Bloque de organización para la ejecución cíclica del programa (OB 1)

Inevitably, this account, which is based on a study of a relatively short and very recent period in FACT’s history, is specific to its time and does not benefit from the hindsight that a historical perspec- tive would offer. Additionally, the intense practical involvement in the institution and the double role – of a researcher and co-curator at FACT – that the collaborative aspect of this research project activated, further complicated the possibility of establishing a position of critical distance. Being and insider and outsider at the same time resulted in difficult decisions about which aspects of casual discussions with my colleagues could be revealed and which needed to stay in the institutional corridors. It also raised the question as to whether I had become too familiar with the environment under examination and, as such, whether there are certain assumptions that I have taken on board as a result of being immersed in the culture of the organisation.

Despite the inevitable risks of becoming too close to the subject of study that being immersed in the environment under examination brings, the practical involvement in FACT’s operations provided an unprecedented access to the organisation in a crucial period in the institution’s history. The time- frame of this study begins with the launch of the AND festival – which was an enormous experiment and a significant risk, artistic and organisational, that FACT undertook – and ends with the Turning FACT Inside Out exhibition, which celebrated the 10th anniversary of FACT building and as such was a catalyst for the process of institutional self-reflection. Being involved in both the initial AND festival (as co-curator of Wodiczko War Veteran Vehicle) and later for over three years in the making of Turn- ing FACT Inside Out meant that I was at the very centre of this institutional experiment and I was able to closely observe the changes that FACT went through as a result.

Indeed, even in this relatively short period of time, which this study focused on, FACT has changed significantly. The iconic project Tenantspin, which shaped and co-defined FACT’s identity, has come to an end. The AND festival, which was at the very centre of FACT’s activities when I came to FACT,

became much more independent and has now formed as a separate entity, just having gained – at the time of writing – its own National Portfolio Organisation status. The structure of FACT went through significant changes as well: the team became much smaller and FACT went from having two curators and a Head of Programme working there at the beginning of my research to having nobody with a curatorial job title. Four years turned out to be a very long time in such dynamically changing environment, so the picture of FACT, emerging from this study, is already part of its history. It is a snapshot of an institution which is in a process of constant change.

The study builds a multi-layered picture of the workings of the art institution and what is involved in the process of cultural production and management. Based on the study of FACT, art institutions emerge as very complex ecologies of artists, creative producers, communities and audiences as well as funders and other stakeholders, whose different expectations institutions need to respond to and negotiate. Institutions also emerge as organistions of contingent practices where a variety of factors such as available funding and associated agendas, pressures of performance indicators, as well as very pragmatic circumstances such as technical feasibility are all significant factors affecting the way institutions operate, structure their programme and communicate it to the public.

The findings of this study have implications for other researchers seeking to examine art institutions and curatorial practice. Revealing the complexity and contingency of institutional operations, this research highlights the importance of looking behind the scenes of art institutions, which need to be studied on case-by-case basis. Following curators and examining the processes of project develop- ment and production gives insight into curatorial decisions and the factors that shape them but also reveals complexities and disjunctions of meaning making in cultural production.

As noted in the introduction to this thesis, the examination of curatorial and institutional practice produced within academia often suffers from not being grounded in practice and, on the other hand, discussion emanating from within institutions, driven by curators and CEOs, is often declaratory and affirmative, since publically funded institutions are not interested in conducting critical examination of their own practice. This study therefore provides an example and potential model for future critical interrogation of institutions. However, further research and the development of methodologies and critical vocabulary remains to be done.

A second avenue for further research relates to the future of institutions such as FACT. Given that new technologies are changing the way we participate in culture, it is crucial to investigate both new mod- els of creating culture and how institutions should reflect and adapt to these changes. Although this study offered some speculative views, the future shape of art institutions – especially those dedicated to the presentation of new media practices – remains an open question and presents fertile ground for further research.

The third and final suggestion for future research is the need for further critical examination of the aesthetics as well as the models of working for both artists and curators within socially engaged practices. These practices pose a particular set of problems of an ethical and aesthetic nature, and despite substantial critical attention, the criteria for evaluating socially engaged practices as well as production and curatorial models remain only vaguely defined.