Spring Workshop
HONG KONG. Hong Kong is set to have a new non-profit art space later this year. Spring Workshop, founded by US composer Mimi Brown, will officially open this Autumn in the Wong Chuk Hang industrial neighbourhood in the East of the city. Its mission is to act as a ‘platform and laboratory’ supporting local artists and their interaction with artists and organisations abroad in the interests of international dialogue. Brown, who moved to Hong Kong from New York in 2005, calls it “A love letter to Hong Kong, her people, artists and organisations, her buildings, cultural textures… her history and future.”
The arrival of Spring Workshop reflects an expanding field for non-profit art ventures in Hong Kong. Encouraged by the promise of big new art institutions in the West Kowloon Cultural District and Central Police Station, and alongside long-established community art organisation Para-site and the Asia Art Archive – for which Mimi Brown is an advisor and a member of the directorial board, respectively – Spring Workshop is indicative of contemporary arts activities happening at ground level in a city renowned for being one of the world’s most commercial. The space is privately funded and run by its board of advisors, and will work in partnership with related local and international organisations to produce a cross-disciplinary program of artist residencies, exhibitions, film, music and talks in its massive 5000 square metre space.
Although still in its infancy, Spring Workshop has already hosted screenings of “The Fifth Night” (2010) by acclaimed video artist Yang Fudong as part of the “One World Exposition” series showcasing Chinese media art. Brown hopes the space will ‘foster creative freedom and friction’ whilst at the same time providing room for the discussion and enjoyment of art. Its conception comes in response to the existing environment in Hong Kong – to propel developments in contemporary art and provide a large site for them in a city where space is always at a premium – particularly for artists. ‘I set out to create a place that is as much about the process of making art as it is about the finished work.’, Brown says; ‘…Because it is tailor-made to the Hong Kong community’s needs, …we could say that it is a “good time” for it.’
PARA/site and UCCA
In Hong Kong and mainland China there exist two prominent but very different non-profit art institutions, Para/site in Hong Kong and the Ullens Centre for Contemporary Art (UCCA) in Beijing. Para/Site came into being in 1996, an initiative by a group of local Hong Kong artists to build an art institution in a city where there were none. A non-profit enterprise located in a 150m2 ex-shop space in the Sheung Wan area of central Hong Kong, Para/site defines its mission as maintaining ‘a platform for artists and other art practitioners to realise their vision…with the aim of nurturing a thoughtful and creative society.’ The space hosts exhibitions, publications, workshops and talks to support and integrate local contemporary art both at home and abroad. Cosmin Costinas was appointed Executive Director there last Autumn.
Established in late 2007 by prolific Belgian collectors Guy and Miriam Ullens, UCCA occupies an 8000 square metre Bauhaus-style factory complex in Beijing’s 798 art district. Although the socio-political context in which it operates is completely different from that of Para/site in Hong Kong, UCCA also arose largely in response to the lack of a contemporary art institution responsible for the local artists and audience. As a privately-run non-profit space, UCCA assumes a purpose to showcase and promote Chinese contemporary art to an ‘international Beijing public’. Its varied activities include exhibitions, talks, publications, film screenings and a design shop. In December 2011, Phil Tinari joined UCCA as Director.
As the institutional landscape in the region continues to evolve, The Art Newspaper spoke to Costinas and Tinari about the nature of the spaces they lead.
Cosmin Costinas
Iona Whittaker: Can you describe the mission of Para/site?
Cosmin Costinas: Para/site started as the direct expression of a group of artists. That has changed in that we are not officially an artist-run space anymore, and in that sense we are not directly run by the community and our projects do not directly showcase it. But in spite of all this we do understand our mission to be a very public one, to serve a society that is not necessarily just the art scene but also the wider society of Hong Kong – to be a voice in the public sphere. Already the discussion has moved beyond Hong Kong, so it’s not just a local sphere, it’s international – there are different layers that overlap.
How is Para/site funded?
The scale and structure of the budget for this year are quite different from last year – a mixture of private and public. Until now, the public money has come from the Art Development Council, and that’s being phased out. We are trying to get a new program from the government through the Springboard Fund. This is supposed to nourish small-scale institutions which already have a track record and which are supposed to be helped to move further. That is a grant which will make up about 45% of our budget, and the rest of the budget is private. The majority of the private money comes from an annual benefit auction which we organise; artists and galleries donate works to be auctioned off. We also have a growing patrons program. We’re consciously trying to diversify our sources of support; that’s a conscious part of our conceptual identity – not to be dependent on any one major source.
What is your policy in terms of transparency?
As much as possible. We have to, and we are also trying to go further; our budgets are public, the sources too.
What would you say contributes to the successful internal running of the space?
We have a group of nice, dedicated people (laughs). A lot of people have connections with and affection for Para/site. For many people in Hong Kong, it’s not just an institution; for many Hong Kong artists Para/site has been quite instrumental in their careers. A whole generation have had their first show or at least cornerstone exhibitions here. There is this general support that we’re very lucky to have; the sense of community is very strong.
How would you describe the balance of your work between curatorial and executive directorship of the institution as a business?
Well, it being relatively small, it’s still manageable. But…it’s a tough question for everyone. I think the great thing is that, with major changes going on, a lot of the decisions to be made at the executive level are about changing the institution. Even in a very bureaucratic situation, it’s really about re-imagining things.
What would you say are the primary difficulties of being independent?
When you see the commercial environment here, our own struggles like budgets and limited operations are ridiculous. I can think of difficulties, but it’s important to have them in this independent situation. I am inclined to outline the positive things, but no, there isn’t a very strong sense of the need for a public sphere in Hong Kong. And the fact that we’re renting a space is a source of stress.
Can you comment on Para-site as a model for non-profits in this region, and indeed globally?
We don’t see ourselves as an Asian organisation; this doesn’t mean we are ignoring the place where we are. I think it’s exactly because the whole world has changed so much. Hong Kong is a major metropolis – we should be one of the agents that change this discussion. If we’re talking about learning from or comparing with other models, it’s probably more useful to look at the Middle East or Eastern Europe – other regions in the world where somewhat similar transformations are going on. It would also be useful to look at the West but with different eyes in order to actually understand the phenomena going on there too, and ultimately understand that we can be a model and have things we can do responsibly and reflect on the problems that can be relevant for everywhere else in the world. I think that’s a major statement we can make, and this wasn’t possible until very recently.
Phil Tinari
Iona Whittaker: How did UCCA come into being?
Phil Tinari: Guy Ullens, lifelong collector and a lover of China, had spent a lot of time here in the ’80s and got to know a number of Chinese artists; then in the early 2000s he started to buy again and that led to a series of shows abroad. Eventually there was the idea of having somewhere in China to store it all, and it grew and grew into opening a full-service space that essentially occupies the role of a public institution. Here, these so-called “public institutions” don’t actually perform a public function because of the very special political system of this country, which made the explicit decision to allow a commercial market to flourish from about 2005 to 2007, but left a huge space open for museums that were actually responsible to their viewership; that’s exactly the kind of hole we aim to fill. We are essentially a privately charted, privately established, privately operated museum with a public mission, a public face and a public purpose. It’s like a lot of things in China where the nomenclature around the reality is sometimes misleading.
How is the internal structure decided?
There were different visions and different models, but it was not really until about halfway through Jerome’s (Sans – the previous Director) time here that it became clear that the best system is to have a general manager – a business side and a creative side. I am Director, and then we have a CEO who is responsible for…everything else. It’s a system that only really works if the two people get on really well. Guy Ullens is a visionary but hands-off manager of the project, so he wants the institution to mature and develop.
What is the breakdown of funding?
I would have to check the extent to which we want to disclose it but our earned income represents an increasing a portion of our operating costs – really the shop and membership schemes. It’s really about the shop right now; it has an editions program which is low-volume, high-margin, and there’s a design program. This becomes part of our public façade. Ticketing is something else we’re revisiting. For the first show I’ve opened we’ve made a uniform 10rmb ticket which is about £1. Students and seniors are always free and Thursdays are free entry. It’s my feeling that we should be doing exhibitions that are worth 10rmb, and in a way by putting that small barrier there you can sanctify the experience and pick your viewership a little bit more.
So is it the aim of the centre ultimately to fund itself?
We still rely on a significant “family contribution” from our founders. But increasingly we’ve diversified our revenue base to include things like the shop and membership, sponsorship and things like – we have a fantastic space -venue rental. All of these are standard museum income-streams globally.
Can you comment on UCCA as a ‘non-profit’ space?
We re-evaluate this constantly – whether we should register as a Chinese non-profit foundation. It’s something that we are actively considering, but time and again it seemsthat our model as currently structured allows us to accomplish the things we want to flexibly and efficiently. Given the particular nature of the Chinese political system, a certain independence is maintained more effectively under the envelope of ‘enterprise.’
What is UCCA’s policy on transparency?
Funds from the sale of works from the foundation have gone back into operations here, and guarantee our future in a very real way. It is a hard one to resolve, because by our very nature we are privately chartered. This is why I can’t sit here and say we’re a public institution. We’re actually a private institution with public responsibility and a public profile. In this very specific but very important socio-cultural and political space that we inhabit, we’ve found a way to do things that we deem interesting. It’s less about transparency than about responsibility.
What are the changes you feel need to happen in order for UCCA to proceed?
We have to be extremely strategic because 5 years from now we certainly won’t be able to compete on size. That’s the least interesting rubric of all, and it’s the one most easily achieved in China. For me it’s about the quality of the program, level and precision of execution. We’ve spent a couple of months internally revising our mission statement. We try to refer to established examples internationally, but are always cognisant of the fact that we’re here. I think there’s a real risk of a Chinese art world that doesn’t look beyond itself, and of an international art world that maybe doesn’t see or support the most interesting things that are happening here. In terms of coming closer to the community, every organisation has a certain DNA and we’re a foreign enterprise in China. At some point you have an institution that’s bigger than a single person or vision. I’ve put together a board of Chinese patrons; for us that’s really key. I think that we can really be a place that helps to put everyone on the same page. It’s about trying to create a space where people can encounter artworks and think through questions.
Article and interviews originally published in The Art Newspaper’s China Special Edition, No. 235, May 2012
