'...big jobs?"

by Ben Spencer, 17 Nov 2008

What is the difference between a project to produce an artwork for a clearly identified, single ‘client group’ and working on a project with multiple artworks for a large, disparate organisation?

In writing here, I’ve always said that the projects subject to evaluation will act as an inspiration for the blog rather than being referenced directly. In the back of mind, however, there is the niggling question of how an artist, project manager (or indeed external evaluator) can work within, or gain access to, a sprawling organisation and so I am likely to draw a little more directly on the projects under review to explore my musing.

Looking at the archive of projects on the PAR+RS web site, offers an insight into the whole range of commissioning bodies out there … arts initiatives, museums, galleries, schools, universities, hospitals, local community groups, voluntary organisations, housing associations, regeneration agencies, local authorities, commercial outlets and private companies. But such a list may indeed conceal who is actually commissioning the work. For example, the site of an artist’s activity may be a school, but is it the Head Teacher, the Parent Teacher Association, or the central education department at the local authority involved in drawing up the project brief and involved in selecting the artist? More likely it will be the project manager, leading the procurement of new schools under a ‘regional’ PPP/PFI contract.

On the one hand, I suppose this does not present a problem for the artist. A well structured project, with clear lines of communication and management structures, should support the work of an artist and make their role easy to fulfil – irrespective of the labyrinth of bureaucracy which requires to be negotiated by the project manager. But this is a sterile response to my query which takes no account of the artist’s need to understand their position within an organisation or the context in which they are working. This approach is also likely to be very isolating, to a certain extent side-lining the artist and therefore probably leading to the work being misunderstood and receiving negative responses.

The key issue seems to be the difficulty of finding that route through an organisation and gaining support for an art project and the artist’s work. A particular problem of working in a very large organisations is that there is little or no access to decision-making – a process which is likely to be driven forward through text and documentation. In some cases, an added difficulty is that the ‘client’ may span a number of organisations, pulled together for a particular purpose – a common situation in regeneration agencies – and so the people commissioning the project do not form a natural constituency. While the group may have a single objective in commissioning the work, such as the improvement of the physical environment, each contributor may measure the ‘success’ of the project through very different, maybe even conflicting, parameters. Or as already hinted at, the client may be fractured in delivering a project within a large organisation – commissioning work in a project which is being delivered by a capital procurement team – the involvement of artists may become an irritant: that precious pearl within the oyster.

This suggests the clearly identified single ‘client group’ does indeed have an advantage in managing an art project over the large disparate organisation as it is likely to develop direct lines of communication with the artist. When 63 people are listed as being involved, as with one of the projects under review, that brings added challenges and complications in pulling together the delivery of the work. Large agencies may have a single name, but most bodies are complex structures and multi-layered with Boards and advisory committees, departments of staff teams and external advisers etc. forms an entity in itself. So in reality the delivery of an artwork through a team of consultants, artists, designers, construction personnel etc. Questioned particularly on this idea, a manager involved in one of the projects under review noted however that “you have to keep pushing projects in a busy environment – really it is the busy environment which is the issue, not necessarily the scale of organisation.”

And this of course is the crux of any project development whether for a small community group or in a large agency – is the project the focus of their organisation? A community group may rely on volunteers who cannot work on a project consistently, day to day. In an organisation, how do you keep a project alive, alert and relevant when it is not central to a person’s work? How do you ensure any new project is accepted as a valuable activity and kept visible? What connections are required and how are they sustained?

There is an argument that actually a large scale organisation can benefit the delivery of an art project. Involving a large number of people, from a broad range of perspectives, and gaining their support gives the work more legitimacy. Engagement in a project also becomes a form of education and an opportunity to ‘skill up’ people – explaining the process of art making. Anecdotal feedback often notes how people enjoy being involved in working with artists and consider it a privilege, . As more people are involved learning happens – the journey demystifies the arts community and demonstrates the professionalism of artists. A further benefit of involving a large number of people in a project delivers a legacy of interested workers once the artists have moved on.

The artwork is often the catalyst to bring two cultures together, creating a space for dialogue and offering opportunities for ‘training’, irrespective of the scale of the project. There are particular benefits of a small, identified project but also significant advantages of working in a large scale organisation. Both, however, need significant energy and clear management keep the profile of the project alive, irrespective of size.

Ben Spencer
November 2008