This Padlet site contains the proceedings of the Open Space Conversations held on Monday 6th May at Carriageworks in Sydney.

Forum participants generated a long list of issues relating to experimental arts they wanted to discuss, selecting thirteen questions to discuss using the 'Open Space' methodology. A leader / scribe hosted each conversation, with participants choosing which conversations to participate in. The notes below are the feedback recorded by each group.

IMPORTANT: The following discussion notes do not represent the view of the Australia Council for the Arts or any of the discussion leaders or scribes named. The discussion notes are a record of key issues and topics that were raise within the discussion groups themselves. The issues and topics may not be an accurate representation of the discussion. The purpose of these notes is to serve as a provocation for further discussion and development of ideas leading to the next National Experimental Arts forum to be held within two years of May 2013.

Discussion Leader: Barbara Campbell

Note taker: Heidi Angove

Key recommendations:

- Should an information management officer at Australia Council be part of the library service to help artist archive their work ?. Possibly in collaboration with TROVE; Paul Thomas's work in archiving; Scanlines; Leonardo; and to audit archiving processes in other major institutions including national and state based cultural funding bodies.

- To raise the profile of archiving for artists as an important part of their process.

- As a part of the Australia Council process, should there be a template for questions for artists as a part of the acquittal process that is public. Should acquittals also be stored within a major public archiving institution.

- First draft artist questions for the acquittal process:

• What happened
• Who did it?
• How did they do it?
• How can other partners get into contact with the artist?
• What technical tools were created and are you willing to share that data?

Rough notes

Wrap critical history / legacy/ archive into one question. The question was refined as knowledge and critique.

How is this knowledge currently maintained? Knowledge collected is trapped and hidden away through the privacy act. Within council that knowledge is not particularly shared and discussed. Sometimes knowledge is kept in one section and held in the head of one person.

- We don't have collecting institutions that take this work and archive this work.
- Steven debated that fact and stated there may well be more in the collections of main museums than we may think.

The question is the collection of the knowledge and the access to the knowledge.

You cannot access grant acquittals. If someone currently seeks information about another person's aquittal / work then Australia Council is required to seek the maker's permission before supplying the work. 

If someone is seeking to undertake research for work then a number of NDA's / paperwork must be undertaken to unlock that work to the public.

How do we make documentation held by funding bodies about arts grants more available to those researching those acquittals and making information more easily available

Are acquittals read? Are they simply read, is there. A box ticked and then hidden away in a box in the back of a room.

Leonardo is the nearest to a valuable report on experimental art practice. Do we need something similar to transactions that provides an opportunity to write an article / provide documentation about a particular artwork.

A revised process and fostering a conversation in the community about projects that have been funded.
A possibly revised acquittal process that has provision for a simple database with reports. First draft artist questions for the acquittal process?
- What happened
- Who did it?
- How did they do it?
- How can other partners get into contact with the artist
- What technical tools were created and are you willing to share that data?

The downside of this is that artists will be contacted by interested parties

Can there be an opportunity for peer assessors or the board actually reflect on the work and talk to producers about the work they funded.

Should the Australia Council have some role to play in nominating things for pandora/ archive.org / scanlines (small project looking at work related to video art?

Any database needs to be held in a national institution where there is an established process for archiving art.

Do we need to create some trigger questions around what we would like artists to be asked as a template?

What other knowledge do other institutions hold? What do other universities / organisations do? Should these institutions take the lead on archiving and

Being able to build intellectual property and a history of work around creates a

Australia Council resources are focussed on getting funding out to people and not archiving and storing content.

Artists can barely exist with the funding to make the work let alone archiving the work and there is not a culture that looks to preserving that work.

Discussion Leader: Sarah Miller

The question of key and/or major organisations not fulfilling their charter or responsibilities to artists and experimental art practice was raised.

In response the need to hold organisations accountable via KPIs and funding agreements was noted.

If funding is locked up in organisations, perhaps an audit needs to be undertaken to ensure responsiveness. NB the example of the Theatre Board's Make it New strategy, and the success of the Visual Arts Craft strategy (VACS). Does the funding model need to be refreshed?

The carrot or the stick? Infiltrate, encourage or compel? Is it something that needs to change in the hearts and minds of professional arts and cultural workers in order for new possibilities to emerge? Do curators need to be supported to take sabbaticals away from their institutions to learn some of the things that artists know.

More significant partnerships and better use of networks and sharing; for instance, micro producers working in partnership with institutions, and making these opportunities more explicit where they do exist.

Matching funding models.

Role of state governments is seen as an impediment in this context - outcome driven. Role of Australia Council in advocating to the states around support for artists; change in leadership at Oz Co was noted.

Internships,  relationship between graduates from education and training institutions and arts institutions, artists accessing major collections

Internships, residencies, projects such as Mobile States that share contemporary practice across the country

Other forms of institutional support (project based residencies such as IASKA; the role of small grass roots organisations in supporting experimentation and the need for increased support) etc

The role of audience development understood as something distinct from using audience numbers as a benchmark for success which is seen as a negative and something that inhibits genuine experimentation led to a discussion about framing work appropriately and according to the needs of the work - critical feedback loop - getting away from the presenter's one size fits all model

Advocacy 

Discussion Leader: Danni Zuvela

1. Moving away from art forms – an approach rather than a field

Not a definition but an analysis: What is the approach?-Can be anti-market/resistant to commodification;- It’s playing with form and/or inventing new forms or methodologies;-Often explicitly or implicitly political – comes from a historically engaged trajectory;-Often highly conceptual, anti-aesthetic and unafraid to be impolite-- the approach is open.

2. It is always contextual, relative and relational

It needs to answer the question: What is experimental now?- This means it can be an individual artist iterating practice in a different way or a high voltage partnership – we need the system to be just towards artists in regional areas or with limited opportunities to generate parternships

3. Problem Finding versus Problem Solving

Problem can be at the testing stage or at the presentations stage

4. Experimental is beyond materials and technologies-can be about working with “new” media and the exciting prospects media technology catalyses-but also can be about new ways of working with materials, or coming from a totally conceptual, relational position ‘outside’ media technology

5. How do we generate a supported ecology?

Expanding understanding-Onus on artists: Tell us why you are experimental?-Deal with counter-intuitive systems where infrastructure precludes project funding-Mini fellowships to support sustained experimentation for artists and collectives to brew and develop processes-Develop systematic ways to promote and value experimental art within Australia Council

Leader: Wendy Morrow

Scribe: Simon Maidment

Starting point - we must expand the 'you' to sources beyond Austraia Council

Flexibility to commit to an idea - and to its process of change

Funding needs to recognise the cyclical nature of projects/practice

Dilemma of organisations working with fewer people/artists with deeper engagement

Project evolution: practitioners are open to other collaborators/support from unexpected areas as the project develops - embracing fluidity

Recognition of the value of evolving process - organisations providing frameworks to umbrella

Practice development - artists/orgs: Value in long-term relationships (incl. mentoring), not just projects

Support for R&D: Residencies - Europe has 2+ years residency programs, which allow longer term experimentation to develop.

Fellowships - give demonstrable and significant support to artists to experiment, and offer legitimation to practice.

Recognition of different needs at different stages of career - esp in terms of building capacity to support career

Business partnerships: Explore further opportunities for partnerships to facilitate infrastructures to support residencies, artists spaces etc.

Research around ArtStart points to a major benefit in focus on practice and its development, rather than projects.

Is there a need to advocate for practice-based funding to support the above point?

Suggestion that 'tiered fellowships' can support different components of practice, perhaps of varying lengths

Organisations formalising development structures with artists/producers: Programmatic approach to supporting/developing artists practice to facilitate support opportunities and ensure legacy - some artforms (eg. Back to Back) have accepted longer term development. More strategic approach needed to ensure that available funds are not spread thinly, but allow largers orgs to support independent producers/artists to make large-scale work. Artangel and UK commissioning bodies used as example.

Knowledge and learnings need to be better communicated to the sector to foster dialogue and exchange, and critical response.

Reporting: Acquittals etc could perhaps act more as a dialogue with regular points of contact rather than one big report at the end, although would this put another burden on the artist? Not suited to everybody's practice. Creative reporting, research results (as in science community) directed to peers and industry. - reference to open source discussion.

Attention needs to be paid to forums and platforms that are accessible.

Auspicing bodies play an important role in managing the money, and allowing artists to work long term, as large grants paid at once are problematic.

Development capacity of orgs/companies: money could be devolved to orgs running incubation/development/mentoring (eg. Next Wave's Kickstart)

Malthouse as an example of org working with smaller companies to develop new works. Encouragement of co-productions

The risk in devolved funding would be to instrumentalise orgs to undertake the government's strategies/policies.

The flipside of funding for long terms projects is the need for nimble flexible quick response grants. Is it the responsibility of the funding body to remain responsive to emerging opportunities, or does the sector lead? Need for support that responds to career development eg. travel.

Beyond process, there also needs to be recognition that sometimes multi-year committment is required for projects with a defined and deliberative outcome - leveraging with prior committment of funds.

Discussion leader: Rosemary Miller

Philosophical & thinking space

Resource/physical
Artist-led opportunities

Mutual is: 
- Hosts, industry, institutions, opportunities, critical feedback, forums with peers/public, research
- equal relationships/respect for knowledge & questions with non arts eg science, businessWhat Models?

Residencies
- artist led
- national and international 
- models such as Bundanon and Aphids; important that they have flexible timelines, can include multi-platform outcomes

Travel Support

- national and international
- providing research opportunities, residencies, learning, practice and process, presentation eg runway or quick response

Consortium of experimental, independent or artist led organisations
– an alternative to CAOS OR can CAOS better support the experimental arts sector
- a national festival of networked projects
- better serve regional artists

Long term sustained funding for experimental practitioners
- specific funding categories for experimental artists/art making – independent of organisations

Sharing the learning / history 
- Empower and encourage artists to experiment, to share processes and problems
- Hosts for residencies to support/link peers, facilitate feedback

• real time media arts archive
• advising people/orgs who don't know what they don't know
• knowledge banks which are open - those of us who rely on hackerspaces 
• using ozco aquittal archives creatively
• actual structures for ozco to deliver
• would people be ok sharing their data/process
• what are we talking about sharing? from raw data files to listing schematics, the end product or the  process of getting to them
• the problem of telling people how you do something might stop them from working out their own processes

• potential of loss for monetizing their product
• technically ozco owns ip on everything they fund. it's rescinded, but it exists.
• ozco needs external push to implement this share culture.
• what's the project description, how did you get to the end result?

• a question on the form - are you willing to share (this exists in dca, according to sections - tho this isn't acted on, the data isn't searchable)
• modularity is important
• other existing barriers - freedom of info on acquittals.
• opt-in - encouraging people writing their acquittals to make them more openly available -- make a financial reward??
• looking at online repositories - e.g thingiverse. 
• you wouldn't ask someone for their mould when they make a beautiful sculpture
• studio assistants learn by working with a lead artist
• problem of artists then commissioning others to build the software & those companies don't want 
• how does this affect DNA/biotech developers?
• artists who work w/ patents; embargo on release of product
• where are the opportunities for post-work discussion/critique
• if we build it, will they come?
• curation 
• a staff member at ozco to facilitate the documentation of the works

• ozco intro's a policy that any project that builds software as part of process should make that open source to comply w/ information commission office - unless there are reasons for it to be closed. ozco as provocateur
• build sophisticated back end system with specific modules of what data is open and what release dates are appropriate & have advice on how to realise this. 
• back end - geolocated propagation that says what it is, when it happens, how much it costs to attend, then acquittal info propagates back to each funding round to see what was successfully funded from previous rounds
• encouraging (possibly facilitating/resourcing/financially incentivising) post event discussion/critique (e.g. dorkbot/some non proprietary google hangout thing or an ozco space in GitHub)
• encouraging creative interpretation/curation of archives
• choose your model of acquittal - artist talk/make a film or write a report
• expanding relationships w/libraries/archives/universities to make archives accessible

Discussion Leader: Zina Kaye

- What is the best way to capture ephemeral work?

- Measurement challenges: qualitative/quantitative/short term/medium term/longterm

- How do we support and present public participation in process?

- Importance of educating presenting and other partners re value of process as well as outcome

- How much process should be public?

- In the absence of ability to influence and contribute to curriculum, use different approaches -eg. artists in schools

- Artists need to learn how to explain their work to their mothers?

- Need systems and infrastructure in place for citation of ephemeral practice

- Make process explicit: eg. how many failures before the successful work.. open studio model

- Bodies of work vs single work outcomes

- Walk the walk don't just talk the talk - accountability and infrastructure

- Relationship between risk and pricing - if everything cost $5 ticket would that increase artistic risk-taking? Would it increase audience numbers?

- How do you encourage people to be adventurous outside of festival contexts?

- Can there be more focus on process within festival contexts? (Audience education by stealth). eg. work in progress sessions.

- How can we market this to audiences? eg. 'this is an incredible opportunity to see a work in development and to engage directly with the artist/s'.

- Look to regions for successful models - eg. Cementa

- Plotting points within project plans for evaluation and feedback.

Discussion Leader: Vicki Sowry

Note taker: Heidi Angove

1. Learn how to make a pitch; targeted speed dating between artists and scientists

As an artist you are often the best advocate to breach any suspicion or reticence with other parties. Your enthusiasm for your own project gets others on board once you are in the organisation/ talking to the relevant people. The recommendation is to provide training for artists to pitch work to other non artists / groups you wish to collaborate with. The recommendation is to broker opportunities. EG Art Science speed dating. 

2. Tapping into networks - decrease isolation, increase new projects

To realise an Alumni network/ network of some kind for all artists and scientists (or other industries / professions) to maintain an ongoing collaboration and connection between artists and scientists (or other groups) and to further collaborative work. Using the capacity and strength of that network to further ongoing collaborations and developments and to assist in removing the isolation and alienation that can sometime occur with residencies.

3. Dynamic; scalable methodologies and support

For the need for peak bodies (EG OZCO / ABAF ) to advocate for residencies in the corporate sector. Rather than sponsorships, for that body to broker for a relationship with artists and the corporate sector and other sectors.

To ensure outcomes of residencies or research work to be shown within the context of the research partner.

4. Interdisciplinary producers, professional development

To advocate for professional opportunities for producers to work specifically as  cross disciplinary producers. For those producers to educate/ inform and foster collaborations between artists and scientists / technology workers etc etc. For those cross disciplinary producers to work with educational institutions in an advocacy role.

Other notes:

- The use of language is important in cross collaborations. How do we imbue trust in these relationships specifically with regard to experimental art. How do we use a grounded and concrete language around the art we make in collaboration with other non art institutions?

- We need to encourage a cross agency collaboration at a high level.

- Australian projects that deal with space must deal with Indigenous relationships with land and the history associated. Artists need guidance from the Indigenous community as to how to negotiate practice that involves a community. How does an artist talk to their local land council? Can OZCO provide access and contacts and protocols to do this?

- There are issues around IP for projects with more than one partner.

• New organisations exploring different models might be able to move through to achieve key organisation status
• Language - nomenclature: avoiding terms like grass roots and community based, preferring different models (e.g. small and independent, artist led, nimble, responsive)
• To recognise relationships between the old community practice and contemporary participatory and community engaged work
• Including community experts, oral histories, socially engaged, live arts and people who are working experimentally with people and communities (communities aren't just limited to location)

• There should be more avenues for small, independent organisations - not competing with major organisations to address equity issues, scale of idea vs size of organisation
• Creative producer models that provide funding to support the producer, and additional funds to develop the idea or project e.g. community partnership model led by artists
• Different sized pots of money e.g. quick response seed funding of up to $10k, adaptive not either / or
• Long form, multi year project funding - option of staggered release and reporting without needing to reapply
• small professional development opportunities - e.g. Runway, but for all levels of practice
• Research led work should not have to rely on partnerships, because that assumes outcomes

• Runway model
• PICA's R&D fund
• Art Flight
• Devolved funding models (e.g. Producer / Presenter model of Theatre Board)
• Spark, JUMP

• Maintain independence / integrity of the smaller artist led organisations, value their contribution, investigate new models of support
• On the one hand orgs need to be funded so that they can take on some of the admin burden on artists (e.g. insurances) like a producers hub model still an interesting model; however seed funding should also be available directly to artists.Lots of conversation about the issues in regional and remote areas; they feel very disadvantaged in comparison to urban areas, and the issues / needs vary.

DISCUSSION LEADER: Teresa Crea

DISCUSSION GROUP:
Lisa Havilah, Jenny Fraser, Christian (Bong) Ramilo, Andrew Garton, Owen Leong 

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1.The question assumes that experimental practice does not relate to cultural diversity. The discussion group felt it was necessary to foreground cultural diversity as part of the very definition of experimental arts. This would encourage culturally diverse artists to participate and have more access to experimental arts.

2.There was a large discussion around the issues of cultural protocols, the context and the numerous speaking positions that artists take within the area of cultural diversity. It was important that these
protocols and appropriate permissions be adopted when working in this way.

3.Cultural diversity for the group was fluidly represented by a shifting spectrum of intercultural, intracultural, cross-cultural, sub-cultures, and ‘many tribes’.

4.The practice of cultural diversity is often boxed-in or ‘siloed’ such that it doesn’t move out of community cultural development and other community practices. This effect can be generated by the
individual or the institution. There is a need to create pathways into experimental practice from both directions.

5.Experimental art practice can be a space to challenge and explore contemporary expressions of cultural diversity and identity. Experimental cross-cultural practice can be represented by small shifts in traditional practice as much as dangerous, provocative and culturally disruptive practice.

6.There is a need for expertise in cultural diversity and this can be ensured through better representation at forums and arts assesment panels. For example greater inclusion of individual practitioners, groups, and organisations working with cultural diversity and experimental practice such
as Kultour, 4A, Curious Works, ICE, Shopfront.

Discussion Leader: Phillip Adams

We associate as much as we can with what is happening globally how and when we can. Experimental arts is and can break down the cultural cringe. Australia is well represented internationally and we have powerful presence to our external approach. We pin point cultural movements globally that we linked into. What we learn from the global market is in our attendance and how we interact with it.

The festival models

We are carving our identity on the global landscape by delivering our own versions of the festival and often as do it your self methods. This is an engaging presence unto itself.

How do we curate experimental art and how is it fitting in with the major festivals.

We need new things to add to the Festival model to claim an experimental space under as alternative offerings of exposure.

If we frame the contexts of the festival as experiment then the business models don’t support it.

The exclusivity in major festivals is sometimes in the hands and or driven by high flyer sponsors.

We have leaned that its ok to have a festival just about one thing such as Dance Massive. So what not one on Experimental arts?

Example:We would propose a touring model where a whole punch of works that don’t fit are presented as a whole in the context of a programming or festival.

We also note that there is a diversity of younger festival directors putting experimentation to context.

What grew out at grass roots level by Salamanca Theatre and into the hands of David Walsh and the curatorial staff of MONA FOMA and now DARK MOFO which is embracing all these things experimental that we are talking about and by golly it works. No fear what so ever.

One thing we need to understand is that to sustain our practice be need to reduce expectations. We should not expect too much and we will get more.

The residency model

The residency model is very sexy its a key to the future of experimental arts sustainability. Bundanon is a fine example of this in our own community.

We don’t have the luxury here in Australia to the same extent as the EU. It’s a brilliant way to support experimentation……there is no pressure of outcomes but only to be invited back to present your new work into a network of programming support that you created in residency.

The EU model

There are organisations in the framework of EU arts that are dedicated to expanding on one theme. They work on one theme that has many approaches such as FOAM. There obsessive practise is in the field of Plants and the relationship interaction with science communities nature and other disciplines. In doing this they attract many followers and have multiple visions and version of performance structures and hybrid networks are also open for them because of the nature of the theme including alternative funding possibilities.

They don’t have to justify their work to the extent that we do.

Global funding models

Funding models have changed in the EU and so experimentation is taking up where more traditional arts was once the dominant. Experimentation is now the new platform of shifting paradigms and conversations around arts in the global context because if this.

As for the USA philanthropy is till remains the best feature of the way. But we are certainly learning from this model of philanthropy and encouraging to now so.

Institutions

There is one such model when a faculty developing a new technical project always has an artist involved in the process, there is room to borrow from this trend across many institutions.

The notion of experimentation input at this level of engagement can have longevity over the life span run up to 10 years and the achieve of this as many iterations and histories.

We are still to establish what is the natural venue natural space as the hybrid studio space/lab models that has no expected outcomes. Who can do this? Can Orgs support this?

Arts Centres are not our best friend. If we are not invite to the party then we need to make known our interest and investment We like the idea of art centres that can become a hive of after dark activate that is common in the EU networks.

Support

What we are perhaps leaning here is that we have a whole cultural context of the history of artists and are we trying to find a framework here in Australia to recognise that and support it at government level.

Our collective comes back to the word TRUST more then ever….. We love the Myer fellowship that allows the artist freedom… can experimental OZCO structures allow this on the ground support?

One thing we are yet to ending is that the government does acknowledge/ understands that the artists need spaces and set up community to support them both housing and creative living in the same environment.

Discussion Leader: Emily Sexton

1) “Have a conversation about criteria, that we make the criteria explicit”
2) Evaluator as collaborator

3) Ranking or weight going to give to criteria

4) With this work and processes need to borrow from other fields
5) How do you evaluate failure?

6) Evaluation kinds:
Review – on the fly
Critique – in journals and publications
Acquittal – self-assessment
Judgement – for prizes
Judgement of funding bodies – peer bodies

7) The “when” of evaluation – during the process or during the delivery are audiences involved?
8) Who’s involved and what’s the power relationship between them

Resourcing evaluators and critics and training them
=> Embedded writers: “This is happening right now”

Jason Nelson: Leader
Caroline Farmer: Recorder

Risk = failure, it didn’t work, from the artist’s perspective
Risk = people don’t get it

Risk = OH&S
·Institutions want an exhibitable outcome
·Fostering blue sky thinking – with no expectation of results
·Funding models aren’t geared to support this kind of process, questioning, research based way of working, and idea that needs to be tried but might not work
·Bureaucratic aversions to risk – OH&S, public liability – (big) institutions, local government
·Flying under the radar to avoid red tape is sometimes the only way to present a project
·13 Rooms – the work is diminished by the OH&S overlay on what performers can do
·How can we turn the idea of ‘risk’ (negative) into ‘edgy’ (positive)

·Artists as product generators for particular markets

·Festival of Dangerous ideas – provides a ‘safe’ context for taking or presenting risk – provides a legitimacy that acts as a mediating context

·The risk for the funding body when funding work that is subversive and questioning government policy – eg ‘escape from woomera’

·Finding a community (audience) that will take the risk with you as an artist or company

·Field Theory – crowd funding projects – the audience pays for the development of the work

·Do some communities take more risks than others – eg gay/queer community –risk is relative

·The APT as an example of an institution developing a program that enables/encourages audiences to take a risk·How do we become fearless around experimentation?

·There is no room for failure in a commissioned artwork – this is unrealistic, a commissioning body needs to understand that things will inevitably change during the process of developing the work

·Does the speed of process make a difference – is there more risk when the process is fast from idea to execution – sometimes innovation happens very quickly – I have an idea let’s try this right now

·How do we create support structures for these fast, responsive processes to happen?  Mentoring and workshop based programs can provide this support

·Risk needs to shared by the artist, producer, presenter – but does this limit what projects will get up? – if artists can’t get projects funded without the endorsement of an institution or curator

·A proposition in a box – the gift

·Institutions lobbying local government to change some of the OH&S and public liability barriers to presenting more ‘risky’ work – sometimes the policies have parameters that are too broad and take in events or projects that aren’t ‘risky’

·Australia Council to have staff that provide advice on how to address risk

·Salamanca Arts Centre – ‘the art of risk and challenge’ – focus on the solutions on behalf of the artist

·Encourage courageous leadership – advocates and champions that mediate the relationship between the artist and the public or the institutions – brokers and mediators and translators

·National Arts Day – White Night was like a state art day

·Carnivale – license to be wild·Primetime television coverage of the arts – the riskier and more ‘out there’ the art is the more likely it is to get media coverage·Where and what is the cultural risk

·Experimental art practice is located in the risk space in culture

·Australia Council – give artists space on their website to do whatever they like

·Action research projects need to be supported

·BEAP works – a grant for play and experimentation – but there was an expectation that it would lead to a work for exhibiting in BEAP