巴塞爾藝術博覽會三月底發佈了最新的藝術市場報告，其中一個數據頗讓筆者驚訝：全球藝術拍賣市場上佔銷售總額一半的作品，其實僅僅來自百分之一的藝術家。換句話說，在這個外表光鮮亮麗的行業裡，人們看到的，往往只是頂端的百分之一而已。剩下這百分之九十九的藝術家，要如何支撐自己的生活與創作？對不少藝術家而言，答案會是政府和非牟利機構的資助。
近日，筆者採訪了曼哈頓下城文化委員會（Lower Manhattan Cultural Council）資助的一名藝術家，了解他在紐約生活和創作的需要。他談到資金固然是首要的，其次是創作空間；但這些都是顯而易見的，因此我們花了更長時間談論藝術家在行政輔助上的需要。一名專業藝術家需要應對的行政工作往往是不足為外人道的，作品整理、資助申請、展覽申請、報稅等等，佔用了大量的時間和精力，這就是為甚麼有一定經濟條件的藝術家都會去聘請助理的原因。可試問多少藝術家有這樣充裕的資金？令許多紐約的藝術家沮喪的是，他們每年都要花上數月的時間做各種資助和駐留計劃的申請，失去創作時間，藝術家到了五月左右知道申請結果，夏天才能開始創作。
這不免讓人反思，整個支持藝術發展的機制是不是出了點問題？它是幫我們培養了藝術的人材，還是行政管理的人材？若干年前，筆者曾參與一個關於建立藝術資助成效評估機制的工作坊，最印象深刻的是講者談到，有哪個行業，人們可以寫幾頁的申請書，然後就獲得一筆資助？此話一出，人們天經地義地認同藝術資助部門就應該採納一套更有效的行政管理程序和語言：流程、預算、時間管理、成效控制……諸如此類。可是當這種行政管理的思維成為常態，甚至是主導思想，我們很容易掉入到一個陷阱，忘記了機構原來服務的對象是誰？他們的需求是甚麼？怎樣才能更好的支持藝術和創意生產？
回答這些問題，筆者想到從事藝術與商業管理跨學科研究的美國學者Amy Whitaker去年出版的一本書，名為《藝術思維：如何在流程、預算和控制的世界開拓創意空間》（Art Thinking: How to Carve Out Creative Space in a World of Schedules, Budgets and Bosses）。作者比較了管理思維和藝術思維的區別：前者是一個從A到B的過程，後者是一個創造B的過程。換言之，藝術創作更像是一個實驗的過程，也有人把它形容為從零到一的過程，它的結果往往是難以預料的，沒有人能事先知道那個成功的B到底是長成甚麼樣子的。
套用這種思維來重新思考當下的的藝術資助機制，會讓我們產生不同的考慮。我們可能會開始懷疑一個完善的藝術計劃書、流程表和預算表到底在多大程度上是可能的，我們也會對結果或所謂成效抱持更開放的態度和實驗的精神。藝術創作的本質是充滿實驗性的，如果有人能寫下一條成功的方程式，我會懷疑那不過是複製得來的，而在藝術和創意的世界，最不需要的就是複製。
也許當下藝術資助的管理思維早已是根深蒂固，但藝術家的聲音卻叫我們不得不反思：「藝術家都有一個夢想，就是走進自己的工作室，然後創作。」愈是能夠幫助藝術家接近這個夢想，我們愈是在真正地幫助藝術家。
原載於 C2文創誌 第二十一期
The latest art market report published by Art Basel at the end of March reveals a surprising piece of data: as much as half of the overall sales revenue in the global art auction market comes from 1% of artists. In other words, in this glamorous trade, people are only able to know about the work of the top 1% of artists. How then do the remaining artists support their lives and make their creative work sustainable? For many artists, their support will have to come from funding from the government and non-profit organisations.
Recently, I interviewed an artist sponsored by Lower Manhattan Cultural Council to find out more about his life in New York and his creative needs. He mentioned to me that funding is his top priority, followed by the need for creative space. While these are obviously important for an artist, we spent a lot of time discussing an artist’s vital need for administrative support. It is not apparent for many outside the industry as to how much administrative work is involved for a professional artist. From organising artworks, to applying for grants and exhibitions as well as taxation matters, administrative work demands from the artist a huge quantity of time and efforts. This also explains why some artists with financial resources would hire administrative assistants to help them. However, how many are actually in a position to do so? The sad truth for many artists in New York is that, as they spend months preparing applications for grants and residencies, they lose the important time for creative work. As grant application outcome is revealed in May, they often cannot concentrate on making new work until the summer.
Bearing all these in mind, does it not prompt us to contemplate the problems that are affecting the existing system for arts development? Is the system helping us nurture creative talent or, rather, administrative talent? A few years ago, I took part in a workshop on evaluating the effectiveness of arts funding. The speaker highlighted how, compared to other industries, artists are fortunate enough to obtain financial sponsorship by simply writing and submitting a few pages of proposals. This inevitably made people think that arts funding bodies or departments need an effective workflow and language for administrative work, including logistics, budget, time management, effectiveness control, etc. However, once we view the practice of art from the administrative perspective, or once this has become the mainstream guideline on art, we will easily forget our service target and their needs. After all, what is the best way to support the arts and to encourage creative enterprises?
To address these questions, I can think of a book by Amy Whitaker, an American scholar who researches on the relationship between arts and commercial management, entitled Art Thinking: How to Carve Out Creative Space in a World of Schedules, Budgets and Bosses. In this book, Whitaker differentiates commercial thinking from artistic thinking. While the former adopts a typical A to B process, the latter is a process of creating B. In other words, artistic work is a process of experimentation, or what some people might call a process from zero to one, as the outcome is often hard to predict. Moreover, no one could tell how B would be like until it is created.
These different modes of thinking can help us understand different concerns that occur in the existing arts funding mechanism. Perhaps we will start to doubt the feasibility to arrive at a thorough arts project proposal, workflow chart and budget. Perhaps we will become more open-minded or adventurous in evaluating effectiveness. The core of creative work lies in exploring possibilities. If anyone can come up with a successful formula for it, then I suspect it must be cloned from somewhere, and there is no room for cloning activities in an artistic world.
Perhaps the management-oriented thinking on arts funding is too ingrained in many of us, but the calls from artists surely prompt us to reflect on the value of art: "Each artist has the same dream of going to his studio to create." We should not lose sight of the ways we can help artists achieve that.
Source: C2 Issue 21