LA FLORA EN EL MUNICIPIO DE LA CRUZ

Without further information, verifying these statistics and therefore ascertaining the value of a scheme of this nature, both in the provision of access to resources and training, remains an open question as the developments occurred at the same time as other changes within media arts, both nationally and globally. However, the longevity of the MITES programme, and the apparent popularity of its rentals service, suggests that art institutions, curators and artists were keen to have access to the services MITES provided. The reliance of the early Video Positive festivals on loans and sponsorship for presentation equipment highlights the financial restraints on organisations which prevented them from accumulating, and continually updating, state-of-the-art technological equipment, especially in the volume required for large media events. The cost of equipment is a contributing factor behind the absence of media art in British galleries, although Gillman also stated that art organisations were “terrified” of the technology required for media art exhibition at this time.541 Without customer feedback, it is difficult to prove the influence of MITES during a period of significant growth in output and popularity of media art practice, but the fact that there was no other organisation offering a similar service to MITES, and a dearth of training courses for people involved in developing exhibitions, suggests that the service was integral to the demystification of technology and its application in art at that time. Furthermore, FACT still provides a rental service which is well subscribed today, and this demonstrates that even with cheaper and more readily available technology, there is still a demand for technological support.

The lower cost of purchasing technology raises an interesting dilemma for MITES, however, and poses a threat to the future of the programme. The provision of a service that promotes greater infiltration of media art into galleries and trains people to be self- sufficient when utilising technology reduces, over a period of time, the potential market for

540 _{Gillman, email message to the author, 25 June 2012} 541

the service. Furthermore, this problem was exacerbated by cheaper and more readily available technology, a dilemma that was demonstrated by MITES’ investment in a DVD Mastering Suite which, whilst one of its flagship services, initially cost the organisation over £10,000 in the 1990s and was rendered effectively obsolete by the end of the decade as the technology had become increasingly integrated into home computer hardware.542 Nevertheless, MITES, now listed simply as ‘Services’ on FACT’s website,543 _{is still primarily} concerned with equipment hire and video production which demonstrates that the organisation has not felt the need to shift its focus to the other aims outlined in 1992. However, a re-launched training programme which includes “one day taster sessions, in- depth master-classes and fully immersive technical sessions”544 is currently being developed to build upon the foundations laid during the 1990s.

MITES’ training programme, which saw ‘Spaghetti without Tears’ develop into the more diverse ‘New Tools’ programme, had offered further opportunities for gallery staff and artists to attend one-day and residential training courses for the application of technological equipment in exhibitions, and with continued financial support from the ACGB,545 MITES claimed to have trained hundreds of people across the country546 through “short workshops covering software tools, application areas and ‘show & tell’ masterclasses with hands-on sessions.”547 New Tools further evolved into the Institute for Technical Exhibition Management (ITEM), which launched in 2003, and responded to the changing media environment by aiming to “help define the evolution of the materials that the artists themselves were seeking to use.”548 ITEM provided highly skilled workers to assist with the installation of technically complex artworks,549 and facilitated collaborations between artists and technologists to research the “development, presentation or experience of

542 ibid. 543

FACT (2012c), Services (Online) 544 _{FACT (2012d), Training (Online)} 545

Gillman, C. (1994), Merseyside Multimedia: An Advocacy Document for the Arts and Cultural Industries of Liverpool. (Available: FACT Archive, Box – Ed’s Office), Section 3.1.3

546_{Business Plan: Draft Update 1997/98, Board Meeting Minutes 30 October 1996, (Available: FACT} Archive, Box – Board File 1; Folder – Board Papers 1996-1997)

547 _{Gillman, C., FACT Structural Programme, (Available: FACT Archive, Box – Board Archive 2, Folder –} Board Reports, August 2002-May 2003, all departments)

548

Gillman, C. (2006), “Foreword” in Research – The Itemisation of Creative Knowledge, ed. C. Gillman, Liverpool: FACT and Liverpool University Press, pp.8-9 (p.8)

549_{AGM Board Papers, 26 November 2001, (Available: FACT Archive, Box – Board File 1, Folder –} Board Papers 1998-2002)

cultural exhibitions.”550 It responded directly to the notion that interdisciplinary research was at the heart of media art practice, which was demonstrated by the project being funded by the ACE and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta).551 This shows how FACT, as with its rebranding exercise in 1997, had prudently positioned itself at the intersection of a number of different funding opportunities.552 However, the project was conflicted by the ethos instilled by Gillman that MITES should be a non-profit service,553 which ultimately hampered the opportunity for research and development as this requires higher levels of investment than could be obtained from public funding bodies with limited budgets. Consequently, following MITES’ lack of research and development work when it was first established, the organisation has struggled to keep pace with the commercial market, an issue that has been further exacerbated by the pace of change that exists in technological innovation.

Those involved in setting up MITES appeared to take great pride in the work the service has provided, and in the business plan of 1999, FACT defined MITES as “one of the most successful public sector resource operations of recent times.”554 However, without access to customer information from MITES’ earlier years, or adequate documentation within the archive, the success of the service – apart from its longevity – is hard to establish. Furthermore, as with both Video Positive and the Collaboration Programme, MITES developed an identity that was independent of FACT, and although it was integrated into the FACT Centre’s new Structural Programme, it maintained an independence from its parent company, in both branding and remit, which prevented it from being fully understood as part of FACT’s offer.555 This independence may have enabled MITES to develop at its own pace, but it came at the cost of a level of separation which ultimately impeded its survival as a cohesive service, so that it has now effectively been disbanded into a range of individual components in much the same way as the Collaboration Programme.

550 _{Gillman, C., FACT Structural Programme, (Available: FACT Archive, Box – Board Archive 2, Folder –} Board Reports, August 2002-May 2003, all departments)

551 _{Gillman (2006), “Foreword,” p.8} 552 _{See Chapter 3.1}

553

Gillman, interviewed by the author, 27 July 2010 554

FACT Centre: Programme and Operations (The Red Book), (Available: FACT Archive: Box – Centre Business Plans (HIST.25); Folder – June 1999)

555