1.300 5.420 Criolla Duroc 21 5

How then should we assess the FACT Centre in terms of successes or failures? As outlined above, the disparity between the organisations that control the functions within the FACT Centre has been problematic throughout the building’s history, and FACT’s relationship with City Screen has been a barrier to achieving one of its early aims: to “present a cohesive whole.”694 Nevertheless, the opening of the FACT Centre provided the organisation with an opportunity to review the company structure, and it was in 2003 that FACT identified three parallel strands within the organisation. The Exhibition Programme, Collaboration Programme and Structural Programme ran alongside each other, and were presented as having equal value within the company. Whether this worked in practice is questionable, however, as the FACT Centre repositioned the organisation as an art institution, thus implicitly prioritising its artistic programme.

694_{The FACT Centre: A Centre for the Moving Image, Stage 1 Feasibility Study, Options Appraisal (30} October 1998), (Available: FACT Archive, Box – MICE Archive 1), p.17

Furthermore, and as highlighted in Section 2.2.5, the Collaboration Programme in particular has struggled to find a place within the new building, and although it has continued to operate in conjunction with the Exhibition Programme, it has also developed, with some exceptions, into a more traditional arts education service. Whilst FACT does not have a permanent collection, and can no longer be considered to be solely committed to video art and moving image, its focus on media art has enabled the organisation to appeal to different audiences through its use of computing and media technology. This has enabled the promotion of social inclusion, cohesion and access, and through the concurrent Collaboration Programme projects, FACT has continued to provide education and community art services both within the FACT Centre and beyond its walls. This has been achieved by continuing to adopt a “pan-agency”695 approach to its work, an ethos that has been an integral part of FACT’s history, and the opening of the FACT Centre has broadened this capability by facilitating joint exhibitions with both local and international partners.

FACT’s success in continuing to produce projects that adhere to its early aims and objectives, would suggest that fears regarding the impact that a building would have on the organisation’s integrity have not been realised, although this does not take into consideration the impact that the new institutionalised image, as projected by the building, has had on audiences. Issues of institutionalisation have been discussed previously, but with the opening of the building, the process became unavoidable, despite claims that FACT would “continue its agency role through the FACT Centre.”696 FACT claimed that it would be able to achieve this by expanding the Collaboration Programme and through dissemination of its activities on the Internet,697 but there was no sophisticated plan for how this approach would be implemented. Instead, the nature of its artistic outputs was fundamentally altered by the fact that it had an exhibition space, and the need to continually host exhibitions has directed resources away from the Collaboration and Structural Programmes and into the Exhibition Programme. Furthermore, the nature of the galleries within the FACT Centre has further exacerbated the problem, and highlights some of the issues of access that have been discussed previously. The way audiences use the FACT Centre has proven to be problematic because the gallery spaces were developed

695

ibid., p.4 696

FACT Centre: Synopsis (The White Book), (Available: FACT Archive, Box – FACT Centre Business Plans (HIST.25); Folder – June 1999), p.11

697 ibid.

when the black box format was still in evolution, and the flow of people through the building to the cinema somewhat side-lines the gallery spaces, giving the impression that the main function of the building is as a cinema.

The difficulty of accessibility to some of the building’s main functions can perhaps be attributed to the lack of experience of those developing the model for the FACT Centre, and it must be noted that the delivery of a building project of this scale was an achievement in itself. Despite its demands regarding the operation of the cinemas, it would appear that FACT, through Clive Gillman, acted as its own client representative for the project, and the realisation of the FACT Centre, which was in the making for almost twelve years from early discussions in 1991, to its opening in 2003, was of great significance to both the organisation and the city. However, it pushed FACT to the brink of bankruptcy and came, ultimately, at the cost of Video Positive. From the outset, FACT was keen to pursue a ground-up project having acknowledged the wealth of heritage buildings already in Liverpool, and the construction of something new and purpose-built for an organisation with very specific exhibition requirements, was believed to be the most cost-effective option.698 By November 2001, and only a few months ahead of the proposed opening of the FACT Centre, an Extraordinary Board Meeting was called to discuss its options, as only £40,000 of its original budget remained and the ERDF had frozen its grant because of slow progress on the building.699 The financial difficulties pushed the opening of the FACT Centre back to February 2003, and were exacerbated by the collapse of the roof in the cinemas only six weeks after the building opened.700

The FACT Centre has, however, provided one significant benefit, which is its ability to act as insurance against the funding cuts that have taken place across arts and culture in recent years. After such considerable capital outlay, the ACE has continued to maintain FACT as one of its RFOs, despite a reduction in the overall number of organisations that are funded

698_{mice: The Moving Image Centre for Exhibition, A Major New Cultural Initiative and Visitor Centre} for Liverpool (prepared by Moviola and MIDA for the British Film Institute and North West Arts Board (1995), (Available: FACT Archive, Box – Business Plans and Reports), p.27

699

Extraordinary Board Meeting, 21 November 2001, (Available: FACT Archive, Box – Board File 1, Folder – Board Papers 1998-2002)

700