we have three sets of recommendations:-

• general recommendations for future good practice in this kind of programme

• three options for the future of this particular programme

• a set of underlying principles for the central partnership between the two

councils in any future work of this kind

General recommendations

International artist exchange projects such as Artist Links should:-

• be ‘artist-led’ - placing the interests of artists at the heart of their design,

planning, operation and delivery

• use the opportunity to develop and engage audiences for the arts –

particularly when culturally diverse communities can be involved

• acknowledge that they are linked to the longer-term professional development

of artists, and plan for the individual and collective legacy of the work

• support and encourage networking between artists, hosts, funders and other

organisations throughout the programme

• provide adequate pastoral support (and possibly other forms of help such as

mentoring) to artists involved

• use selection processes which are clear, consistent and reliable, involving

suitable external advisers wherever possible

• be sensitive to the impact that different cultural infrastructures might have on

exchange programmes

• be based on clear expectations, contractual responsibilities, and (where

appropriate) Service Level Agreements

• be monitored clearly and comprehensively

• be subject to robust internal and external evaluation throughout their

operation

• include contingency budgets, and expect currency fluctuations

Three options for future directions for Artist Links

Taking into account the continued desire for the two councils to work together in this

field, we see three options for further consideration. (Please note that these do not

discount either organisation pursuing projects individually.)

The options are:




1) To take the lessons and experiences of Artist Links England - Brazil and use

them to inform the development of future work by others. This would involve

disseminating the outcomes of this programme and its predecessor, advising

other organisations on the principles of good practice, and encouraging them to

build these principles into their ongoing collaborations.

2) Work together to encourage and support other organisations (including Arts

Council England’s own regularly funded organisations) to develop and deliver

similar programmes. This should exploit the British Council’s capacity to provide

in-country guidance, infrastructure and quality assured opportunities for artists

whilst doing their international residencies.

3) Actively seek to establish and fund new programmes of work by following one of

these options:-

a) Financing and establishing a joint commission for an appropriatelyexperienced regularly funded organisation or external agency to run a new

phase of the programme. Artists would apply to be part of this programme and

the agency would identify and develop opportunities for them to undertake

joint work. The agency would need to have international and British

experience of running exchange and/or residency programmes with artists

and, ideally, similar experience within the creative industries.

b) Financing and establishing a joint, ongoing commission to award renewable,

fixed-term contracts to a range of regularly funded organisations and other

external arts organisations in England (and potentially abroad) in order to

allow them to broker different visions of international work including artists’

residencies and to ensure a diversity in approach and delivery that can impact

across the UK arts scene.

c) Identifying and providing funds to an external agency with specific experience

in working internationally, trans-continentally, and within the UK, and in

running successful exchanges, residencies, twinning and other similar

schemes. This would be for a new, unique and branded scheme, which would

function as a network that artists would apply to join and then be enabled toidentify and link with artists from other countries. The minimum offer would be

for the agency to act as a filter for artists to pass through and then, via social

networking, find suitable partners for residencies, exchanges and

collaborations. The maximum offer would be for the organisation to support

joint proposals for collaborations which would have an exchange impact. This

model could also support arts organisations to work with each other, and to

develop funding from multiple sources.

There are positive and negative factors arising from each of these options. Our own

recommendation is option c, which satisfies the needs of both councils to desist fromrunning direct programmes of work; maintains a joint ownership at executive level;




ensures appropriate expertise is in place; and, as importantly, allows for flexibility.

This could be a rolling programme that grows and shrinks depending on resources

and priorities. It could accommodate single country-to-country work as well as

multiple countries, would be artist-led, and could include organisations. It would allow

artists to network within a defined structure, and also to undertake major jointprojects. It would also use both councils’ expertise appropriately and provide a

framework for public acknowledgement of the joint endeavour.

Underlying principles for the central partnership

Whichever route is chosen for such a joint endeavour we recommend that:

• the British Council works with the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office in-

country to facilitate the issuing of visas for this particular programme

• the British Council leads on the specification of guidelines and support for the

artists when they are in-country. It is essential that this includes advice for

artists when working in England, and the this is provided at the same level

• Arts Council England provides the structure for the rigorous recruitment,

selection, monitoring and evaluation of artists’ work

• Arts Council England leads on the development of suitable policies and

practice for documenting and archiving the work of the Artists

In addition;

• this work should be the responsibility of a senior decision making officer within

each council

• processes and procedures are transparent and support offered equally to all

applicants and participants

• both councils commit finance and/or resources (including staff) to the chosen

joint route, and for a pre-determined number of years

• both councils place particular attention on the marketing of the chosenscheme in each participating country in order to attract the attention of the full

diversity of a country’s population




Appendix One: Interviewees

Brazil

British Council Staff (São Paulo)

Geoff Smith (Director)

Stephen Rimmer (Projects and Partnerships Director)

Roberta Mahfuz (Artist Links Manager)

Ar tis ts

Lali Krotoszynski

Patricia Osses

Camila Sposati

Cristiana Ceschi

Thomas Rohrer

Alfredo Bello

Daniel Lima

Lourival Cuquinha

Eduardo Verderame

Fabiano Marques

Fernanda Chieco

Victor RiquèRicardo Carioba

Gisela Motta

Cristina Ribas

Others

Capacete: Helmut Batista (Director)

Galeria Luisa Strina: Gisela Domschke (Director)

Centro Cultural, São Paulo: Martin Grossmann (Director)

Galeria Leme: Camila Leme

Galeria Vermelho: Marcos Gallon and Eduardo Brandão

Itao Lab Culturel: Guilherne Kujawski

Daniela Labra (Independent Curator)




England

Ar ts Counci l England Staf f

Anna Jobson (Director, Arts Strategy)

Felicity Harvest (Executive Director, Special Projects)

British Council Staff

Sally Cowling (Director, Performing Arts)

Ar tis ts

Barak Schmool

Alex Reuben

Matt Lewis

Michael Atavar

Søren Nielsen (Scarabeus)

Jo Joelson (London Fieldworks)

Peter Cowdrey (The Conference of Birds)

Others

Visiting Arts: Adam Knights (Projects Manager, Visual Arts); Sabrina Smith-Noble

(Projects Manager, Performing Arts); Yvette Vaughan Jones (Executive Director)

Brazilian Embassy: Carlos Eduardo de Carvalho Pacha (Cultural Attaché); João

Carlos Guarantani (Gallery 32)

Gasworks/Triangle Arts Trust: Alessio Antoniolli (Director); Catalina Lozano

(Residencies Coordinator)

Independence/B-Supreme Festival: Judi McCartney (Director)

The Arts Catalyst: Nicola Triscott (Director)

The Arvon Foundation: Ariane Koek (former Director)

Live Art Development Agency: Lois Keidan (Director)

BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art: Alessandro Vincentelli (Curator)

Freelance artists/researchers/curators: Kiki Mazzuchelli, Caroline Menezes, Lynn

Harris, Nadia Kerecuk




Appendix Two

Artist Link England -

Brazil

Evaluation

Analysis of online survey

Alexandra Campos & Mariana Matoso




March 2010

SURVEY UNIVERSE

Table 1: Artists surveyed by country

Brazilian (BR) 23

English (UK) 15

Total 38

The survey was sent out to a total of 45 artists (both from the UK and Brazil);

Around 84 per cent of the artists filled in the survey (38 out of 45);

However, note that some artists filled in the survey together;

23 artists filled in the Brazilian version and 15 the English one.

An artist filled in the survey but wasn’t considered for analysis (he is only

included in the table above) as the report had been already produced.




ARTISTIC PRACTICE

1. Art form in which the artist was involved as part of the Artist Link :

The majority of artists were involved either in Visual Arts (including live

art, new media and moving image or Combined Arts (including

carnivals, interdisciplinary arts and sound arts)

The least common categories were Literature and Theatre & Drama

N.B: Each artist usually ticked more than one art form.

Brazilian Artists English Artists

Art Form BR UK Total

Visual Arts 18 6 24

Combined Arts 5 7 12

Music 4 4 8

Dance 2 3 5

Others (including animation and research) 3 0 3

Theatre & Drama 0 1 1

Literature 1 0 1




2. Level of experience of partic ipating artists

Most respondents described themselves as established artists,

particularly in the English sample.

3. Cultural context of artists ’ work

Most UK and BR Artists described the cultural context of their work as

international or cross-cultural.

For both groups the national context was also significant.

Level of Experience BR UK Total

Established Artist 9 9 18

Other (including independent) 9 1 10

Emerging Artist 5 3 8

Cultural

Context

BR UK Total

International 16 6 22

Cross-Cultural 12 7 19

National BR 10 1 11

National UK 4 5 9

European 3 2 5

Other 2 0 2

South

American

1 0 1




ARTISTS’ AMBITION FOR THE PROJECT

1. Artists ’ aims at beginning of project

Before presenting each individuals’ opinions about the aims they had to

the Artist Link project, we will leave here a few bullet points with the topics

that are common to most of the artists, both the Brazilian and the British:

the exchange of experiences with different artists in a different

country and, therefore, a different culture

the importance of fostering the connections between Brazil and the

United Kingdom

the opportunity of meeting artists with common interests and to

exchange ideas that would contribute to the development of their

own work. The artists felt that gathering new experiences was an

important form of enrichment – both personal and professional

the fact that there was a link between the two countries made

possible for the artists to have interpersonal contacts that they will

keep in the future and that will help them to become established

the chance of presenting their work and to engage with the public

while doing so, was also a opportunity well received by the artists

involved in the project

BRAZILIAN ARTISTS:

1. To exchange experiences with English musicians.

2. Expected to expand and deepen their field of research by meeting and

exchanging ideas with artists from England whilst dialoguing with the

people and culture of the country.

3. To get to know the production and the Warburg Institute, to experience

the British contemporary art context, to know alternative cultural and

artistic projects.

4. Hoped to return to Brazil culturally and technically enriched in order to

develop artwork.




5. Project’s aim was to think British colonisation through artistic expression

in the urban space, using multimedia language and participation of

different social groups living in London.

6. Foster connection with the two cultures and obtain performances.

7. Meet British musicians, exchange of ideas and creation of music

dialogues expressing a mix between Brazilian culture with modern music

produced in England from the 1980s.

8. Planned to produce new forms of work in an entire new environment.

9. Opportunity to learn about a new cultural context, searching for new

information and themes for his work, get to know places that were

important for this search.

10. To learn more about the application and adaptation of birdsong to

music/performance, exchanging ideas with Brazilians and learning specific

techniques from guitarist Albery Albuquerque. To experience rainforest

firsthand.

11. To research specific elements, but mainly to expose her practice and

finished work to London’s cultural context, observing possible reactions

and gathering new influences.

12. Artist hoped to find new research paths and opportunities for work

production related to it while experiencing a different culture.

13. Aimed to conduct field research and collect data to develop a new

series of work, as well as start producing and presenting work to curators,

institutions and galleries.

14. Hoped to exchange professional experiences, to understand the

artistic context and get influence for a new round of work.

15. Artist wanted to find people and institutions that shared her research

object and then develop new collaborations.

16. Work developed was to be inspired by the quotidian of immigrants,

artists’ experience within city mobility and continuous temporary jobs.

Wanted to establish new contacts and look for opportunities to exhibit.

17. Wanted to get to know British artists, curators and develop research on

the use of the body associated to the performance. Establishment of new

projects.




18. Artist wanted to research other possibilities of manipulation and

movement within the universe of puppetry.

19. Consolidate existent partnership, renew conceptual base, meet new

artists and artistic processes, and expand artist’s conscience and critical

perspective.

20. Need to produce new art visual works through the immersion in a

different culture whilst developing research inherent to the projects.

Access to different places and idioms.

21. Expansion of interpersonal contacts, collective practice, development

of an artistic repertoire and documentation and reflection throughout the

process.

BRITISH ARTISTS:

1. Looking to experience Brazilian local communities and the rainforest,

whilst developing new work.

2. Objective was to initiate innovative performances, education work and

social development projects to be delivered in Belém and the UK.

3. Aim was to meet a group of dancers, or non-dancers, to work with them

and get inspired from that experience.

4. Aim at engaging with the public in both countries. To make a body of

collaborative work as a process of engaging/negotiating with another

culture.

5. Objective was to exchange, support, find direction for development,

understanding, guidance, fun.

6. Artist wanted to create a minimum of two research and development

productions where the audio-visual language is dictated by thecollaboration between movement, sound, camera, microphone and edit; to

explore (sub)conscious cultural, emotional and political connections with

Brazil that exist in the work.

7. Objective was to produce collaborative work with guitarist Albery

Albuquerque, cellist Diego Carneiro, and the artist’s group The Conference

of Birds.

8. Artist’s objective was to develop new work, undergo a period ofreflection to stimulate new ideas and find international collaborators.




9. Artist aimed at developing a body of work that could be commissioned

at a later date, to establish links with institutions and curators in Brazil, and

ideally to set up some concrete working relationships.

10. Objective was to conduct practical research around a site in central

São Paulo working with artists and public.

11. Aim was to research aerial dance with Companhia Suspensa, Belo

Horizonte. To consolidate relationships already established and hopefully

open a dialogue with artists based in Bahia and Rio Grande do Norte.

2. How well the project lived up to artists’ expectations

The broad opinion amongst participants was that the project exceeded

their expectations. However, this view was more prominent within the

Brazilian artists. Amongst British artists, the overall opinion is that the

project was satisfactory and met their expectations.

Exceeded

Met Fellshort

Total

BR 14 5 2 21

UK 5 6 1 12




RATING OF THE EXPERIENCE IN GENERAL

Brazilian artists’ experience overall

Main aspects deserving excellent or very good score:

a) Administration of the project

b) Artistic environment

c) Financial and creative support of artists’ work

The practical support (accommodation, translation, etc) also received positive

feedback.

The most negative aspect mentioned by the Brazilian artists was the lack of

opportunities to network once they got back to Brazil.

Some people believed that the project’s online page was quite poor and that it

could be improved.




British artists’ experience overall

The categories pointed as excellent or very good:

a) Opportunities to network in Brazil.

b) Practical support (accommodation, translation, etc).

c) Level of funding.

d) The project’s website.

e) The support given to the creative practice.

f) The applications process itself, and the information on the project made

available beforehand.

g) The artistic environment and the working arrangements.

The project website faced a quite high percentage of negative feedback from

the artists, who considered it to be generally poor or indeed inadequate.




PROJECT’S MAIN STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES

1. Project’s single most valuable aspect

BR UK TOTAL

Emphasis on artists’ creativity and work 13 5 18

Development of an international network ofcollaborators and artists

8 4 12

Promote the exchange between different cultures 5 3 8

Get in touch with a foreign artistic context 4 2 6

Funding available & institutional support 3 2 5

Most valuable aspects for both groups of artists were: their own creativity and

work, and the importance of being able to develop an international network of

collaborators and artists.

2. Aspects for improvement in the project

BR UKTOT

AL

Creation of a physical space where artists can work, meet

and exhibit9 2 11

More participation and support from the institutions involvedin the project (at all levels) 6 3 9

Overall planning of activities/project/clarity 4 3 7

Establishment of a continuous link between all project

participants3 2 5

Increase the length of the project 3 1 4

For the majority of artists is important to have a physical space (both in Brazil

and in the United Kingdom) where they can all meet, work and exhibit theirresults.




Also important: to have more intense participation and support from the

institutions involved (financial and practical – information about

accommodation, weather, language, technology, etc).

Brazilian artists felt the necessity of having some sort of atelier.

3. Other major strengths of the project

BR UK TOTAL

British Council Manager (staff) support 10 2 12

Practical support and general help from institutions

involved7 2 9

Experience of a like-minded intercultural artistic

environment6 1 7

Project’s flexibility and freedom to work 5 1 6

Emphasis on the British Council staff support.

The Brazilian artists mentioned the support they got from Roberta Mahfuz as

one of the most important things in their preparation for the project.

The Brazilian artists gave a lot of significance to the fact that they had the

chance to be in a like minded intercultural environment.

4. Project’s major weaknesses

BR UK TOTAL

Lack of institutional support from the host organisation 3 1 4

Nothing to point out 3 1 4

Lack of opportunities to showcase work/continuity 3 - 3

Many of the artists didn’t even have an answer to this question.

A few said they didn’t have anything to point out.

The only weakness mentioned was the lack of support from the host

institution.




5. Impact of the project so far

BR UK TOTAL

Possibility of new opportunities of

work/collaborations/networking13 7 20

Project inspired artist’s conceptual and practical work 9 3 12

To have a more critical self analysis of the artist’s own

work5 1 6

Enhancement of personal artistic goals 3 2 5

Broad perception of how different cultures work, plan,

communicate3 2 5

The majority of artists mentioned that the project instigated the establishment

of new opportunities of work, collaborations and the expansion of their

networks.

By taking part on this project the artists felt conceptually and practically

inspired by the experience involved (with the Brazilian artists it translated in to

developing a self awareness and critical analysis of the artist’s own work).

Both group of artists agreed that they’ve acquired a broader perception of how

such different cultures work, plan things and even communicate.

6. Impact of the project in the future

BR UK TOTAL

Will influence new projects and ways of working 7 4 11

Create links that have lead to collaborations already 8 1 9Create new links and new opportunities of work 5 3 8

Help consolidate and diffuse artist’s work 6 1 7

To meet and work with different artists in a different

country3 1 4

The majority of artists mentioned the high probability of developing new

projects and ways of working.




All artists were affected and inspired by the experience and felt this would be

represented in their work in the long-term.

The experience will boost the participation of artists in different projects.

In the long-term, the project will help to strengthen and disseminate the artists’

work.

To some artists the experience, was deemed too recent and consequently it

was difficult to tell what could it bring in the future.

The artists also felt that being part of this project would help consolidating and

diffuse their work. This opinion was not shared as widely amongst the British

artists.

7. Advice to an artist thinking of joining such a project

BR UK TOTAL

Plan both project and journey well/previously establish

contacts15 5 20

To be open to new experiences and fully immerse in it 6 2 8

To be flexible and to trust own instincts 2 4 6

Spend as much time possible in the locations 1 1 2Do not expect much institutional support 0 2 2

The bulk of the artists mentioned the priority should lie on the good and timely

planning of each personal project.

It is important to organise any practical aspect relevant to the journey itself,

and also to establish any needed contacts (institutions, artists, curators)

before leaving the country. Artists also felt that one had to be open to new experiences that could arise

from the contact with the surrounding environment and community.

The British artists felt that flexibility and trust in own instincts was also

considered as an important piece of advice.

It was also highlighted that institutional support was not great and that one

should look for alternatives.




8. Advice to possible hosting organisation

BR UKTOT

ALTo invest time in meeting and giving practical support to the

artists12 9 21

To develop continuous or longer projects 4 1 5

To give opportunities to showcase the artist’s work and

foster networking3 1 4

Both group of artists had a very similar perception of what could possibly be

improved. The main advice was centered on the importance of investing time with the

artist.

Such category implied that: host organisations should get to know the artist’s

background and work before his arrival; maintain plenty of contact with him

throughout the residency; help him with practical support such as

accommodation, transportation and/or translation; in the overall, to show a

genuine interest in receiving a foreign artist.

Artists also reinforced the need to invest in the continuity of the project

aftermath (the organisation of an event exhibiting the artists’ work outputs,

debates, conferences).

It was felt that Brazilian artists would like also to be given more opportunities

to publically showcase their work.

Some suggested that the hosting organisation should create a physical space

where the artists could work, meet and exhibit.

9. Advice given to organisations such as Arts Council or Bri tish Council in

the planning of such a project

BR UK TOTAL

To have continuous or longer projects 7 1 8

To help the artists with their networking and keeping in

touch with each other2 3 5

To have a better financial and practical support 3 2 5



To have a good application process 2 2 4

To have a mentoring scheme and a translator 1 2 3

Supporting the artist at all levels is the main priority.

It is very clear in both UK and BR surveys that artists want to be offered better

financial support in the form of larger awards and practical support (learning

the native language; help planning his trip; maybe even elaborate a document

alerting for possible common problems to be handed in to the artist as a

guide; help to identify the most suitable host organisation).

Need to foster the development of the artist’s network and a continuous

contact with all the artists involved.

Application process needs some adjustments (choosing fewer artists and

institutionalise a more rigorous process of application; while ensuring a

democratic approach when selecting applicants).

The Brazilian group strongly highlighted the need to invest in the continuity of

projects or even in the development of longer ones.

Some of the surveyed mentioned the possibility of establishing a mentoring

scheme.

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mirtes-oliveira
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

External Evaluation of Artists Links England Brazil

Documents