Skip to main content

Effec­tive strate­gies for retain­ing the artist-led as a vital ingre­di­ent in social and arts well-being in future involves artists seek­ing out allies and syn­er­gies beyond the restric­tive hier­ar­chies of the con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts. 

Action by groups of artists dri­ven by col­lec­tive artis­tic aspi­ra­tions has punc­tu­at­ed the con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts land­scape over the last fifty years. Through joint — some­times alter­na­tive’ – ven­tures, artists’ prac­tice-dri­ven inter­ests have pro­vid­ed ded­i­cat­ed means for test­ing and extend­ing the scope for inter­ac­tion with artis­tic col­lab­o­ra­tors and com­mu­ni­ties of inter­est, includ­ing with spec­ta­tors for and buy­ers of con­tem­po­rary art. Artists’ ini­tia­tives raise sta­tus and expand remit through such engage­ments, while also con­tribut­ing to widen­ing under­stand­ing of the artist’s role in soci­ety. Although out­comes dif­fer in form and inten­tion, the com­mon­al­i­ty between such artists’ group­ings is per­sis­tent com­mit­ment to work­ing through the process­es of mak­ing art, forg­ing pro­duc­tive rela­tion­ships with oth­ers and desire to ampli­fy engage­ments with their imme­di­ate con­stituen­cy as well as with broad­er com­mu­ni­ties and soci­ety. Prod­ucts of artist-led ini­tia­tives range from works by indi­vid­ual artists pre­sent­ed col­lec­tive­ly in exhi­bi­tion or site-spe­cif­ic for­mat to col­lab­o­ra­tive art works and man­i­fes­ta­tions in which the artists’ social engage­ment with oth­er peo­ple is core. As part of the financ­ing of the lat­ter, artist-led ini­tia­tives iter­a­tive­ly define suit­able organ­i­sa­tion­al and busi­ness’ mod­els for their par­tic­u­lar cir­cum­stances. In these artist-led spheres of oper­a­tion, social and eco­nom­ic ben­e­fits to artists accrue over time and con­tribute to sus­tain­ing their art prac­tices and liveli­hoods over a life-cycle. 

In the arts as regen­er­a­tion’ era since the 80s, artist-led ven­tures have been key con­trib­u­tors to build­ing the UK’s cul­tur­al iden­ti­ty and con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts infra­struc­tures. London’s now renowned con­cen­tra­tion of artists’ stu­dios began in the 60s when groups of artists took over St Catherine’s Wharf. It con­tin­ued steadi­ly through the ener­gies lat­er of artists’ ini­tia­tives Acme and SPACE, in effect gen­tri­fy­ing run-down areas of the cap­i­tal and pro­vid­ing a mod­el lat­er emu­lat­ed by oth­er cities. These organ­i­cal­ly-grown ven­tures suit­ed arts fun­ders who cher­ry picked and talked-up the aspects of the artist-led which are more palat­able to, and mea­sur­able by, eco­nom­ics-based arts devel­op­ment yard­sticks and are more eas­i­ly cross-ref­er­enced to exist­ing tra­di­tion­al insti­tu­tion­al infrastructures.

Brighton, Par­ry and Pearson’s sem­i­nal 1985 explo­ration of artists’ eco­nom­ic sta­tus locat­ed their propo­si­tions for improve­ment firm­ly with­in the tra­di­tion­al gallery and art mar­ket sys­tems. Greater sup­port by fun­ders for artist-led organ­i­sa­tions includ­ing gal­leries and group stu­dios to medi­ate their own rep­u­ta­tions direct­ly with the pub­lic’ was jus­ti­fied because this con­tributed to pre­serv­ing dom­i­nant art mar­ket and art world pat­terns. The Nation­al Lottery’s mas­sive new income streams for the arts from 1994 promised to trans­form the cul­tur­al land­scape and pro­vide greater lev­els of sup­port for artists work­ing in the pub­lic realm, includ­ing by putting more pub­lic fund­ing to the artist-led.(1)

The lottery’s Art for Every­one strand gave £100,000 (equiv­a­lent to £213,000 nowa­days) to MART artists’ ini­tia­tive for month-long, city-wide fes­ti­val of visu­al art made in Man­ches­ter’. At the turn of the Mil­len­ni­um, Williams’ analy­sis likened post-indus­tri­al Man­ches­ter to 60s New York, with plen­ty of slack in the sys­tem’ includ­ing an abun­dance of cheap live and work space for emerg­ing artists and artist-led ini­tia­tives to appro­pri­ate. MART’s eight-strong organ­is­ing group that brought togeth­er inde­pen­dent artists with oth­ers from the city’s stu­dios includ­ing SIG­MA, Man­ches­ter Artists Stu­dio Asso­ci­a­tion, Rogue and Bank­ley Stu­dios argued that the low pro­file of visu­al artists was a cul­tur­al gap’ that need­ed fill­ing in a city already renowned for per­form­ing and media arts, sci­ence and sports. Unlike the 1995 – 96 mul­ti-site exhi­bi­tion British Art Show 4’ that pre­ced­ed it and that relied on incom­ing artists, MART’s projects and exhi­bi­tions were explic­it­ly home-grown. More specif­i­cal­ly MART intend­ed to reveal the sheer strength and diver­si­ty of artis­tic prac­tice…. and make the work of Manchester’s visu­al artists vis­i­ble and avail­able to all’. 

Notably, MART’s over­ar­ch­ing ambi­tion to cre­ate tem­po­rary man­i­fes­ta­tion that would catal­yse a sus­tain­able net­work of prac­ti­tion­ers and act as a depar­ture point for col­lab­o­ra­tion on future city-wide fes­ti­vals with the estab­lished art insti­tu­tions such as Cor­ner­house (now HOME) and Man­ches­ter City Art Gallery on equal terms remained unre­alised. The cohort of new­ly-grad­u­at­ed pho­tog­ra­phers who in the same peri­od ini­ti­at­ed the New Expo­sures’ fes­ti­val in sev­en­teen tra­di­tion­al and ad hoc spaces were how­ev­er more suc­cess­ful in cre­at­ing lega­cy. The aspi­ra­tion to sup­port and retain prac­ti­tion­ers in the region beyond grad­u­a­tion was lat­er realised through Red­eye, the pro­fes­sion­al net­work and a mem­ber­ship body for pho­tog­ra­phers now in receipt of reg­u­lar fund­ing from Arts Coun­cil Eng­land. Such exam­ples illus­trate Wright’s asser­tion that the con­nec­tive tis­sue sus­tain­ing artists’ ini­tia­tives is the strong friend­ship born out of the cama­raderie of stu­dent life.

Arguably, infor­mal­i­ty and tem­po­ral­i­ty are vital char­ac­ter­is­tics of col­lec­tive­ly-realised ini­tia­tives where retain­ing artis­tic integri­ty and flu­id modus operan­di are prime dri­vers. TEA – a col­lab­o­ra­tion between four new grad­u­ate artists in late 80s Man­ches­ter took the nov­el approach of estab­lish­ing each process- and place-based inves­ti­ga­tion as a tem­po­rary insti­tu­tion’ that encom­passed the inter­ests of all col­lab­o­ra­tors. The uni­fy­ing brand’ was a prac­tice-led, col­lab­o­ra­tive research method­ol­o­gy with metic­u­lous plan­ning struc­tures indi­vid­u­alised frames of ref­er­ence and tar­get­ed pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion mech­a­nisms. This strat­e­gy enabled TEA to gain the equiv­a­lent of £123,000 nowa­days in pub­lic fund­ing while avoid­ing the damp­en­ing impacts of adopt­ing a tra­di­tion­al, char­i­ta­ble organ­i­sa­tion­al struc­ture. The suc­cess of these artists-led tem­po­rary ven­tures led some of the (then) region­al arts boards in Eng­land to solic­it ideas from groups of artists for Region­al Arts Lot­tery Pro­gramme (RALP) fund­ing. As exam­ple, North West Arts Board’s Work­ing with Artists Fran­chise Scheme from 2000 report­ed on by Stan­ley offered three-year fund­ing of up to £100,000 a year to artists’ ini­tia­tives, with deci­sions notably made on qual­i­ty of work rather than instru­men­tal value.

These exam­ples demon­strate how fund­ing inter­ven­tions cap­ture and appro­pri­ate the artist-led as means of ratio­nal­is­ing what artists can do for arts pol­i­cy ends. Fun­ders ben­e­fit from being part of the fris­son an alter­na­tive label’ brings, while they anchor and con­fine the scope and gran­u­lar­i­ty of the artist-led back into the insti­tu­tion­alised prac­tices they like best. An exam­ple is the argu­ment for greater sup­port of artist-led ini­tia­tives that emerged from Mor­ris, Har­g­reaves and McIntyre’s 2004 study of the mar­kets for art. In what was dubbed as a gold­en age’ for the arts with mas­sive expan­sion of the phys­i­cal infra­struc­ture for the arts, a Labour gov­ern­ment increased grant-in-aid to the Arts Coun­cil by 70%. Expand­ing mar­kets for art beyond Lon­don in cities with vir­tu­al­ly no infra­struc­ture for sell­ing crit­i­cal­ly engaged, inno­v­a­tive, con­tem­po­rary art became a holy grail for arts pol­i­cy­mak­ers. On eco­nom­ic arts pol­i­cy grounds, artist-led gal­leries, open stu­dios, art fairs and fes­ti­vals were val­ued as prime vehi­cles for access­ing the £515m in retail sales of con­tem­po­rary or cut­ting edge’ art. Widen­ing access to this untapped income source would have the effect of bring­ing on’ emerg­ing tal­ent with­out upset­ting the fine bal­ance of the com­mer­cial art gallery sub­scrip­tion mod­el eschewed by arts pol­i­cy. The effect of this gate­keep­er mech­a­nism which arbi­trates between art’ and dec­o­ra­tion’ oth­er­wise dis­cour­ages artists from sell­ing to unau­then­ti­cat­ed buy­ers. (2)

Mor­ris, Har­g­reaves and McIntyre’s Art Eco-Sys­tem Mod­el demon­strates that select­ed artist-led gal­leries might be wor­thy can­di­dates of pub­lic fund­ing in recog­ni­tion of their dis­crete role in this respect. Moves on con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts cours­es to encour­age under­grad­u­ate stu­dents to form groups and work col­lab­o­ra­tive­ly, as iden­ti­fied by Rowles’ 2013 study could sim­i­lar­ly be con­strued as an eco­nom­ics-led solu­tion by demon­strat­ing the employ­a­bil­i­ty’ and career devel­op­ment aris­ing from high­er edu­ca­tion cours­es. In the same vein, Man­ches­ter School of Art active­ly sup­port­ed stu­dents on grad­u­a­tion to form the DIY Art School as a peer net­work and fourth year’ of their course.

Art Eco-System model, Morris, Hargreaves and McIntyre, 2004

While play­ing to the blunt instru­men­tal­i­ty of an eco­nom­ic art mod­el, these neat delin­eations of the scope, pur­pose and impacts of artist-led prac­tices belie a het­ero­gene­ity of social ben­e­fits. My 1995 study of 300 artist-led groups demon­strat­ed val­ue cre­at­ed in var­i­ous ways, whether diver­gent from or syn­er­gous with arts pol­i­cy imper­a­tives of the day. The major­i­ty pro­vid­ed groups of artists with the means of pro­duc­tion’ in the form of col­lec­tive work­shop and stu­dio space and joint mar­ket­ing ini­tia­tives as prac­ti­cal sup­port to artists’ indi­vid­ual prac­tices and liveli­hoods. In just under a third how­ev­er, artists’ indi­vid­u­alised aspi­ra­tions for art prac­tices were super­seded by forg­ing col­lab­o­ra­tions premised on wider social activism and engage­ment. As exam­ple, Lon­don-based Platform’s inter­dis­ci­pli­nary work was dri­ven by eco­log­i­cal and social imper­a­tives. This alliance of video and per­for­mance artists, musi­cians, engi­neers, social his­to­ri­ans and green econ­o­mists lat­er became renowned for the Art­wash cam­paign that suc­cess­ful­ly stopped BP spon­sor­ship of the arts. 

Although these diver­gent types of artist-led ven­ture bring nuanced val­ues to artists’ pur­suit of art prac­tices over a life-cycle, the ten­den­cy of fun­ders in the UK’s ultra neo-lib­er­al­ist arts econ­o­my mod­el is to give pref­er­ence to pub­lic-fac­ing ven­tures with read­i­ly mea­sur­able out­comes’ such as earned or phil­an­thropic income and audi­ence vol­ume. Reanaly­sis of my own study data high­lights the base­line dis­junc­tion between the intrin­sic val­ues that under­pin and sus­tain artists and artist-led prac­tices and arts policy’s instru­men­talised measurements. 

Reanaly­sis of 1995 data set.

As Adams and God­bard con­clud­ed, fun­ders’ pref­er­ence is to deal with organ­i­sa­tions which look and act like they do, includ­ing speak­ing their lan­guage. Grant-givers tend to be organ­i­sa­tion­al tech­nocrats… treat­ing man­age­ment struc­tures and tech­niques as handy, val­ue-neu­tral tools for mak­ing things hap­pen.… [judg­ing the] board-led struc­ture [as] the best tool for get­ting just about any job done’. The artist-led in arts pol­i­cy dis­junc­tion is colour-illus­trat­ed by the fund­ing deci­sions made by Arts Coun­cil Eng­land 2010 when faced with sub­stan­tial cuts to gov­ern­ment grant-in-aid. Louise’s analy­sis revealed that axing six­teen small-scale, artist-led organ­i­sa­tions includ­ing pro­duc­tion facil­i­ties, artist res­i­den­cy providers and mem­ber­ship groups affect­ed the art prac­tices and liveli­hoods of almost 6,700 visu­al artists. When push came to fund­ing shove, these artist-cen­tred ven­tures were judged of far less­er impor­tance than the front­line’ insti­tu­tions who inter­face face-to-face with, and derive eco­nom­ic ben­e­fit from the public. 

Many of the forty-sev­en organ­i­sa­tions cat­e­gorised and fund­ed by ACE as artist-led’ since 2018 as Nation­al Port­fo­lio Organ­i­sa­tions (NPOs) are per­ma­nent, build­ing-based char­i­ta­ble organ­i­sa­tions. As prag­mat­ic move to keep artists’ diver­gent artis­tic imper­a­tives in the game’, such artist-led groups are unwit­ting sup­port­ers of a biased and unfair art sys­tem for artists. Research by Thel­wall and by De Mynn both pro­posed how insid­er’ small-scale and artist-led organ­i­sa­tions might use their influ­ence with fun­ders as lever­age to change an imper­fect sys­tem for the bet­ter from with­in. They could col­lect evi­dence and advo­cate wher­ev­er they could for their alter­na­tive’ organ­i­sa­tion­al approach­es, as mech­a­nisms for cap­tur­ing artists’ unseen out­puts’, as vital diver­gent con­tri­bu­tions to soci­ety. How­ev­er once in the reg­u­lar­ly-fund­ed’ are­na, small­er and artist-led organ­i­sa­tions can inad­ver­tent­ly become com­plic­it in the rules’ of con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts that sti­fle dis­sent and keep most artists in their place’, at the bot­tom of the arts food chain. They con­done the inequal­i­ties of the medi­at­ing and gate­keep­ing pro­to­cols that char­ac­terise the work­ings of the con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts, includ­ing accept­ing unfair treat­ment of artists through poor pay and con­di­tions, lack of mer­i­toc­ra­cy and creep­ing lev­els of pref­er­ence for the rec­om­men­da­tion route over open sub­mis­sion. The price of reli­able fund­ing for these organ­i­sa­tions is hav­ing their ideas pinned down and cat­e­gorised, only account­ed for when out­comes are eas­i­ly mea­sur­able, all require­ments that may dis­tract from what sup­port­ing artists’ prac­tices is real­ly about. But in any case, fund­ing to this aspect of con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts is minor as only 11% (or £4.8m over a 4‑year peri­od) of ACE’s entire visu­al arts NPO bud­get goes to reg­u­lar­ly-fund­ed artist-led organisations.

In such con­texts and as Nichol observed, the gap between artists’ and fun­ders’ needs and inten­tions nib­bles away at the rig­or of artists’ prac­tice-focused ethos. Being fund­ed serves to endorse and encour­age only cer­tain aspects of artists’ activ­i­ty. Unhealthy lev­els of exclu­siv­i­ty and pre­cious­ness are unin­tend­ed con­se­quences of being lead in fund­ing-focused direc­tions. Encour­ag­ing prac­tice-led organ­i­sa­tions to adopt the bureau­crat­ic struc­tures of big­ger organ­i­sa­tions is restric­tive of ad hoc and alter­na­tive, cre­ative approach­es to achiev­ing artis­tic ends. Serv­ing the dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives and expec­ta­tions of fun­ders and board mem­bers is a time-con­sum­ing dis­trac­tion to main­tain­ing core prin­ci­ples. In short, Mak­ing a com­mod­i­ty of prac­tice-led activ­i­ty … impacts on artists by alter­ing the nature of their activ­i­ty or [sus­tain­ing poor] con­di­tions’. Goodman’s sto­ry encap­su­lates what artists can’t talk about, and how this con­dones unhealthy con­di­tions and rela­tion­ships in con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts. Although feel­ing fuck­ing pissed off’ at los­ing the space the group had invest­ed in over time at short notice, his emo­tion­al pre­car­i­ty was auto­mat­i­cal­ly reframed into the pos­i­tive lan­guage char­ac­ter­is­tic of art world resilience. Adopt­ing the talk­ing up’ that per­vades arts com­mu­ni­ca­tions, he fell into per­form­ing the role’ the art world expect­ed of him. In real­i­ty he felt kicked in the teeth’ but his exter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­tions belied it. In trans­la­tion, the artists were instead excit­ed for what is next’, rel­ish­ing the oppor­tu­ni­ty to reflect on what we want to do and build some­thing better’.

In terms of iden­ti­fy­ing a more sub­stan­tial, influ­en­tial posi­tion in the arts ecol­o­gy in future, artist-led groups might take a lead­ing advo­ca­cy role to pol­i­cy­mak­ers by gen­er­at­ing a stream of evi­dence about artists’ social con­di­tions and the nuanced impacts of their prac­tices on soci­ety. Despite being locat­ed in the low­est tier of the Arts Council’s NPO hier­ar­chy, fund­ed artist-led organ­i­sa­tions have oppor­tu­ni­ty through reg­u­lar com­mu­ni­ca­tion and report­ing to ensure ACE is aware arts policy’s pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive impacts on all artists’ abil­i­ty to sus­tain prac­tices over a life-cycle. Although it is com­mon­place in oth­er coun­tries and nations for artists’ rep­re­sen­ta­tive bod­ies to take this strate­gic advo­ca­cy role, attempts to sus­tain a cred­i­ble tra­di­tion­al artists’ mem­ber­ship body in Eng­land have con­sis­tent­ly failed to gain pop­u­lar support.(3)

As redress and as invi­tees to pol­i­cy-mak­ing fora, NPO artists’ organ­i­sa­tions could take respon­si­bil­i­ty for bring­ing insights and expe­ri­ences of the wider artists’ com­mu­ni­ty into var­i­ous fora where deci­sions that affects artists’ social sta­tus are made. How­ev­er even if they did chose to pur­sue this greater good’ remit, NPO report­ing arrange­ments restrict oppor­tu­ni­ty for col­lect­ing such nuance of evi­dence and depth of advo­ca­cy. Rather than artic­u­lat­ing val­ues and out­comes aris­ing from the dis­tinc­tive and nuanced role of the artist-led in enabling artists’ prac­tices and liveli­hoods, NPO terms of ref­er­ence are mech­a­nis­tic, focus­ing pre­dom­i­nant­ly on mea­sur­ing pub­lic-fac­ing impacts such as audi­ence vol­umes and demographic. 

Overt­ly social activist artist-led group such as Plat­form were able to attract grant-aid in the past from a region­al arts board for work that was inher­ent­ly polit­i­cal­ly awk­ward. In the ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive, risk-adverse envi­ron­ment for the arts today, micro and prac­tice-led ini­tia­tives ded­i­cat­ed to pro­gress­ing unam­bigu­ous cri­tique of the sta­tus quo are far less like­ly to be seen’ or to gain access to short or longer-term pub­lic fund­ing. The sit­u­at­ed prac­tices and ener­gies of artists’ ini­tia­tives at the turn of this cen­tu­ry played a sig­nif­i­cant role in reimag­in­ing post-indus­tri­al Man­ches­ter as the cre­ative and cul­tur­al hub it now is. My own def­i­n­i­tion for sit­u­at­ed prac­tices in this respect is those that are con­ceived, devel­oped and mod­i­fied by artists over time in rela­tion to artis­tic ambi­tions which encom­pass their per­son­alised cir­cum­stances includ­ing where they live and fam­i­ly con­texts. With the notable excep­tion of Castle­field Gallery, artist-led ven­tures in Man­ches­ter get scant sup­port from the arts infra­struc­ture to remain or set up there nowa­days. The artists’ stu­dios piv­otal to MART’s crit­i­cal edge and cul­tur­al rel­e­vance have since been allowed to close or forced to migrate to the periph­ery. Rather than on strate­gi­cal­ly nur­tur­ing the indige­nous artists’ com­mu­ni­ty, the high sta­tus enjoyed by the city’s top tier’, large-scale NPO arts insti­tu­tions rests nowa­days on their suc­cess in import­ing inter­na­tion­al­ly-accred­it­ed talent. 

I’d argue that locat­ing effec­tive strate­gies for retain­ing the artist-led as a vital ingre­di­ent in social and arts well-being in future involves artists seek­ing out allies and syn­er­gies far beyond the restric­tive, dis­em­pow­er­ing hier­ar­chies for con­tem­po­rary visu­al arts. Whether tran­sient or sus­tained, frame­works and kin­dred spir­its most wel­com­ing and sup­port­ive of artists are more like­ly to be found close to where they reside. Hyper-local ini­tia­tives exem­pli­fy the rich­ness and resilience of embed­ding social­ly-engaged and place-based artist-led inter­ven­tions and col­lab­o­ra­tions into spe­cif­ic com­mu­ni­ties. Deveron Arts in Hunt­ly, Scot­land has used the town and 4,500 pop­u­la­tion as resource and venue over the last twen­ty-five years. Artists of all dis­ci­plines come from around the world to live and work there, using super­mar­kets, streets, church­es, garages and both­ies around and about as stu­dios and sites. In a sim­i­lar vein, artist-led In-Situ’s vision is to allow art to be a part of the every­day life’. Ambi­tions are to fos­ter resilience and inno­va­tion across their Pen­dle com­mu­ni­ty, so all peo­ple speak and act with con­fi­dence’ and are active­ly engaged in their cul­tur­al futures. 

More lat­er­al­ly, clues about struc­tur­al reme­dies to artists’ inte­gra­tion in social change that enable artists as cit­i­zens to be both seen and heard are emerg­ing from artists’ direct inter­ven­tions into localised pol­i­cy-mak­ing. Preston’s Brew­time Col­lec­tive is inte­gral in devel­op­ing the city’s 12-year cul­tur­al pol­i­cy, this with­in the artists’ over­all ambi­tion to cre­ate a sea-change that embeds cul­tur­al expe­ri­ences in the lives and expec­ta­tions of all the peo­ple’. In the new May­oral con­stituen­cy of West York­shire artists are promi­nent, their voic­es heard loud and clear. There, the strate­gic process­es and con­sul­ta­tions ema­nat­ing from Same Skies Think Tank are devel­op­ing new, sit­u­at­ed arts and cul­tur­al pol­i­cy from the bot­tom-up’. These few top­i­cal exam­ples are part of a bur­geon­ing of pro­gres­sive actions by and with artists. They are indi­ca­tors of the con­di­tions enabling artists to be both seen and heard, and could – at long last — achieve Redcliffe-Maud’s 1976 aspi­ra­tion for arts pol­i­cy mea­sures that are tru­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the con­stituen­cies they serve by foster[ing] indi­vid­ual cre­ativ­i­ty and … bring[ing] the results [of that] before the public’.

Com­mis­sioned and first pub­lished by Sluice, 2021, this text draws on the author’s stud­ies Refresh­ing alter­na­tives (1995) and Mea­sur­ing the expe­ri­ence: the scope and val­ue of artist-led organ­i­sa­tions (1996).


(1) Sup­port to artists as a key aim for Nation­al Lot­tery fund­ing is stat­ed for exam­ple in Pub­lic Art in the North – a strate­gic approach to pub­lic art and lot­tery fund­ing, North­ern Arts Board paper, 1995.

(2) Mor­ris, Har­g­reaves and McIntyre’s study iden­ti­fied mech­a­nisms for, and bar­ri­ers to, access­ing an untapped £354.5m mar­ket from sales in the tra­di­tion­al gallery-based art world and £515.5m from work sold through non-legit­imised’ chan­nels includ­ing art fairs, shops and studios.

(3) Reportage of this Plat­form cam­paign is at‑publications/artwash-big-oil-arts/


Adams, D, and Gold­bard, A. (1992) Organ­is­ing Artists: a doc­u­ment and direc­to­ry of the nation­al asso­ci­a­tion of artists’ organ­i­sa­tions, Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion of Artists’ Organ­i­sa­tions, USA.

Brew­time Col­lec­tive https://​some​things​brew​ing​.org​.uk/​b​r​e​w​time/ [Accessed 3rd March, 2021

Brighton, A., Par­ry J. and Pear­son N. M. (1985) Enquiry into the Eco­nom­ic Sit­u­a­tion of the Visu­al Artist. Lon­don: Calouste Gul­benkian Foundation. 

De Mynn, R. (2016) Artist Devel­op­ment at Castle­field Gallery: Pol­i­cy Change through the Counterpublic? Man­ches­ter: Castle­field Gallery Publications.

DIY in Man­ches­ter, a‑n The Artists Infor­ma­tion Com­pa­ny, 2013 https://www.a‑,social%20experiment%2Fart%20club [Accessed 3rd March, 2021

Good­man, D. (2020) What we don’t can’t talk about when we talk about the artist-led, Jan­u­ary 2020 https://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​q​T​t​L​z​A​2cQtI [Accessed 3rd March, 2021

Jones, S. (2019) Artists liveli­hoods: the artists in arts pol­i­cy conun­drum, PhD the­sis Man­ches­ter Met­ro­pol­i­tan Uni­ver­si­ty, 2019. http://e‑

Jones, S., Art in every­day life, Arts Pro­fes­sion­al, 2015 https://​www​.art​spro​fes​sion​al​.co​.uk/​m​a​g​a​z​i​n​e​/​285​/​c​a​s​e​-​s​t​u​d​y​/​a​r​t​-​e​v​e​r​y​d​a​y​-life [Accessed 3rd March, 2021

Louise, D. (2011) Lad­ders for devel­op­ment: a‑n Research paper. New­cas­tle: a‑n The Artists Infor­ma­tion Company.

Mart 1999, The Mart Group Appli­ca­tion March 1998 and MART Net­work: A fes­ti­val of visu­al art made in Man­ches­ter. Project Eval­u­a­tion.

Mor­ris, G, Har­g­reaves, J, and McIn­tyre, A. (2004) Taste Buds: How to cul­ti­vate the art mar­ket. Exec­u­tive Sum­ma­ry. Lon­don: Arts Coun­cil England. 

Stan­ley, M. The mid-life cri­sis and artist-led ini­tia­tives’, a‑n Mag­a­zine, June 2000.

Glinkows­ki, P. (2010) Putting Artists in the Pic­ture: Locat­ing visu­al artists in Eng­lish arts pol­i­cy and in the evi­dence-base that informs it. PhD the­sis, Uni­ver­si­ty of Surrey. 

Nichol G. Intro­duc­tion, Mind the gap, a‑n The Artists Infor­ma­tion Com­pa­ny, July 2003 https://www.a‑‑1/

Rowles, S. (2013) Lay of the land, a‑n The Artists Infor­ma­tion Com­pa­ny, https://static.a‑ [Accessed 3rd March, 2021

Same Skies Think Tank https://​sameski​es​think​tank​.com/

Stan­ley, M. The mid-life cri­sis and artist-led ini­tia­tives’, a‑n Mag­a­zine, June 2000.

Thel­wall, S. (2011) Size Mat­ters Size Mat­ters: Notes towards a Bet­ter Under­stand­ing of the Val­ue, Oper­a­tion and Poten­tial of Small Visu­al Arts Organ­i­sa­tions. Lon­don: Com­mon Practice.

Williams, R. J. (2001) Any­thing is Pos­si­ble – The Annu­al Pro­gramme 19952000’ in Life is Good in Man­ches­ter: the Annu­al Pro­gramme 1995 – 2000, Ed S. Gren­nan, Trice Publications. 

Wright, J. (2019) The Ecol­o­gy of Cul­tur­al Space: Towards an Under­stand­ing of the Con­tem­po­rary Artist-led Col­lec­tive, PhD the­sis, Uni­ver­si­ty of Leeds.