Institutional workings

Turning FACT Inside Out – as a 10th anniversary exhibition – was proposed as an invitation to re-think FACT, in which invited artists would participate in this process of institutional self-reflection. Thus it is im- portant to ask what has been learnt about FACT in the process? Referring back to some of the questions posed in the curatorial brief we can ask what was found regarding to the workings of FACT as a building, a platform and an institution, and what does FACT ‘need in order to remain relevant going forwards?’73

Turning FACT Inside Out revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of FACT’s institutional work- ings. The unquestionable strength of FACT is its ability to develop and produce very complex and demanding work. The technical expertise, knowledge and skill base developed within FACT over the last decade is indeed significant. The fact that the exhibition delivery, which involved setting up and producing many complex works within a very tight timeframe, went without any problems, is a proof of the great experience and skills of the technical team, as well as the highly efficient work of the exhibition team. The problem is retaining this knowledge within the organisation. As already mentioned, the set up was managed by former Senior Producers and members of FACT’s technical team who now work as an independent company (Arciform). The fact that the knowledge and skills of FACT’s team are its invaluable assets was also confirmed by problems with the exhibition mainte- nance, after one of the technicians left shortly after the exhibition opened.

The knowledge and skills base that FACT is able to draw upon and rely on is what makes it pos- sible for FACT to take on experimental and highly demanding projects. Rob La Frenais, from the Arts Catalyst, reflecting on the process of collaborating on Turning FACT Inside Out, stated that FACT is a ‘well oiled’ institution in terms of its skills and experience in delivering complex work, which enables smaller organisations, such as the Arts Catalyst, to realise their projects.74 _{He also commented that} FACT is quite unusual in its openness to taking on challenging and experimental projects: ‘one of the things we’ve liked about working with FACT is that you can come to FACT with ideas that nobody else would touch, [...] to be quite frank, the openness of FACT to ideas is quite unusual I think for a medium scale national venue like this’.75

However, one of the biggest challenges of Turning FACT Inside Out, observed also in other FACT’s exhibitions, including Robots and Avatars, was the technical maintenance of the works throughout

71 Whereas catalogues, co-edited by FACT, accompanied all exhibitions presented at FACT in 2010, be- tween 2011 and September 2013 only three exhibitions (Nam June Paik, Unexpected Guest and Art of Pop Video) had catalogues. Those three catalogues were edited and published by partnering institutions: Tate Liverpool, Liverpool Biennial and Museum for Applied Arts in Cologne, respectively.

72 FACT, ‘Art and Politics Collide at FACT This Summer’. 73 FACT, ‘Turning FACT Inside Out Curatorial Brief’. 74 La Frenais, R. 2013. Interviewed by the author, June 14. 75 Ibid.

the duration of the show. The fact that technical sustainability problems occur on regular basis could be considered as part of the risk inscribed in the very nature of the organisation, as well as its com- mitment to showing and commissioning experimental work. However, it can also be considered as an argument that traditional gallery exhibition is not the most suitable platform for presenting technologically complex and experimental work which might be better presented in more flexible and temporary presentation formats, such as festivals.

Apart from the maintenance issues, communicating the different works as well as the overall concept of the exhibition to the public was one of the weak points of Turning FACT Inside Out. On one hand, as discussed above, the problems were partly due to the complexity of the works on show, which presented challenges even for the Gallery Assistants, as well as the curatorial struggles over the main narrative of the show. On the other hand, however, Turning FACT Inside Out is symptomatic of a larger problem with communicating FACT’s programming to the public. A recent audience report, commissioned by FACT, highlighted problems with communication particularly of the Exhibitions programme, which poses general challenges due to the complex nature of work that FACT presents, but is often further exacerbated if the works are not operational, making the viewers confused as to the nature and purpose of the work.76

Turning FACT Inside Out also posed the important question about the future of gallery – what it need- ed in order to remain relevant. The artists HeHe, Steve Lambert and Nina Edge staged work that posed difficult questions or tackled pressing issues reiterating that FACT, and art galleries in general, are and need to remain predominantly public spaces where discussions around pressing, controver- sial issues can take place. So, has Turning FACT Inside Out provided this space for discussion? Was it really ‘a safe space for risky conversations’ as the press release stated?77

As evidenced by significant press coverage, the discussion around HeHe’s piece certainly contrib- uted to the national debate around the issue of fracking. However, this debate was already on going, stirred by exploratory drilling taking place in the areas of UK, including the North West and, although showing Fracking Futures was indeed very timely, it cannot be argued that exhibition at FACT itself raised awareness, or initiated this discussion around fracking. From the curatorial point of view, in the context of Turning FACT Inside Out, HeHe’s piece was not intended as a consideration of the frack- ing issue per se, but rather as a humorous and ironic work pointing out the situation of art institu- tions in tough economic times, raising questions about the purpose of art institutions and whether closing the galleries and extracting gas might, in fact, be a better use of the space had the shale gas been discovered underneath it.

The difficulties with Nina Edge’s piece, discussed above, clearly point out that moderating an engaged and sustained discussion through work presented in traditional gallery exhibi- tion context is indeed difficult to do, and requires a lot of time and effort, which need to be planned. Creating platforms for discussion and providing tools for participating in the digital public sphere does not in itself guarantee that discussion, especially valid and meaningful one, will take place. Drawing on other examples of projects, discussed in the thesis, it is clear that FACT has indeed been engaged in and facilitated a range of difficult discussions throughout the years – through projects such as Tenantspin, and more recently Veterans in Practice. It has

76 Wafer, Hadley, ‘FACT. Audience Research Report.’ pp. 31-33. 77 FACT, ‘Art and Politics Collide at FACT This Summer.’

also supported artists who have been actively engaged in the debates crucial for Liverpool and its communities, such as Nina Edge, whose significant activist work in city was one of the reasons for inviting the artist to take part in FACT’s anniversary exhibition. However, it could be argued that where FACT has been most successful in gathering and sustaining meaningful debate is where it has been grounded in its work with communities and has thus grown out of sustained engagement with the context and so been properly contextualised.

The difficulties with creating a space for discussion within Turning FACT Inside Out might suggest that timeframe of the exhibition is not the most conducive to a sustained and meaningful dialogue, but also perhaps that this particular exhibition was not the most suitable context for such discussion. Referring back to the already quoted review, one of the impressions from visiting the exhibition was of that of an ‘amusement park experience’, especially with regard to the HeHe’s Fracking Future piece, while Lambert’s piece was described as having a feeling of an ‘empty social media campaign that speaks of starting a conversation’.78

Given that the show was not properly contextualised (lack of curatorial text), and it was not ground- ed in other discussions at FACT (about art institutions, or fracking for that matter), the criticism of performing ‘empty gestures’ is perhaps justified. It was perhaps not clear why FACT wanted to be ‘a safe space for risky conversations’. What kinds of risks was it prepared to take and why? Is it that the spectacle value of the show, contributing to the feeling of the exhibition as ‘amusement park’ over- shadowed any potential for a more serious reflection? And was the potential for a serious discussion

really there to begin with? Could it be that the artfulness of Turning FACT Inside Out was that of a PR campaign, a process of branding and ‘manufacturing of a good will’, so criticised by Adorno and Horkheimer in their analysis of the culture industries.79 _{Is this how capitalism works for FACT?} These kinds of questions and criticisms are justified and can be fairly waged against Turning FACT Inside Out. Reflecting on the show and debating whether the invitation to FACT as ‘safe space for risky conversations’ 80 _{was just an empty gesture and part of a PR campaign, it is interesting to note a} certain meaning shift which occurred within the exhibition. The piece Capitalism Works For Me! True/ False was originally planned to be placed outside of FACT, on the Ropewalks Square. However, due to technical maintenance issues it was placed inside, in the cafe area, which was the only space that could accommodate such a large piece. The large letters of the sign were immediately visible from the entrance, and given the close proximity to the Fracking Futures piece, presented in the Gallery 1, which claimed that FACT started to get more funds for its operations, the sign Capitalism Works for Me!

read like affirmative statement by FACT. The sense of irony, which bringing the two pieces together resulted in (Capitalism Works for Me! and Fracking Futures) was far greater than originally anticipated. Drawing on this anecdote, the Turning FACT Inside Out, and processes behind the exhibition could be discussed as examples of how capitalism works for FACT. Arguably, FACT, similarly as other art institu- tions in current economic climate, is pressurised to develop and adopt more efficient business model and move towards more entrepreneurial culture. Central to this is developing attractive and strong brand through successful marketing strategies. In addition, operating successful business model re- quires cost effective production strategies, such as the Producer Model discussed above, which was

78 Brown, ‘Review: Turning FACT Inside Out’. 79 Adorno, The Culture Industry, p. 100.

the curatorial model for delivering the exhibition. Turning FACT Inside Out points to the risks involved in the move towards the entrepreneurial model of operations. The project-oriented and delivery fo- cused approach, which the Producer model entails, might result in projects not being properly con- textualised (as was the case with the exhibition) which can contribute to the institution losing sight of its role as a producer of knowledge, providing a valid platform for debate and exchange, fostering critical reflection on contemporary culture and society. In such case, the invitation of Turning FACT Inside Out directed to artists and audiences to take part in debates at FACT, which is allegedly a ‘safe space for risky conversations’, might be but a declaration and a marketing catchphrase.