CURATING THE CITY: UNPACKING CONTEMPORARY ART PRODUCTION AND SPATIAL POLITICS IN BRISBANE

Louise Rollman BA (Visual Arts) (Hons), Queensland University of Technology

Principal Supervisor: Professor Andrew McNamara

Associate Supervisors: Dr Emma Felton

External Associate Supervisor: Dr Gretchen Coombs

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Visual Arts, Faculty of Creative Industries Queensland University of Technology 2018

Keywords

Contemporary art; public art; commissioning for the public realm; curatorial practice; Henri Lefebvre, the right to the city and the right to imagine the city; arts policy infrastructure and institutionalization; cultural history.

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane i

Abstract

Contemporary art and exhibition-making is increasingly deployed in the urban development and marketing of cities for political-economic benefit, yet the examination of the aesthetic and cultural aspects of urban life is curiously limited. In probing the unique political conditions of Brisbane, Australia, this thesis contrasts two periods — 1985-1988 and 2012-2015 — in order to more fully understand the critical pressures impacting upon the production of contemporary aesthetic projects. While drawing upon Henri Lefebvre's right to the city, and insisting upon a right to imagine the city, this thesis concludes that a consistent re-articulation of critical pressure, which anticipates oppositional positions, is necessary.

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane ii

Table of Contents

Keywords ...... i Abstract ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii List of Figures ...... vi Statement of Original Authorship ...... viii Acknowledgements ...... ix Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 Art and cities ...... 4 Researcher position ...... 7 Purpose and Significance ...... 10 Chronology ...... 14 Exemplars ...... 16 Thesis Outline ...... 21 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...... 25 Contemporary art and practice ...... 27 Curatorial practice and stewardship ...... 29 Neoliberalism as a pervasive ideology ...... 33 Neoliberalism and contemporary art ...... 36 Neoliberalism, contemporary art and cities ...... 39 Deployed and the tendency to instrumental outcomes for art ...... 44 Institutional critique and its derivatives ...... 48 Public art policy evaluations ...... 50 The politics of aesthetic ...... 55 Antagonism or ‘agonistic’ critique ...... 58 The right to imagine the city ...... 60 Imagining Brisbane ...... 64 Summary and Implications ...... 68

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane iii

Chapter 3 Methodology ...... 73 Research Questions ...... 74 Theoretical Framework ...... 76 Data sources and collection ...... 78 1985-1988 | Exemplar 1: THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988) ...... 82 1985-1988 | Exemplar 2: InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst ...... 83 2012-2015 | Exemplar 3: Michael Parekowhai, The World Turns (2011-12) ..... 84 2012-2015 | Exemplar 4: Alice Lang, The Swell (2013), commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC) ...... 86 Selection process and criteria ...... 88 Discourse analysis ...... 89 Conclusion ...... 92 Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization ...... 93 The parameters of Bjelke-Petersen's influence ...... 94 The spectre of demolition ...... 96 THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988) ...... 100 Networking sites and the “romance of individuals” ...... 106 Networking nationally and infrastructural activism ...... 109 Professional advocacy and infrastructural activism ...... 111 Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991) ...... 113 Conclusion ...... 116 Chapter 5 Institutionalization ...... 119 InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988) ...... 120 Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) generates employment opportunities 128 Art Built-in policy (1999-2007) ...... 131 Elevated curatorial role ...... 137 Demise of Artworkers' Alliance ...... 140 Conclusion ...... 142 Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization ...... 145 Michael Parekowhai, The World Turns (2011-12) ...... 146 The Commissioner: QAGOMA ...... 150 State as client: art+place (2007-2012) ...... 152 Representation by artist Fiona Foley ...... 156 Clashing agendas: the political versus the cultural ...... 160 Public reception ...... 166 Conclusion ...... 169 Chapter 7 Instrumentalization ...... 173 Public art policies and cities ...... 175

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane iv

Cultural strategies associated with Brisbane City Council (BCC) ...... 179 Development-led urban design ...... 184 Grow A Set, The Swell (2013) & Vibrant Laneways ...... 187 Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 ...... 195 Conclusion ...... 198 Chapter 8 Conclusions ...... 203 Summary of the research findings ...... 205 Limitations and opportunities for further research ...... 212 Implications and significance ...... 214 References ...... 217 Appendices ...... 245 Appendix A List Chronology ...... 247 Appendix B List of artworks and projects ...... 253 Appendix C Participants...... 257

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane v

List of Figures

Red Comb House, Roma Street (demolished) 1984...... 98 THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1989), 20 Charlotte Street...... 102 Paul Andrew and Eugene Carchesio, THAT Contemporary Art Space...... 102 Paul Andrew and Jane Richens, Weeping Women 1986, collaborative performance, THAT Contemporary Art Space...... 103 Demolition Show (poster) 1986, curated by John Stafford, IMA Annexe Project with The Observatory...... 105 Alan Owen, Eclipse of Vision 1986, Demolition Show...... 105 Pat Ridgewell and Eugene Carchesio of the Holy Ghosts play “nerve ending music” on top of the Prudential Building, InterFace 1988...... 121 Interactive Displays by Jeanelle Hurst and Adam Wolter, Queen Street Mall Rotunda, InterFace 1988...... 122 Jeanelle Hurst, Highrise Wallpaper 1988, Mineral House, InterFace 1988...... 122 Jay Younger, Kinesis Between Stasis (DeNarrative Public Triptych 1) 1988, rear projections, Cherry Lane (exterior store), InterFace 1988...... 122 Jay Younger, Blue Kingdom 1987, cibachromes, Cherry Lane (interior store) InterFace 1988...... 122 Lucinda Elliott, Glass Cabinet Pieces 1988, MacArthur Chambers, cnr Queen and Edward Streets, InterFace 1988...... 123 Diena Georgetti, Will for Amalgamation 1988, installation at Custom House, InterFace 1988...... 123 Jane Richens, Untitled 1988, billboard, cnr Wickham and Church Streets, Fortitude Valley, InterFace 1988...... 123

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane vi

Michael Parekowhai, The World Turns 2011-12, QAGOMA...... 147 Mirdidingkingathi Juwarnda Sally Gabori, Dibirdibi Country 2012, Banco Court, Brisbane Supreme and District Court...... 164 Yayoi Kusama, Eyes are Singing Out (detail) 2012, Brisbane Supreme and District Court...... 164 Alice Lang, Grow A Set (The Swell) 2013...... 189 Alice Lang, Hang In There Baby (The Swell) 2013...... 190 Alice Lang, The Swell 2013, Vibrant Laneways, Brisbane City Council (BCC), Hutton Lane...... 191

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane vii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

QUT Verified Signature

Signature:

Date: ______

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane viii

Acknowledgements

I would like to gratefully acknowledge my supervisors, Professor Andrew McNamara (principal), Dr Emma Felton (associate) and Dr Gretchen Coombs (external) for their guidance, critical feedback, encouragement and support.

I would especially like to thank the research participants for their interest, generosity and insights: Peter Anderson, Paul Andrew, Peter Browning, Scott Chaseling, Brian Doherty, Sarah Follent, Carmel Haugh, Jeanelle Hurst, Lindy Johnson, Alice Lang, Kaylene McGill, John Stafford and Jay Younger.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to Dr Emma Caukill for her supportive feedback in regard to some earlier drafts; Jean Bowra for her assistance in transcribing interviews; Melanie Schafer for her graphic design services; and Siall Waterbright, professional editor, for providing copyediting and proofreading services in accordance with the guidelines laid out in the university- endorsed national 'Guidelines for editing research theses'.

Additionally, I would like to thank individual and institutional copyright holders for providing image consents, including: Paul Andrew, Brisbane City Council, Dianne Heenan, Jeanelle Hurst, the Institute of Modern Art, Alice Lang, Michael Parekowhai and Richard Stringer.

Finally, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Damian Eckersley for his supportive counsel throughout the process.

Curating the City: unpacking contemporary art production and spatial politics in Brisbane ix

Chapter 1 Introduction

This PhD research project contributes to an unexplored area of Brisbane's recent cultural history by examining its government art policies and practices. It focuses on commissioning contemporary visual art for the public realm and competing considerations that arise through changing economic and political circumstances. It investigates the ways in which artist-led activities and contemporary art professionals have contributed to government art policies and, in turn, how government-led art policies influence the conditions of production. The analysis of contemporary arts practitioners and their relationships to government policies, city-making and marketing provides a unique insight into the influences that shape the culture of the contemporary city.

This work principally arose from my professional experience as Curator, Contemporary Projects with Museum of Brisbane and Urban Design, Brisbane City Council (BCC). In my professional experience, the role of curator as caretaker has shifted dramatically from one that anonymously dwells in the collection stores of a gallery-museum to a visible and dominant identity that negotiates collaboration between artists, institutions and the public. As such, the role increasingly occupies an expanded field, both within and outside the confines of the gallery-museum. Increasingly working within public spaces alongside urban designers and politicians, contemporary curators are negotiating with adversarial positions that are at odds with, and resistant to, heteronomy or difference. The title of this study, Curating the City, refers to an idea that curators might contest urban planning as a coordinated, master-planned and orderly activity. Good

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

curatorial practice accommodates, or can ideally make space for, messiness, friction, awkwardness, difference and conflict. The title, therefore, refers to an idea of curatorial practice that draws on antagonism (Lind 2009a: 103; Mouffe 2000) or dissensus (Rancière 2011).

In addition to the researcher's professional experience, this study has been prompted by the urban theorist Henri Lefebvre's proposition: 'The Right to the City' (1968 in Lefebvre 1996). Lefebvre's proposition has gained renewed traction with many urban theorists, including Harvey (2012; 2008) and Sorkin (2012; 2011; 2009). Lefebvre conceived the right to the city as an assertion of conventional rights (assembly, access and movement), but, crucially, also a right to imagine the city.1 The right to the city is sometimes understood as a legal right that can be granted by the state, however, this is a departure from Lefebvre's conception. He 'was concerned that urban space in contemporary cities is alienated from its users because it is produced for them by expert managers' or specialists (Purcell 2013). For Lefebvre, the right to the city ‘is like a cry and a demand’ through which inhabitants declare their intention to begin a struggle to manage the production of urban space themselves, without the state and without capital (1968 in 1996: 158). The research takes up Lefebvre's proposition as a productive lens to interrogate the role of contemporary art practices in relation to Brisbane's spatial politics. Except for art historian Rosalyn Deutsche, Lefebvre's work has rarely been referred to as a way to consider contemporary art's role in regard to the city.

Brisbane, as a type of city-state, with its single and large municipal Council, exists within Queensland's unique, unicameral political conditions.2 The city is driven by strong, idiosyncratic, authoritarian leadership, resistant to public discourse and professional scrutiny, which is imprinted on the institutions of the city and inscribed in the broader culture (Evans and Ferrier 2004; Whitton 1993; Fitzgerald 1989). The Fitzgerald Report (1989) incisively attributed the lack of debate in Queensland to the State's weak parliamentary system and its tradition

1 The right to imagine the city is consistently emphasized throughout this thesis. As Lefebvre proposes, imagining the city is a politically charged project that involves 'reconstitut[ing] a totally different kind of city' (Harvey 2012: xvi), through which 'the potential benefits of an urban life can be fully and entirely realized' (Marcuse 2012: 34). 2 The Legislative Assembly is the sole chamber of the unicameral Parliament of Queensland. Prior to the abolishment of the Legislative Council or upper house in 1922, the appointed Council had been dominated by wealthy English property-owners and absenteeism was an issue with some members returning to England for several years. With the election of the Ryan Government in 1915, the first Labor majority government in Queensland, the Council proceeded to be obstructive. In 1922, the Legislative Council was abolished by members, known as the 'suicide squad', who had been appointed by Labor to vote the chamber out of existence.

Chapter 1 Introduction 2

of executive dominance (Fitzgerald 1989: 123-5 in Jones and Prasser 2012: 67- 68; Galloway 2013; Prasser and Aroney 2009). More recently, Fitzgerald 'has been scathing of the Newman Government' and its resistance to democratic accountability, stating:

the government [has] sacked, stacked and otherwise reduced the effectiveness of parliamentary committees, subverted and weakened the State's anticorruption commission, made unprecedented attacks on the courts and the judiciary, appointed a totally unsuitable chief justice and reverted to selecting male judges almost exclusively... [And] retired judges and lawyers, who were shocked into criticizing the government, were disparaged for their effrontery (Fitzgerald 2014 in Remeikis 2014).

The city's municipal scale of governance could often rival the centralization of power with the State and its Premier. However, it consistently subscribes to the agenda of single controller, regardless of political colours. In relation to the public and politicized spaces of Brisbane, policy and practice are inextricably linked. In Brisbane, governmental art and urban policies — funding and urban development — facilitate a significant component of contemporary artists' livelihoods. Combined with a political culture that is resistant to public discourse and professional critique, this creates a situation where constraints can be stipulated in ways that have a significant influence on the practices of contemporary artists and curators. Therefore, this study seeks out moments and strategies that challenge this control.

After setting out the researcher's position, I define the research problem, followed by the aims and objectives, before outlining the significance of the research study. I next introduce a chronology that further informs the contextual background for this study, as well as the methodology and its exemplars, which place artwork at the centre of the study. Finally, I supply an outline of the thesis, which refers to the combined events, exemplars and policies that the thesis examines.

Chapter 1 Introduction 3

Art and cities

Artists contribute to shaping cities by producing a material, experiential and critical culture of the city. This tripartite culture also projects the identity of a city and, as Nicolas Whybrow suggests, permits one to ‘gauge the calibre of a place’ (2011: 54). This material culture of the city can take many forms, including gallery- museums and their collections, biennials and/or triennials, festivals, public art (which is among the most visible) and sometimes artist-led initiatives.

Superseding 'public sculpture', the term 'public art' is not always well understood. Although the term 'public art' has been problematic, contentious and contested, the term usually refers to contemporary art practice that occurs outside of gallery-museums, and can manifest in a range of forms including sculpture, site-specificity, relational art, community art and performance. As David Harding points out, the term is generally 'used to embrace... the notion of a general publicness of 'location',... [and] engages the attention of a vastly increased and diverse public,... as distinct from, the more limited publicness' of gallery-museums (1997: 9). Consequently, public art has been an 'arena in which democratic ideas and aesthetic elitism [have attempted] to come to terms with each other' (Kardon 1980 in Harding 1997: 9). As Harding (Ibid.) implies, the general view is that the elitism of art is mitigated in public art by virtue of its location.

However, Rosalyn Deutsche has challenged complacency around notions of public places as automatically being democratic space. Drawing on Chantal Mouffe, Deutsche has shown that democracy is not delivered through processes that claim to represent unity and consensus (1996: 274). The consensus model for commissioning contemporary art, which typically works to integrate art with a site or place, treats public space as a site for both articulation and control. As Deutsche argues, consensus tends to naturalize exclusions (Ibid.). Instead, as Deutsche suggests, cultivating dissensus can unveil the exclusions and differences that consensus obscures. Democracy benefits from dissensus, agitation, difference and disruption, and by corollary, public space and public art can too.

A consequence of smoothing over difference and disagreement is that the public's ability to experience art, especially if it is controversial or difficult, is restricted — or, in other words, excluded or censored. According to Harding, an issue with art in the city is that, while the public are more-or-less prepared to permit

Chapter 1 Introduction 4

artists freedoms of expression within the confines of a gallery-museum, 'there is a justifiable sense of resentment' when it is imposed upon the public in the streets (1997: 14). This popularly held view is often exploited as a justification to restrict art in the city. However, this view has long been refuted by research, including that of Throsby and Withers (1984: 26 in Gibson 2001: 81). As Lisanne Gibson highlights, this view 'of [the] arts as a luxury and... an elite pleasure foisted on an unknowing or resentful public is simply wrong' (Ibid.). The smoothing over of dissensus and the supposed mitigation of elitism support and uphold an idea of the city as being master planned and orderly. However, the city is not a unified or comprehensively planned whole, but is instead comprised of a complex network of locations that are increasingly global.

As much as artists contribute to shaping the city and urban experience, they equally respond to and are a product of that experience. Acknowledging that contemporary artists have increasingly become globally mobilized or nomadic cultural service providers that are 'frequently commissioned to make work for places and cultures... [where] they do not strictly 'belong'', Miwon Kwon observes that site-specificity is not wholly reliant upon a fixed, physical location (Whybrow 2011: 44, emphasize in original; Kwon 2002 in Whybrow 2011: 23). Furthermore, relational art, as identified by Nicolas Bourriaud, and ‘new situationism’, subsequently identified by Claire Doherty, highlight contemporary art practices that produce 'a specific sociability' that 'is central or, in fact, constitutes the artwork' (Whybrow 2011: 28). Together, these practices have progressively denied the existence of any specific place or site for art. Paradoxically, as Whybrow suggests, to be situated might mean being displaced or to belong-in-transience (2011: 30, 31). Touring music festivals are a more populist example of momentarily belonging to the 'specific sociability' of an ephemeral or transient event. Consequently, drawing on Kwon, Whybrow argues that contemporary 'art’s function within the context of [the city or] urbanity is to facilitate' what he calls a ‘critical unsiting’ (Kwon 2004 in Whybrow 2011: 19). Thus, Whybrow (2011: 20) further argues, contemporary art has been 'radically changing its modus as well as locus operandi — which may render certain forms [such as integrated public art] effectively redundant'.

The development of public art policies and debates has been relatively consistent within cities in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. However, while the development of public art practices in the United States has

Chapter 1 Introduction 5

been 'assisted by the... critical attention of writers and critics such as Lucy Lippard and Suzi Gablik... [t]his has not been the experience in the United Kingdom [and Australia] where there is no equivalent body of critical writing on the subject' (Harding 1997: 18). As Tom Eccles, former Director of the Public Art Fund in New York (1996-2005), has bewailed, ‘each twist and turn on the evolving paradigm’ of public art — from community art to the integration of art and architecture — has ‘pull[ed] public art further away from the artist, and... into a set of programmatic requirements that effectively eviscerated the vitality of art itself' (2004: 8 in Whybrow 2011: 24). Certainly, in Australia, governments have had a domineering influence upon the development of public art policies without addressing contemporary art debates. Throughout the 1990s in Australia 'the status of arts and cultural policy increased significantly... and the arts [came] to be strategically [reframed and] positioned by government[s]' as the 'cultural industries' (Gibson 2001: 84). As an object of government policy, public art has increasingly been utilized as a tool deployed by urban planners and designers, which is at odds with how public art is imagined and critiqued by contemporary art professionals. As Harding suggests, because the negotiation of democratic ideas and aesthetic elitism is a key point of contention for artists, curators and critics, when 'public' is placed before 'art' 'something other than art [or less than art] is being suggested' (1997: 11). This has led to the use of more general terms such as 'art in public places', which 'clearly signif[ies] a resistance to the whole notion of anything called public art' (Harding 1997: 13).

As a point of relevance, this thesis is predominantly informed by my professional encounter with artworks, their sites and the political machinations of Brisbane, Australia, where I have direct and consistent professional experience that includes commissioning contemporary art for the public realm. Although this thesis extensively references and specifically emphasizes Brisbane, the ideas discussed here also apply to other cities. Publications that address contemporary and pubic art, or cultural policies, or economic and urban development, are often centred in global cities like New York and London. However, there has been very little attention paid to how the combination of global debates concerning public art unfold in a particular city or place. Advantageously, Brisbane has at times developed leading cultural policies. My experience working in Brisbane, and this city’s unique position as a location where theories and practices from different places have been adopted, and where influential practices have also been

Chapter 1 Introduction 6

generated, makes it an appropriate case study. The following section introduces the researcher's position, before proceeding to discuss the study's objectives and outlining its significance.

Researcher position

The project is in part prompted by the researcher's recent professional experiences. Working predominately as an independent curator based in Brisbane, the researcher has over 20 years of experience in the field of study. In recent years, it has been my experience that there is a noticeable and alarming increase in, and acceptance of, political interference in the field of contemporary art production. Political interference occurs in a number of ways — most overtly through censorship. Based on my professional experience, there are two key interrelated points of pressure: first, misunderstandings regarding how the public interest is represented and, second, the increased economic role of the arts. These combine to create situations where the preferences of private interests are given greater value than the public interest.

Prior to 2009, I never had to contend with censorship. However, this has changed dramatically and since 2009, I have had to address at least one censorship issue each year. In my professional experience, censorship hides in plain view. Although the outcome of censorship, the resulting artwork, is often publicly displayed, the details of the censorship are invisible to the public. Exhibitions and commissions for the public realm are judged with little consideration of what may have occurred behind closed doors. Furthermore, it is my professional experience that art institutions are reluctant to publicly discuss instances of censorship, because they attract media attention and can mobilize public support. As a result, little evidence or research is available to contest censorship or political interference.

In Australia, the most enduring principles of arts policy and funding are arms- length funding and peer-review — both embedded in the establishment of the Australia Council and replicated by Arts Queensland. These principles prevent political intervention and ensure professional autonomy, specifically through the requirement that those assessing the work have the capacity to appraise artistic merit. These measures are designed to avoid a tendency to make the arts

Chapter 1 Introduction 7

instruments of other priorities — tourism, education, health — and to recognize the arts as intrinsically valuable. Essentially, these values protect artists and aesthetic projects from political taste, influence, interference and censorship. Recognizing that artists may critique governments and society, these principles also protect governments from public criticism of arts funding decisions and controversy.

Some mechanisms of contemporary art commissioning correspond and preserve these principles, namely, through the engagement of professional curators and commissioning agreements. Commissioning agreements should protect both artists and clients. A good commissioning contract outlines reasonable grounds for rejecting proposals and should protect artists from the personal sensibilities and preferences of 'clients' — politicians, bureaucrats, committees — charged with representing public interests. However, it is a common misunderstanding that it is the client's prerogative to withdraw public- private support for a commission without justifying the reasons for retracting that support. The decision-making processes of government-clients are often opaque and do not adhere to best practice for rejecting or altering a commission. Best practice for government-clients would involve consultation with arts professionals and the public. In effect, these agreements are designed to embody arms-length funding and peer-review. Similarly, engaging a professional curator should be a proxy for upholding these principles.

To be considered professionals, curators must adhere to a widely accepted definition of a profession: 'A group... pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service — no less a public service because it may incidentally be a means of livelihood. Pursuit of the learned art in the spirit of public service is the primary purpose' (Pound 1953). Professional status is distinguished by having: a specialized body of knowledge; commitment to promoting or preserving the public interest; and autonomy. Importantly, the professional predominately preserves the public interest above personal interests. The Latin origins of the word curate mean 'to care for'. This sets an order of priorities for the curator: caring for the object, and by extension, caring for makers and for the public who receive these objects. Failure to demonstrate these professional commitments in practice undermines the fundamental tenets of the curatorial profession.

Chapter 1 Introduction 8

Politicians, as elected officials, are expected to represent their constituents and a public good. No requisite knowledge is required; they are not part of a profession or bound by a code of ethics. In Queensland, local councillors and parliamentarians have the option to commit to a code of conduct, which 'to a great extent repeat[s] the principles set out in the Public Sector Ethics Act (1994)' (QLD) (Hope 2008: 4). Such codes of conduct suggest a commitment to ethical and behavioural obligations, including: transparent and accountable governance — to make decisions in a fair and transparent manner; to act in the public interest and make decisions solely in the public interest; and respect for the democratic process. However, politicians are resistant to scrutiny and their commitment to codes of conduct is ambiguous. According to Federal Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, ‘the best integrity commissioners are the Australian public and a robust media’ (Woodley and Lane 2012). Consequently, the public relies on professions to inform and support the primacy of the public interest in this endeavour.

In my experience of working on contemporary art projects — with local and state governments, involving politicians, with the support of bureaucrats — there is confusion about what is required in order to act in the public interest, or in a transparent and/or accountable way. Public officials often believe their personal taste represents the public interest. Consequently, professional advice, codes of ethics, and especially professional autonomy are disregarded. There are sloppy practices when it comes to the arts, which are compounded by the fact that commissioning practices are seldom scrutinized in detail. This lack of transparency and accountability is compounded by pressures placed upon the arts to assist with economic growth.

During the 1990s, the professionalization of the arts sector contributed to a gradual shift in the consideration of economic interests above aesthetic values. This is demonstrated in the city's strategic statements. While the Brisbane City Council Living in Brisbane 2026 (2006) was comprised of several strategic priorities — including 'Vibrant, creative city' and 'Smart, prosperous city' — the role of arts and culture in the recently retitled Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy is blatantly recast in the service of economic growth.

The thrust of the modified strategy is further indicated by the re-established Creative City Advisory Committee and its new appointments. In 2003, to provide strategic advice, champion and facilitate partnerships, Brisbane City Council

Chapter 1 Introduction 9

(BCC) consolidated multiple arts advisory committees into the one peak advisory. Initially, the Creative City Advisory Committee (2003-2005) represented diverse art forms and entrepreneurial interests, including: major art and cultural institutions such as the Queensland Performing Arts Centre (QPAC), the State Library of Queensland (SLQ), the Queensland College of Arts (QCA), and the University of Queensland Press (UQP); medium arts organizations and stakeholders such as Metro Arts, Livid Festival, and; other major stakeholders, such as Queensland Tourism. The committee was not reappointed in 2005 after Campbell Newman was elected Lord Mayor (2004-2011). However, in 2015 Lord Mayor Graham Quirk (2012-present) re-established the Creative City Advisory Committee. The current eleven members include: Urbis (town planners well known for working with developers), Brisbane Marketing, QUT Creative Enterprise Australia, and other arts businesses such as Urban Arts Projects (UAP). The committee's current membership does not include representation by a single major, medium or small arts organization and the emphasis of the committee is now clearly divergent from its former aesthetic centre.

By way of conclusion, contemporary art projects are increasingly discussed and justified in economic terms — for example, with reference to the employment and marketing opportunities they provide — instead of aesthetic terms. It is necessary to acknowledge and develop a better understanding of the role contemporary art plays in the production of public space. It is also necessary for contemporary art professionals to address the public regarding aesthetic matters. For instance, while it is standard for the institutions of art to submit artworks for critique, this is not the practice with commissions for the public realm. As a result, there are not typically public programs, such as receptions for new work, projects are rarely published and there are few critical reviews sought or undertaken. To address this problem, this research seeks to inform and guide the stewardship of contemporary art projects that take place beyond the sanctuary of art institutions.

Purpose and Significance

For the purpose of contesting the contingent conditions of the present, the research aims to investigate the economic, socio-political and historical conditions of contemporary art production in Brisbane. Central to the research objectives is to address a lack of scrutiny regarding contemporary art production. Specific and

Chapter 1 Introduction 10

evidentiary research is required to establish a discursive arsenal for contemporary art professionals negotiating a contentious realm. In doing so, this research provides a renewed basis for representing aesthetic and public interests in commissions for the public realm, to counterbalance the prevalence of economic and private interests.

The scope of the research is defined by two periods that mark policy and funding shifts for contemporary art production in Brisbane: (1) the final years of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era, 1985-1987 and (2) following Campbell Newman's tenure as Lord Mayor of Brisbane (2004-2011), the period coinciding with the Campbell Newman Queensland Government, 2012-2015. While the demise of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government ushered in a more optimistic era of professionalization and institutionalization for the arts in Queensland, the Newman Government is significant for deinstitutionalization and the abolition of policy areas and funding for the arts, as well as cuts to progressive state-funded welfare organizations, climate change research and renewable energy projects, and industrial relations (Eltham 2012). Furthermore, the Newman Government's annihilation of arts funding, particularly to the small to medium arts sector, pre- empts federal Senator George Brandis' annexation of Australia Council funding in 2015.3 This research, closely aligned with a genealogical discourse analysis, therefore, examines and compares these two periods, to understand how the past has informed the present, and interrogates how the conditions of contemporary art production are developed and contested.

Recognizing that art-making is just one activity that artists perform, the research draws on a series of exemplars encompassing a broader notion of contemporary art practice. As Vogel in particular points out, there's a breadth of curatorial activity and investigation missing from a presently underdeveloped

3 In May 2015 former Federal Arts Minister Senator George Brandis’ ideologically driven raid on the Australia Council snatched $104 million to create the National Program for Excellence in the Arts (NPEA). Instead of maintaining arm's-length and peer-review, the NPEA brought funding decisions into Brandis' own remit and thereby gave his Arts Ministry direct control over the public funding of arts projects. The Federal Opposition labelled the program 'a slush fund' and a 'vanity project' (Parliament of Australia 2015). In November 2015 the NPEA was rebranded Catalyst by Brandis' successor Mitch Fifield. These widely-criticized decisions led to nationwide protests and a senate inquiry (May-November 2015) that delivered a stinging assessment of the Federal Government's handling of the Arts portfolio and characterized Brandis' reforms as 'completely arbitrary', with no policy framework or evidence base (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee 2015). In May 2016, as a result of these 'non-evidence based changes to arts funding', the arts sector was further destabilized and outraged when more than 60 small to medium-sized arts organizations lost their funding, including Meanjin magazine and the National Association of Visual Arts (NAVA) (Knott 2015). Finally, in March 2017 the annexed budget was largely returned to the Australia Council.

Chapter 1 Introduction 11

curatorial history (Vogel 2013; Smith 2012; Myers 2011). Omissions include: an analysis of collaborative exhibition-making as part of a 'project-based polity' situated in the political economy of the cultural industries (Vogel 2013: 49); in- depth examinations of particular and contingent conditions; and importantly, descriptions of exhibitions in the context of their reception. My survey of public art policy evaluations, outlined in the literature review chapter, confirms the lack of research in these areas informing public policy. As my literature demonstrates, public art policy reviews typically focus on infrastructural outcomes rather than aesthetic outcomes. In other words, these policy reviews divorce government arts policy from aesthetic debates. The crux of this research project is to critique commissions for the public realm, policy and aesthetic outcomes holistically. To this end, the research places contemporary art and exhibition-making, including commissioning for the public realm, at the centre of the study to avoid a 'phobia of artworks... in the discourse of exhibition history' (Vogel 2013: 49; Myers 2011: 27).

Principally, the research contributes to clarifying contemporary art's role and worth in the public realm. Recognizing that governments play a significant role in defining the terms for contemporary art production, the research informs and refines understandings regarding the institutionalized frameworks governing contemporary art and exhibition-making in Brisbane. Specifically, this thesis examines how contemporary art production is rendered instrumental through policy as a tool. Instead of focusing on the constitution of policies, the study places the aesthetic priority of projects at the centre of the analysis in order to advance an appreciation of how these policies have impacted on contemporary art-making and, where possible, its reception. In addition to identifying shifts in the city's imagination, examining and comparing the conditions of two critical periods — 1985 to 1988 and 2012 to 2015 — the research promotes an improved understanding of how contemporary art has contributed to defining, contesting and shaping discourses concerning the city.

Therefore, the research contributes to redressing a lack of institutional critique, which in some instances, such as the percent-for-art program of Brisbane City Council (BCC), is long overdue. The exemplars examined demonstrate that art and urban policies are utilized as political instruments; political intervention and the emphasis on public art that is instrumentalized (including art that supports the policy of incumbent governments) effectively limits the autonomy and stewardship

Chapter 1 Introduction 12

of contemporary artists and curators. The research unpacks the conditions of contemporary arts production within institutional frameworks and at various scales — from artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) such as THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985- 1988), which resonates over an extended period of time, to compact projects represented by InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988); and substantial commissions such as Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), to temporary commissions that hide censorship in plain view, as represented by Alice Lang's The Swell (2013). In doing so, the research places aesthetic debates at the centre of spatial politics, and acknowledges that all these projects, despite their challenges and to different degrees, have contributed to imagining the city.

The project also substantially contributes to acknowledging the influence of contemporary art projects in shaping the city. This project is germane at the current moment when a history of curatorial practice continues to be compiled and canonized. Particularly within the past decade, an intense professional interest in the history of exhibitions has been established through the proliferation of journals, publications and university courses.4 As the curatorial profession has come to recognize, the breadth of exhibition-making or curatorial practice is both 'one of the most vital and, paradoxically, ignored narratives of our cultural history' (Bergen Biennial Conference 2009). However, the developing history of curatorial practice predominately focuses on establishing a hierarchical repertoire of exhibition typologies and a genealogy in the northern hemisphere, which excludes other curatorial positions and places like Brisbane. The research contributes to the broader project of documenting curatorial history by addressing these overlooked aspects of curatorial practice, applying a critical analysis to artist-run projects and commissions for the public realm in relation to the socio-political context of Brisbane and the shaping of the city. While documentation of the politics, local history (including Expo 88), literary fiction and popular music of Brisbane exists for this period (Evans and Ferrier 2004; Hatherell 2007; Stafford 2004), a comparable analysis of the city as imagined by contemporary visual artists has yet to be compiled.

4 Examples include: the publications Curating in the 21st Century (2000) and Men in Black: Handbook of Curatorial Practice (2004); and the curatorial journals oncurating published by Dorothee Richter (2008-present) and The Exhibitionist (2009-present) edited by Jens Hoffmann.

Chapter 1 Introduction 13

Chronology

In addition to the researcher's position, this study is informed by a series of chronological events, concentrating on two pivotal periods in Brisbane’s changing relationship with spatial politics: the end of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era, 1985- 1987, and the period coinciding with the Campbell Newman Queensland Government, 2012-2015. This chronology is outlined in Chronology – Appendix A. To inform a description of the late Bjelke-Petersen era, it is necessary that the chronology begins in 1968 with the commencement of Bjelke-Petersen's premiership, and as such references some notable, primarily local events of the early-Bjelke-Petersen era. Events listed in the Chronology – Appendix A are indicative and have been selected on the basis that they were and continue to be influential in shaping the spatial imagination of the city, Brisbane.

A more expansive discussion and analysis of the Chronology – Appendix A is offered here. From this chronology a series of trends emerge. The most notable trends include: (1) the diminishment, over time, of the ambition and scale of artist- run-initiatives (ARIs); (2) the establishment of precincts; and (3) the increased influence of governments in defining the terms for cultural production. Projects of the late-1980s to early-1990s are noticeably more ambitious in scale and their influence reverberates over an extended period of time. Both Artworkers' Alliance (1984-2011) and the Asia Pacific Triennial's (APT) (1993-present) exhibition program are notable in this regard. Furthermore, organizations such as ARIs, formed with an oppositional or alternative identity invariably become subdued within institutionalized hierarchies. In other words, ARIs that were founded on an oppositional identity no longer hold alternative positions and are now positioned within the institutional infrastructure of contemporary art. This trend emerged with ARIs of the 1990s, which were dominated by two distinct, depoliticized models that focused on exhibition opportunities rather than challenging paradigms: (1) succinct exhibition programs coordinated by an artist or artists with limited opportunities to engage with broader publics and (2) spaces founded in partnership with an artist or artists that were merely available for hire. Although maintaining a focus on exhibition opportunities, some recent ARIs, such as Accidentally Annie Street Space (AASS) (2008-2012), were more reminiscent of the do-it-yourself and collaborative character of ARIs of the 1980s.

Chapter 1 Introduction 14

Whether inadvertently or by design, projects have come to be established in clusters or precincts in such a way that certain activities are concentrated in certain areas. As a result, the South Bank and the Queensland Cultural Centre area emerges as a place with a particular focus on cultural and leisure activity. From South Bank, where the river's divide is exacerbated by the Riverside Expressway, the city offers a backdrop as an economic spectacle. Similarly, economic decline due to suburbanization offered opportunities for a plethora of artist-run activity in the inner-city's Fortitude Valley during the 1990s. In addition, successive governments have wielded art and culture as tools with symbolic power, as demonstrated by Goss' support for the establishment of the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT), which capitalized on a newfound optimism following the end of the Bjelke-Petersen era, and Newman’s slashing of funding to the Premier's Literary Awards.

These events highlight the increasing ties between contemporary art projects and infrastructural projects, which draw on art as part of a toolkit for urban renewal and marketing. With government funding for contemporary art projects coming increasingly via infrastructural projects, especially from 1988 onwards, an economic agenda is amplified, and the interests of artists and citizens are considerably minimized. The chronology illustrates small, seemingly innocuous policy shifts, which impact upon contemporary artists and other arts professionals. Notably, as a result of these policy shifts, contemporary art projects once instigated by individuals and small collectives today tend to be coordinated by formally constituted and accountable organizations. Overall, the chronology traces the substantial role of governments in defining the terms for contemporary art production in Brisbane.

These events also indicate that art plays a central function in society to both enrich and critique; as such it has played an important role in imagining the city, a role that is increasingly eroded and supplanted by private interests. During the 1990s, in both global and local contexts, the practices of contemporary art became broader, involving spaces both in and out of gallery-museums, and with this shift came attendant challenges in negotiating this expanded field. Simultaneously, to accommodate shortfalls in public funding for the arts, public policy and funding gradually shifted to entrepreneurial, public-private partnerships and funding models. Consequently, through recasting contemporary art production in the service of economic growth, private interests have been privileged over public

Chapter 1 Introduction 15

interest. While some contemporary art professionals are beginning to articulate the fundamentally problematic nature of these transformations, there is a lack of local attention, specific and evidentiary research to support a coordinated response.

This section has broadly addressed a series of chronological events and changes that have provided the contextual background for this study. The following section supplies a detailed introduction to the contemporary art projects — the exemplars — that have helped guide the research.

Exemplars

The research predominantly draws on four exemplars — two representing each period under investigation. For the period from 1985 to 1988, it looks at: (1) artist- run-initiative (ARI) THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988); (2) InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst. For the period covering 2012 to 2015, it looks at (3) Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), a commission for the public realm celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Asia-Pacific Triennial and the fifth anniversary of the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA); and (4) Alice Lang The Swell (2013), commissioned by Brisbane City Council as part of an urban renewal project.5 Each exemplar is examined for its ability to portray the context of its production. In other words, these examples are subjects of the research, not the object of study. The object of the research is to investigate the relationship between contemporary art practices and the socio-political conditions that shape the city.

This research study investigates the legacy of 'infrastructural activism' or critique by artist-run projects (Smith 2012 in Anderson 2015: 59). Specifically, it examines how the role of contemporary art practitioners has been supported and altered by government arts policies through the cycle of institutionalization, deinstitutionalization and re-institutionalization. This involves interrogating the role artists and arts professionals play in defining, contesting and shaping discourses concerning the city. Particularly as the role of the itinerant artist or arts professional as independent collaborators — the so-called archetype of service providers

5 In addition to these exemplars, the thesis refers to numerous art projects listed in Appendix B.

Chapter 1 Introduction 16

offering flexible immaterial labour — contribute to attracting economic investment and the revalorization of space.6 I will now introduce each exemplar in some detail, before concluding by outlining the significance of the research study.

The first exemplar, THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988), was distinguished by a dynamic, open or anti-authoritarian and city-based rationale. In the mid and late 1980s, artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) were not the mini-galleries that today form part of the institutional infrastructure that circulates contemporary art (Bulka 1997; Porges 1997). They were still “true” alternatives to state institutions. THAT adopted strategies of resistance, primarily through anarchic and post punk messiness with a relaxed party atmosphere, in contrast with the white-cube of conventional gallery spaces. Notably, Urszula Szulakowska positioned THAT within a genealogy of 'Brisbane Dada' (Szulakowska 1987: 17). As a co-operative body, THAT constituted a challenge to the romantic notion of artists working in isolation. Importantly, members of THAT's collective were founding members of and closely associated with the Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984- 2011). QAA's initiatives were integral to redressing regional deficiencies by raising grassroots debate on industry-related issues. Published under the auspices of QAA, eyeline (1987-present) was an important vehicle for debate within the arts community.

QAA and eyeline, as well as arts policy reviews undertaken by the Australia Council and the Arts Division of the Premier's Department (Arts Queensland) during this period, all contributed to a forward-looking critical regionalism — emphasizing local cultural characteristics that mediated the global — in Brisbane. THAT's era is reasonably well documented in the early issues of eyeline, where alongside exhibition reviews there were columns dedicated to policy. In these early issues of eyeline, it is apparent that THAT's contemporaries were acutely interested in the economic, socio-political and historical conditions of contemporary art's production in Brisbane. In addition to the making and reception of contemporary art, eyeline analysed the relationships between contemporary art and its 'adjacent cultural, institutional and social practices' (Follent 1989). Most significantly, they advocated for and worked to secure improved financial conditions for arts workers. Today, in publications such as eyeline, documentation

6 Lefebvre (1974) uses the term ‘revalorize’ to describe processes that closely resemble gentrification.

Chapter 1 Introduction 17

scrutinizing contemporary art's production is dispersed, with a global perspective, and rarely focused on a critical regionalism.

The second exemplar, presented in the lead up to Expo 88 and coordinated by Jeanelle Hurst, InterFace (1988), was an ambitiously-scaled artist-run project pre-dating Brisbane City Council (BCC) (1995) and State (1999) public art polices. As indicated by its subtitle: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment, imagining the city was a unifying subject of the project. Although the project received financial support from the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA), as an early foray into public space, the project was unencumbered by formal public art policies or a cloaked demand to aid economic growth. Instead, reviews of the project at the time, including one by Michelle Helmrich for eyeline, emphasized that InterFace's 'sites were not sites for containment or legitimization, but rather... sites for transaction, forcing works to enter the cut and thrust of city data and commercial signing' (Helmrich 1988a: 9). However, suggesting 'that certain strategies of delivery are more suited to an effective public art statement', Helmrich questions whether, 'for example, the work of Barbara Kruger, Jenny Holzer and Krzystof Wodiczko [have been more] responsible and appropriate because of the fast, memorable delivery, and “political” content?' (Helmrich 1988a: 9). In contrast to current commentary regarding public art commissioning, Helmrich's reviews critiqued the content and delivery of these works. Although notions of aesthetic responsibility continue to feature in contemporary art debates, they're remarkably absent from public art reviews.

The final two exemplars, from the period coinciding with Newman’s tenure as Premier, have broadly inherited the legacy of THAT and InterFace's socio- political milieu. The origins of the third exemplar come, however, from the period of newfound optimism in the city that followed the end of the Bjelke Petersen era, when the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993-present) commenced (Turner 2012). While the Queensland Art Gallery (QAG) was modelled on nineteenth-century European museums, suggesting a symbolic connection with a European past, the APT contributed to cultural diplomacy and economic development with the Asia- Pacific Region. In developing the APT, QAG established an international reputation and repositioned not just Brisbane, but Australia in the cultural arena. The third exemplar, Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), commemorates this shift in the city's imagination.

Chapter 1 Introduction 18

However, when close to completion, Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011- 12) was targeted by the newly elected Newman Government (2012-2015), with the Courier Mail as its mouthpiece, rejecting the hard-fought battles of THAT's era. The criticisms signalled the deinstitutionalization of a popular arts policy that had substantially contributed to artists' and fabricators' livelihoods, and ignited lively public opinion:

Why not get rid of the whole South Brisbane cultural centre? Why should we spend taxpayer's money to house and subsidize arts, culture and science education in Queensland? What arty fart pinko had that idea? Oh... It was Joh and Russ... (David of Auchenflower 2012: Comment 50 of 226 in Helbig 2012).

Although this uncharacteristic public engagement was largely ignored, it prompts closer scrutiny through a discourse analysis. The comments offer a space to process contradictions, humour, conflict and misunderstandings, suggesting that there is a lot more groundwork to be done for the reception of contemporary art in Brisbane.

While this study reviews public reception through discourse analysis in the discussion of the third exemplar, Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), commissioned in association with the State Government, research on the fourth and final exemplar, Alice Lang's The Swell (2013), commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC), reflects an absence of public discourse in the process of commissioning and developing this art project. Although The Swell (2013) was publicly financed and purportedly for the benefit of public space, a private property owner provoked an editing of the work's content — effectively censoring the work. In recent years, control over the subjects and content of public-private sponsored artworks have profoundly diminished practitioners’ autonomy. These types of incidents, which do not typically attract public attention, highlight a trend whereby the public sector defers to and bolsters the private sector's influence. This is evident in The Swell (2013) and other small, often overlooked commissions, but it is also a trend evident in policies regarding arts funding on a national scale. For example, the controversy surrounding the 2014 Biennale of Sydney, was used by former federal Arts Minister, Senator George Brandis, to instruct the Australia

Chapter 1 Introduction 19

Council to blacklist artists or arts organizations that had 'unreasonably' refused private sector support.7 What is more, both the Parekowhai and Lang commissions demonstrate that public art projects are consistently dominated by and measured in reference to urban and economic policies, which turns public art into a political instrument and limits the autonomy of contemporary art practitioners.

The Swell (2013), was commissioned as part of the BCC Vibrant Laneways program, an initiative of the City Centre Master Plan 2006 that continues as part of the City Centre Master Plan 2014. The program has come to primarily identify small public precincts and minimally upgrade infrastructure to encourage alfresco dining, retail opportunities, further redevelopment and investment. Public art commissions form a key feature of the program. In addition to “showcasing local artists”, these commissions are charged with dynamically delivering on repetitive marketing terms: rejuvenate, revitalize, enliven, activate, enhance. In other words, these commissions provide marketing opportunities, drawing attention to public spaces earmarked for further redevelopment.

Through redevelopment programs such as Vibrant Laneways, BCC partners with property owners to present commissions for the public realm. Hence, these commissions by the city commonly grant significant influence to individual and private interests, and this practice has rarely, if ever, been scrutinized. In fact, as alluded to in the City Centre Master Plan 2006, prepared by architects Donovan Hill, developers and property owners are granted a dominant decision-making role when commissioning public art on behalf of the city (BCC 2006). Although such documents are widely circulated, referred to and mastered by design

7 As previously noted, Brandis was responsible for destabilizing and mishandling the Federal Government's Arts portfolio. Other notable controversies include: (1) In late-2005 a series of controversial sedition provisions attracted public attention when the Commonwealth Government proposed plans to amend and introduce new laws to Australia's Crimes Act 1914. The proposed provisions suggested that artists could be jailed for up to seven years if their work was considered seditious or inspired sedition either deliberately or accidentally. In turn, the provisions were considered to tacitly suppress free inquiry and expression. The provisions were eventually repealed in 2011. (2) In May 2008 police seized a series of artworks by contemporary photographic artist Bill Henson from Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney, just hours before his exhibition opening. The complainants were child protection advocates, including Hetty Johnson. The event provoked a media furore and national debate. In a televised interview, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared that he considered the images to be 'absolutely revolting' and without artistic merit (Rudd 2008). (3) Similarly, child pornography charges were laid (and later dismissed) against artist Paul Yore in connection with his large-scale installation, Everything is F---ed (2013), at St Kilda's council-owned Linden Centre for Contemporary Arts. The installation, exploring sexual identity and the excesses of consumer culture, incorporated collages and objects, with images portraying fertility and boys' faces pasted onto the phallic and pornographic bodies of adult males, interspersed with images from popular culture, including depictions of (pop star) Justin Bieber, to create a colourful, riotous and fantastical work.

Chapter 1 Introduction 20

professionals, they don't necessarily receive the same attention from contemporary art professionals. Furthermore, while State Government public art policies had greater publicity and were thereby subject to public review, Brisbane City Council (BCC) policies, although popular, have not benefitted from the same level of public attention and demand greater examination.

Thesis Outline

As this chapter has articulated, the objective of the research is to investigate the relationships between contemporary art practices and the socio-political conditions that shape the city, Brisbane. Chapter 2 provides a literature review examining the key concepts deployed in the thesis. Overall, the chapter locates the thesis' enquiry in a gap created by the expanded field and extra-institutional activities of contemporary art practices. After introducing the discipline, contemporary art, the chapter canvases the pervasiveness of neoliberalism and, in the context of contemporary art, considers the discrete influences of public- private funding, urban renewal and gentrification. The chapter also introduces a series of key aesthetic concepts relevant to this study: 'the politics of aesthetics' (Rancière 2006b); antagonism or 'agonistic' (Mouffe 2000), which contests and challenges the limitations of consensus in a way applicable to extra-institutional activity; and as Lefebvre's right to the city, which encompasses a right to imagine the city, and accounts for how the city is conceived. Together, these concepts support the study's articulation of arguments regarding contemporary art's economic and aesthetic role in the city.

Chapter 3, Methodology, sets out the theoretical proposition and the rationale for employing exemplars. As outlined in the chapter, genealogical discourse analysis is the principal method of enquiry adopted for this study. As Foucault suggests, the purpose of undertaking a genealogical inquiry is to transform the present by 'grasping (more fully) what it is' (1984: 50). To this end, the research draws upon a series of concrete examples — the exemplars — to investigate the relationships between contemporary art practices and the socio- political conditions that shape the city. Each exemplar has afforded the research instances of infrastructural and institutional change, and thereby helps contextualize and critique the conditions of their production. Moreover, each exemplar helps draw attention to contemporary art processes rendered

Chapter 1 Introduction 21

instrumental by governments for the purposes of gentrification, privatization and city marketing. This chapter further introduces the exemplars and describes how data has been sourced and collected.

The first part of the research discussion addresses the late-Bjelke-Petersen or pre-Fitzgerald era — 1985-1987. Chapter 4, Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization, investigates how contemporary art practices operated in relation to the hostile political environment of the late-Bjelke-Petersen era and the initial processes of institutionalization through which artworkers begin to effect policy change, especially at a state level. Using THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-88) as an exemplar, this chapter discussed the environment in which Brisbane's first generation of artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) claimed space in the CBD, and, by creating lively creative precincts, imagined the city anew. Chapter 4 also discusses the significant contribution of these artist-led activities to infrastructural activism, which led to the formation of professional organizations such as Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984-2011). This chapter also introduces the major cultural policy reforms of the Goss State Government's Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991). Through these reforms, support for art and artists was affirmed as a major commitment of government, which thereby announced a changed relationship between government, artists and art professionals.

Chapter 5 investigates the institutionalization of public art practices in association with the Queensland State Government's Art Built-in policy (1999- 2007). This policy fulfilled a recommendation of the Goss Government's arts policy, Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991) and set out to materially transform the perception of Queensland's built environment. This chapter is prefaced by a discussion of the second exemplar, an artist-run precursor to this policy — InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), an exhibition coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst. InterFace (1988) is an example of a progressive contemporary art project in the public realm and as the project's subtitle suggests, imagining the city was a unifying subject of the project. However, as the discussion indicates, public art policies such as Art Built-in worked to secure consensus whilst stripping away or suppressing the critical capacity of challenging, site-specific, contemporary and temporary projects, as exemplified by InterFace (1988).

Chapter 1 Introduction 22

The second part of the research discussion turns to more recent events and examples, which correspond with the Newman State Government's term, 2012- 2015. Chapter 6, Deinstitutionalization, addresses the Newman Government's criticisms of a series of commissions, including the third exemplar, Michael Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12). The chapter first establishes the significance of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), which encompasses its role commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) and its cultural contribution to the city. Following this, the chapter addresses changes to the State's public art policy — from the Art Built-in policy (1999-2007) to the art+place policy (2007-2012) — and ultimately the deinstitutionalization of its policy. This chapter argues that commissions including Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) and the art+place policy (2007-2012) suffered for the lack of a professional arts body to speak in their defence and were thereby poorly represented by the visual arts community.

While Chapters 5 and 6 primarily focus on commissioning for the public realm in relation to the State's public art policies, Chapter 7 provides an overview of 20 years of Brisbane City Council (BCC) cultural and urban policies, encompassing an analysis of their public art strategies and practices. This chapter addresses the progression of BCC's cultural practices chronologically, from a Cultural Development Strategy (1991), which was delivered in parallel with reforms associated with the Goss State Government's Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), to the Creative City Strategy (2003), which has recently been replaced by an economic strategy, the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013- 22 (2013) strategy. This progression, coupled with the city's concomitant drive for urban development, highlights changes that increasingly address and/or develop public space as private space, and involve a redirection of art and cultural activity to economic frameworks. Subsequently, this chapter draws upon the fourth exemplar, Alice Lang's The Swell (2013), commissioned as part of BCC's Vibrant Laneways program, as an example of the artists' role in the cycle of urban gentrification, the tightly guarded symbolism of creativity, and a lack of scrutiny regarding BCC's public art policies, practices and decision-making processes. This study directly addresses the lack of assessment regarding BCC's public art and cultural practices. Finally, the concluding chapter outlines the study's findings, limitations and opportunities for further research.

Chapter 1 Introduction 23

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This research engages with debates that prompt and reframe arguments regarding contemporary art's role in the city. These progress from purely economic arguments to incorporate and emphasize aesthetic terms. A central argument of this research is that art and exhibition-making have become increasingly defined and valued by the market for its price as a commodity and by the state for its economic or social usefulness. This comes at a cost to considerations of aesthetic value. As a result, this situation presents a crisis of definition and has particular ramifications for curatorial practice. Therefore, this research study interrogates the interrelationship between the economic and aesthetic functions of contemporary art.

To begin, this chapter introduces the discipline: contemporary art. Following a definition of contemporary art and practice, this section introduces key issues that curatorial practices are confronted with, leading to significant statements from the profession's code of ethics. Frequently touched upon throughout the literature is contemporary art's desire to escape claustrophobic categorization. Following the definition and initial discussion of contemporary art, to address the overlapping contemporary art debates that impact upon the research, this literature review is broadly composed of four themes/parts.

First, the economic functions of contemporary art are explored by canvasing the pervasiveness of neoliberalism, followed by a discussion of neoliberalism in the context of contemporary art. Australian art critic Robert Hughes traces the origins of this pervasive character to the 1973 Scull auction. However, while

Chapter 2 Literature Review 25

acknowledging that the intermingling of contemporary art and commerce is most commonly thought of in relation to, and epitomized by, the art market, this chapter also considers the more discrete influence of public-private funding, urban renewal and gentrification through examination of biennials and commissioning for the public realm.

It follows that the social function of contemporary art and curatorial practices in particular, are susceptible to being deployed and made instrumental both economically and ideologically. Consequently, the second part of the discussion reviews foundational concepts including autonomy and institutional critique. An examination of the genealogy of these concepts provides a framework for an investigation of the critical attitudes and practices of institutional critique relevant to this research study. However, it is through the exemplars that this research study investigates local and specific instances of institutional critique or 'infrastructural activism' and mobilizing audience/public reception (Terry Smith 2012: 251).

Additionally, this part of the discussion offers a review of public art policies: the Queensland Art Built-in policy (1999-2007) and its now defunct successor art+place, the Queensland Public Art Fund (2007-2012). As data for a comparative research analysis, these policy reviews are relevant for a number of reasons. Primarily, these public art policies are considered a cohesive fraction representative of the whole art policy landscape. While the research project is by no means solely interested in commissions for the public realm, it is concerned with the expanded field of contemporary art practices and extra-institutional activity that encompasses public art commissioning. Especially in the context of Brisbane, commissions for the public realm correspond with this aspect of contemporary practice, albeit in a limiting fashion. Furthermore, as an example, this collaborative fraction of practice most explicitly draws attention to contemporary art processes that are instrumentalized by governments for the purposes of gentrification, privatization and city marketing.

The third part of this chapter explores two key aesthetic concepts relevant to this study: the politics of aesthetics (Rancière 2006b) and antagonism (Mouffe 2000). In response to a perceived weakening of western political and social structures, philosopher Jacques Rancière (2006b) recuperates the politics of aesthetics. Like institutional critique, these aesthetic strategies inform a framework for this research study, which seeks to contest and challenge the limitations of

Chapter 2 Literature Review 26

consensus in a way that is applicable to extra-institutional forms and the expanded field of contemporary art.

Finally, this chapter includes a discussion of Lefebvre's project as a source of possible ways to resist, reclaim and/or defend aesthetic territory. Throughout the research, Lefebvre's project is prefaced and augmented by others including those of art historian Rosalyn Deutsche. Lefebvre's project is significant to this research study as it offers an opening to explore aesthetic strategies that sustain difference and cultivate antagonism in urban public spaces. As such, the fourth part of this literature review elaborates upon Lefebvre's propositions, particularly the right to the city, which encompasses a right to imagine the city. As documentation of the imagined city by contemporary visual artists is limited, the research is complimented by literary fiction and architectural design examples. Such examples, which often describe the city's physical form, also account for how the city is conceived.

Contemporary art and practice

Superficially, contemporary art simply refers to art of the present. It is often popularly defined in contrast to 'traditional' art, or more accurately, representational art, which is still practiced in genres and media, such as painting and sculpture, commonly appreciated for the application of technical skills to depict a recognizable subject, as in a portrait, landscape or still life. Contemporary art is also often popularly misconceived as devoid of tradition. However, the specialized use of the term refers to art since the 1960s.

Editorials such as What is Contemporary Art? by Aranda, Wood and Vidokle (2010) attest to the evasiveness of the term 'contemporary art'. However, in my professional experience, although contemporary art is characterized by a dynamic cacophony of practices, without a single organizing principle or ideology, it can be defined in reference to recognizable traditions and practices. Grounded in conceptual avant-garde practices of the 1960s and 1970s, contemporary art blurs the boundaries between art and everyday life. Concerned with creating an entire corporeal and conceptual encounter, rigorously immersive and inter-textualized practices routinely reference or appropriate multiple disciplines including cultural theory, aesthetics, sociology and popular culture. Simultaneously employing a

Chapter 2 Literature Review 27

combination of spatial, performative and/or new media strategies, contemporary art may adopt the form of tangible or ephemeral objects and/or collaborative processes.

Confronted with genre-breaking artworks that are continually expanding upon prior definitions of painting or sculpture, 'some art critics [have] felt a loss of firm ground upon which to make evaluations' (McDowell 2012: 69). Rosalind Krauss, 'one of the central protagonists in these debates, has since coined the term “post- medium condition”... and has worked to generate criteria with which to judge contemporary art, even as the art itself outpaces her terms' (Ibid). Upsetting the strict categorization of art, the 'paradoxical reskilling of art' incorporates 'all manner of non-art activities and roles an artist might occupy' (Thompson 2010: 41; McDowell 2010: 2). Aesthetic investigations of this form permit cultural producers to embrace projects that seek to not only escape the boundaries of specific discursive fields — art, activism and geography — 'but also produce a space in which the audience cannot place the object/engagement in any familiar category, including the overarching sphere of capitalism' (Thompson 2010: 41). Acknowledging that capitalism adeptly captures entrepreneurial, interdisciplinary subjects, the escape is always fleeting (Eagleton 1990; Foster 1985). Crossing borders and blurring the distribution of roles is a defining characteristic of contemporary art, when all artistic competences stray from their own field and exchange places and powers with all others (Rancière 2007: 280).

Like contemporary art-making, contemporary exhibition-making is diverse and flexible. Contemporary art's exhibition may occur within or beyond gallery- museums and/or white cubes. An exhibition embracing site-specificity and public spaces may manifest as an engagement with social ideas rather than the presentation of monumental objects. Monumental objects are commonly associated with the term 'public art'. However, in respect to contemporary art practices, the application of the term is limiting, and even derogatory, primarily because it precludes a breadth of engagement and experiences. As Deutsche affirms, 'equating site-specific art with [public] art that creates harmonious spatial totalities is so profoundly at odds with the impulse that historically motivated the development of site-specificity that it nearly amounts to a terminological abuse' (1996: 261). Applying Deutsche’s criticisms to the term, emerging public art practices may be redefined as a process of unsettling and contesting public spaces, which avoids the more 'paternalistic process[es] of place-making' (Doherty

Chapter 2 Literature Review 28

2014). Conventional models of commissioning are limited and require adjustment with regard to contemporary public art. When public art is judged, on the street, as part of an event or biennial, the circumstances of the commission, the paternalism of its public-private financiers and collaborators, are typically rendered invisible. With this in mind, the phrase 'commissions for the public realm' is consistently utilized throughout this research to encompass a broader notion in keeping with contemporary art practices and to denote the role of commissioners and collaborators.

Curatorial practice and stewardship

The stewardship of contemporary art is complex, messy and troubled, but the role of curators remains pivotal to developing a reception for art. Predominately through what O’Neill — in a book named for this phrase — refers to as ‘the curatorial turn’ in the 1990s (O'Neill 2007), the role of curator as caretaker has shifted dramatically from one that anonymously dwells in the collection stores of a gallery-museum to a visible and dominant identity that negotiates collaboration between artists, institutions and the public. As defined by O'Neill, the curatorial turn refers to a period when temporary art exhibitions — biennales or triennials, art fairs and travelling exhibitions — became the principal means by which contemporary art is distributed, experienced, mediated and historicized (2007: 243). Significantly, the emphasis on this subset of curatorial typologies — what Terry Smith (2012: 253; 65) refers to as a shifting expansion of the 'infrastructural' and the 'exhibitionary complex' (Bennett 1995; 1996) — enabled curators to become free agents, unshackled from the institution. Importantly, as O'Neill highlights, the curatorial turn is not only bound to contemporary art history and exhibition-making, but also broadly signals socio-political, economic and cultural change in a more globalized world (2007: 245).

Thus, curators inevitably became implicated in the 'biennale phenomenon', and biennalization, which refers to the proliferation of biennales or triennials as an institutional form (Vanderlinden and Filipovic 2005). The biennale phenomenon initially called into question the inertia, the supposedly rigid, authoritative and atemporal collection display of public gallery-museums that were unwilling or too slow to respond to emerging contemporary art practices (Vanderlinden and Filipovic 2005 in O'Neill 2007: 245; Vogel 2013: 46). Consequently, curators

Chapter 2 Literature Review 29

emerged as nomadic, energetic, and inexpensive service providers. Experimenting with 'peripheral forms of exhibiting', curators 'expanded the repertoire of exhibiting' (Tannert and Tischler 2004: 48). However, while events such as biennales and triennials advantageously recentre the art world, these events have become ubiquitous and standardized, which contributes to a diminishing of 'the difference between centre and periphery' (Esche 2005 in O'Neill 2007: 246).

As O'Neill explains, the proliferation of biennales or triennials creates a circuit for continuous temporary spaces where the global and local are in constant dialogue (2007: 244). These spaces offer a model that 'can efficiently meet the accelerated rate of exchange and consumption parallel to the global flow of capital and information' (Bradley 2003 in O'Neill 2007: 247). They also facilitate a competitive 'desire to promote and validate local, culturally specific production within a global network' (Ibid). Hence, the biennale model plays a role in city marketing, cultural tourism, urban renewal and economic stimulation. The paradox is that a city's 'desire' for this opportunity to promote local cultural material is undermined by global standardization. Curatorial work, particularly in relation to biennalization, should not be considered independent, but should instead 'be understood as institutional “utterances” within a larger cultural industry' (Ferguson 1996 in O'Neill 2007: 244).

As a result, the expanded field of contemporary art, its institutions and practices, untethered from public gallery-museum buildings, has come to reside in public spaces and acquires extra-institutional form. Through this condition, institutional critique also assumes an expanded scope. Rachel Mader's comprehensive and timely review of the current status of institutional critique explains: just as the political effects of these institutional activities are hotly debated, political theory struggles with the question of whether ‘neoliberalism is hegemonic’ and, if so, what consequences this may have for the individual’s agency within social structures (Demirovic 2013 in Mader 2013: 40). Essentially, practitioners battle with how to work in relation to institutional practices. Distancing themselves from the anti-institutionalism of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, theorists such as Alex Demirovic or Chantal Mouffe, following Gramsci, insist on the possibility and sometimes the desirability of a critical appropriation of hegemonic institutional structures (Mouffe 2013 in Mader 2013: 40).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 30

Recalling Althusser’s Ideological State Apparatuses (1970), contemporary art's institutions, its gallery-museums and more broadly public spaces, are powerful representatives of the state and its ideologies (Bennett 1995 and Duncan 1991 in Chandler 2009: 75). Increasingly, such state ideologies are confounded by public- private systems of funding, which accommodate and legitimize private-sector interests. As Rosler astutely notes, contemporary 'art that exhibits an imperfect allegiance to the ideological structures of social elites has often been poorly received' and 'has trouble defending itself from charges of [submitting] to the prejudices of a clientele' (2010: 2). For curator Nato Thompson, 'social capital' is a latent agent which 'sits in the complicated matrix of power and capital', 'schizophrenic' in its complicity, and 'the dark shadow that haunts all aspects of contemporary art' (2010: 40-41; Bourdieu 1992; 1986). Conversely, some art critics suggest critiquing complicity as part of the cycle of institutionalization. For art critic Claire Bishop, 'it is worth bearing in mind that... avant-garde rhetorics of opposition and transformation have been frequently replaced by strategies of complicity; what matters is not the complicity, but how we receive it' (2004: 71). Alternatively, to borrow from Jörg Heiser, the question is: 'to what ends one works or self-exploits' (2008).

Discussions concerning complicity prompt many practitioners to propose discarding the institutions of art, and the distinctions between art and non-art. Curator Stephen Wright has argued that contemporary art's complicity and heteronomy leave it no meaningful, transformative function. Observing that many contemporary art practices seek to 'escape [the] performative and ontological capture [of] art altogether', Wright claims that the division between what is and not art, 'prevents art from becoming socially and politically useful' (2012 in Holert 2013). Art historian David Joselit proposes a consideration of 'contemporary art in terms of "afterimage" and/or as "reverberations" of its own global and local connectivity' (2013: 112 in Holert 2013). Joselit, amongst others, including Suzanne Lacy and Pamela Lee, also 'address a prevalent desire to escape' the art world and 'its complicity with global oligarchies, as well as its precarious economy of infinite temporary [or itinerant] work' (Joselit 2013: 112; Lacy 2010: xii; Lee 2012: 186 in Holert 2013). Artist Andrea Fraser attests to this desire, describing her own withdrawal from aspects of the art world in an essay for the Whitney Biennial (2012). However, rather than abandon institutions and institutional critique, Fraser argues 'that the critical and political potential of art lies in its very embeddedness',

Chapter 2 Literature Review 31

which can only be effective 'in situ' (2012: 29). While preceding debates highlight complicity, Fraser, reiterating Mouffe, suggests recasting complicity as a collaboration that may critically appropriate institutional practices, such as biennials, which the state casts in the service of urban renewal and city marketing.

Curatorial practice and thereby curators are popularly misunderstood — in part due to biennalization — as individual agents and as arbiters of taste. The concomitant liberal appropriation of the term 'curated' is used to describe almost any activity that involves selection, usually 'curated' consumer products, equating a 'curator' with a personal shopper. The hyperbolic hijacking of the term 'curate' has even come to represent 'an innocent form of self-inflation' (McWhorter 2009 in Williams 2009). However, what is less understood is the collaborative nature of arbitration. As Lind asserts, curatorial practice is a collaborative working model characterized by cooperation (2009b: 60; 2007: 23). For example, curatorial practice often involves artists, designers, historians and/or writers, gallery- museums, marketing personnel, sometimes bureaucrats and ultimately audiences/the public. Rather than self-expression, collaboration entails contact, deliberation and negotiation, and thereby produces subjectivity differently. Recalling Heiser's question: 'to what ends one works or self-exploits' — collaboration may at times involve conscious immersion or complicity (2008; Lind 2009b; Lind 2007). Conversely, collaborations can constitute relational resistance to specific and/or local situations (Lind 2007: 16). For instance, self-organized collaborations, such as artist-run-initiatives, often reside on the border between artist and curatorial activities, and 'infrastructural activism' (Lind 2007: 27; Smith 2012: 251).

Despite recent transformations and challenges associated with curating contemporary art, the profession is guided by an ethical code. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics for Museums states that: 'Regardless of funding sources, gallery-museums should maintain control of the content and integrity of their programmes, exhibitions and activities. Income-generating activities should not compromise the standards of the institution or its public', or conflict with the code of ethics (2013: 2). This statement presents a very particular challenge for curators negotiating extra-institutional forms. It can be difficult for patrons, even for a government representative commissioning in a public context, to comprehend that the value decisions which drive the curatorial profession are fundamentally different to the decisions concerning the funding and maintenance

Chapter 2 Literature Review 32

of other products and services. Gallery-museums share the responsibilities of public and democratic spaces. As the ICOM Code of Ethics states, they are institutions 'in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquire, conserve, research, communicate and exhibit, for the purposes of study, education and enjoyment, the tangible and intangible evidence of people' and their cultures (2013: 15).

Neoliberalism as a pervasive ideology

For contemporary art, the gradual emergence of neoliberalism coincides with a shift to an emphasis on economic value above other, specifically aesthetic, values. This section briefly surveys discussions concerning the ascendant characteristics of neoliberalism, before proceeding in subsequent sections to examine the relationship between contemporary art and neoliberalism — in the art market, in government art and urban policies, through gentrification, public-private partnerships and funding.

Neoliberalism is a contested concept, but broadly understood to represent the re-emergence 'of the market and economic rationale as the dominant organising logic in society' (Harrington and Turem 2006: 204). Notoriously difficult to define, in part because it manifests differently across the world, the consistent principles of neoliberalism include: free market capitalism, laissez-faire (a more extensive form of free-market capitalism where the role of the state is limited to protecting property rights), trade liberalization, privatization of public assets, and an emphasis on property rights and deregulation (Harvey 2005). It is further distinguished by reductions in government spending and intervention in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. Governments subscribing to neoliberal policy mainly function to provide infrastructure to advance the rule of law, particularly in respect to property rights (Robbins 1999). Consequently, some commentators use the term 'market fundamentalism' as a synonym for neoliberalism (Stiglitz 2002).

Due to how broadly the term 'neoliberalism' is applied, Flew is sceptical about its use. According to Flew, as an often invoked, but ill-defined term, 'neoliberalism' now appears so frequently 'that it risks being used to refer to almost any political, economic, social or cultural process associated with contemporary capitalism'

Chapter 2 Literature Review 33

(2012; Mudge 2008: 703; Nonini 2008: 149). As Flew notes, the term 'neoliberalism' was rarely used prior to the early 1990s. The frequency of the term escalated in the mid 1990s with a simultaneous decline of the term monetarism (Flew 2012: 5). Although the term 'neoliberalism' is dynamic, it has a specific political ideological character aligned with the gradual dismantling of 'Keynesian welfare capitalism' (Harvey 2005; Flew 2012: et al.).8 Proponents for neoliberalism argue that unfettered markets, 'free from state imposed constraints, are the most efficient, and moral, way of producing and distributing most goods and services in society — whether they be consumer items or public goods such as education and healthcare' (Cahill 2004: 3). The morally virtuous are capable of accessing the relevant markets and functioning as competent actors in these markets. For neoliberalism’s proponents, state intervention to promote egalitarian social goals — the Keynesian welfare state, the institutions of arbitration and tariff protection, socialism and social justice — constitute an inefficient and unjust form of social regulation that is responsible for economic malaise.

Neoliberalism, as a globally dominant economic ideology, was advanced during the late 1990s by political leaders of the centre-left, including Bill Clinton in the United States, Tony Blair in Britain and, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Gerhard Schroder in Germany, by shifting their policies in more 'market friendly' directions (Harvey 2005; Flew 2012: 15). Meanwhile, influential international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, assumed an especially important role in promoting neoliberalism across East Asia (Beeson 2007: 8; 2003). In Australia, proponents for neoliberalism have obscured their ideological predispositions by adopting the language of social movements, resistance and popular protest. Equipped with a discursive arsenal that included both economic and moral rhetoric, proponents were able to focus anxieties about neoliberal restructuring onto their opponents (Taylor 1986 in Cahill 2004: 23). Primarily through the mainstream media, the Left, trade unions and welfare advocates were accused with constituting ‘special interests’, privileging minorities that were unrepresentative of mainstream Australia (Cahill 2004: 13). The effect of such rhetoric has been to demonize, delegitimize, disorganize and

8 Keynesian economics advocates for government and fiscal programs designed to moderate 'boom and bust cycles' (Briggs 2010) by increasing employment and stimulating economic activity, particularly during recessions. For example, through government investment in infrastructure. Queensland Premier (1932-1942) William Forgan Smith adopted policies similar to Keynes. Keynes also championed the arts, as Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, after which the Australia Council is modelled (Eltham 2010; Eslake 2007).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 34

undermine opposition, while at the same time drawing attention away from the elite nature of neoliberalism's ideological predispositions. The principle behind this strategy is explained by neoliberal 'activist' John Hyde:

a cause can gain and maintain a degree of moral superiority by continually and publicly setting its policies in the context of values the public holds already — e.g. it is just, it is democratic, it will assist the poor, and so on. Defence of the same policies in terms of efficiency or ideology will not be as readily accepted (1989: 221 in Cahill 2004: 13).

Boas and Gans-Morse observe that the term neoliberalism has come to signify a radical form of market fundamentalism with which no one wants to be associated (2009: 138 in Flew 2012: 9). In recent years, critics of neoliberalism, especially environmental advocates, have described it as a failed experiment (Crooks and Roy 2011; Monbiot 2013). In addition to producing global inequalities, a key criticism of neoliberal restructuring is that power has been transferred from voters to unelected transnational corporations, disenfranchising democratic citizens and excluding them from decision-making that determines the course of globalization. Scholars 'in geography, urban studies, political economy, and elsewhere echo this fear', arguing that the current trajectory of 'global restructuring has increased disenfranchisement, encouraged authoritarianism, and imperilled democracy' (Falk 2000; Held 1995; Swyngedouw 2000 in Purcell 2002: 99). For former British Parliamentarian Bryan Gould:

The uncomfortable truth is that democracy and free markets are incompatible. The whole point of democratic government is that it uses the legitimacy of the democratic mandate to diffuse power throughout society rather than allow it to accumulate... It deliberately uses the political power of the majority to offset what would otherwise be the overwhelming economic power of the dominant market players... If governments accept, as they have done, that the “free” market cannot be challenged, they abandon, in effect, their whole raison d'être. Democracy is then merely a sham (Gould 2008).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 35

Consistently, amongst capitalist democracies, a neoliberal restructuring of the state and economy has emerged with the shifting of power from political to economic processes, and from the state to markets and individuals/corporations. Further, as Flew notes, 'critiques of neoliberalism may be less an assault on market society' per se and more a demand that policy-makers, in countries including Australia, develop policies reminiscent of Keynesian economics, with a collectivist frame of reference (2012: 14). However, Keith Tribe raises a fundamental concern that the neoliberal policy agenda focusing on public-private partnership is now 'so deeply embedded in the reflexes of the world's ruling elites and line managers that they have difficulty conceiving the world in any other way' (Tribe 2009: 694 in Flew 2012: 12). In the context of contemporary art, the neoliberal shift in emphasis to economic value above other values is embedded in a number of ways: in the art market; in government art policies which emphasize public-private funding; and in the ways contemporary art is employed to serve urban policy.

Neoliberalism and contemporary art

Policy and public discourse relating to contemporary art theory pivots between the economic and aesthetic functions of art. The significance of each is highly contestable and problematic. In the spirit of combat, the debate about contemporary art's functions can be introduced by these words, from a temporary public commission by collaborative British duo Hewitt & Jordan:

The economic function of public art is to increase the value of private property.

The social function of public art is to subject us to civic behaviour.

The aesthetic function of public art is to codify social distinctions as natural ones (2004-2005).

These text-based slogans extend from an earlier work by the duo for Public Art Forum’s annual conference, I won an artist in a raffle (2003), in which conference delegates could win the role of commissioner. After some discussion, the winning

Chapter 2 Literature Review 36

commissioner ultimately said, “make what you like”. The text-based slogans became an iterative billboard poster. In my professional experience, it is a rare example of a commission that makes plain the subversions of aesthetic endeavour in public art and provides a critical frame by which to judge the motives behind commissioning contemporary art, whether contained by gallery-museums or otherwise. This section interrogates the economic functions of contemporary art, mainly the art market. The subsequent section expands upon this to explore how this relationship manifests spatially in the city, primarily through gentrification.

Australian art critic Robert Hughes' polemic documentary, The Mona Lisa Curse (2008), offers a useful and succinct synopsis of the voracious and escalating changes driven by the art market.9 For Hughes, the unprecedented 1963 tour of the Mona Lisa to the National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, presided over by the Medici-like Kennedys, unalterably changed the way art was viewed and consumed, and thereby viewers' relationship to art and its meaning. Using the analogy of a flood, Hughes argues that as the public's consciousness came to be 'centred around a notion of price' (Velthuis 2005), divorced from aesthetic stewardship, the self-regulated art market and private collectors were inadvertently enabled to dominate the social value of art. As Hughes points out, his generation is likely the last to wander through a museum without consideration for the price of each artwork.

Hughes' narrative arc draws a stark comparison between art collectors Herbert and Dorothy Vogel, and Robert and Ethel Scull. For a brief moment in history, the 'proletarian art collectors' Herbert and Dorothy Vogel, a postal clerk and librarian, could afford to amass one of the most significant post-war American art collections, predominately of post-1960s minimalist and conceptual art. The Vogel collection would eventually be bequested to the National Gallery of Art and made freely available to the public in perpetuity. The Sculls, who were profiled by Tom Wolfe in the mid-1960s as 'the folk heroes of every social climber who ever hit New York' (Kaplan 2010), are also credited with 'one of the greatest, most influential shopping sprees in post-war American art' (Roberta Smith 2010). Their infamy would forever be tied to the 1973 Sotheby's auction of 50 works from the couple's collection. This auction, of pieces acquired at comparatively little cost, drew over

9 The contemporary art market is an unregulated global market dominated by the UK, USA and China, with the auction houses Christie's and Sotheby's commanding over 90% of trade (Perman 2015).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 37

$2.2 million and secured record prices for works by living American artists. Jasper Johns' Double White Map (1965) established the highest price, selling for $240,000, and Robert Rauschenberg's Thaw (1958), purchased by the Sculls in the late 1950s for $900, sold for $85,000. As memorably shown in E.J. Vaughn’s film of the auction and the associated protests, Rauschenberg gave Scull an angry shove immediately after the auction, famously saying: “I've been working my ass off for you to make that profit” (Vaughn 1974). Hughes is by no means the first to take issue with this event. The auction is broadly considered to have launched the bullish market for contemporary art, and precipitate what Harvey might term a 'neoliberal ethic' that elevates the free market above free people (2012: 14).

Hughes' The Mona Lisa Curse takes issue with the rise of the private collector as a new gatekeeper, replacing an old guard, which included art critics. Unlike art critics, historians, curators and public institutions, private collectors are not bound to any professional code of ethics and/or publicly accountable. As Keefe identifies:

There had been a certain mythology about the character of the art market in the 1960s, in many ways a false narrative, but one that nonetheless held sway as an ideal: Gallerists would be, on the whole, honourable lovers of art; prices would be set modestly by this small group... run on behalf of the art community, a group that would include the artists themselves, the gallerists and their clients — like-minded art collectors (2013).

In dealing directly with artists, both the Vogels and Sculls circumvented this 'polite conceit' (Keefe 2013); while the Vogels developed mutually respectful relationships with artists, Robert Scull was exploitative.

The Scull auction ignited prolonged campaigns to legislate resale royalties (Hughes 2008). In Australia, the Resale Royalty Scheme — established with the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009 — was introduced in 2010. However, despite these resale royalty campaigns and legislation, the art market remains largely self-regulating. To provide an insight into the contemporary art market's scale, the global art market is 150 times bigger than the Australian art market. In 2011, Australian auction sales represented just 0.6% of the global auction market, with China emerging as the largest national sector, recording a $5

Chapter 2 Literature Review 38

billion turnover, or 41% of the global auction market in 2012 (Artprice 2012 in Australia Council 2014b). This figure is still smaller than the $6 billion illegal art market — 'the fourth highest-grossing illegal trade after drugs, arms and human trafficking' (Waterhouse 2013: 16).

Private partnerships between art and capital are somewhat more discretely enacted through quasi-public funding. In the United States, the system of funding provides a tax deduction on contributions to organizations, amounting to a substantial, indirect public subsidy. The British and Australian public-private systems of funding, which 'require private money in order to receive public funding', push to justify public spending on art with reference to audience attendances and serendipitous economic stimulation, particularly through cultural tourism (Jelinek 2013: 3). Fraser elaborates upon these complicit arrangements, pointing to the 'growing number of artists, curators, and critics [who] take up the cause of social justice — often within organizations funded by corporate sponsorship and private wealth' (2012: 29). Both quasi-public and corporate sponsorship produce uneasy, complicit relationships within the institutions of art. For contemporary practitioners, it's a painful paradox. Through public-private systems of funding, which submit to the stipulations of a clientele, private-sector interests are accommodated and legitimatized. In practice, contemporary practitioners scrambling to secure adequate budgets, with wages for labour, inevitably negotiate precarious positions that undermine their capacity for critique. No aspect or subfield of art's institutions escapes this susceptibility.

Neoliberalism, contemporary art and cities

The complicity between art and capital contributing to the impoverishment of the public domain is more bluntly demonstrated by gentrification. While Rosalyn Deutsche's seminal Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics (1996) interrogated the relations between the institutions of art (namely the Guggenheim) and capital through gentrification, the details of gentrification are frequently overlooked. The term 'gentrification' refers to the displacement of others, a process of urban renewal that Jacobs described as the 'self-destruction of diversity' (Jacobs 1961). Jacobs' definition and concern continues to resonate, but on a global scale. The revalorization of space by gentrification undermines diversity, replacing heteronomy with the global ubiquity of sanitized 'vanilla' cities (Renn 2009 in Kotkin

Chapter 2 Literature Review 39

2013). With globalization and neoliberalism, gentrification is perceived to threaten working- and middle-class prosperity, exacerbating unsustainable inequality and exclusion (Deutsche 1996; Zukin 1995; Kotkin 2013; et al.).

While the driving forces behind gentrification are disputed, especially amongst geographers, the effects are conclusive. David Ley, one of the leading proponents of the demand-side model of gentrification, focuses on consumer choices and the 'agency of the gentrifier' as the driving force behind the spatial transformation of cities (Beauregard 1986 in Cameron & Coaffee 2005; 40). This version is challenged by Marxist geographer Neil Smith, who focusing on the supply-side, argues that it's capital's search for profit, not culture, which is the driving force behind gentrification (Smith in Bolton 2013). This section discusses the role artists play in the urban and economic redevelopment of cities. It examines the genesis understandings of the role of artists in SoHo, New York, as it is mythologized by gentrifying practices, and the currency of creative city strategies in Brisbane. This section also identifies gallery-museums, biennales or triennials and commissions for the public realm that are implicated in gentrification, focusing on biennales as a key example. As gentrification exposes the way the public purpose and value of contemporary art is recast in economic terms, a general discussion of how the value of art is measured follows.

Although not critical to gentrification, art and artists have been implicated in gentrifying processes since the deindustrialization of SoHo, New York, during the 1960s. As recounted by Sharon Zukin (1982), artists lived and worked cheaply, unglamorously and illegally in the SoHo manufacturing zone during this time (Zukin 1982 in Schwartz 2014). A 1964 provision in the New York City Zoning Resolution encouraged artists to stay, conditional upon artist-in-residence certification, utilizing industrial loft spaces in keeping with the historic light-manufacturing character of the area. This appeased building owners by permitting them to avoid violations for illegal occupancy (Schwartz 2014; Reynolds 2011). By the early 1970s an artist district was well-established, with a concentration of artists between Canal and Houston Streets, and the area was transformed as a result. Following this transformation, artists seeking affordable housing have come to be considered the adventurous colonizers that revalorize unproductive space.

In recent years, gentrification has come to be popularly associated with the work of economist Richard Florida, which rebranded gentrification in a positive

Chapter 2 Literature Review 40

economic frame. Florida focuses on the migratory patterns of an elite, uniquely mobile creative class of young, educated, predominately single and childless, affluent professionals, and with them, high-end luxury services and technology, to disused industrial urban enclaves. His publications and speaking engagements, in cities including Brisbane, have stimulated the development of creative city strategies to attract creatives and the broad regenerative innovation and economic growth that in theory, accompanies them. Florida's influence is evident in the city's strategic statements, such as the Brisbane City Council Living in Brisbane 2026 (2006), recently retitled Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013). However, as Florida admits, 'on closer inspection, talent clustering provides little in the way of trickle-down benefits', and the benefits accrue mainly to the gentrifying class (Florida 2013).

Peck has observed that the creative class/creative cities idea 'has proven to be remarkably seductive' (2010; 2005). Peck further outlines, there are a series of factors that are 'symptomatic of the widespread "neoliberalization" of urban culture' and 'erode the capacity for meaningful intervention' by local governments: (1) 'the intensification of competition'; (2) 'ever-more-flexible labour markets'; and (3) 'the concomitant rise of city marketing', which, with an 'increased reliance on low-cost / high-hype [marketing] strategies, work with the grain of gentrifying [sic]' (Ibid). Accordingly, the uncritical application of Florida's model has produced dysfunctional urban policy. The development of creative city strategies prompted state-sponsored, arts-based gentrification (a form of public-private funding), and Florida provided a playbook for developers with a taste for subsidies whereby the presence of artists and/or creatives is seized upon as a marketing tool to promote luxury accommodation, products and services by association with art (Bolton 2013; Barrett 2012 in Kotkin 2013).

The proximity of artists is orchestrated through public-private partnerships, primarily with gallery-museums, biennials or triennials and commissions for the public realm. In lieu of the organic formation of artist districts in Brisbane, creative city strategies, the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT), the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA), and public art policies, such as the Queensland Art Built-in policy (1999-2007) and its successor art+place (2007-2012), have been key mechanisms for governments to create the atmosphere of a creative city. However, the economic motivations behind this 'conceit' (Keefe 2013) are evident in examples such as the Vibrant Laneways program, for which Urban Design, City Planning & Economic

Chapter 2 Literature Review 41

Development, Brisbane City Council (BCC), commissions artists to temporarily install 'bling' that attracts the developer's eye to the back alleys and service laneways of the city, which have been identified for rejuvenation.

As Rosler observes, 'localities have sought to capitalize on their art' by three methods of global discipline: the high-profile architecture of gallery-museums, biennials, and art fairs, a cornerstone of the contemporary art market (2010: 14- 15). In Australia, there are two dominant parallel economies of art that persist: firstly, biennials or triennials and secondly the combination of both auction rooms and the Australian art departments of state gallery-museums (Barker and Green 2011: 2). As a format, the biennial remains unassailable in its importance. Biennials, or triennials, have served to insert “peripheral” urban locations, of which Brisbane is one, into the international circuit, temporarily offering a new physical site attracting contemporary art and art world members. In Brisbane, the success of the Asia-Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993-present) led to the expansion of the State's preeminent art institution with the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA). GOMA’s construction has been a catalyst in the ongoing gentrification of South Brisbane, formerly an industrial area and now subject to intense redevelopment.

In addition, biennales epitomize the current conditions that define the flow of capital and migrant and itinerant labour (Rosler 2010: 14). Although 'Florida defined his creative class so broadly that it embraces 30% of the working population', artists are portrayed as the archetype of this class, adaptable to the demands of flexible capital accumulation characteristic of neoliberalism (Davis 2013). However, artists such as Rosler and Hito Steyerl observe that even though the international nomadism of contemporary art routinely represents the injustices of far-flung situations, the conditions of its own labour, production and display remain relatively unexplored. What is often missing from contemporary art discourse is what makes it intrinsically political: it is a place for labour, conflict and fun: a site to process the contradictions of capital, which can produce extremely entertaining and sometimes devastating misunderstandings between the global and the local (Steyerl 2010: 4). Clearly, artists, and curators alike need to challenge how the romantic image of their nomadic existence is being utilized by economic/creative-city strategies.

Economic strategies to capitalize on the seductiveness of creativity have prompted increased analysis of economic value. With the emphasis placed on economic significance, it is worth examining how the value of art is measured.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 42

However, the actual economic contribution of art is far from clear. Broadly, the creative industries in Australia 'generates more revenue and employs more people than many other essential industry sectors, including agriculture, electricity and gas' (Creative Australia 2013).10 In 2007, copyright industries, at the core of the cultural economy, generated over $93 billion (Price Waterhouse Coopers 2012 in Creative Australia 2013). The creative industries have been valued at $86 billion, accounting for about 6.9% of the GDP in 2008-09 (ABS 2014 in Creative Australia 2013). Defined more traditionally to exclude items such as clothing design, manufacture, wholesaling and retail, Australian art, in all its forms, is consistently worth over $35 billion to the national economy. Comparatively, the mining sector offers $121 billion, employs fewer workers and yet receives more federal and state government financial support.

Another way in which the value of art is measured is through the public's view of its worth. For example, the Australia Council, and similar funding bodies, consistently conduct surveys to validate public spending and interest. One such recent Australia Council survey (2014a) reported that participation in the arts is exceptionally high — 95%. Yet, at a time when federal funding was being substantially cut, 21% of those surveyed expressed that funding should be cut — an increase from the survey of two years earlier, and potentially a concerning trend. Such surveys do not assess whether participants assume that free access will be maintained as a result of funding cuts. Understandably, with public funding for the arts dwindling, there's perhaps some cause for anxiety amongst the arts sector. However, the question is not whether there will be funding, but where the funding will come from and more importantly, what strings are attached. This is an aspect of the debate that is regularly missing from broader public discourses.

Such public assessments suggest that increased private-sector influence is expected to maintain public interests. In Australia, the public presently subsidizes and thereby maintains free access to publicly-owned gallery-museums and collections, however, if the funding of state institutions were further reduced or sold to become privately-owned, then these assets may no longer reflect public interests

10 The creative industries are defined as creative endeavours with the commercial potential to generate wealth and jobs by producing products and services for local and international markets. The term, thereby, recognizes that creativity contributes significantly to both the economy and culture. The creative industries are typically considered to encompass: architecture, design and craft, fashion, visual art, the performing arts, film, television, gaming, publishing, advertising and marketing.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 43

or be freely available to the public. This notion is equally applicable to biennials or triennials and commissions for the public realm. The preceding discussion indicates that through a shift to public-private partnerships, including state- sponsored, arts-based gentrification projects, private interests have gained a substantial footing in determining the public purpose of contemporary art. Furthermore, this signals a situation where the public inadvertently supports the minimization of public interests.

To summarize, it could be argued that neoliberalism is deeply entrenched in urban and arts policies. For the most part, neoliberalism is adopted as 'business as usual' and accepted as 'natural'; its malevolence isn’t necessarily recognized (Harvey 2012; Gramsci 1971 in Harvey 2005). With both art and exhibition-making operating in an expanded, extra-institutional field, there is often a casual and unwitting replication of neoliberal values, leading to the impoverishment of the public domain. As I have demonstrated, this occurs economically and ideologically by the emphasis on privatization, on public-private partnerships and funding models, flexible and itinerant labour, the pursuit of self-regulation in the art market and through gentrification. It follows that the value of art and exhibition-making has become increasingly defined by the market, which treats art as a commodity, and by the state in terms of its economic or social usefulness. According to Thompson, the issue is that 'as society becomes more trained to see the power and capitalist desires that operate behind the scenes of aesthetic gestures, the [emancipatory] promises of art become dulled' (2010: 42). As Sandel observes, 'markets leave their mark on social norms, driving out all other values' (2012 in Jelinek 2013: 42).

In advance of reviewing public art policies that are tied to infrastructural projects and gentrification, the following sections explore the focus on instrumental outcomes as compared with contemporary art professionals’ capacity to exert autonomy, which prompts a discussion regarding the critical attitudes and practices of institutional critique.

Deployed and the tendency to instrumental outcomes for art

Contemporary art practices both advertently and inadvertently participate 'in both the production and reproduction of [socio-political and economic] phenomena' by performing, depicting and critiquing these processes (Lind 2007: 20). Deutsche

Chapter 2 Literature Review 44

and Rancière caution that dominating sectors of society encourage social and inclusive policies in such a way that the structures of power are reinforced. These policies, despite appearances, obscure asymmetric advantages. (Rancière 1999 in Yepes 2014: 49). Consequently, the 'sociability' or 'conviviality' (Steyerl 2010; Heiser 2008; Bishop 2012; Bourriaud 2012: 41) of contemporary art — its merging with life — is deployed by political influence, whereby 'contemporary art is squarely placed in the neoliberal thick of things' (Steyerl 2010: 1).

In the context of Brisbane, and broader contemporary art debates, contemporary art's capacity for critique, coupled with its susceptibility to instrumental outcomes, is central to this research. Curator Marius Babias' On the Strategic Use of Politics in the Context of Art frames the circumstances leading to instrumentalization: 'Within the processes of globalization, art was given a new role as embellisher and visual colonizer of everyday life... exhibitions and projects initially criticized the city, and its urbanity in the 1990s, only to become politically instrumentalized and absorbed by city marketing strategies [sic.]' (2005: 291 in Ozkan 2011: 57). Curator Maria Lind also laments that almost everyone in the field of art now feels instrumentalized (cited in Mader 2013: 39).

This feeling of being made instrumental is not a new feeling. Exchange of Views of a Group of Experts (published in UNESCO’s journal Museum in 1972), incorporated the views of eight experts including Georges Henri Rivière, museologist and the first director of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), and Harald Szeemann, prolific curator and the text's editor. This lesser-known text remains timely today. In the context of expanded artistic activities brought about by avant-garde practices of the 1960s, gallery-museums receptive to new work positioned themselves in the service of artistic production, and thereby transformed the museum 'into a studio rather than a temple' (Szeemann 1972 in Haines 2012: 26). The text argues for a need to define the museum as a democratic space resistant to its potential instrumentalization by the 'establishment', an idiom Szeemann consistently used 'to mean structures of support for museums through government, patrons, and corporations rather than, or even in opposition' to public interests (Haines 2012: 24). Extending the gallery-museum's field of action, the text calls for 'a deliberate shift' beyond the museum's hallowed territories as a repository or mausoleum for cultural artefacts (Haines 2012: 23). In support of the democratic function of art, the museum should ideally be a politically active transmitting centre,

Chapter 2 Literature Review 45

a site of information, experimentation and political debate, a site that enables democratic public engagement with art and ideas.

The plea of Exchange of Views of a Group of Experts is for the institutions of art to assert greater political autonomy. This democratic sentiment, expressing hope of a resistance to political and economic instrumentalization, continues to be echoed in the International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics for Museums. In practice, however, the complexity of this negotiation is not broadly appreciated, despite what is at stake: 'art has always been entangled with power, its autonomy and self-definition thus perpetually troubled' (Holert 2013).

The pervasive view of artistic autonomy occupies two positions that are not mutually exclusive: (1) the romantic notion of the isolated artist that is aesthetically focused and independent of the socio-political world beyond the confines of the studio — a position linked to the commitment to art for art’s sake; and (2) artists and related mediators such as curators only engage with socio-political arenas to facilitate public agendas or smooth social processes. Michael Kelly has argued:

instead of holding on to a false choice between autonomous and political art, it would be more accurate — historically and philosophically — to acknowledge both (a) that art is autonomous only under certain political conditions, and (b) that art is political only after it is autonomous. That is, it would be more accurate to speak about the political autonomy of art (2000: 224).

As Rosler reminds readers, the ability of artists to step outside the ambit of patronage only came about through the decline of direct patronage and commissions from the Church and aristocrats, coupled with changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Appealing to the sensibilities of the ascendant bourgeoisie — although more likely to be patrons of gallery-museums rather than commissioners as such — the avant-garde framed autonomy as a form of insurgency that challenged both mass tastes and the institutions of art (Bourdieu 1993; Rosler 2010: 2). The avant-garde proffered a democratic public sphere in which state authority was publicly monitored through informed and critical discourse by the people (Habermas 1962). The freedom of art and literary spheres,

Chapter 2 Literature Review 46

as well as journalism, to visibly and audibly think critically, has been integral to the democratic public sphere; thus, art and politics involves an emancipatory quality (Rancière 2006b).

Meanwhile, Peter Bürger's canonical thesis regarding the failure of the historical avant-garde of pre-World War Two Europe has exercised a powerful grip on subsequent avant-garde narratives. Expressionism, Dada and Surrealism were intended to reach beyond the art world to disrupt conventional social reality and thereby become instruments of liberation. As Bürger suggests, 'the avant-garde intended to replace individualized production with a more collectivized and anonymous practice', simultaneously evading the individualized address and the restricted reception of art (1974: 53 in Rosler 2010: 9). Instead, Bürger further notes, the hegemonic institutions of the art world were not destroyed, but rather, in a manoeuvre that has become all too familiar, swelled to absorb avant-garde transgressions into the repertoire of masked institutional attitudes (1974: 53-54 in Rosler 2010: 9; Gaitan 2010: 11). Subsequently, as Rosler has observed, criticality has become 'a stringently attractive brand' (2010: 16).

For Rosler, contemporary art's lack of autonomy has been 'made plain by the grip of the market' (2010: 9). Throughout the late-twentieth century, 'the ideological apparatuses of media, museum, and commercial gallery were deployed... to limit artists' autonomy, bring them back inside the institutions, and recapitalize art' (Althusser 1970 in Rosler 2010: 10). Scepticism haunts and clouds debates concerning contemporary art’s capacity to assert political autonomy:

Because of the pervasiveness of neoliberal ideologies, in which creativity in the service of life has merely become another tool of capitalism, the contemporary modes of art-as-critique – the assumption that art can intervene in life in such a way that artistic acts are mapped directly onto social effects — are condemned to be immediately co-opted by the very structures they ostensibly seek to resist or subvert (Holert 2013).

However, 'all movements against an institutional consensus [or status quo] are dynamic, and provisional' (Rosler 2010: 15). Instrumentalization, like all forces, may be counteracted through a sustained counteraction with autonomy as its goal;

Chapter 2 Literature Review 47

for instance, through institutional critique. For many, including writer and curator Juan A. Gaitán, autonomy remains an optimistic horizon (2010: 10; Cascardi 2010: 7).

Institutional critique and its derivatives

Gallery-museums and 'exhibitions are not neutral frames' but sites of conflicting intellectual ideas (Enwezor 2010: 49). Theoretically, institutional critique should be a method of productive political friction with the capacity to not only address, but to constitute and mobilize a public. Szeemann recognized the profoundly contradictory role of the museum: while theoretically free to criticize, it is the epitome of the system. The museum functions in opposition to the establishment, 'yet continually [it] shows itself to be an instrument of the system' (Szeemann 1972 in Haines 2012: 25). Again, recalling Althusser’s Ideological State Apparatuses (1970), contemporary art's institutions are powerful representatives of the state and its ideologies (Bennett 1995 and Duncan 1991 in Chandler 2009: 75). For Szeemann and his colleagues,

the museum can only function toward promoting artistic interests provided it is outside the restraints of society. Because it is nonetheless subject to the rules of society, it falls into a position of conflict, which is aggravated by the fact that the authorities like to see highly controversial subjects discussed within an art context, because they are thereby rendered harmless (1972 in Haines 2012: 25).

Briefly, institutional critique most commonly refers to artist-driven institutional critique of the 1960s and 1970s based on a resistance or refusal that aimed to undermine the existing authority over exhibition-making and the power of the institution (Alberro and Stimson 2009; Kwon 1997; Ward 1995; et al.). This can be considered the first phase of institutional critique. In the second phase of institutional critique, the post-reflexive turn of new museology of the late 1980s, the work of art was not necessarily regarded as an object or image produced in the studio for exhibition (Kolb & Flückiger 2013a: 12; et al.). This second phase also went a step further, which in keeping with the Exchange of Views of a Group of

Chapter 2 Literature Review 48

Experts, conceived the museum as a democratically organized ‘space of action’ allowing for multi-voiced, politically-discursive practices often labelled ‘project- based exhibitions’, defining the work of art as produced through the processes of place-making (Ekeberg 2013: 55 in Kolb & Flückiger 2013a: 12-13). As Lucie Kolb & Gabriel Flückiger have observed, institutional critique — understood as arising from a community of institutional actors, artists and other cultural producers — 'becomes an “analytical tool,” a “method of […] political criticism” that consciously engages with social processes' (Ribalta 2009 in Kolb & Flückiger 2013a: 13).

Believing in the ability to change the institution, New Institutionalism sought to deconstruct the institution from within (Ekeberg 2013 in Kolb & Flückiger 2013b: 23). As a form of institutional critique, New Institutionalism provides an important lesson, especially for curators negotiating the expanded field. Although not unique, New Institutionalism is unusual because it corresponds with a coalescence of critical curatorial practices that emerged in Europe from the mid-1990s to the early- 2000s and, albeit contentious, it was given a name. The term ‘New Instituationalism’, 'snapped out of the air' by curator Jonas Ekeberg (2003), and sometimes linked to the curatorial turn (O'Neill 2007: 15 in Kolb & Flückiger 2013a: 12), generated a focus for experimental art institutions that endeavoured to reorganize the curatorial, educational and administrative practices and structures of mostly medium-sized, publicly-funded contemporary art institutions. Investigating institutional agency, New Institutionalism sought to expand institutional practices to include forms of social engagement. The exhibition was reconceived as a social project that operated alongside para-curatorial and discursive events. Presentation and critical reception were not successive and separate activities; they happened simultaneously. This revised notion of the institution aimed to function as an active space for production, research and debate (Kolb & Flückiger 2013a: 6).

For some, New Institutionalism represents a failed enterprise (Sheikh in conversation with Kolb & Flückiger 2013a: 13). Coinciding with a political shift in Europe that marked a turn towards neoliberal and/or populist cultural policies (that has also been evident in countries including the United States and Australia), the demise of New Institutionalism is linked to a lack of support for critical attitudes by state-subsidized art institutions, and a demand for the closure of all 'leftist expert institutions' (Ekeberg in Kolb & Flückiger 2013a: 13). To some extent, the pursuits of New Institutionalism also demonstrate an unwitting replication of neoliberal

Chapter 2 Literature Review 49

values. Ekeberg notes that although there are some similarities between the itinerant, flexible and experimental curator of the 1990s and emerging neoliberal ideologies, it was characteristic of 'the nineties that there were these structural similarities between critical and entrepreneurial positions' (Kolb & Flückiger 2013b: 22). As Kolb & Flückiger observe, the failure of New Institutionalism 'cannot be explained entirely with reference to hegemonial political conditions' (2013a: 13). While acknowledging the limited capacity of itinerant curators to build stable relationships with a local public, they summarize its demise: 'institutions as agents did not manage to constitute or mobilize the (sub-)publics necessary to oppose the closure of an institution under political pressure' (Ibid).

The failure of New Institutionalism to constitute or mobilize publics signals a key and necessary challenge for contemporary practitioners, especially for curators negotiating an expanded field encompassing semi-public spaces. This challenging negotiation involves addressing what Simon Sheikh describes as a 'post-public situation in which there is no longer any unity or even fixable locality' to public domains (2008: 35). For Sheikh, we must talk about the bourgeois notion of public as an 'empty signifier' or even as an obsolete social category that cannot be easily translated into the 'hybrid societies of late global capitalism' (2008: 29). Prefaced by a review of public art policies and the politics of aesthetics, this post-bourgeois- public situation will be taken up again in the final sections of this literature review, and discussed in relation to Lefebvre.

Public art policy evaluations

Public art policies make up a significant fraction of the art policy landscape. This significance is demonstrable economically, as well as through the visibility of public artworks and the discourse concerning public art policies. As a type of extra- institutional activity that extends beyond the containment of gallery-museums, commissioning for the public realm is most often valued for its collaborative and/or integrative possibilities, coupled with its social usefulness. Furthermore, because commissions for the public realm collaborate with and are interpreted by a range of professions, public artworks and policies are typically discussed in less specialized ways. Under the guise of social or democratic usefulness, this less specialized language is considered to expose inconspicuous agendas. For the purposes of this research, the comparative analysis of public art policies also

Chapter 2 Literature Review 50

functions to highlight the gaps and pitfalls of existing research, using as an exemplar Michael Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12), partly sponsored by the art+place program.

In Australia, public art policies have been in place for over 35 years. The earliest was introduced in Tasmania in 1979 (Keniger 2006: 27). In 1995, Brisbane City Council (BCC) introduced a formal public art policy in which developers, through the Development Assessment process, are encouraged to contribute 0.25% of total estimated budgets exceeding $5 million, as certified by a recognized quantity surveyor, toward public art (Brisbane City Council 2013). The BCC percent-for-art policy remains largely unchanged, although it operates today solely within BCC's City Planning & Economic Development Branch. The State Government's commitment to commissioning art in public places was established with the introduction of the Queensland Art Built-in policy (1999-2007). In principle, like BCC's percent-for-art policy, Art Built-in allocated up to 2% of Queensland Government capital works, in excess of $250,000, to public art. As the most comprehensive public art policy in Australia, Art Built-in was a nationally prominent policy that 'contributed materially to the public environment' of Queensland (Keniger 2006: 15). In June 2007 the Queensland Minister for the Arts, Rod Welford, announced the replacement of Art Built-in with art+place, the Queensland Public Art Fund, a 'centralized funding model administered by Arts Queensland to allow more effective planning and commissioning capacity for high-quality public art projects', with an investment of $12 million over three years (art+place Guidelines for applicants 2007: 3). Welford further stated that 'innovative, creative and animated public spaces have a competitive economic edge and enhance social interaction and quality of life' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 13).

The Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006) by Michael Keniger entailed: the review and analysis of collated material, including media coverage; the analysis of measurable outputs, including jobs creation and Indigenous involvement; an open call for public submissions; limited focus groups and interviews; and, significantly, the involvement of an Expert Reference Group (ERG) (2006: 5). Although artistic and cultural benefits formed one of five policy principles, Keniger's report does little to unpack aesthetic concerns. The issue of '[q]uality or intrinsic value' was raised by acknowledging that the policy 'attracted spirited criticism from recognized art critics' — a thinly veiled reference to an article by Rex Butler (Butler 2001) — which stimulated 'debate about art and aesthetic concerns, public places and their

Chapter 2 Literature Review 51

amenity'. However, what those aesthetic concerns might be is not extrapolated, except to say that the notion of 'artistic excellence' held by gallery-museums or the Australia Council 'is not explicitly transferable to the public domain, but that artistic excellence in public art is subject to values additional to aesthetic value, such as relevance to place, or resonance within community' (Keniger 2006: 11-12).

As will be discussed in more detail in the next section of the literature review, because aesthetics distinguishes art from ordinary objects, aesthetics is fundamental to any and every discussion regarding contemporary art. According to Berrebi, both 'Bürger’s theory of the avant-garde as politically engaged and Theodor Adorno’s preservation of the autonomy of art' are productive frames to critique commissions for the public realm (Berrebi 2008: 2), especially considering that government policies are instrumental in facilitating commissions for the public realm. In recent years, Rancière's aesthetic theory (2009 et al.) has emerged to accommodate and position the contradictions of aesthetic theories as a productive friction. However, critiques regarding aesthetics are consistently absent from discourses concerning commissions for the public realm, a lack that this study seeks to redress.

Instead, in public art policies, artistic and cultural benefits are defined in terms of economic benefits and value for money: the review of Art Built-in states the policy represents a commitment of $23.1 million between the introduction of the policy and completion of the review in 2006, and identifies a total of 179 projects and 1154 'jobs' created for Queensland artists and arts workers (Keniger 2006: 11). In the review, even Indigenous visibility is couched in economic terms, without either quantifying or qualifying whether or not this visibility led to a deeper appreciation of Indigenous culture. Considered a major achievement of the policy, Indigenous jobs represented 18.9% of all jobs generated under the policy — according to the review, 'making local Indigenous artists visible in our public buildings is an achievement that works in concert with state and federal tourism strategies' (Keniger 2006: 15).

Although in its formative stages, the art+place program was reviewed in 2009. This review included: online surveys attracting 87 stakeholder respondents; interviews with 41 project stakeholders (predominantly from government and not- for-profit sectors, although four artists and two curators were interviewed); two focus groups with government stakeholders and artists; an in-house public art

Chapter 2 Literature Review 52

seminar with five interstate and local professional art peers; and regional visits to gather material for three case studies (Gray and Talvé 2010: 7). The largest groups of survey respondents were public art project managers (44.6%) followed by artists (31.3%) and curators (28%). Of these respondents, 40.5% were local government employees, 28% worked for arts and cultural organizations and 26.8% were self- employed. Respondents who identified as 'general public' only comprised 14.5% (Gray and Talvé 2010: 11).

As of October 2009, art+place had funded 74 completed and active projects since 2008, generating over 450 contracts, predominantly benefiting artists and fabricators (Gray and Talvé 2010: 24). As in Keniger’s review of Art Built-in, the performance measures used by Arts Queensland to evaluate the quality of works commissioned through art+place were all grounded in economic indicators such as the number, percentage and dollar value of temporary public artworks. Although respondents to both surveys and interviews ranked artistic quality as extremely important to critical success, discussion of artistic quality in the report was restricted to consideration of the 'coupling of art and place'. This criterion was defined in terms of good collaboration and site-specificity that references the surrounding landscape and local heritage or community identity (Gray and Talvé 2010: 17). As Gray and Talvé noted, the discussion of artistic quality in the report also demonstrated a bias whereby 'respondents were more likely to rate the specific project they had been involved in as 'very good' and 'excellent' (2010: 17).

Keniger also acknowledged the 'inadequacy of comparative data' (2006: 27). There is a lack of critical attention to international public art programs despite their being 'recognized as contributing to the cultural development of communities and to the definition and declaration of cultural identity within the complexities and uncertainties of the shaping and reshaping of the urban environment' (Keniger 2006: 27). Keniger observes that while there has been an increase in public art policies, there has been no national investigation into the success of such programs: 'No quantitative and qualitative analysis of programs across Australia has yet been undertaken of their efficiency and effectiveness in cultural and economic terms, or of their ideological and political underpinning' (Keniger 2006: 27). Furthermore, 'except for anecdotal responses and comments recorded in media articles', there has been little research of the public's response and 'generally a lack of focused critical debate concerning' contemporary art in the public realm (Keniger 2006: 31).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 53

In their 2008 information paper, Arts and Cultural Heritage, An Information Development Plan, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) suggests that there have been few reliable evaluative studies of public art: “These services are perhaps more difficult to research even on a case study basis, given that the nature of the services provided may vary over time” (ABS 2008 in Gray and Talvé 2010: 25). Further, 'prior to the inauguration of Art Built-in in 1999, Arts Queensland commissioned the Queensland Government Statistician’s Office (1998) to calculate the potential employment and flow-on benefits of its proposed two percent public art program. The Government Statistician’s Report included a number of important caveats cautioning 'against putting too much emphasis on input-output techniques as these tend to overstate economic benefits and their value in calculating reliable economic figures has been questioned by economists' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 25).

While acknowledging a 'need for the client to set aside personal taste and consider the tastes and views of their public audience', both the Art Built-in and art+place policy evaluations pointed to a need for 'greater curatorial support and direction' (Keniger 2006: 25; Gray and Talvé 2010: 43). Both evaluations expressed the view that good 'public art projects require curators and project managers who can be good gate-openers' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 14). However, neither evaluation accurately defines this role, demonstrating that curatorial practice is little understood, which also suggests that curators don't successfully advocate. With art+place a Curatorial Panel and Government Curator were ministerially-appointed. However, with only 5.45% of the total art+place budget invested in managerial and administrative support, and with education/public programming also under-resourced (Gray and Talvé 2010: 32), the role of government curator was constructed as a catch-all for all administrative functions (Gray and Talvé 2010: 31). Experienced curators, architects and fabricators expressed disappointment with art+place, which effectively locked them out of initiating art projects (Gray and Talvé 2010: 44). Developers also indicated that the State continued to lack an understanding of the scale of existing developer investment (Gray and Talvé 2010: 40). Most alarming was the ethical danger that the Curatorial Panel could place itself in when it appears to both initiate a work and approve its own commission (Gray and Talvé 2010: 60).

Both reviews highlight conflicts, between government priorities for the arts on the one hand, and professional claims on the other. Rather than critically review

Chapter 2 Literature Review 54

commissions for the public realm in terms of aesthetic outcomes, both reviews centred only on the infrastructure of these policies. This deficiency was noted in the art+place review, which states 'public art projects, even when popular with the public, often fail to achieve [a] positive critical response' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 48). Recognizing that few outstanding projects could be cited (Keniger 2006; 31), both reviews raised aesthetic quality as a concern, but without addressing aesthetic debates. In keeping with government priorities, the policies’ social and cultural achievements were primarily defined by physical and conceptual integration, which was hindered by the failure to collaborate with artists early in the development of projects (Keniger 2006: 12). By 'moving away from fixed views of what public art should be and look like', art+place had aimed to enable 'a broader conceptualization of public art commissioning in Queensland' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 17, 21), a direction that expresses professional frustration with common and limiting conceptions of commissions for the public realm (Doherty 2013). Overall, both reviews consistently pointed to the need for greater curatorial involvement.

The politics of aesthetic

Aesthetics distinguishes art from ordinary objects. Aesthetics advances an idea of art that is 'at once informed by the products and practices of the everyday, and in some significant way different from it' (Tanke 2011: 73; Rancière 2006b: 13). Therefore, aesthetics is fundamental to any and every discussion regarding contemporary art.

The aesthetic theory of French philosopher Jacques Rancière accommodates both the socio-political and the aesthetic. Rancière recovers and amplifies the socio-political significance of the mid-eighteenth-century interpretation of the term 'aesthetics', established by Friedrich Schiller and the Romantics. In doing so, Rancière displaces the paradigm of aesthetic autonomy as the defining concept of modern art. As 'Jean-Luc Nancy has observed, Rancière has consistently sought to undermine the privilege assigned to “the paradigm of aesthetic autonomy” as the single orientating principle of modern art' (2009: 89 in Ross 2011). Rancière contends that aesthetics is not an autonomous discipline, as it has often been defined, but is related to a particular ‘regime of identification of art’. By this, Rancière means the particular way in which art is identified as art within a given historical or social context (Rancière 2006b; Berrebi 2008: 1; Tanke 2011:

Chapter 2 Literature Review 55

78). Therefore, art never exists independently, as an abstraction. It is always contingent in the way it is perceived during different times, or regimes, for which Rancière has identified a tripartite scheme: the ethical regime; the poetic or representational regime; and the aesthetic regime.

Unlike Rancière's other regimes, the aesthetic regime exists in a context in which art is not granted a particular place in society. According to Rancière, 'it simultaneously establishes the autonomy of art and the identity of its forms with forms that life uses to shape itself' (2006b: 23). In other words, the aesthetic regime of art 'is constantly caught in a tension between being specifically art and merging with other forms of activity' (Berrebi 2008: 2). For Rancière, the politics of aesthetics — the politics of art becoming life or art merged with life (le devenir vie de l’art) and the politics of resistance (la forme résistante), may co-exist. While 'the aesthetic experience resembles other forms of experiences' and thereby merges with other forms of activity and life; 'the political potential of the aesthetic experience [also] derives from the separation of art from other forms of activity and its resistance to any transformation' into other forms of activity (Berrebi 2008: 2). For Rancière, the tension between these opposite aspects, or binaries, cannot be envisaged separately.

Rancière’s definition of an ethical turn affecting aesthetics and politics offers a reflection on the way in which the unshakable burden of history, perceived as trauma, affects the aesthetics of politics.11 For Rancière, contemporary fables, such as Dogville (Von Trier 2003), portray an ethical turn dominated by a duplicity of absolute positions. These absolute positions are characterized by a lack of distinction between good and bad and are dominated by the unrepresentable, especially terror. While arguing against the 'shunting of aesthetics', art theorist Thierry de Duve contends that 'aesthetics leads to ethics and only then into politics' (2008: 15).12 These considerations lead to what Rancière outlines as a fantasy of autonomy — concealed by discourses concerning the unrepresentable and indistinct — that needs to be discarded in order for the democratic contest of the

11 Rancière suggests that an ethical turn, which modifies the political and cultural structures of the West post-911, cultivates an 'ethical community' that tends to assimilate, ignore or perceive difference or 'the excluded' as a threat (2006a: 6). According to Bishop, for aesthetic projects, this ethical turn has produced a heightened attentiveness to collaborative models and processes, whereby, artists are judged 'for any hint of potential exploitation that fails to “fully” represent their subjects' (2012: 19). 12 De Duve, illustrating with an extreme test case, establishes grounds for a new aesthetic category to address the unrepresentable, specifically 'genocidal images' (2008: 15).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 56

aesthetics of politics to continue. Rancière argues that 'politics and art must achieve their self-suppression', in other words merging with life, to benefit new forms of 'inseparate life' (2009: 39). Further, Rancière asserts that returning 'politics and art to their differences entails rejecting the phantasm of their purity' (2006a: 19). Rejecting absolutes does not suggest a lack of conviction, but displays the micropolitics of plurality, of difference, of heteronomy, that bolsters the democratic nature of aesthetics and politics.

De Duve and Rancière both arrive at a similar position: the preservation of the politics of aesthetics relies on the merging of art with life but not without the 'countersignature' of the viewer affirming art's status. Importantly, the state or context of politics determines the political meaning of contemporary art. Accordingly, 'it is the state of politics that decides' whether an artwork 'appear[s] to harbour a political critique or appear[s], on the contrary, to be suited to an apolitical outlook on the irreducible chaos of human affairs or the picturesque poetry of social differences' (Rancière 2006b: 62). Likewise, for de Duve, the presentation or exhibition of contemporary art, or, for that matter, any cultural material, 'legitimates collection or patrimony' by shifting 'the responsibility [and pressure] of conferring “art status” away from the museum... and on to viewers' (2008: 13).

The binaries of the aesthetic regime were performed in a particular way by avant-garde practices during the 1960s. Rancière suggests that they were concerned less with negotiating between art and politics, and more with finding a form that could 'exist in-between the two opposite aesthetics of politics' (Berrebi 2008: 2). Rancière contends that today, in contrast, 'the political act of art is to save the heterogeneous[ness] that is [at] the heart of the autonomy of art and its power of emancipation' (2009: 39). Therefore 'political art is a kind of negotiation, not between politics and art, but between the politics of aesthetics' – a third politics of aesthetics, which continually rearticulates a dialectical clash (Rancière 2009: 42). Rancière states that 'art cannot merely occupy the space left by the weakening of political conflict. It has to reshape it, at the risk of testing the limits of its own politics' (Rancière 2009: 50).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 57

Antagonism or ‘agonistic’ critique

Amongst contemporary art practitioners there is extensive concern that 'alternative' positions will always 'risk' being captured by the institution (Lind 2009b: 53; Lind 2007: 17). However, in relation to institutional critique, this concern misses the point: the purpose of institutional critique is to question, challenge and thereby change the institutions of contemporary art. That institutions adopt and are transformed by critique is the success of institutional critique. The challenge is to maintain a public expectation for an ongoing culture of critique.

As introduced by the historical avant-garde of pre-World War Two Europe — and continually reiterated by subsequent avant-garde narratives — art should not be a privileged, independent sphere, but instead should be fused with “life” (Bishop 2004: 75). However, by insisting art should extract itself from the “useless” domain of the aesthetic and be fused with social praxis, this disparagement of the aesthetic, as Rancière has observed, ignores the fact that a Western understanding of art is based upon the 'aesthetic regime of art'. The 'aesthetic regime of art' is founded precisely on a confusion between art's autonomy and heteronomy: its blurring of art and life. Attempting to untangle this knot is to miss the point, according to Rancière, since the aesthetic is the ability to think contradiction (Bishop 2006: 183; 2012).

Therefore, championing difference through antagonism is a key method proposed for restoring the politics of aesthetics. Although there are subtle differences between their positions, Bishop, Lind and Deutsche all reference antagonism. The concept of antagonism is indebted to Lacau and Mouffe, who argue that a fully-functioning, democratic society is not one in which all antagonisms have disappeared, but one in which new political frontiers are constantly being drawn and brought into debate. In other words, a democratic society is one in which relations of conflict are sustained, not erased. Without antagonism there is only the imposed consensus of authoritarian order — a total suppression of debate and discussion, which is hostile to democracy.

In critiquing Relational Aesthetics (Bourriaud 1998), Bishop adopts the concept of antagonism to argue for 'relational antagonism' (2004). Bishop locates the 'social practices' — collaborative, relational and public art — of contemporary art 'in the public sector' and understands them as a product of biennalization and commissioning policies (Lind 2007: 26). From this perspective, relational aesthetics

Chapter 2 Literature Review 58

'foists services' and 'frivolous interaction' onto people and can therefore be 'brusquely dismissed as capricious' (Wright 2004 in Lind 2007: 21). Instead of sustaining conflict, for Bishop, the social practices of contemporary art replicate bureaucratic processes corrupted by consensus.

Curator and proponent of socially engaged practice, Nato Thompson, is also concerned with the 'quandary of embracing the metaphoric power of art because of its potential for freedom while simultaneously being aware of its complicity' (2010: 39). Rejecting the tight frame of contemporary art's institutions, Thompson argues that socially engaged cultural production is ultimately a more relevant approach to producing aesthetic experiences (2012: 67). Thompson challenges the notion of art's autonomy as privileging the aesthetic over the social, or any one particular function, and bluntly draws attention to an underlying formalist- conservatism in Bishop's argument:

[A] popular opinion, rampant in established art criticism, is what I call Clement Greenberg 2.0 wrapped up in an affinity for the writings of Claire Bishop, where the concern is that in terms of socially engaged art, the art is no longer around... their aesthetics lean a little more toward a certain punk- rock kind of refusal... The artist Santiago Sierra embodies this socially engaged nihilism, which is about as far as they will go with the participatory spectacle. They privilege words like “subversive” to emphasize that the negative is a more honest form of refusal in aesthetics than the soft liberalisms of do-gooder political art. Adherents to this view tell themselves that the latter is easily co-optable by state institutions and thus lacks a certain inherent resistant quality. It is this bizarre belief in inherent resistance that I find most revealing. A commonplace (mis)understanding... [is] that aesthetics in and of themselves, no matter what the subject matter, cannot be inherently resistant. It isn’t a question of beauty. It is a question of positioning within power, and its complexity is often avoided or conveniently not understood (2012: 65).

As Thompson suggests, Bishop's struggle to develop criteria for judging social practices falls apart because she does not fully consider the contexts in which contemporary artworks are embedded. While Bishop implicates the public sector

Chapter 2 Literature Review 59

in manipulating contemporary art to be socially useful, she ultimately holds artists, rather than those in positions of power — commissioners, the state and its institutions — accountable. Bishop fundamentally considers the social practices of contemporary art as extra-art activities. However, this question never arises for Lind and Deutsche, who consider context as an integral part of critical practice.

Lind adopts the concept of antagonism, suggesting 'agonistic' (Mouffe 2007; 2000) relationships maintain a tension with adversarial positions. This requires the application of critical pressure, persistently and productively maintaining tension. Drawing on practices including site-specificity and institutional critique, Lind suggests renegotiating the conventions of curating by cultivating practices that disrupt existing power relations. In this sense, antagonism is a method for thinking 'curatorially' that involves not just representing, but presenting and testing — while asserting political autonomy.

Employing Lefebvre, Deutsche interrogates mutually supportive relationships between aesthetic ideologies and oppressive urban restructuring, and rethinks the term 'public' from feminist and radical democratic perspectives. Deutsche thoroughly investigates and questions the contexts in which culture is produced and adopts antagonism as a strategy reminiscent of institutional critique. Unlike Bishop, Deutsche holds positions of power accountable, together with artists. She argues that the public realm remains democratic as long as its exclusions are taken into account. Thus, she asserts, along with Lacau and Mouffe: 'Conflict, division, and instability, then, do not ruin the democratic public sphere; they are conditions of its existence' (Deutsche 1996: 289).

The right to imagine the city

To understand how the expanded field of contemporary art practice that incorporates public spaces feels instrumentalized by and complicit with neoliberalism, it is compelling to consider Lefebvre's concept of the right to the city in connection with 'critical regionalism' (Frampton 1983) in Brisbane. As Harvey suggests, the phenomenology of place outlined in Lefebvre’s work generates 'the spirit of a counter-attack to produce alternative and more humane spaces and places' (2009: 184). Harvey adds, 'Lefebvre takes up the relational theory of space and place, and gives it a more explicit political meaning' (Ibid.). Lefebvre's

Chapter 2 Literature Review 60

conception of the right to the city provides an opening to resist, reclaim and/or defend aesthetic territory. While particular and contingent public space is susceptible to neoliberal takeover, place-making that accommodates difference and conflict resists.

Consequently, the research draws on the influential works of French Marxist and urban theorist, Henri Lefebvre. Lefebvre's works on cities, urbanism and space provide a productive lens to interrogate the role of contemporary art practices in relation to Brisbane's spatial politics. In Le Droit a la ville (1968 in Lefebvre 1996), Lefebvre conceived the right to the city as an assertion of conventional rights (assembly, access and movement) but also, crucially, as a right to imagine the city. The right to the city is sometimes understood as a legal right, however, this is a departure from Lefebvre's conception. He 'was concerned that urban space in contemporary cities is alienated from its users because it is produced for them by expert managers' (Purcell 2013). For Lefebvre, the right to the city 'is like a cry and a demand' through which inhabitants declare their intention to begin a struggle to manage the production of urban space, without the state and without capital (1968 in 1996: 158).

Lefebvre argued that space is a social product, a complex social construction based on values as well as the social production of meanings, which affects spatial practices and perceptions. His seminal work, The Production of Space (1974), focused on: the processes of spatial production; the multiplicity of spaces that are socially produced and made productive through social practices; and the contradictions and conflicts that reveal the political character of these processes. According to Lefebvre, as a consequence of this political character, the social production of space is commanded by a hegemonic class as a method to exert its dominance (Lefebvre 1996; Lefebvre 1991).

As Deutsche (1996: 287) points out, references to a public realm inevitably conjure Jürgen Habermas (1962). According to Habermas, the public sphere, located somewhere between private domains and state institutions, is primarily a historical, 'nineteenth century bourgeois concept based on specific ideas of subjectivity' and national citizenship (Sheikh 2008: 29). While emphasizing that there are other more sceptical conceptions of the public sphere, 'less hostile to differences or conflict, [and] less eager to turn their backs on critiques of modernity', Deutsche paraphrases Habermas’ account of the public sphere as arising

Chapter 2 Literature Review 61

with the advent of bourgeois society, which inaugurated a strict division between the private and the political realms. In the safety of the private sphere, the bourgeoisie could pursue financial gain unimpeded by society or the state. But bourgeois society... also gave rise to a set of institutions — the public sphere — through which the bourgeoisie could exercise control over the actions of the state while renouncing the claim to rule... a sphere... [where], casting aside private interests to commit themselves to matters of common concern, constituted... a [unified] public by engaging in... political discussion... [whereby] the state was held accountable to citizens (Habermas 1962 in Deutsche 1996: 287).

Adding to this conception of the public sphere, Sheikh points out that art institutions, as 'exemplary bourgeois public space[s]', 'played a crucial role in the establishment of the bourgeois public sphere' (2008: 33; 30). In addition to being representational, cultural and educational spaces, they were places to rehearse rational argument or 'proper political speech' through aesthetic debate (Sheikh 2008: 31).

In the public realm, 'only certain spaces and certain experiences [would] be formulated as political, regardless of how they [were] experienced' (Sheikh 2008: 32). In other words, it was 'a question of when and where: [that is] not at home and after work' (Ibid.). Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge have asserted that the exclusion of private domains and spaces of production (e.g. work and home) from Habermas’ conception of 'public' was a means of depoliticizing the public realm (2003 in Ibid.). Sheikh — like Szeemann, Deutsche and Lefebvre — argues that what must continually be established are public formations that can uphold antagonisms. As Sheikh suggests, the public domain is not fixed 'but rather something that has constitutive effects on the social, on how we socialize, and are indeed socialized' (2008: 29). He adds, the public condition 'is always being and becoming' (Ibid.). It involves a 'continuous process of articulation' because the idea of the public is shattered by its doubles, private domains, counter-publics and alternative ways of socializing (Sheikh 2008: 35).

Italian philosopher Paolo Virno 'argues that the new forms of globalized “flexible [immaterial] labour” allow for the creation of new forms of democracy'

Chapter 2 Literature Review 62

(Rosler 2010: 13). According to Virno, 'the long-established dyads of public/private and collective/individual no longer have meaning, and collectivity is enacted in other ways' (2004 in Ibid.). In describing a post-public condition, Sheikh, along with Virno, warns against

having all the visibility of publicness, but none of the possibilities for action and none of the rights of citizenry... The main problem is as follows: If the publicness of the intellect does not yield to the realm of a public sphere, of a political space in which the many can tend to common affairs, then it produces terrifying effects. A publicness without a public sphere (Sheikh 2008: 36; Virno 2004: 40).

Drawing on Lefebvre, Deutsche argues that such constitutive instability potentially creates an opportunity to resist, reclaim, and defend aesthetic territory and undo the domination of capitalist spatial organization through 'appropriation' — an exercise of what Lefebvre refers to as the right to the city (1996: 76).

Lefebvre's right to the city is radically democratic, Marxist in its rejection of capitalism and anarchist in its resolve to struggle against the state, as well as its management of space through active participation. For Purcell, Lefebvre's conception of the right to the city is 'exciting because it offers a radical alternative that directly challenges and rethinks the current structure of both capitalism and liberal-democratic citizenship' (2002: 100). The key to the right to the city is that it fundamentally shifts, reframes and reorients all decision-making in cities away from the state and toward urban inhabitants (Purcell 2002: 101). Such a right shatters conventional Westphalian, nation-based citizenship and 'the relatively neat, nested scalar hierarchy that currently characterizes democratic enfranchisement' (Purcell 2002: 104).13 What this essentially means is that decision-making rights are extended to all those that contribute to the production of urban space and cities.

13 Westphalian refers to the principles of: state sovereignty with the territorial right to political self determination; legal equality between states; and non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another. The term is sometimes used as shorthand to describe the system of nation- states which make up a globalized world (Osiander 2001: 251). While British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been credited with ushering in a post-Westphalian era (Harris 2012), others argue that the Westphalian sovereignty is a myth, superseded by globalization (Osiander 2001; Cutler 2001).

Chapter 2 Literature Review 63

Specifically, 'appropriation includes the right of inhabitants to physically access, occupy, and use urban space, and so this notion has been the primary focus of those who advocate the right of people to be physically present in the space of the city' (Purcell 2002: 103). However, Lefebvre imagines appropriation to have a much broader and more structural meaning. Not only is appropriation the right to occupy already-produced urban space, it is also the right to produce urban space so that it meets the needs of inhabitants. Because appropriation gives inhabitants the right to ‘full and complete usage’ of urban space in the course of everyday life, space must be produced in a way that makes that full and complete usage possible (Lefebvre 1996: 179). The use value aspect of urban space must therefore be the primary consideration in decisions that produce urban space. The right to appropriation stands against the conception of urban space as private property, valorized (or used to valorize other commodities) by the capitalist production process (Purcell 2002: 103).

Imagining Brisbane

A crucial component of Lefebvre's 'right to the city' is the right to imagine the city. Envisaged as a means of critiquing, resisting and/or reclaiming the production of urban space, Lefebvre conceives of imagination politically. Thereby, imagining the city becomes a method for the city's inhabitants to materially, symbolically and discursively address, appropriate and/or transform the city. Given the importance of Lefebvre's conception of imagination, it is pertinent to consider how Brisbane has and is being imagined. In doing so, a number of interrelated themes emerge: status, impermanence, and the spatial ambiguity of interstitial (in-between) spaces. All of these themes are expressed in the fictional writing of David Malouf, which in turn has often been quoted by urban designers and policy-makers.14

As Hatherell argues, Brisbane's status as a 'credible' city (2007: 138) has been undermined since its inception. On the one hand, the 'tradition of a contested metropolitan dominance in Queensland has had far-reaching implications for Brisbane', particularly in the cultural arena. As Hatherell states, 'politically, the dominant tradition has been of state governments to draw their moral, and often electoral, legitimacy from outside the metropolis' (2007: 18). Anti-metropolitan

14 In addition to the examples offered in this section, Malouf has often been quoted by BCC's urban design polices, which are discussed in further detail throughout Chapter 7.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 64

regionalism and Northern separatist movements, which lobby for a twin capital in the North, endure (Salt 2012). On the other hand, Brisbane was imagined as a scarcely credible city — a vision created in part by the 'shabbily individual' Queenslanders that were perceived to embody precariousness and impermanence. Malouf's 12 Edmondstone Street (1985a) makes clear the particular implications of the archetypal Queenslander as literary souvenir:

Real cities, as everyone knows, are made to last. They have foundations set firm in the earth. Weatherboard cities can be lifted if necessary, loaded on to the back of a lorry and set down two suburbs or a thousand miles away. Airy, open, often with no doors between the rooms, they are on such easy terms with breezes, with the thick foliage they break into at window level, with the lives of possums and flying-foxes, that living in them, barefoot for the most part, is like living in a reorganized forest (Malouf 1985a in Hatherell 2007: 243).

For Malouf, and many of his contemporaries, such as Shapcott, Brisbane was subjected to a particularly vicious form of post-World War Two development, through which references to difference and impermanence would be erased (Hatherell 2007: 241). Set in the 1940s and 1950s, Malouf's often quoted Johnno (1975), captures a sense of the city's development and its jarring affect: 'It is a sobering thing, at just thirty, to have outlived the landmarks of your youth'. The rapidity of development would at times be exacerbated by a violent cult of progress, of which the Bellevue Hotel remains a potent symbol. English Poet Laureate and campaigner for Victorian architecture, Sir John Betjeman, once described Brisbane as an Antipodean Naples (1971 in Tilston 2014: 153). Betjeman's reference to Naples was conjured while admiring the intersection of Alice and George Streets in 1971 which connected the majestic Moreton Bay Fig trees of the city Botanical Gardens, the gracious Parliament House and, at that time, the elegant Bellevue Hotel. Accounts of the controversial midnight demolition of the Bellevue Hotel in 1979, and the violent protest that ensued, have been widely shared and discussed (Shapcott 1986; et al.). The iconic hotel’s destruction is a potent symbol for the extensive anti-cultural, pro-development demolition program of the Bjelke- Petersen era and its impertinent callousness toward heritage. This callousness had

Chapter 2 Literature Review 65

unexpected political ramifications, resulting in a decline in the city's support for the Bjelke-Petersen government (Katter 2004 in Ross 2004).

A series of recent architectural studies and design proposals offer alternative cues for imagining Brisbane: Brit Andresen and Mara Francis' Sedimentary City (2007-ongoing), which acknowledges the earlier work of Louise Noble's Brisbane: une analyse morphologique (1992 in Andresen and Francis 2009), Kevin O'Brien's Sep Yama: Finding Country (2006-ongoing), and Donovan Hill and Wilson Architects' Q Garland (2009). Together, aspects of each study share an affinity with Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities (1974), which conceives of a city comprised of many layered cities. Each study considers occupation of the city differently.

The city's topography features prominently in each of the aforementioned proposals. Brisbane is situated within an area of exceptional biodiversity — the Macleay-McPherson Overlap — where the tropical northern Torresian and temperate southern Bassian overlap (Burbidge 1960). With the establishment of national parks and reserves as early as 1908 (NPSR 2014), the natural landscape remains easily accessible and referential. The Macleay-McPherson Overlap produces a memorable landscape that is a defining characteristic of the city:

The first thing you notice about this city is the unevenness of the ground. Brisbane is hilly. Walk two hundred metres in any direction outside the central city (which has been levelled) and you get a view – a new view. It is all gullies and sudden vistas... For that other distinctive feature of the city, its river. Winding back and forth across Brisbane in a classic meander... the River is inescapable (Malouf 1990 in Andresen and Francis 2009).

For Andresen and Francis, Malouf, like Calvino, suggest that 'identifying with the landscape qualities of the place we inhabit reaches to the very core of belonging and remembering' (Andresen and Francis 2009; Calvino 1974).

Calvino's city of Esmeralda, with its network of canals, is similar to Brisbane with its undulating topography, winding river and few bridges. In Brisbane, like Esmeralda, 'the shortest distance between two points is not the straight line but a zigzag' (Calvino 1974: 88). Rather than a map held in the mind of a gridded city, the navigation of these cities relies on a bodily memory, understood through

Chapter 2 Literature Review 66

learned physical experience. Again, Malouf provides descriptive prose capturing an aspect of this experiential learning: 'the city is conceived of in the minds of its citizens in terms of radical opposites... the old tramline system is now the invisible principle that holds the city together and gives it a shape in people's minds' (1975; 1985b).

Of the aforementioned proposals, O’Brien's project is especially significant for confronting and negotiating ‘traditions of Aboriginal space (Country) and European space (property)’ (2006-ongoing). As Noble's study affirmed, the city was already inhabited by a sophisticated culture at the time of European settlement, of which there are still traces. O'Brien's project amplifies these traces and searches for a renewed connection between sites and their settings through a radical editing of the urban fabric. Employing notions of 'camping' — of which there are two key aspects: the climatic and political — O'Brien recaptures the previously discreditable qualities of impermanence as an opportunity to acknowledge Country.

The phenomenological experience of spatial ambiguity posed by the archetypal Queenslander, also resonates deeply with many contemporary architects in Brisbane through the liminal (in-between) or transitional space between building and landscape: the inside-outside space of verandas and outdoor rooms.15 The 'benign sub-tropical climate encourages this spatially ambiguous approach to architecture... [in which] the ambient conditions comprise a climate so mild that any shelter will suffice' (Dodds 1919 in Skinner 2003). As chronicled by Malouf, the veranda enables its inhabitants to selectively participate in the life of the street 'while preserving the intimacy of the house proper' (1975 in Skinner 2003). Interstitial space is a semi-public, mediating space between citizen and city (Donovan Hill in van Schaik 2005: 53). Consequently, for many of the city's prominent design professionals, these concepts of impermanence and interstitial space have acquired a socio-political significance in the city of Brisbane.

The ways in which Brisbane has been imagined through literary fiction and architectural proposals suggest a course for cross-disciplinary discourse punctuated by antagonism, critical regionalism and interstitial space. For instance, LEVEL's We need to talk (Recipe for Revolution) (2014), a picnic at Mairwar Green, between the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) and the State Library of Queensland

15 The Oxford Dictionary defines liminal, or in-between space, as (1) relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process and (2) occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 67

(SLQ), closely corresponds with the socio-political discursivity of interstitial space. Similarly rejecting the white cube, another ARI, Accidentally Annie Street Space (AASS) (2008-2011), was initially located in a typical domestic Queenslander and thereby pursued the local in the context of place.

However, for Peta Rake, AASS's later transition to mobile and transient programming blurred the boundaries of the local. Rake claims that these off-site projects 'speak strongly to the potentiality' of ARIs as being 'dedicated to “place”, no matter what the locality' (2011). In this sense, off-site projects are a critical model that are 'not necessarily tied to “space” in a way that becomes static and merely in the service of a specific notion of “place” and identity' (Rake 2011). Even so, Rake inadvertently acknowledges that the mobility of ARIs disguises the fact that Arts Queensland's funding has prioritized transient programming above establishing exhibition and studio premises. In effect, ARIs are forced to sustain a 'seemingly resistant but in reality[,] mutual relationship' with the institutions of contemporary art (Rake 2011).

Furthermore, Rake's relatively recent essay, Inclusivity and Isolation: Artist Run Initiatives in Brisbane (2011), typifies the historical amnesia eyeline and THAT rallied against through activities that emphasized critical regionalism. Predominately focusing on the present, uninformed by the past, Rake incorrectly asserts that there were few artist-run-initiatives prior to 2000 (2011 in Anderson 2015: 62). There are multiple issues with Rake's account, but suffice to say that she doesn't recognize that prior activity often occurred in interstitial spaces. As a result, Rake's version of the present 'flounders on a flawed account of the past' (Anderson 2015: 63).

Summary and Implications

Contemporary art is defined by its deft resistance to categorization, coupled with its merging or blurring with other forms of activity and life. The expanded field of curatorial practices equally defies categorization. Regardless of radical changes brought about by the curatorial turn, the curatorial profession remains guided by an ethical code focused on developing a reception for contemporary art, which elevates public interests above private interests. However, the dynamic emergence of neoliberalism — which regularly recasts the language of art and social

Chapter 2 Literature Review 68

movements in service to the monetary gains of individuals or corporations — coincides with a gradual shift emphasizing economic values above aesthetic values and even public interests. This emphasis has come to be deeply embedded in the urban and art policies of government, whereby contemporary art practices are deployed and instrumentalized for their economic or social usefulness. The instrumentalization of contemporary art draws on the legitimizing practices of its institutions and conceals an impoverishment of the public realm.

As Lefebvre thoroughly theorized, the production and organization of space is ideological because it reproduces dominant social relations and represses conflict. As Deutsche points out, Lefebvre 'thus provides a starting point for cultural critiques of spatial design as an instrument of social control' (Deutsche 1996: 77). With the exception of Deutsche's Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics (1996), Lefebvre's work has rarely been reviewed as a way to analyse negotiations between contemporary art practitioners and the socio-political conditions that shape the city. A crucial component of Lefebvre's urban theory is the right to imagine the city. Through imagining the city, Lefebvre charges the phenomenology of place with socio-political potential.

As Lefebvre proposes, imagination is a political project that involves tracing patterns, articulating practices that already exist and the appropriation of public space. This project shares an affinity with Mouffe's 'agonistic' (2007; 2000) relationships, which sustain difference, and, to a lesser extent, the consistent re- articulation of dialectical clashes (Rancière 2009). These projects seek to sustain conflict, division and instability, and notably differ from the prevailing convention that is directed towards consensus building and/or the strategic management of dissenting discourses by governments. These projects do not necessarily seek to adopt strictly oppositional or so-called 'alternative' positions, but rather the presence of multiple positions at once. Contemporary practices that accommodate or adopt these ideas may be considered to be acting as an institutional critique.

Recognizing that in the cycle of institutional critique 'all movements... are dynamic, and provisional' (Rosler 2010: 15), it follows that institutional critique needs to be continually re-articulated. While instrumentalization draws on the legitimizing practices of contemporary art institutions, it is distinct from institutionalization because it wields art in the service of economic imperatives. Contemporary practitioners need to assert a greater claim to the expanded extra-

Chapter 2 Literature Review 69

institutional field of contemporary art, especially for the forces of instrumentalization to be held to account. Through discourses of institutional critique that sustain conflict, division and instability, productive socio-political friction has the capacity to not only address, but to constitute and mobilize publics.

By ignoring the conditions that produce and/or support the reception of contemporary art and exhibition-making, its practitioners leave the field exposed to instrumentalization. To address this, artists, curators and other art professionals need to engage critically with the ways public attitudes are constituted, and be proactive in negotiating with and raising public expectations. While curators increasingly occupy an expanded field, many of the profession's methodologies remain conventional and decidedly within the gallery-museum. Antagonism is a method for curatorial thinking that involves not just representing, but also presenting and testing, with all the messiness and friction that this entails. Working to facilitate antagonism as part of a curatorial practice requires a preparedness to rethink exhibition frameworks and discourse models.

Attitudes towards institutional critique are frequently dismissive and/or disillusioned. Institutional critique is often thought of as restricted to discussions of the gallery-museum, as if it stops there. Rather, institutional critique, as a form of political criticism that deliberately engages with social processes, should be extended beyond the gallery-museum to encompass contemporary art's expanded field. Further, these assertive instituting practices need to be continually reworked in order to consistently escape categorization by outdated notions of public domains, as well as instrumentalization by the state or entrepreneurial private interests. Without an expanded institutional critique, contemporary art's complicity with instrumentalization will continue to remain invisible and unassailable.

Furthermore, if the institutions of art are ever to become democratic, discursive, and resistant to instrumentalization, it is critical that contemporary practitioners, including curators, place a greater emphasis on communicating and constituting publics in relation to an entrepreneurial, public-private, post-public situation. This relies on developing transparent discourses and critique. Echoing Bishop's comments regarding complicity, Andrea Fraser states this relies not on 'what we do — but in what we say about what we do: in art discourse' (Fraser 2012: 33). Because, to further borrow from Fraser, the politics of art and especially art discourse may lie more in structuring a reflection on the relationships we are led to

Chapter 2 Literature Review 70

ignore, externalize or negate (2012: 32). In other words, while contemporary art practitioners recognize that they are complicit with instrumentalization, discourses of institutional critique provide a method of political criticism to delegitimize and confront this position.

The research contributes to redressing a lack of extra-institutional critique, and substantially addresses and examines the particular and contingent conditions of Brisbane. Furthermore, the research advances an understanding of contemporary aesthetic projects and their contribution to imagining and thereby shaping the city. The research that follows draws upon a series of exemplars, assembling empirical research to further test and develop the theories discussed as part of this literature review. The study's theoretical framework and rationale — which draws on Lefebvre and Deutsche — as well as the process for gathering and analysing data, is the subject of the following chapter.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 71

Chapter 3 Methodology

The research focuses on two periods: 1985-1988 and 2012-2015. These periods coincide with an adversarial political climate encompassing socio-political, government and art policy changes in Brisbane. In the context of contemporary art production, the consequences of these changes are investigated through four exemplars — two for each period 1985-1988 and 2012-2015: (1) artist-run- initiative (ARI) THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988); (2) InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst; (3) Michael Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12), a commission celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) and the 5th anniversary of the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA); and (4) Alice Lang’s The Swell (2013), commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC) as part of an urban renewal project. Through these exemplars, the research investigates the relationship between contemporary art practices and the socio-political conditions that shape the city.

As outlined in this chapter, the research employs a multi-method approach, aligned with genealogical discourse analysis, which is primarily informed by semi- structured interviews with participants, press articles and online comments that provide a pre-existing survey of public opinion, as well as art policy statements. In keeping with a genealogical discourse analysis, this multi-method model has been adopted to test theoretical propositions or hypotheses in contemporary art practice. Each exemplar affords the research instances of 'infrastructural activism' (Smith 2012: 251) and institutionalization, and thereby helps draw attention to

Chapter 3 Methodology 73

contemporary art processes that are instrumentalized by governments for the purposes of gentrification, privatization and city marketing and the context of their production.

This chapter also provides an overview of genealogical discourse analysis, which is the principal method of enquiry adopted for this study. Genealogy is a 'history of the present' (Foucault 1995: 31). As a method, genealogical discourse analysis examines the development of dominant institutional and extra- institutional practices, which are contingent, situated, local and contextual, with the purpose of understanding and, importantly, critiquing the present conditions. As Foucault suggests, to undertake a genealogical inquiry is to transform the present by 'grasping (more fully) what it is' (Foucault 1984: 50). To this end, Foucault also suggests that, wherever possible, concrete examples should be employed 'to serve as a testing ground for analysis' (Rabinow 1997: xi). Especially in relation to discourse analysis, genealogy emphasizes 'practices rather than language' (Olssen 2003: 194). For these reasons, by examining the correlations between the exemplars of two distinct periods — 1985-1988 and 2012-2015 — it is possible to understand, analyse and critique the current conditions impacting upon contemporary art production in Brisbane.

Following a description of the research questions that underpin this study, this chapter sets out the theoretical proposition, which encompasses a comparative research analysis and the rationale for deploying exemplars.16 After explaining why exemplars and/or aesthetics projects are placed at the centre of this interdisciplinary study, this chapter describes how data has been collected. Here, I also acknowledge the 'positionality of the researcher' or the active- membership of the researcher in the field of study, which also leads to statements regarding triangulation and rigor, before outlining the multi-method exemplars. Following this, I discuss genealogical, as well as media, discourse analysis.

Research Questions

A key supposition of this research is that contemporary art processes are considered in largely instrumental terms by governments, for a variety of

16 As Stavraki suggests, in developing a framework for data analysis, theory has played an integral role in the research design, both in the process of theorizing and building theory from interpretive studies (2014: 6).

Chapter 3 Methodology 74

purposes, such as gentrification and city marketing. In order to interrogate this claim, the research has been guided by the following question:

How are contemporary art practices’ 'rights to the city' guarded, within the unique political conditions of Brisbane?

While the term 'stewardship' might infer the guidance of contemporary art professionals, the term 'guarded' is used here to denote the influence of a broader set of participants. Arguably, there is a public expectation that contemporary art production is and/or should be guided by the expertise of contemporary art professionals. However, contemporary art production is in reality also greatly influenced by peripheral forces or powers such as governments, bureaucrats, developers and private interests. Furthermore, contemporary art professionals are not necessarily well practiced at negotiating adversarial political situations that arise with peripheral participants. Therefore, there are three key inter-related components to the research question:

(1) How have contemporary art practices of the past contested adversarial political conditions in Brisbane?

(2) What are the processes for the institutionalization and deinstitutionalization of contemporary art practices in Brisbane?

(3) In what ways are contemporary art practices instrumentalized by governments and economic policies?

Each exemplar has provided an opportunity to gather specific research in order to refine understandings of the institutionalized frameworks governing contemporary art practices in Brisbane. In sum, these qualifying questions have assisted in clarifying how contemporary art contributes to defining, contesting and shaping textual and material discourses concerning the city.

Chapter 3 Methodology 75

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is interdisciplinary. The framework draws on contemporary art theory, specifically focusing on a critical analysis of discourses concerning the aesthetic and economic functions of art. The framework has been further guided by urban theorist Henri Lefebvre's proposition regarding the right to the city, which crucially encompasses a right to imagine the city (Lefebvre 1996). In the context of contemporary art, as I have outlined in the literature review, the dynamic emergence of neoliberalism coincides with a gradual shift emphasizing economic values above aesthetic values. This emphasis has become embedded in the art and urban policies of governments, whereby contemporary art practices are instrumentalized for their economic or social usefulness. This instrumentalization draws on the legitimizing practices of contemporary art's institutions and conceals an impoverishment of the public sphere. In other words, government art and urban policies are revealed to be political instruments. It is my position that in the cycle of institutionalization (institutionalization, legitimization and deinstitutionalization), institutional critique, incorporating antagonism and/or dissensus (Lind 2009a: 103; Mouffe 2000; Rancière 2011), is an analytical tool or method of political criticism that can at once recalibrate and reassert the politics of aesthetics and delegitimize or confront practices of concealment.

With the development of an expanded curatorial or 'infrastructural' field, the scope of institutional critique should also be expanded. Given that curatorial practice now consistently negotiates outside the confines of the gallery-museum, it is important to consider this cross-disciplinary dimension and its significance. Relatively little cross-disciplinary discussion explores the cultural aspects of urban life in depth through the cultural representations or creative works of cities. Typically, aspects of contemporary art practices and related government policies are reviewed independently. By interrogating how the contexts of contemporary art's production are developed and contested, this research traces the less visible, economic and political mechanisms of the production of contemporary art in order to inform a holistic situational understanding.

Therefore, the rationale for employing exemplars has been informed by two key interrelated issues. Firstly, both policies and policy evaluations consistently demonstrate a phobia of aesthetic debates. Art and urban policies, purportedly supporting aesthetic projects, focus on the structure of polices, rather than

Chapter 3 Methodology 76

aesthetic outcomes.17 Secondly, contemporary art professionals are often blind to extra-institutional frameworks such as urban policies. In response to these issues, Deutsche offers a productive model and, through examples, comprehensively illustrates the economic, socio-political and aesthetic functions of art.

Unlike the majority of reviews regarding public art, Deutsche's critique of urban policies encompasses aesthetic discourse. The model used for the current research is largely influenced by Rosalyn Deutsche's seminal Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics (1996). Using Union Square, New York as a case study, Deutsche examined the problematic integration of public art within urban redevelopment projects that transform cities to meet the demands of global capitalism, private interests and state control (Deutsche 1996: xiv). By 'the force of example' (Flyberrg 2014: 14), Deutsche revealed the kinds of 'work' that commissions for the public realm are required to perform, specifically exposing the way artworks are made to 'function as both a profession and technology that attempts to pattern space' (Fazakerley 2008: 1). Importantly, Deutsche highlighted the way this process masks an ideological function. The coalescence of faceted details in Deutsche's interdisciplinary text traces the less visible, economic and political mechanisms of the production of contemporary art and informs a more fully contextualized understanding. In a similar way, the research has examined the details of its examples to more fully comprehend the conditions of production in Brisbane.

Interwoven in Deutsche's study is a critique of the depoliticization of aesthetics. Primarily, Deutsche argues that aesthetic discourse has not adequately dealt with the framing conditions of art in the public realm, particularly its institutional frames. Deutsche asserts that traditional art historical paradigms have resisted addressing the function and/or embeddedness of art and thereby maintain 'the transcendence of spatiotemporal contingencies' (1996: 63).

17 As detailed in the literature review, The Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006) by Keniger and the art+place 2007-2008 evaluation (2010) undertaken by Gray and Talvé offer compelling examples. Both centred on limited focus groups and interviews with project stakeholders, primarily from the government and not-for-profit sectors. While both reviews highlighted the pitfalls of placing too strong an emphasis on economic outcomes, both reviews defined artistic and cultural benefits in economic terms. The performance measures used by Arts Queensland to evaluate the quality of works facilitated by the State's public art commissioning policies were all grounded in economic indicators such as the number of projects, employment demographics and dollar value of public artworks. Hence, both reviews centred on the structure of these policies, rather than aesthetic outcomes. Consequently, the absence of aesthetic attention served to further highlight disparate priorities, between government strategies for the arts on the one hand, and professional claims on the other.

Chapter 3 Methodology 77

Similarly, social art history, which conventionally offers empiricist descriptions of either the content or context of artworks, preserves the autonomy of aesthetics through 'the dissociation of art — ontologically intact — from discrete social “environments” with which art merely “interacts”' (Deutsche 1996: 60). Both approaches, uninformed by urban politics, treat the city as a 'transhistorical form' relegated to the background of analysis (Deutsche 1996: 60). Deutsche argues for the development of a counter-practice that dislodges aesthetics 'from its ghettoization within the parameters of aesthetic discourse' in order to address the institutional frames impacting upon art in the public realm (1996: 63).

Similarly, the research has placed contemporary art and exhibition-making at the centre of the study so as to avoid a 'phobia of artworks' (Vogel 2013: 49; Myers 2011: 27) and by extension, assert the 'politics of aesthetics' (Rancière 2006b). As summarized above, aesthetic outcomes are divorced from aesthetic debates in two ways. Firstly, policy evaluations overly emphasize economic and social usefulness and in the process, dissociate aesthetic outcomes from aesthetic debates. Secondly, aesthetic critiques, which as Deutsche points out are typically uninformed by urban and/or spatial politics, similarly dissociate the conditional frames that inevitably influence aesthetic projects. As a result, these practices of dissociation ensure that professional knowledge is handled in such a way that it is siloed, which impacts upon our understanding of spatial politics. In order to more fully understand the role of contemporary art in the city, the research has adopted a holistic approach, incorporating a critique of policy and funding as institutional frames.

As described in the following sections, each exemplar provides a unit of analysis to generate and test critical theory. The analysis involves transcribing and corroborating comments by interviewees and identifying consistencies between the exemplars and critical theory. Furthermore, each exemplar or unit of analysis raises key economic and policy issues, and, with reference to Lefebvre, prompts observations related to civic models of practice.

Data sources and collection

The research has focused on two periods representing systemic breaks. The first period, 1985-1988, coincides with the end of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era and

Chapter 3 Methodology 78

leads to the beginning of the Goss Labor Government. Professionalization and institutionalization in contemporary art production followed this period, particularly through the development of government policies and funding throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. The second period, 2012-2015, coincides with the Newman Government and represents the deinstitutionalization of policies formulated throughout the former Labor era. The research has examined the genealogical relationships between these two periods in order to critique the conditions impacting upon contemporary art production in Brisbane.

The research has primarily investigated these two periods through four exemplars: (1) artist-run-initiative (ARI) THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985- 1988); (2) InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst; (3) Michael Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12), a commission celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Asia Pacific Triennial and the 5th anniversary of the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA); and (4) Alice Lang’s The Swell (2013), commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC) as part of an urban renewal project. Together, these examples have guided analysis regarding the textual and material effects of discourses concerning the city.

To supplement the limited documentation of these projects available, semi- structured interviews form a significant component of the study. As is often the case, oral history is not the object of the research, but rather an instrument to gather specific data (Hajek 2014: 13).18 In the absence of more extensive published documentation, these interviews supplied varied perspectives and interpretations. The approach was, as Thomas (1993: 39) suggests, to strategically select informants with direct insider knowledge. Eight interviews were undertaken in relation to the two exemplars from the 1985-1988 period, and five interviews were undertaken in relation to Alice Lang's commission and Brisbane City Council (BCC), an exemplar from the 2012-2015 period. Advantageously, as arts professionals, multiple participants interviewed have at different times occupied a range of roles including artist and/or curator and have experience that spans both periods. Participants such as Jay Younger and John Stafford were

18 Oral history is similarly nested in the multi-method research model. Commonly referred to as 'history from below', Portelli observes, 'oral history does not only tell us what people did, but what they wanted to do, what they thought they were doing and what they now think they did. In other words, it tells us about the subjectivity of the speaker' (Portelli 1997; Hajek. 2014: 4). Portelli's observation set a tone, especially for interviews with ex-members of THAT Contemporary Art Space. Importantly, these semi-structured interviews provided varied perspectives for the research.

Chapter 3 Methodology 79

involved in the professionalization of the sector through the formation of Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA), as well as policy development with Arts Queensland, including the Queensland Art Built-in policy (1999-2007), and they continue to sustain public profiles. A complete list of participants is provided in Appendix C.

By accommodating the perspectives of others, the research design has also taken into account the researcher's status as a professional participant in the field being examined. As an independent curator based in Brisbane, the researcher's position is that of an active-member-researcher. As Jung defines, 'researchers who take an active membership role are not legitimate members of the research setting but are involved with the setting's central goals, activities, and responsibilities' (2014: 8). While the researcher is not directly positioned within the examples being studied, the researcher has, advantageously, drawn on prior professional experiences and is thereby placed in relation to the contexts being studied. Such transparent subjectivity and epistemological preconceptions leads researchers to develop an informed understanding of the phenomenon under investigation, since they participate in the process of making sense, not only by contributing to a better understanding of the research, but by also establishing a setting for a critically informed reflexive process within the field (Thompson, Pollio & Locander 1994). As an active-member-researcher, drawing on over twenty years of experience in the field of study, the researcher is well placed to develop a critically informed reflexive enquiry.19

To summarize, before further introducing each exemplar in detail, a multi- method model for discourse analysis was adopted to examine, through the use of a variety of data sources, phenomena 'in its naturalistic context, with the purpose of “confronting” theory with the empirical world' (Piekkari, Welch and Paavilainen 2009: 569 in Stavraki 2014: 7). The researcher's active-membership supports the researcher in capturing the complexities of the phenomenon under investigation

19 As an independent curator, the researcher has been involved with contemporary exhibition- making, commissions for the public realm, writing and/or criticism, advocacy and politically appointed advisory groups, within the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. As highlighted in Chapter 1, the researcher’s ongoing professional observation prompted the observation that the production and display of contemporary art is increasingly moderated by economic and political interests rather than the stewardship of qualified professionals bound by an ethical code. Although the International Council of Museum's (ICOM) Code of Ethics does not provide instructions, the profession still needs to negotiate both best practice models and civic models of practice. The research has interrogated curatorial roles, complicit or opaque, in the instrumentalization of the profession.

Chapter 3 Methodology 80

by developing detailed context-embedded accounts that reveal multiple stakeholder perspectives (Stavraki 2014). Further acknowledging the researcher's active-membership, the research was informed by ethnography, which is suitable for studying social, cultural and/or organizational phenomena in depth and within its unique context of time, place and actors (Jung 2014: 4). Consistent with an ethnographic approach, this study is limited to a few examples, organizations and groups of people (Hammersley & Atkinson 2007 in Jung 2014: 5).20 Inaccuracies were minimized by drawing upon a range of data sources, such as semi-structured interviews, literature and pre-existing surveys.21 The study's multi-method data collection and sources have also led to the convergence, or corroboration, of data (Mathison 1988 in Jung 2014: 10). Such triangulation allows researchers to understand complex social phenomena that cannot be understood by a few perspectives alone, whilst reducing the risk that the conclusions of a study reflect the prejudices and personal biases based on a singular method or source (Maxwell 2005 in Jung 2014: 10). As such, the study has incorporated the perspectives of the subjects being studied and, where applicable, aspects of audience/public reception were addressed through the exemplars.22

20 Ethnography is also a fraught field. As Feiss points out, 'far from the neutral work of an engaged and responsible reporter, [ethnography is] made up of its own devices — with politically contingent outcomes' (2014: 2). Furthermore, the crisis of critique often foregrounds 'its complicities in upholding the power of the critiqued, corresponding to the specific ways in which transgression confirms, rather than undoes, the law of boundaries' (Franke 2009: 9). With this in mind, Madison makes clear that the subjectivity of the researcher must be transparent (2005: 14-15). For this research, it was considered necessary to negotiate these relationships of power by 'reverse ethnography' or critical ethnography: that 'is conventional ethnography with a political purpose' and the 'dialogic performance' of critical theory (Franke 2009: 9; Thomas 1993: 3; Conquergood 1982 in Madison 2005: 125-8; 15). Significantly, like genealogical discourse analysis, critical ethnography strives to move beyond a study of the way things are, to explore possibilities (Thomas 1993: 43). 21 This range of data also serves to challenge 'pre-patterned rhetoric that reflects learned accounts rather than actual reasons' (Thomas 1993: 38). 22 As a contemporary curator, audience/public reception is a significant concern: preparing a critical context for its reception and dynamically engaging with issues of audience, display, interpretation and advocacy. Understanding the complexities of the stewardship of contemporary art contributes to developing a fuller apprehension within the curatorial profession, and by extension, can be better communicated, leading to improved audience reception. This is closely tied to demystifying curatorial practice and promoting improved communication, within and beyond the confines of the profession. Thus, the research informs and benefits contemporary art practice: artists, curators and arts professionals negotiating, constituting and mobilizing policy development and/or audience reception.

Chapter 3 Methodology 81

1985-1988 | Exemplar 1: THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985- 1988)

During the 1980s, the cooperative venture THAT Contemporary Art Space was a critical catalyst at a pivotal moment for Brisbane's social milieu. Between the 1982 Commonwealth Games and Expo 88, during the final stage of the Joh Bjelke- Petersen era, multiple artist-run spaces, including “sister” art space John Mills National (1986-1987), and commercial galleries would be formed; the Queensland Art Gallery would secure permanent premises for the first time; Mike Ahern would challenge and depose Bjelke-Petersen to become Premier, Treasurer and Minister for the Arts; and, in a shift away from broader art associations such as the Poets Union, organizations and/or institutions specifically focusing on the demands of visual artists would be established, including Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984-2011) and eyeline (1987-present).23

The demise of the Bjelke-Petersen Government ushered in an era of systemic change. In the context of contemporary art, an enduring outcome of the era — for which THAT Contemporary Art Space is an exemplar — was infrastructural change, policy and advocacy. THAT collective members were involved in the professionalization of the sector through the formation of Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) and policy development with Arts Queensland. Their attention to critical regionalism and emphasis on local artists and opportunities would (more-or-less) be sustained in policy development throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. A focus for this study concerns how the “alternative” art and exhibition-making practices of a small collective were mobilized from a seemingly powerless position to secure an advocacy organization.

THAT Contemporary Art Space is representative of artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) of the era, but due to its breath of engagement, it is markedly different from other, perhaps more typical artist-run-initiatives (ARIs). Because THAT was, until quite recently, Brisbane's longest running artist-run space, there is more, albeit still a limited amount of documentation for this ARI than for other spaces of the time. To supplement this limited documentation, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with ex-THAT members and associated observers best placed to offer

23 In a further shift, from local to international contexts, ex-THAT members Paul Andrew (founding coordinator), Jay Younger and Lehan Ramsay would develop the AXIS project and travel to New York in 1988 to critically examine similar individual and institutional activity.

Chapter 3 Methodology 82

valuable insights into what collective role THAT played in influencing and/or lobbying government policy, and its residual effects. Additionally, the study drew on documents regarding the Queensland State Government's watershed policy Queensland: A State of the Arts (1991). The current study is complimented, and further supplemented, by reference to ARI Remix (2012-present), a developing archival resource documenting socially-engaged ARI activity, coordinated by ex- THAT coordinator Paul Andrew. However, while ARI Remix (2012-present) concentrates on accumulating documentation, this study specifically investigates how the art and exhibition-practices of ARIs informed policy development.

1985-1988 | Exemplar 2: InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst

This exemplar is of interest as a prototype work for the public realm that pre-dates the city (1995) and State (1999) public art policies. InterFace (1988) was a collaborative project, coordinated by Jeanelle Hurst. Staged late February and March 1988, the exhibition-project involved twenty-one artists and programmers occupying physical and virtual spaces across the CBD. Although the project received financial support from the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA), which helped facilitate access to the city's personnel, InterFace 'lacked the... appropriate... resources to stage with success and with maximum visibility such an expansively scaled project' (Helmrich 1988a: 8). What is more, InterFace was overshadowed by and unfairly criticized in comparison to Expo 88 — the largest Australian Bicentenary event. As Helmrich's review in eyeline at the time concludes, 'the most important aspect of InterFace... [is] that such a project, on such a scale, was attempted at all' (1988a: 9). Moreover, the idea that an individual could develop a project across multiple commercial, public and virtual sites is equally audacious today.

As an artist-run project, InterFace was characterized by its ambitious scale. Because it pre-dated city and state public art polices, the project was unencumbered by economic imperatives and it did not have a role to play in city marketing. With the introduction of city and state public art polices, the process for commissioning contemporary art projects for the public realm would be streamlined and relatively sanitized. In many respects, InterFace represents the

Chapter 3 Methodology 83

desires of contemporary urban renewal strategies without the imposed mechanisms of control. As such, like THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988), InterFace (1988) provides a comparison prime for insights into how the conditions of today might be contested.

The research on InterFace involves many of the same participants as the research on THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988), and draws on the same semi-structured interviews to generate an understanding of conditions relating to artist-run projects in the 1985-1988 period. Additionally, the analysis centres on three reviews, published in art journals of the time: (1) Lynne Seear’s “InterFace, Stars Disordered” Art Monthly (vol.11, 1988); (2) Michelle Helmrich’s, “Interfacing the InterFace” eyeline (vol.5, 1988); and, also by Helmrich, (3) “InterFace / Brisbane” Art & Text (vol.29, 1988). The study also involves consideration of the Queensland Artworkers' Alliance's (QAA) (1984-2011) initial association with the introduction of the State's Art Built-in policy (1999-2007) and examines the introduction and review of state public art policies. Through these resources, the study examines infrastructural developments associated with the extra- institutional and its expanded field.

2012-2015 | Exemplar 3: Michael Parekowhai, The World Turns (2011-12)

Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) was commissioned to celebrate both the 5th anniversary of the opening of GOMA and the 20th anniversary of the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993-present). As the APT established the Queensland Art Gallery's (QAG) international reputation and repositioned Australia in the cultural arena, the $1 million commission was a comparatively small commemorative token of the APT's sustained cultural and economic contribution to the city. Amidst a swell of politically-driven criticisms of public art commissioning policies and budgets, this fundamental fact was ignored by the popular press. Established in 1993, APT is one of the region’s most respected and influential exhibitions.24 The exhibition series spawned the development of the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) – the largest art museum in Australia solely

24 As discussed in Chapter 6, APT was conceived at a time when the then Premier and Arts Minister, Wayne Goss, wished to transform the way Queenslanders perceived themselves. Former QAG Director Doug Hall pitched the project “as the mirror his political master was after” (Turner 2012).

Chapter 3 Methodology 84

dedicated to modern and contemporary art, which holds one of the most significant collections of Asian and Pacific contemporary art in the world. The study's narrative arc is inextricably tied to APT, biennalization, soft or cultural diplomacy and re-imagining Brisbane as part of the Asia-Pacific region.

The context of the discussion of The World Turns spans 20 years. In addition to the APT, this study also incorporates a consideration of the Queensland Government's public art policies and evaluations, which together form the historical and organizational conditions of the discourse analysis. A quarter of the funding for the Parekowhai commission came from art+place, Queensland Public Art Fund (2007-2012), the Art Built-in policy's (1999-2007) successor. In 2012, the Newman Government (2012-2015), with The Courier Mail as its mouthpiece, aggressively criticized a series of commissions for the public realm. These included Andy Goldsworthy’s Strangler Cairn (2011) 'an egg-shaped pile of rocks' (Shorten 2012; Frank 2012), sited in the Conondale National Park and commissioned by the Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Division, and commissions for the Brisbane Supreme Court and District Court, particularly Yayoi Kusama’s Eyes are Singing Out (2012). These criticisms culminated with attacks on Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12). The Newman Government's criticisms signalled the deinstitutionalization of art+place (2007-2012), which had proved a popular and significant art policy.

Due to the public and press attention garnered by the commissioning of The World Turns, the analysis of this exemplar has been supported by substantial published material, largely press articles, and associated online comments that provided a pre-existing survey. Notably, online comments attached to the press articles, which capture audience reception, supplied a unique, rich data source enabling multiple perspectives. As such, this pre-existing survey provides corroboratory and contrary insights forming a key component of the overall analysis (Yin 2003: 90).25 Overall, the comments demonstrate that the public has a more varied and complex response to art and its cultural values than the one assumed by elected political representatives, and thereby presents a variety of different perspective. However, the popular press consistently re-asserted the

25 The accumulated press articles and associated online comments, generated for purposes and readers other than the study, demonstrate that the political and public reception of aesthetic value, and the function of art, vary for different professions and viewers.

Chapter 3 Methodology 85

Queensland Government's position and ignored the perspectives of its readership.

Accordingly, this study also draws on media discourse analysis, because, as I have stressed, there is a lack of research focused on the reception of aesthetic projects. This is particularly true in regard to policy, which substantially tends to assess infrastructural and economic benefit. Parekowhai's The World Turns provides a unique example of a commission for the public realm receiving ongoing press attention and public comment. This exemplar effectively mobilized public opinion, but, with the exception of criticism by artist Fiona Foley (2012 et al.), has received little attention from the contemporary art community. In addition to influencing the public reception of commissions, the circulation of such public opinion can have a significant impact on the development of contemporary art policies.

2012-2015 | Exemplar 4: Alice Lang, The Swell (2013), commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC)

Working between Brisbane and Los Angeles, artist Alice Lang has been involved with artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) and commissions for the public realm during a period when city and state government support for these activities has changed. During this period, the subjects and content of sponsored artworks has come under greater scrutiny, profoundly diminishing practitioner autonomy. Like Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), Lang's work, The Swell (2013), sited in the public realm, was the subject of political intervention, specifically censorship.26

As with the discussion of Parekowhai’s work, the context of this exemplar spans 20 years. In association with this exemplar, the study has principally explored the city council's public art policies and practices, which form the historical and organizational logic of the commission. In 1995, Brisbane City Council (BCC) introduced the city's first public art policy. Although the principles guiding the commissioning of contemporary art in the city remain largely unchanged, they are increasingly tied to gentrification, creative city strategies and

26 As Chapter 7 describes, this series of text-based works presents brightly coloured lines that hypnotically encircle Gen-Y phrases: Grow A Set, Yeah Right and Same Diff. Derived from ongoing conversations between the artist and her mother, this artwork explores 'the meaning, presence and experience of feminism within the lives of Australian women in the past and present' (BCC 2012).

Chapter 3 Methodology 86

city marketing. In addition, and most importantly, these commissions by the city grant significant decision-making powers to individual and private interests. Consequently, commissions such as The Swell (2013) have come to lack the stewardship of contemporary art professionals and are instead mastered by urban and political professionals. This has an impact on both their content and presentation, temporary or otherwise, in the public realm. The study investigated the advantages and impediments to exhibition-making and commissioning in relation to art and cultural strategies and, in doing so, gauged the effectiveness of Brisbane’s creative city strategy. It also considered the intended and unintended consequences of such policies within a network of power/knowledge relations, concentrating on the consequences of using contemporary art to support gentrification and city marketing.27 To date, unlike the State Government's public art policies, Brisbane City Council's (BCC) policies and practices have not been the subject of review. This lack of evaluation is an issue this study has sought to redress.

As with the exemplars of the earlier 1985-1888 period, semi-structured interviews, which provide the professional observations and perspectives of others, assisted in developing the study's narrative of Lang’s work. In addition to an interview with artist Alice Lang, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with current and former BCC employees charged with implementing BCC's cultural strategies and commissioning as part of urban renewal projects, including Scott Chaseling, Specialist Urban Design Delivery.28 An overview of BCC's cultural and urban statements, including their public art strategies and practices, has also been included as part of the study. The study was further informed by other secondary sources of data, including BCC's recently introduced Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy.

27 As Flyberrg suggests, the study's interdisciplinary setting, encompassing both contemporary art and urban theory, should avoid the study being overly dominated by the theories of any one academic specialization (Flyberrg 2014: 25). This enables the critical narrative to be portrayed in its diversity, addressing a concern common to researchers exploring examples, who 'tend to be sceptical about erasing phenomenological detail in favour of conceptual closure' (Flyberrg 2014: 26). 28 For a complete list of participants, refer Appendix C.

Chapter 3 Methodology 87

Selection process and criteria

As described above, the research drew on four key exemplars: THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988), InterFace (1988), Michael Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12), and Alice Lang’s The Swell (2013). The rationale for employing these particular exemplars was largely informed by principles outlined by Flyberrg (2014). Flyberrg recommends the selection of purposeful, strategic and information-oriented examples that maximize the utility of information (2014: 16). As such, the exemplars were selected for exhibiting information-rich content and embedded relationships, relating to political, government and/or art policy changes, ubiquitous censorship or intense public and/or press attention. On this basis, and in reference to the theoretical framework, each exemplar satisfied all of the following selection criteria:

(i) Contemporary art practice that is professional, engages with contemporary art issues, with a consistent exhibition history, public profile and reputation

(ii) Interrelated to curatorial practice, and its expanded field, whether institutional, commissioning for the public realm or artist-as-curator

(iii) Political, specifically coinciding with a moment indicative of government change, and eventual changes in the art policies of Brisbane

(iv) Within this moment of political change, asserts a claim: for example, to exhibition space; public space; difference, such as, a feminist perspective; government or financial support and/or soft diplomacy

(v) Incorporates both a local and international dimension

Most of the above criteria reflect the professional and global status of contemporary art practice. However, the criterion regarding political, government and art policy changes was critical because the research examines the institutionalization and deinstitutionalization of government art policies and the consequences and/or effects for contemporary art practices. Furthermore, this criterion was critical because these moments of rupture precipitate opportunities

Chapter 3 Methodology 88

to establish a claim. Specifically, the research explored the capacity for contemporary arts professionals to respond as active proponents in imagining the city.

Discourse analysis

Discourse analysis was the principal method of enquiry adopted for this study. Specifically, the approach to discourse analysis used for this study drew upon Foucauldian or genealogical discourse analysis. Although Foucault offers limited direction as to how a method of genealogical analysis may be conducted, Carabine (2001: 275) suggests that a genealogical discourse analysis describes 'the procedures, practices, apparatuses and institutions involved in the production of discourses and knowledges and their power effects'. To a lesser extent, the research also incorporated media discourse analysis, which concerns public, manufactured, on-record, forms of interaction that take place through broadcast platforms (O'Keeffe 2011: 441).

This section sets out the approach for analysing the exemplars, which is closely aligned with genealogical discourse analysis. After highlighting that the approach to discourse analysis used for this study is less concerned with language per se and more with practices, this section primarily examines the critical components deployed in guiding a critique of the relationships between instrumentalization/power and contemporary art and exhibition-making in Brisbane. This is followed by a brief discussion regarding media discourse analysis, which is primarily applied in the examination of the third exemplar, Michael Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12). Finally, I reiterate that as part of this study, semi-structured interviews produced on-record material.

Rather than referring to formal linguistic aspects, language conventions, grammar and/or syntax, discourse, in the Foucauldian sense, refers to institutionalized patterns of knowledge that manifest in disciplinary structures and operate through the connection of knowledge and power. Foucault's conception of discourse concerns the ways that an issue or topic is 'spoken of' through such means as speech, texts, writing and practice (Wetherell et al 2001). As Hook insists, 'Foucault's conception of discourse is situated far more closely to knowledge, materiality and power than it is to language' (2001: 36). For Foucault,

Chapter 3 Methodology 89

as for many poststructuralists and post-Marxists, 'discourses are socio-historical forms of practice that are constitutive of the subjects and objects that make up the world defined within particular truth regimes' (Hammersley 2005: 3). Foucault considered discourses as systems of representation or knowledge — for example, medicine, economics, linguistics — that inform the social and governmental 'technologies' which constitute power in modern society (Fairclough 2001: 233; Hall 1997; 2001).

Powers outlines a course for undertaking a genealogical discourse analysis, stating: 'the goal of discourse analysis is to provide interpretative claims based on a description of power relations in the context of historically specific situations' (2001: 53). Powers goes on to define three specific objectives for a discourse analysis. The first objective is to document the historical conditions of the discourse, which establishes a genealogy for interpreting the influence of historical power upon the discourse. In order to avoid the risk of producing an insulated analysis, 'Foucault's conceptualization of discourse indispensably requires... historical contextualization' (Hook 2001: 37). The second objective is to describe the socially constructed system of power/knowledge through a structural analysis that focuses on the internal logic or organizational structure of the discourse. The third objective is to analyse the materiality or extra-textual and material effects of the discourse and its function, including intended and unintended consequences. This involves understanding the effect of discourse-as-knowledge and as an instrument of power. Drawing on Said (1983), Hook suggests that the analysis needs to move 'in and out of the text' (2001: 38). In this way, analysis is driven and corroborated 'through the extra-discursive' (Ibid.). All three parts are intimately related and may be combined into one discussion or separated for the purposes of conceptual clarity (Powers 2001: 53-54).

Similarly, discourse analysis of the kind that encompasses media discourse analysis, is mainly a type of analytical research that studies the way social power, dominance and inequality are enacted, confirmed, legitimated, reproduced, and resisted by discourse (text and talk) in social-political contexts in order to 'understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality' (van Dijk 2001: 352). The fact that media discourse is documented and, on the record, makes it an attractive means to interrogate the paradoxes, ideologies and institutional

Chapter 3 Methodology 90

discussion concerning contemporary art that is reproduced and legitimated through both specialized journals and popular media sources.29

Ideally, art criticism contributes to 'exposing the complex ideologies and myths that inflect every cultural artefact' (Berger 1998: 9). However, much of contemporary art criticism has come to foreground 'its complicities in upholding the power of the critiqued, corresponding to the specific ways in which transgression confirms, 'rather than undoes' (Franke 2009: 9 in Feiss 2014: 1). Simultaneously, interpretation and evaluation resides with discerning lay critics and consumers. Importantly, with the advent of social media platforms, especially comment sections accompanying newspaper articles, simultaneously published online, the reader is 'no longer a passive recipient' reading an article 'in protracted isolation' (O'Keeffe 2011: 450). Regardless of the in-progress transformations of the media industry, discourse remains a 'central and manifest cultural and social product in and through which meanings and ideologies are expressed or (re- )produced' (van Dijk 1985: 5).

While preference was given to public, on-record, forms of discourse, because there was limited documentation concerning aspects of the exemplars, it was necessary to source additional information through semi-structured interviews. Advantageously, these interviews were analysed, as Hammersley suggests, 'as public, discursive displays through which actions, contexts, and even subjectivities are ongoingly constituted' (2005: 12). In addition to generating data about the discursive resources or practices by which social phenomena are constructed, these interviews offer an understanding of the perspectives, attitudes, beliefs and values of the subjects being studied. According to Hammerseley, 'we should study how people construct accounts, what discursive resources they employ, and perhaps why they portray things in the ways that they do' (2005: 12). In keeping with Hammersley’s ideas, the discourse analysis relies on existing documentation, coupled with audio recordings, rather than on the observer as research instrument, as in ethnographic studies. The documentation

29 Since 1980, media discourse analysis has 'yielded the conclusion that industrial news is biased in favour of the `dominant' position of government or factory directors' (van Dijk 1985: 3). Research directed by Stuart Hall established and 'defined the media as a major cultural and ideological force, standing in a dominant position with respect to the way in which social relations and political problems were defined and the production and transformation of popular ideologies in the audience addressed' (Hall 1980: 118 in van Dijk 1985: 3). Moreover, 'dominated groups may more or less resist, accept, condone, comply with, or legitimate such power, and even find it "natural"’ (van Dijk 2001: 355).

Chapter 3 Methodology 91

of the interviews functions as a record and/or evidence for analysis, rather than as interpretations or inferential accounts (Hammersley 2005: 13).

Conclusion

In keeping with genealogical discourse analysis, the research ties the present — Parekowhai and Lang — with the 'infrastructural activism' (Smith 2012: 251) of the past — THAT and InterFace.30 The research has employed a multi-method approach to analyse how the economic, socio-political and historical conditions of contemporary art's production in Brisbane are continually developed within institutional and extra-institutional frameworks, and how these conditions can be contested. Consequently, the research contributes to redressing a lack of extra- institutional critique, which in some instances, such as Brisbane City Council's (BCC) percent-for-art program, is long overdue. Through exemplars, encompassing artist-run projects and commissions for the public realm, specific and evidentiary research has been gathered. These exemplars demonstrate that art and urban policies are utilized as political instruments, through political intervention and instrumentalization, effectively limiting contemporary art practitioners' capacity for autonomy and stewardship. Acknowledging that contemporary art projects contribute to imagining the city, the research further contributes to re-centring aesthetic debates, especially regarding public art, to address the political, economic, social and contingent conditions of Brisbane.

30 Contemporary arts practitioners have contributed and continue to contribute to shaping the city, although their past, and at times subtle, efforts, are 'frequently fugitive' (Ault 2002 in Anderson 2015: 62). Contemporary practitioners are commonly thought of as working apart from broader social-political contexts and from each other. However, contemporary practitioners are consistently involved in teamwork and project-based organizations (Lind 2009b; 2007; Vogel 2013: 49). Furthermore, the work of contemporary practitioners is popularly misunderstood as breaking from the past, rather than as a continuation.

Chapter 3 Methodology 92

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization

This chapter sets out to investigate how contemporary art practices operated in Brisbane during the late-Bjelke-Petersen era under the contested adversarial political conditions of this time.31 This period in Queensland's history remains relevant for those seeking an understanding of the current situation of the state and its capital city, Brisbane. Moreover, it is within this hostile political environment that artist-led activities initiated an ongoing period of infrastructural activism, often with few, if any, financial resources. It is necessary to understand this past in order to renegotiate, reinvent or even reinvigorate adversarial positions in the present.

There are three key interrelated and contemporaneous factors that form the backdrop for Brisbane's first generation of artist-run-initiatives (ARIs). First, there was the reactionary, right-wing Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government. Second, the grassroots formation of local organizations and/or institutions, especially those focusing on the demands of visual artists, such as Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984-2011).32 Many of these initiatives and organizations were

31 Bjelke-Petersen was the longest serving Premier of Queensland (1968-87). His government was marred by electoral malpractice, crony capitalism and systemic police corruption, earning him the title 'Hillbilly Dictator' (Whitton 1993). Through the Fitzgerald Inquiry (1987-89), Bjelke-Petersen's Government was confirmed to be institutionally corrupt. 32 An incorporated, not-for-profit membership-based organization first established in 1984 — as the Artworkers' Union Queensland and subsequently renamed the Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) — to address the professional and financial concerns of visual artists.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 93

formed in the interstitial semi-public and domestic spaces of artist studios, verandas and dining tables. Third, there were broader shifts within the field of visual art practice and as a result, new policies were introduced, initially at a national level, and later by state governments.

Through their creation of collaborative spaces, formed within the undervalued spaces of the city, artists of the era proved to be capable of imagining the city differently. Furthermore, their ideas for contemporary art projects to enrich new state capital projects were advanced in association with QAA. Accordingly, this study further examines the processes for the institutionalization of contemporary art practices in Brisbane where artworkers begin to effect policy change, especially at a state level.

This chapter foregrounds the perspectives of key participants and close observers from this period gathered through a series of discussions, or semi- structured interviews. Participants interviewed include: Paul Andrew, formerly THAT's unpaid coordinator; Brian Doherty, formerly involved with a range of initiatives including the formative development of Activities (c. 1973 – c. 1993), QAA and eyeline; and Jay Younger, who, as an artist involved in both THAT and QAA, remained in Brisbane and is considered a key conduit between ARIs of the late 1980s and the present. This study further draws on information related to Open Sandwich (1983), the first national conference of Australian alternative art spaces, and Peter Anderson's (1993) interview with John Stafford regarding the Queensland State Government's watershed policy, Queensland: A State of the Arts (1991).

The parameters of Bjelke-Petersen's influence

The impact of the 'extreme right-wing' Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government is well known and includes electoral corruption;33 social conservatism; political and police

33 Largely due to a malamander — an earlier version of which had been initially introduced by the Hanlon Labor Government in 1949 — Bjelke-Petersen was sworn in as Premier in August 1968. With a malamander in place — the 'malapportionment' or distribution of unequal value to electorates, whereby a vote in the west was worth two in Brisbane — Bjelke-Petersen could potentially 'retain office without winning a seat in the capital' (Whitton 1993: 100). In the lead up to the 1977 state election, Bjelke-Petersen expanded upon the malamander by introducing a gerrymander, whereby the electoral boundaries were redistributed or rezoned to his advantage. Professor Kenneth Wiltshire, then Associate Professor of Government at the University of Queensland (UQ), described the redistribution as 'the most criminal act ever perpetrated in politics... the worst zonal gerrymander in... history... [and] the most serious act... [in Bjelke- Petersen's] political career' (Ibid.).

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 94

corruption,34 police raids and the suppression of dissent or difference, marches and protests; midnight building demolitions and unfettered development (Anderson 2016c; Hatherell 2007; Stafford 2004; Whitton 1993). Brisbane's provincial reputation as a cultural wasteland acquired its powerful narrative force against this backdrop. Subsequently, the idea of Brisbane as a cultural desert or backwater would be confirmed by the exodus of artists, writers, intellectuals and educated people (Glover and Cunningham 2003). Ironically, the perception of Queensland as a cultural wasteland came not long after a period in which it had been common for most Australian cultural life to be considered provincial. In this time most Australian capital cities, including Sydney and Melbourne, were derided as cultural backwaters, a perception which prompted the departure of many of the country's intellectuals and artists, from Melbourne-born author Germaine Greer to Brisbane band The Saints. However, Brisbane's reputation would be especially marred by the impact of the Bjelke-Petersen Government.

Throughout the Bjelke-Petersen era (1968-87), people regarded as non- conforming were expressly unwelcome in Brisbane; this included artists, intellectuals, students, especially left-wing activists, young people and/or “ratbags” — to use a Bjelke-Petersen term. As Peter Anderson (2016b) has argued, the desire of artists to leave Brisbane is almost always understood in terms of a push, rather than a pull. This is a point reinforced by Stuart Glover and Stuart Cunningham (2003), who note that the vision of Brisbane as a wasteland 'must have been a comfort to those who left'. As a consequence, Glover and Cunningham (2003) further argue that the efforts of those who stayed 'has been scrubbed of any meaning except within a binary of oppression and resistance' (Ibid.). In other words, this binary does not account for, and thereby minimizes, the efforts of those who stayed to negotiate and shape the city's development.

A less acknowledged feature of the dominant Bjelke-Petersen narrative is the fact that artists left Brisbane due to economic circumstances as much as the hostile political environment — there simply were not sufficient employment opportunities to keep them in Brisbane. In 1973 Australia underwent an economic downturn.35 The post-World War II boom ended with stagflation — a high inflation rate accompanied by a high unemployment rate — which was further exacerbated

34 To the extent that the police were 'acting as entrepreneurs of crime' and 'franchising organized crime' (Whitton 1993: 225). 35 Largely prompted by the 1973 OPEC oil crisis.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 95

by the 1982-83 recession.36 This period led to record inflation — a staggering 20% in 1986 — as well as record unemployment and industrial disputation. From 1975 to 1983, the unemployment rate in Queensland rose from 15.6% to 23% (Parliament of Australia 1983). The increase in unemployment, especially youth unemployment, in Queensland was greater than the national average, and in 1984 it would peak at 31%. By 1986, Queensland accounted for 18% of Australia's unemployment rate (Parliament of Australia 1986).

The Bjelke-Petersen government has often been overly credited with influencing the development of the city and its cultural sector. As Andrew Stafford (2004: 2) observes, it makes little sense to give the Bjelke-Petersen Government too much credit for motivating cultural change. The city's cultural sector was influenced by local and international politics, and the politics of contemporary arts production as much as by state economics and governance (Interview with Paul Andrew 2016 et al.). However, Stafford also observes that coming of age in a hostile climate certainly distorted the prism through which Brisbane-based artists interpreted local and international influences (2004: 2). Consequently, this period in Queensland's history remains influential even for those seeking an understanding of the current situation of the state and its capital city, Brisbane.

The spectre of demolition

The Bjelke-Petersen Government had an evident and lasting effect on both the city's physical landscape and its psyche. Young people felt under attack during the Bjelke-Petersen era when the “ratbag” or different tag could be “outright dangerous” (Anderson et al. 2016b; Interview with Paul Andrew 2016). Young people “would be stopped and frisked. If you were a black person, you'd be stopped, frisked and... incarcerate[d]” (Interview with John Stafford 2016). The police presence produced a culture of paranoia and anxiety. Lindy Morrison (2005), drummer from the Go-Betweens has said, 'although Whitlam's Government had allowed us to breathe, we were justifiably paranoid' of the Bjelke- Petersen Government and the Queensland police.37 For many young artists, the

36 Verrender (2014) describes stagflation as a rare economic phenomenon and a 'nightmare' for policymakers: 'raise rates to dampen inflation and you exacerbate unemployment. Try to fix the jobs crisis and you fuel inflation'. 37 The Whitlam Government (1972-75) is credited with major federal reforms, which would be eclipsed by events simply known as the Dismissal. The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 96

Bjelke-Petersen Government was influential in that they 'obliterated everything' (Anderson et al. 2016b) — during the Bjelke-Petersen era, “everything” from the Great Barrier Reef to the built environment was under threat.

Demolitions further contributed to the city's tensions and anxieties. An aspect of Bjelke-Petersen's lasting legacy includes the demolition of sixty-some buildings, the majority of which had historic significance (Evans and Ferrier 2004). The demolitions, which had been happening since the mid-1970s, escalated in the lead up to Expo 88.38 Bjelke-Petersen's approach to demolition was characterized by hubris and arrogance. There was no community consultation. As THAT coordinator Paul Andrew recalls, the city was being cleaned up in order to transform it into a “schmick” and newly recreated city; “the climate was basically, knock it all down” (Interview, 2016).39 Andrew further points out that a lot of the demolitions seemed to be connected to meeting places for young people. The Bellevue Hotel (demolished 1979); Cloudland (demolished 1982), which was a major concert venue; Trades Hall40 (demolished 1984); and the Canberra Hotel41 (demolished 1987), which was a venue for dance parties, had all been meeting places for young people.

Coinciding with the major part of the Bjelke-Petersen era (1968-87) was the ongoing post-war residential and retail drift to the suburbs, precipitated by the broader shift to car use in Australia, as well as the recession following the OPEC oil crisis.42 The city was being decentralized. The closure of the Roma Street

the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australia’s political history. Bjelke-Petersen played a key role in precipitating the Dismissal. Bjelke-Petersen strategically nominated Albert Field, a long-time ALP member critical of the Whitlam Government, as Senator for Queensland. This gave the Coalition control over the Senate to obstruct the Supply Bills through Parliament, which denied Whitlam's Government the legal capacity to appropriate funds for government business, and led to the Dismissal. 38 Following the 1982 Commonwealth Games (Brisbane), World Expo 88 is broadly considered a transformative moment in the history of Brisbane. The largest event of the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations, attracting more than 18 million visitors, it was the world's first 'free enterprise' World Exposition and spurred a major redevelopment at the South Brisbane site and nearby areas. 39 ”Schmick” is a colloquial Australian phrase meaning new and smart or stylish. 40 Trades Hall was formerly the venue for FOCO (1968-69) — a Cuban–Spanish word meaning guerrilla encampment. Initiated by Brian Laver, these Sunday-evening events incorporated music, poetry, film, theatre and political discussion (Stafford 2004: 15; Evans and Ferrier 2004). 41 In 1986 it was announced that the site of the Canberra Hotel, at the corner of Ann and Edward Streets, was earmarked for a proposed 107-storey skyscraper, at that time equal to the world's tallest skyscraper. Bjelke-Petersen aggressively and defiantly pushed for the project, which would ultimately cast a long shadow over his government, setting up the circumstances that led to Mike Ahern's successful challenge for the leadership in late1987. 42 Even the Labor Lord Mayor Clem Jones (1961-75) would champion for 'the working man to be driving his own car, not catching a tram' (Hill 2007).

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 97

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 98

Markets and the opening of Chermside Shopping Centre, followed by a succession of other suburban shopping centres, drew the populace away from the city centre.43 Retail would not begin to return to the city centre until the Queen Street Mall opened in advance of the Commonwealth Games in 1982. The experience of the city was becoming fragmentary and the changing economy in the CBD led to a plethora of vacant spaces. Artists, mindful of being part of a changing city, became aware of opportunities to utilize disused buildings in the city centre.

Amidst the climate of oppression and demolitions, and despite the city's changing nature, by occupying the city centre artists demonstrated an alternative vision for the city. Paul Andrew and artist Jeanelle Hurst both assert, “we wanted to be in the CBD” (Interviews, 2016). Reminiscent of Sir John Betjeman's observations of Brisbane as an Antipodean Naples (1971 in Tilston 2014: 153), Paul Andrew (Interview, 2016) says:

we liked that [Brisbane] was different to Sydney and Melbourne. Keeping in mind that the city at that time... [had] lots of old beautiful buildings... it had a grace about it, an elegance and a sense of a city steeped in history, in Australian terms... that we really liked. Of course, that city changed very quickly... As the city changed, the idea of staying became... less attractive.

As coordinator of THAT, Paul Andrew articulates through this comment a broader pride and interest in the city's built fabric from an arts and cultural perspective. Before this older city was erased, artists adapted to the circumstances and yielded a different interaction with the city.

There were a number of artists who saw an opportunity to approach real estate agents responsible for properties that had been sitting vacant for years, “caked in pigeon shit, cockroaches and all that stuff”, which were not going to attract a commercial tenancy (Interview with Paul Andrew 2016). This was a common story amongst artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) of the 1980s. There was a real sense of everything being knocked down and that things weren't going to last for

43 Opened May 1957, the Chermside Drive-In Shopping Centre, now Westfield Chermside, was heralded as the first modern shopping centre in Australia and the largest in the southern hemisphere.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 99

very long. Consequently, these artists were very much aware of short-term possibilities and thereby only being able to occupy spaces on a temporary basis. Even when short-term lease situations were negotiated with real estate agents, “we knew the spectre of demolition was always over our heads” (Ibid.).

THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988)

Throughout the 1980s, Brisbane 'witnessed the rise and fall (and sometimes rise again)' of multiple artist-run-initiatives: galleries, studios, publications and advocacy organizations (Anderson 2016c). The focal point for much of this activity was the Roma Street precinct — a city block bounded by George, Turbot and Roma Streets.44 These initiatives included: One Flat's activities, initially located at Red Comb House (1981-82), 190 Roma Street;45 A Room (1984), 446 George Street, which exhibited seven artists over six months; and The Observatory (1985- 86), in the old Shirley's Fertiliser building, once located at 92-102 Little Roma Street, which primarily focused on contemporary photography. These initiatives were joined by other creative studios and businesses: fashion designers, a bookstore, a nightclub and dance parties. As Brian Doherty (2016) explains, having the entire Roma Street precinct occupied by artists and designers gave Brisbane's counter-culture a physical and visible presence, and legitimacy, that 'had previously been denied them'. This presence acted as a catalyst for other artist-run-initiatives and lively precincts.

Amongst them, THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-88) was distinguished by a dynamic, open or anti-authoritarian and city-based rationale. Located along a laneway at 20 Charlotte Street,46 THAT's small two-storey warehouse, with a

44 Prior to the relocation of the city's produce markets, the Roma Street Markets (1885-1964) precinct had been a lively gateway to the city. In time, much of the precinct fell into disuse, but throughout the 1980s it became the location for many artist-run-initiatives (ARIs). After the buildings, incorporating over 50 allotments, were demolished by the Bjelke-Petersen State Government (in 1986), the dormant site served as a car park for more than 15 years until the Brisbane Magistrates Court (BMC) was constructed there in 2004 — the Bjelke-Petersen Government preferred a dormant site over a lively precinct led by artist-run-initiatives (ARIs). 45 Activities associated with One Flat are not linked by a single name or physical space (Anderson 2016c); they include, for example, One Flat Exhibit (1981-84), initially located at Red Comb House, 190 Roma Street; O'Flat, 19 Edmondstone Street, and; One Flat Exhibit George Street Branch, 355 George Street (1982-85). Jeanelle Hurst — a leading member of the One Flat collective — went on to coordinate InterFace: City as a Work of Art (1988), which is discussed in more detail in the following chapter. 46 Between the Pancake Manor and Archives Fine Books, where the Telecom building would be constructed (c.1989).

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 100

clerestory47 at the top, housed exhibition and studio spaces. Utilizing the entire warehouse building, the exhibition program ran downstairs, while the upstairs was divided into ten artist studios. Notable exhibitions held here included From the Margins (1986), an installation by Anne-Maree Reaney that incorporated a collaboration with Aboriginal women from Mornington Island. Through the presence of THAT, alongside Entrepot (1983-87), a collective studio primarily for architecture students, and John Mills National (JMN) (1986-87), which focused on performance art, both in the John Mills Himself building next door, the light industrial precinct was briefly transformed into another small creative precinct.

As THAT's collective members Paul Andrew and local artist Jay Younger recall, Peter Cripps, then Director of the IMA, called a meeting in late 1984 for those interested in forming an artist-run-initiative (ARI) (Interviews, 2016). For the twelve or fourteen people who attended, including Paul Andrew and Jay Younger, this meeting was an awkward blind date, because everyone had been quite isolated from each other. At the time, people “only sketchily came across each other” (Interview with Jay Younger 2016). Except for the IMA — which was often referred to as the Institute of Melbourne Art, because it was perceived not to engage sufficiently with local artists — there was very little infrastructure or any central community focus for Brisbane-based artists. As Paul Andrew remembers, “after that meeting, we decided we would do something... and we started looking for a place to rent” (Interview with Paul Andrew 2016).

Following an exhaustive search, Mark Thomson, co-founder and coordinator of Entrepot, suggested the warehouse next door. Knowing the warehouse had been vacant for many years, Paul Andrew negotiated a short-term lease for $600 per month (Ibid.). From its inception, THAT was a self-funded organization. Its financial stability relied upon the contributions of a large group of people, who were all considered prospective exhibitors, with some small subsidies received for particular projects. As in many large groups, a smaller, core group tended to assume a higher proportion of the day-to-day administrative and logistical responsibilities. In general, the broader group made decisions regarding exhibitions and studios, while, at least in the early stages, Paul Andrew, THAT's unpaid coordinator, and artist John Waller were primarily responsible for the day- to-day tasks.

47 A high interior wall with windows above eye level to admit light and/or air.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 101

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 102

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 103

THAT employed a number of financial strategies, which sometimes shaped the calibre of its exhibition program. THAT's rent of $600 was a lot of money in the late 1980s, especially for a group of young artists to raise each month. Consequently, artists were encouraged to develop group exhibitions, and THAT would come to offer full and half studios for rent, as well as holding dance parties to raise money. As Paul Andrew explains: it was decided ‘that it should be open to as many interested people as possible, simply because that invariably gives a place a more positive feel and tends to reach out and be more inviting’ (Anderson 2016a). Jay Younger adds: “That was one of the cool things about THAT... it sort of opened its arms to everyone. It was really egalitarian in that way and it received criticism for that, but it was an important contribution... at the time; and people liked it for that reason too” (Interview, 2016). While it was financially necessary for THAT to be inclusive, this inclusiveness was also a deliberate, even experimental, strategy that challenged the exclusive context of the arts in Brisbane at that time.

As was common of ARIs with short-term or limited leases, THAT was short lived; the collective closed its doors in mid 1988, with demolition imminent. As symbolized by The Demolition Show (1986), the Roma Street precinct had already been disbanded. Held at The Observatory, The Demolition Show, curated by John Stafford, marked the demolition of the city block bounded by George, Turbot and Roma Streets, which had been a focal point for Brisbane's creative community.48 The ongoing redevelopment of the city in the late 1980s ended the possibility of grassroots artistic or infrastructural activism in the CBD, forcing such activity further out into Fortitude Valley (Szulakowska 1997: 25).49 Consistent with ARI

48 This city block would remain vacant, used as a temporary carpark for more than 15 years, until the Brisbane Magistrates Court was constructed and opened there in 2004, followed by the construction and opening of the Brisbane Supreme and District Courts in 2012. As part of these capital works projects, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (JAG) would commission artworks, including Yayoi Kusama’s Eyes are Singing Out (2012). These commissioning programs also involved Jay Younger as curator and initially involved John Stafford, as Director of the Public Art Agency (PAA) responsible for overseeing the Art Built-in policy. 49 While the end of the Roma Street precinct is marked by The Demolition Show, THAT members, Paul Andrew, Jay Younger and Lehan Ramsay formed a group called AXIS (1987-89), which received funding to travel to New York in 1988. Under a conservative City Mayor, New York, particularly in the East Village, was undergoing a situation similar to Brisbane, involving demolitions and gentrification. Advantageously, New York was also the centre of arts media at the time. Overall, the AXIS group observed a diversity of artist-run models and gained a greater understanding of the possibilities for artist-run projects (Interview with Paul Andrew 2016). In addition to studying the impacts of gentrification on the arts in New York, the group also observed links between artist-run activity and the arts market, specifically Leo Castelli's influence (Ibid.). This influence dates back to the infamous 9th St Exhibition (1951) (often referred to as the Ninth Street Show), held in an empty store at 60 East 9th Street and organized with the help of Castelli. A celebration of mostly Abstract Expressionism, that featured works by 61 artists including de Kooning, Pollock, Lee Krasner, Franz Kline, Hans Hofmann and Rauschenberg, the show is credited with catalysing the formation of multiple collective artist-run spaces (Lesser 2017).

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 104

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 105

activities of the era, THAT aimed to provide a space run by local artists in order to support local artists. Despite the anxieties of the time, THAT contributed to: developing a visible community of artists that received international scholars and dissidents; generating a series of viable, vibrant activities and precincts; and a sense of place and belonging.

Networking sites and the “romance of individuals”

The study has consistently pointed to the importance of forming groups. During the final years of the Bjelke-Petersen Government, communities of artists were cultivated through the formation of artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) in precincts at Roma and Charlotte Streets, spaces such as THAT and ongoing projects like AXIS.50 Within these precincts, visual artists co-mingled with performance artists and people working in architecture, fashion and other creative studios and businesses, as well as academics and activists. In these spaces people met and formed both professional and social relationships. These associations and their inclusivity enhanced possibilities. As networking sites, these spaces facilitated the “romance of individuals” (Interview with Jay Younger 2016). In a hostile political climate in which “segregation and isolation” were pervasive strategies, forming groups was a political act of resistance (Interviews with Jay Younger and Paul Andrew 2016).

These initiatives, which promoted co-mingling precincts, contributed to a broader political and social agenda. Paul Andrew asserts that “what we were doing was very much about risk-taking, about forming groups, occupying inner- city precincts and turning them into... lively precincts... basically reclaiming the city. That was quite political” (Interview, 2016). Although the more “hyper-vigilant political stuff” tended to draw police attention — such as 4ZZZ and The Cane Toad Times, which were considered overtly political — artist-run collectives such as THAT were more subtly political in that they sought to change, and specifically to stabilize, the visual arts sector.

The Cultural Activities Centre (Activities) (c. 1973 – c. 1993) was very much a precursor to artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) based in the city's CBD. Activities was funded and housed by the University of Queensland (UQ) Student Union. Located

50 As previously noted, former THAT members, Paul Andrew, Jay Younger and Lehan Ramsay formed a group called AXIS (1987-89) to research, develop and present new work in New York and Brisbane.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 106

alongside the Schonell Theatre, Cement Box Theatre, Semper Floreat — UQ's student magazine — and 4ZZZ (before it was forcibly evicted by UQ's Student Union), Activities was central to this little arts enclave at UQ. During the late 1970s, Activities was largely constructed in disused spaces by volunteer labour and would come to provide low cost facilities for screen printing, ceramics and photography; a space for music, performance and film screenings; and even hosted a pop-up vegetarian restaurant — Freddo's Vegaurant (Interview with Brian Doherty 2016; Heenan 2017). Activities offered a broad-ranging workshop program that included art-making; cooking classes — from Mediterranean cooking to Sri Lankan Curries and wild food gathering; car maintenance; introductions to feminism; and yoga classes. At the time, Activities was also indispensable in developing poster design and printing for UQ Union's clubs and societies, promotional and political posters with 4ZZZ, as well as cassette and singles covers for independent bands. Through Activities’ programs, visual artists, musicians, performers and political activists advanced the union's political and social agendas. Activities’ spatial reclamation and sociability was a model replicated by ARIs in the CBD.

Academics also played a pivotal role in the romance of individuals and legitimating these initiatives. Academics such as Urszula Szulakowska and Nicholas Zurbrugg “were really crucial during that period, extremely crucial” (Interview with John Stafford 2016). Szulakowska was a Lecturer in Art History at the University of Queensland (UQ) (1982-90) and author of “Brisbane Dada: Collaborative Art in a Stagnant Culture” (1987) and Experimental Art in Queensland, 1975-1995: An Introductory Study (1998). Zurbrugg, was a Lecturer in Comparative Literature at Griffith University (1978-95), who developed a reputation for bringing academic theory and creative practice together. Zurbrugg also invited internationally acclaimed philosophers and artists to Brisbane; most notably including Jean Baudrillard for Baudrillard in the Nineties: The Art of Theory (1994) a symposium hosted by the Institute of Modern Art (IMA), Brisbane.51 In various ways, academics such as Zurbrugg and gallery directors including

51 In conjunction with The Ecstasy of Photograph, the first retrospective survey exhibition of Baudrillard's photographs. Australian Customs in Brisbane regarded Baudrillard's photographs as merely photographs and rejected them as art, impounded the works and demanded a duty of almost $16,000. Zurbrugg said: 'The man who said art was dead then became (a photographic) artist, but when his art got to Australia the Customs said “Your art isn't art”. Perhaps they've read him' (Robbins 1994: 6). These projects led to the publication of a series of essays in Jean Baudrillard, Art and Artefact (1997), edited by Zurbrugg.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 107

Nicholas Tsoutas, then Director of the IMA (1990-1994), and Doug Hall, then Director Queensland Art Gallery (1987-2007) “cooked up a lot of good things for Brisbane” (Interview with Jay Younger 2016). In turn, these interactions may be credited with contributing to 'the velocity of Brisbane — a city still making things happen' (Zurbrugg 1997: viii). “Part and parcel of everything”, these academics contributed to mentoring, consolidating and legitimating contemporary art practices in Brisbane (Interview with Jay Younger 2016).

Proposals were often “cooked” up amidst the conviviality of ARIs and their exhibition openings (Ibid.). A comment by Paul Andrew (Interview, 2016) perhaps best encapsulates the social and professional mix:

people want to drink, [eat] cheese and crackers, have conversation[s]... about philosophy, ideology and all that stuff and whinge and moan, complain and critique... get laid, wake up... and do it all over again. Artist- run spaces provided... a physical space to meet... belong to... and socially engage with.

Activities, the IMA, THAT and in time, Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA), were all initiatives where artists networked, formed groups and professional alliances.

In summary, Paul Andrew states “one of the reasons why so much stuff proliferated during the 80s was because we all came together and formed this critical mass, in a way that had... never happened before” (Interview with Paul Andrew 2016). In retrospect, Andrew asserts that it was “only by grouping together [that] we could actually create social... [and] cultural change” (Ibid.). However, ARIs were constantly at “loggerheads” with the gentrification of the city. As Andrew elaborates, “we were being kicked out of this... and that space and things were being demolished” (Ibid.). Accordingly, groups were being disbanded, dispersed and constantly having to regroup and adapt. In spite of the hostile political environment, these initiatives, supported by their sociability, were instrumental in creating a culture that was agile and resilient.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 108

Networking nationally and infrastructural activism

In addition to the local situation, broader shifts within the field of contemporary visual art practice and policy would redefine the role of artist-run-initiatives (ARIs). Open Sandwich (1983) was the first national conference of Australian alternative art spaces. Organized by the Experimental Art Foundation (EAF) in Adelaide, the three-day conference was timed to coincide with the second ANZART in Hobart.52 From Brisbane, Jeanelle Hurst of One Flat Exhibit and Barbara Campbell, then Director of the Institute of Modern Art (IMA), were invited to attend alongside representatives from other spaces including Artspace (Sydney), Chameleon (Hobart), Media Space (Perth), and artists such as Bonita Ely. Tamara Winnicoff was also invited to present a proposal on the development of a visual arts lobby to negotiate the marginal status of the visual arts.53 The conference set out to improve communication between alternative art spaces and increase awareness of issues relating to administration, policy and funding. Given the limited resources and mobility of these art spaces at the time, the conference helped to combat a sense of isolation. As a networking site, Open Sandwich was an opportunity to share expertise and develop mutually beneficial programmes. As the first formal meeting between alternative spaces, its purposes were considered timely, even overdue.

The conference's primary purpose was to review the needs or conditions that prompted the emergence of alternative spaces and examine the role of these initiatives in cultural production. This involved a stocktaking, which recognized that alternative spaces emerged during the 1970s as part of a paradigm shift broadly facilitated through a diversity of new models for cultural production. This stocktaking further identified that for the most part — with the exception of art- making associated with the women’s movement, which incorporated 'life' — oppositional positions were not understood beyond an avant-garde versus establishment binary (Kerr 1983). This positioning prompted an awkward tension whereby alternative spaces were no longer regarded as alternative to the establishment, but had instead become institutionalized. Participant Allan Vizents

52 ANZART (Australia New Zealand Art Exchange) was an artist-run bi-annual programme that aimed to encourage closer trans-Tasman ties between artists working in Australia and New Zealand. 53 In 1983, with Tamara Winnicoff as Director, the National Association of Visual Arts (NAVA), the national peak body advocating for the professional interests of the Australian visual and media arts, craft and design sector, was established with support from the Visual Arts and Craft Board (VACB) of the Australia Council.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 109

would later note with concern that alternative spaces were creating 'an alternative art establishment' (cited in Zeplin 2003). Thus, it was recognized that alternative spaces were becoming a validating structure.

Much of the conference's agenda was concerned with developing joint strategies to address the need to secure financial viability and management structures for alternative spaces. Although many of the participating spaces had been formed haphazardly, there was a consensus about the need for diverse structures and typologies as well as the need for continued financial assistance. It was noted that financial assistance had decreased, while the expected workloads had increased, leading to burnout. The conference further pointed to a need to develop projects outside of art spaces and in the public realm. As an awareness-raising exercise, the conference brought about a 'crystallizing of policies' and endorsed a series of recommendations that would be submitted to and developed by the Australia Council (Kerr 1983).

One of the key directions adopted by the Australia Council involved excising contemporary art spaces and artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) from the alternative field and thereby splitting the field into two. At the time, the term 'alternative art space' was widely used. With some spaces claiming to be 'alternatives to the alternatives', Open Sandwich highlighted the fact that the term had become outmoded (Kerr 1983). Consequently, the conference recommended that the term be replaced with 'contemporary art space' and that a new funding category be created for contemporary art spaces (Kerr 1983). These recommendations would lead to fundamental policy shifts at a federal level that transformed the alternative space field.

The Australia Council's Visual Arts and Craft Board (VACB) addressed Contemporary Arts Spaces (CAS),54 particularly in their 1985 CAS report, by establishing or 'forcing' a standardization of financial and organizational structures (Anderson 2016c). Consequently, the report introduced two key long-term changes. First, as mentioned, the alternative field was split into two categories: contemporary art spaces and artist-run spaces. This resulted in a select group of funded spaces, previously referred to as alternative spaces, including the Institute of Modern Art (IMA), being recast as a uniform network of CAS throughout the country. Second, the report brought about a three-tiered gallery system. In

54 Today, this network is now known as Contemporary Art Organizations (CAOS).

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 110

Brisbane, for example, the State institution, the Queensland Art Gallery (QAG) would be positioned at the top, the IMA — deemed a contemporary art space — would occupy the middle-tier, and artist-run-initiatives (ARIs), such as THAT and One Flat Exhibit, would be relegated to the bottom, entry-level position. Thus, Open Sandwich's recommendations would come to have lasting ramifications for the alternative space field and artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) in particular. Accordingly, the demands and accountabilities of contemporary art spaces and artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) would be significantly changed.

Professional advocacy and infrastructural activism

Members of THAT's collective were founding members of, and closely associated, with the Artworkers' Union Queensland, subsequently renamed Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (hereafter QAA) (1984-2011). THAT was 'an important networking site', with QAA initially occupying a studio at THAT (in 1986) (Anderson 2016c). THAT collective members were instrumental in mobilizing artists to become members of QAA. THAT distributed membership forms for QAA saying, “this is a lobby group for us” (Interview with Paul Andrew 2016). After being continually kicked out of spaces, artists associated with QAA aimed to create infrastructure, longevity and “some sustainability” (Ibid.). QAA was created as a way to lobby the government and transform policy to ensure that sustainability.

QAA became an important professional association. QAA's initiatives were integral to redressing regional deficiencies by raising grassroots debate on industry-related issues. Most significantly, they advocated for and worked to secure improved financial conditions for artworkers. While originally formed as a type of trade union, this mantle was ill-fitting and prohibited government financial support. Artists without regular employment are unable to pay union fees and when 'Union' was dropped from the name they were able to secure government funding. As Sarah Follent observes, “people here felt that it was more like a professional development thing that was required” (Interview, 2016). In mid-1988, QAA would relocate and appoint a part-time coordinator, Lindy Johnson. In time, as the organization became more formalized, Johnson's job title would be changed to CEO. These developments heralded QAA’s transition from a grassroots activist group 'to a government-funded body that provided services,

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 111

information and advocacy for artists' within what would soon be described as the arts industries or creative industries (Anderson 2016c).

Eyeline (1987-present) is a key and ongoing project originally associated with QAA. Following the establishment of QAA, “it was unanimously agreed that... the first thing... that was required was some sort of publication” (Interview with Sarah Follent 2016). As Follent explains, “other cites would be covered far more than Brisbane” in national publications, and much of the activity that was occurring in Brisbane “was never covered or... publicised” (Ibid.). In a national review of art journals of the time (Bonnin 1988), eyeline was the only journal to identify support for 'local artists' as an objective (Interview with Brian Doherty 2016; correspondence with Brian Doherty September 14, 2017). In tandem with QAA, eyeline contributed to a forward-looking critical regionalism — emphasizing local cultural characteristics that mediated the global — in Brisbane.

Emerging at the height of magazine culture, eyeline documented the relationships between contemporary art and its 'adjacent cultural, institutional and social practices' (Follent 1989). As Follent says, “we always used to have an industry column of some sort” (Interview, 2016). This attention was substantially provided by a series of columns by Peter Anderson regarding research and policy — “minute details” of emerging and changing policies (Ibid.). In time this attention would be devolved. Follent explains, “people [had been] much more political” and “the theory changed” (Ibid.). Initially, eyeline was produced under the auspices of QAA, however, it had “always” been conceived and considered independent of QAA. In 1996 the publication would be relocated to the Queensland University of Technology (QUT).

Artworkers needed to professionalize in order to make a difference. QAA advocated and campaigned to secure artists’ fees, copyright, and commissions, including public art commissions. QAA supported artworkers for improved contractual arrangements that formalized fees, conditions, intellectual property and copyright. With the increased commissions from new public art policies, there was a need for regular access to other professional services such as lawyers, accountants etc. QAA were instrumental in establishing Arts Law Qld to service this demand. Furthermore, while artist-run-initiatives, specifically including THAT, were engaged with regional artists, QAA was instrumental in networking with regional areas in a way that was unprecedented. This regional attention is now

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 112

expected of peak representative community organizations of all types in Queensland.

In summary, QAA can be understood as an escalation from the disparate activities of ARIs to a formal organization that would collectively represent and negotiate on behalf of artworkers. QAA would come to operate through professionalization, employment opportunities, and public art commissioning, and would gradually formalize artists' role as an economic driver. Furthermore, QAA was — in association with its initiatives, including eyeline — a vehicle to formalize and advance professional autonomy and, initially, had an antagonistic relationship with government. However, with transformations introduced by Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), the relationship between state-based organizations, such as QAA, and the Queensland State Government would become much more interlinked.

Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991)

In December 1989, the Goss Labor State Government came to power. The Goss Government would prove to be more significant, especially for the arts, than the Bjelke-Petersen Government — albeit less memorably and for very different reasons (Interview with John Stafford 2016). Following the election of the Goss Labor Government, cultural policy reforms introduced a more coherent State arts policy and funding structure. As Stafford adds, “Goss moved very quickly” (Ibid.). The Goss Government undertook a major review of the Arts in Queensland and in May, 1991, endorsed a watershed policy document titled Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991). This document affirmed support for art and artists in Queensland as a major commitment of the Goss Government (PAA 1999: 1). At this time, the Brisbane City Council would also develop a cultural policy.55 Like Open Sandwich's (1983) recommendations to the Australia Council, these policy developments would have a significant impact on the professionalization and institutionalization of contemporary art production in Brisbane.

Prior to Goss, the Queensland State Government had provided minimal and 'very narrow support' (Anderson 1993: 17). The most an artist could apply for was a $1,000 Premier's Arts Encouragement Award. The purview of the arts portfolio

55 Discussed in further detail in Chapter 7.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 113

also included amateur activities. As Anderson explains, 'changing this was... very clear and controversial' (Ibid.). From artist Jeanelle Hurst's perspective, there had been “quite a shake-up in terms of needs” (Interview, 2016). Artist-run projects were developing and funding was needed for projects, such as InterFace (1988). These emerging needs required new strategies.

Goss, who was also Arts Minister, charged the Arts Committee in September, 1990, with undertaking a review that led to the 1991 report Queensland: A State for the Arts. It articulated a series of 'broad and encompassing' changes. The report:

(i) increased support for visual arts infrastructure to enable a broader range of opportunities; support for artist-run-initiatives (ARIs), which were considered to provide critical developmental frameworks; the inclusion of a design agenda;

(ii) “talked about Indigenous art and... regional art”;

(iii) identified the need for a government policy addressing public art;

(iv) specified that future appointments to the Arts Division/Arts Queensland required professional experience in the arts and art form expertise;

(v) doubled the budget for the visual arts from $600,000 to $1.3 million per annum, representing a tangible shift in the State Government's commitment to support contemporary arts practices (Anderson 1993: 17; Interview with John Stafford 2016).

A major outcome of the report was strategic support for individual artists, an outcome guided by 'the very strong belief' that individuals are a key resource pivotal to driving the arts industry (Anderson 1993: 16; 21). Overall, 'support for professional artists and professional arts activity' would be prioritized (Anderson 1993: 17).

The review process invited a broad range of stakeholders to assist in determining the government's policy priorities and objectives. Critically, as Stafford explains, “Goss instructed the Arts Division to conduct public forums... [and form] an arts committee, which... effectively... had a statewide brief to review

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 114

the arts and [provide]... a plan. That plan lasted at least a decade” (Interview, 2016). The review was considered the first 'wholesale' community consultation and the resulting report not only led to an overhaul of government support for the arts in Queensland, but would be cited as having 'major policy impacts' in Australian arts funding (Anderson 1993: 15). Integral to the review process was the idea of cultivating a government sector in Queensland receptive to arts development.

Primarily, the process and its outcomes signalled a changed relationship between artists and art professionals with government: a relationship that had previously been characterized as dictatorial and amateurish. Furthermore, in addition to strategically supporting individual artists, organizations such as QAA were also supported to lobby government and advocate for change (Anderson 1993: 22). An interview with Stafford at the time outlines:

The [art] community's perception [was] that... they have more access, and they... can take the debate to the funding agency more than they could in the past, and in an informed way. They also accept that the funding body will take the debate to them as well. Now that is a healthy situation (cited in Anderson 1993: 18).

Thus, the relationship was radically transformed. In theory, with arts professionals and government developing a coherent — rather than suspicious and divisive — language and attitude, they would be able to advance debate.

To some extent these changes would also be registered at a national level by displacing the political influence of the Australia Council and the performing arts sector. According to Stafford, his analysis of arts funding at the time indicated that, with Arts Queensland 'funding at a much higher level', the Australia Council and the Visual Arts and Crafts Board (VACB) had become 'by far the junior partner' in the funding mix for both Queensland individuals and infrastructure (Anderson 1993: 21). As a funding agency and a political master active since 1975, the Australia Council dominated, and continues to dominate, the national arts agenda. At the time of Arts Queensland's ascendency, the Australia Council's VACB benchmarks regarding contemporary practice were particularly influential, and

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 115

they continue to resonate. However, with Arts Queensland providing increased support for Queensland-based visual arts professionals, the Australia Council's dominance, even relevance, could be countered, subverted and/or considered contentious.

Conclusion

This chapter has examined three key interrelated aspects of Brisbane's first generation of artist-run-initiatives (ARIs):

(i) the perverse impact of the Bjelke-Petersen Government;

(ii) the emergence of a grassroots infrastructure by and for visual artists;

(iii) and processes of institutionalization in which artworkers begin to effect policy change.

The analysis of this history and transition is foundational to the broader account presented in this thesis of the conditions of contemporary art production in Brisbane.

Within a hostile political environment, artists claimed temporary spaces in the heart of the city for the first time, and by creating lively precincts, they proposed an alternative vision for the city. Amongst others, THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-88) exemplifies artists claiming rights to the city and forming spirited creative precincts. THAT was founded on a collective and inclusive model and contributed to infrastructural activism leading to the formation of professional organizations such as Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984-2011). Accordingly, this chapter illustrates how QAA emerged from artist-led activities and assisted artists in negotiating the transition to professionalization.

Although not commonly a feature of the dominant Bjelke-Petersen narrative, it is important to recall that artists didn’t leave Brisbane just because of the hostile political environment; more often, artists left because of the economic circumstances — there simply weren't employment opportunities to support them in Brisbane. The following chapter explores how QAA would become critical to the development of employment and career opportunities for local artists.

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 116

This chapter has also shown some of the ways in which artists were directly involved in the processes of institutionalizing contemporary art practices, whereby artworkers began to effect policy change, especially at a state level. This study confirms that the conference Open Sandwich (1983) first introduced the institutionalization of alternative and/or ARIs and contemporary art spaces. Its recommendations led to fundamental policy shifts that transformed the alternative space field and brought about a three-tiered gallery system. By breaking the alternative gallery system into two categories, ARIs and a select group of funded contemporary galleries, these spaces were recast as a uniform system, with state institutions positioned at the top of the hierarchy. This study further confirms that the Goss Government would prove to be far more significant than the Bjelke- Petersen Government for the arts in Queensland. After its election in late 1989, the incoming Goss Government delivered cultural policy reforms that articulated a more coherent and conducive state arts policy and funding structure. With the resulting policy document, Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), support for art and artists was affirmed as a major commitment, heralding a changed relationship between government, artists and/or art professionals.

This study illustrates and enhances an understanding of the clear links between ARIs of the late 1980s, the formation of QAA, professionalization and institutionalization. From this analysis emerges the argument: in response to the Bjelke-Petersen era, artist-led activities developed an agonistic relationship to government, however, this wasn't maintained throughout the following Labor Government's multiple terms. Instead, artists' activities were plagued by concessions and compromise that seemed reasonable at the time. It was not fully anticipated that the cycle of institutionalization (legitimization, deinstitutionalization and re-institutionalization) requires the ongoing scrutiny of arts professionals — or that these new bodies could later be in a position to threaten the very existence of arts infrastructure that artists had agitated for. In retrospect, there was a failure to develop a new or revised account of potentially antagonistic relationships. The following chapter addresses this consideration and builds upon this analysis through an examination of the Queensland State Government's Art Built-in policy (1999-2007).

Chapter 4 Infrastructural opportunities before institutionalization 117

Chapter 5 Institutionalization

The previous chapter analysed the political and cultural landscape during the late Joh Bjelke-Petersen era. This chapter explores the introduction and subsequent review of public art policies by the Queensland State Government and an artist- run precursor to these policies — InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), an exhibition-project coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst. Emerging simultaneously with artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) of the late 1980s including THAT (1985-1988), InterFace (1988) is an example of a progressive contemporary art project in the public realm. With the introduction of public art polices and funding by both Brisbane City Council (BCC) (1995) and the Queensland State Government (1999), the process for commissioning contemporary art projects for the public realm would become streamlined, but controlled.56 In many respects, InterFace (1988) anticipated the desires of contemporary urban renewal strategies, however, it was produced without the imposed mechanisms of bureaucracy.

This chapter thereby sets out to investigate the institutionalization of public art practices in Brisbane. The discussion begins with an analysis of InterFace (1988), which is primarily informed by a semi-structured interview with the project's coordinator, Jeanelle Hurst, plus three critical reviews published in art journals of the time: (1) Lynne Seear, “InterFace, Stars Disordered”, Art Monthly (vol. 11,

56 In 1995, Brisbane City Council (BCC) introduced a percent-for-art policy in which developers, through the Development Assessment process, are encouraged to contribute 0.25% of total estimated budgets exceeding $5 million (BCC 2013c). BCC's public art policies and practices are discussed in further detail throughout Chapter 7.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 119

1988); (2) Michelle Helmrich, “Interfacing the InterFace”, eyeline (vol. 5, 1988); and, also by Helmrich, (3) “InterFace/Brisbane”, Art & Text (vol. 29, 1988). The chapter next proceeds to examine the introduction and review of public art policies by the State. This examination involves a consideration of Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984-2011) and its initial association with the introduction of the State's Art Built-in policy (1999-2007), followed by the escalated attention given to the curatorial role in public art commissioning. Influence over public art policy became dominated by non-art experts and design professionals, including architects. Thereby, the study highlights some of the ways in which contemporary art practices 'rights to the city' have been stifled within the unique political conditions of Brisbane.

Additionally, this chapter draws heavily on the perspectives of the time as well as subsequent assessments assembled through semi-structured interviews with key participants and close observers, including Lindy Johnson, formerly CEO of Artworkers' Alliance, and John Stafford, formerly Executive Manager of the Public Art Agency (1998-2006), who was responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Art Built-in policy, and then Director, Visual Art, Craft & Design at Arts Queensland (2006-2012). Both Johnson and Stafford, like Jay Younger, are part of a group who stayed in Brisbane and they form important links between artist-run activities (ARIs) of the late 1980s and the present. This chapter also draws on information gathered through the State's public art policy evaluation, The Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006), written by Michael Keniger, while he held the advisory position of Queensland Government Architect (1999- 2006).

InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988)

Staged in late February and March 1988 in the lead up to Expo 88,57 InterFace (1988), was an ambitiously scaled artist-run project, which was (as mentioned)

57 Following the 1982 Commonwealth Games, World Expo 88 is broadly considered a transformative moment in the history of Brisbane. The largest event of the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations, attracting more than 18 million visitors, it was the world's first 'free enterprise' World Exposition and spurred a major redevelopment at the South Brisbane site and nearby areas. Also amongst its transformative legacies, the event popularized outdoor dinning in Brisbane (Condon 2013), and some of the more than 90 sculptural works were retained, primarily as part of Brisbane City Council's Public Art Collection.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 120

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 121

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 122

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 123

coordinated by artist Jeanelle Hurst. It pre-dated local and state government public art polices, released in 1995 and 1999, respectively. Involving twenty-one artists and programmers including Peter Callas, Diena Georgetti and Jay Younger, the project's intervention in the public realm encompassed physical and virtual spaces: electronic displays in the Queen Street Mall, shop window displays, billboards, projections, lighting displays, and live events. The project's works included “nerve ending music” played by Eugene Carchesio and Pat Ridgewell from the top of the Prudential Building, which was reportedly audible from the Queen Street Mall and across the river at the Queensland Art Gallery.58 Central to the project were terminals located in the Queen Street Mall where viewers, using an early internet system, could access information, such as the locally produced art magazine eyeline. Another city-based, public work was Hurst's Highrise Wallpaper (1988), which modified the cityscape by night with graphic images and/or text simply produced by using newspaper to block the windows of multiple office buildings from emitting light.

Imagining the city was a unifying subject of the InterFace project, indicated by its subtitle: ‘City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment'. As an early foray of art in public space, the project was unencumbered by formal public art policies or by a cloaked demand to aid economic growth and city marketing. Indeed, a review of the project at the time by Michelle Helmrich in eyeline noted that InterFace's 'sites were not sites for containment or legitimization, but rather... sites for transaction, forcing works to enter the cut and thrust of city data and commercial signing' (1988a: 9). However, suggesting 'that certain strategies of delivery are more suited to an effective public art statement', Helmrich questions whether, 'for example, the work of [American-based artists] Barbara Kruger, Jenny Holzer and Krzystof Wodiczko [have been more] responsible and appropriate because of the fast, memorable delivery, and “political” content?' (1988a: 9). While Helmrich's review underrated the project's politics, it nonetheless considered InterFace (1988) as an aesthetic project. Although aesthetic considerations continue to feature in contemporary art evaluations, they are remarkably absent from public art policy reviews.

58 The Prudential Building was formerly located at the corner of Queen Street and North Quay, where Brisbane Square and Reddacliff Place stand today (construction completed late 2006).

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 124

At the time, InterFace (1988) received unfair critical attention. As Helmrich suggests, its photo-documentation perhaps offers the somewhat false impression that it was a memorable event (1988a: 9). Indeed, as Helmrich's review in eyeline at the time pointed out: 'the cropped, still, well-vantaged, and selected image' conveys a compact energy that 'will outshine the event' (Ibid.). Helmrich and Seear make clear that the project 'could scarcely have competed with the assault of Expo' (Helmrich 1988a: 8). InterFace suffered from a low media profile, and it 'lacked the monetary, administrative, technical and even the appropriate artistic resources to stage with success and with maximum visibility such an expansively scaled project' (Ibid.). According to Helmrich's review, the project did not prioritize site-specificity or deliver a dynamic interface between its virtual space, commercial sites and the public. Helmrich concludes, ’perhaps the most important aspect of InterFace lies in the fact that such a project, on such a scale, was attempted at all' (1988a: 9). Indeed, the idea that one individual, like Hurst, could develop such a project across multiple commercial, public and virtual sites would be just as audacious today.

Although the project's association with the Australian Bicentennial Authority facilitated access to the city's personnel, its staging was an administrative burden for Hurst that involved 'lengthy negotiations with city authorities', which were further complicated by the restrictive climate of the day (Helmrich 1988a: 9). For instance, Gary Warner's sound work, Boom Box Town and Country (1988), was intended for the Regent Theatre along the Queen Street Mall, but was reportedly censored by the Queen Street Mall's management under Brisbane City Council (BCC) (Ibid.). Additionally, prior to Expo, a letter to the editor in The Courier Mail protested that a billboard by Jane Richens, suspended above the exterior watermall59 at the Queensland Art Gallery, 'deface[d] the Gallery' (Helmrich 1988a: 9). More tellingly, Peter Anderson observes that InterFace's “innovativeness was swamped... locally by the... mainstream media obsession with Expo” (Interview, 2016). However, its comparison to Expo is unfair, and as Stafford contends, in retrospect it was “progressive” (Interview, 2016).

59 The watermall is a key feature of the Robin Gibson-designed Queensland Art Gallery (QAG). Comprised of a series of six internal and external linear pools that extend the entire length of the building, the watermall runs parallel with the river, and thus echoes this significant feature of the Brisbane landscape — in 1982, QAG was the first building since Customs House (opened 1889) to face the Brisbane River. QAG regularly exhibits work at the central watermall, including Yayoi Kusama's Narcissus garden (1966/2002) and Ai Weiwei's Boomerang (2006).

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 125

Driven by contemporary art practice as an extension of artist-run activity, InterFace stood apart from public art programmes of the time, especially those associated with Expo. By comparison, Expo 88 displayed 'one of the largest and most prestigious sculpture collections assembled in Australia' (Bacon 1988). These large stand-alone sculptures, some of them kinetic, tentatively responded to Expo's theme by 'illustrat[ing] the interdependence of art and technology' (Ibid.). Of the 90 works, 16 were commissioned by Creative Director John Truscott, while other works, such as Jean Tinguely's Heureka (1963/64),60 were loaned by institutions, collectors or artists.61 Together valued at over $25 million, many of the works were available for sale, with some works acquired by BCC, the Queensland State Government and/or private collectors.62 These sculptures were also typically forged using industrial technologies and materials, including bronze, corten and stainless steel, but were largely conventional compared to the more intimately scaled, ephemeral works and new media technologies featured in InterFace.

Even so, the fact that the project “miraculously” received Bicentennial funding itself prompted opposition. As Younger recalls, “Pat Hoffie was trying to gather a group... to protest against the [project] because... [it was] funded by [the] Bicentennial Authority” (Interview with Jay Younger 2016). This protest materialized as an 'insipid' counter-project called Two-Faced InterFace (Seear 1988: 13). The 1988 Bicentennial celebration triggered debates and protests regarding national identity, especially the role, place and depiction of Indigenous

60 A kinetic sculpture, or useless machine, originally created for the Expo 64 Swiss National Exhibition in Lausanne. 61 Truscott would gain a reputation as a theatre designer, Academy Award-winning film designer and festival director. As Expo 88's Creative Director, Truscott programmed a series of large stand- alone sculptures; commissioned the display of 27 paintings by Aboriginal artists and the series of white-fibreglass figures, The Human Factor, by John Underwood and Jack Rush of Artbusters. Truscott is also credited with many of Expo's design features, such as the illuminated white shapes along the Brisbane River, referred to as the 'cubistic flotilla' (Shmith 1988: 18). 62 Following Expo 88, works acquired and/or maintained by BCC include: (1) Arnaldo Pomodoro, Forme del Mito (1983), bronze. Loaned for Expo 88 and later purchased by BCC, the work was located at King George Square before being relocated to its current site at Jacob's Ladder on Turbot Street; (2) Greg Johns, Continuous Division (1988), corten steel. Commissioned just six weeks before the opening of Expo 88, the work was later purchased by BCC and has since resided near the northern entry to the Roma Street Parklands; (3) Baile Oakes, Gestation (1988), bronze. Commissioned by Expo 88 and later purchased by BCC, the work was located at Emma Miller Place, Roma Street, before being relocated to its current site in the Queen Street Mall; (4) Gidon Graetz, Mirage (1972), stainless steel. Loaned for Expo 88, then purchased by BCC and the Mayne Estate (UQ), the work has since been located in the Brisbane Arcade, Queen Street; (5) Peter D Cole, Man & Matter (1988), a series of 12 works commissioned for Expo 88, which were later purchased by the Queensland Government and reconfigured for the Kangaroo Point Cliffs Boardwalk.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 126

cultures, and many activist and artist groups were wary of participating in projects organized or funded by the Bicentennial Authority.

According to the Bicentennial Authority, the 'national Bicentennial arts program was the most ambitious, comprehensive and successful arts event ever organized in [Australia]' (Overton 1989). With $17 million of federal funding, the program partnered with 6,500 artists to present 120 projects for an estimated audience of 5.3 million (Ibid.). While implicitly regarded as an aspect of nation building, the 1988 Bicentennial was also an occasion through which Indigenous people and women 'drove a wedge through the image of a “united” nation' (MacNeill 2008).63 The slogan of the bicentennial Indigenous protest movement proclaimed “White Australia has a Black history”. Similarly, alongside strident images of women, which claimed equal space in the public sphere, some organizers adopted the slogan “Australia has a women’s history” (Ibid.). As MacNeill has highlighted, 'these oppositional movements [were]... ill-fitting pieces incapable of producing the unified and unifying identity... desired by the... Bicentennial Authority' (2008).

Despite receiving Bicentennial funding, Hurst remains adamant that “InterFace was politically motivated” (Interview, 2016). Hurst describes a love/hate relationship with Brisbane's CBD and describes her identity and relationship with the city as “schizoid” (Ibid.). Although the city was her “stomping ground”, “it represented all these things that you wanted, but also all the other oppressive elements” (Ibid.). Furthermore, as a female artist, Hurst recounts situations of “extreme misogyny” and notes “if you objected to it, you were the aberration”. Consequently, Hurst refers to every facet of her life as “so politicized”. As a female artist, Hurst “demand[ed] the right to have a presence”. She states, “for me the struggle was claiming space [or] territory [and] holding on to that territory” (Interview 2016).

For InterFace, not only was Hurst able to negotiate with key stakeholders for the temporary use of major sites in the centre of the city, she was also able to negotiate the politics of inserting contemporary artworks into mainstream spaces,

63 Australia Day January 26, was proclaimed a Day of Mourning by Indigenous Australians in 1938 during the Sesquicentenary celebrations. Although Expo 88 was the largest and longest running Bicentennial event, Australia Day 1988 may have been the most spectacular. The First Fleet re- enactment that sailed into Sydney Harbour was privately organized (because the Hawke Government refused to fund it), and it was met by more than 40,000 Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal protesters — the largest protest march in Sydney since the early 1970s Vietnam Moratorium demonstrations.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 127

which would disrupt those spaces. Younger states of InterFace, “the scale of Hurst’s thinking was very important and her embracing of technology was very different” (Interview, 2016). The project presented eyeline online and produced early digital maps of the city online; in many ways, Hurst's project imagined the internet as we know it today. Crucially, for this study, Hurst's project expanded the scope of artist-run spaces and engaged with audiences outside of gallery spaces. Having been closely involved with iterations of One Flat, Hurst thought of the city as a spatial extension of these artist-run spaces and activities.64

The State's public art policy would prove to be very different to InterFace (1988). Although the process for commissioning contemporary art projects for the public realm would be relatively streamlined, the State's public art policies were constrained and would struggle to deliver the desirable aesthetic qualities exemplified by the contemporary, critical and temporary projects of InterFace (1988). The remainder of this chapter explores the introduction of the State's Art Built-in policy, beginning with a discussion regarding QAA's early stewardship of the policy.

Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) generates employment opportunities

As the previous chapter outlined, Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984- 2011) emerged from the group activity and networked sites of artist-run-initiatives. Established to address the professional and financial concerns of visual artists, QAA offered a range of services to support professional development and facilitate employment opportunities for artists and artworkers. QAA assisted its members in negotiating the professionalization of the sector, in navigating the introduction of GST (1999) and through facilitating complementary services such as Arts Law Qld. As a peak professional body, QAA aimed to connect visual artists with opportunities, professional advice and professional exchange as part of an industry network. QAA would come to be a “much loved organization” with a thriving membership and, under the leadership of its first Coordinator, Lindy Johnson, QAA would come to be “considered one of the most successful arts

64 As previously noted, activities associated with One Flat were not linked by a single physical space or name (Anderson 2016a), but included One Flat Exhibit, initially located at Red Comb House, 190 Roma Street (1981-1982), O'Flat, 19 Edmondstone Street, and One Flat Exhibit George Street Branch, 355 George Street (1982-1985).

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 128

organizations in the country” (Interviews with Jay Younger and Lindy Johnson 2016). Critically, through QAA, artists started to gain “access to power” (Interview with Brian Doherty 2016; Ibid.), especially through the review and introduction of new policies, including the State Government's Art Built-in policy, which secured employment opportunities for contemporary artists.

Along with other arts organizations, especially small to medium art organizations, QAA benefited from the Goss administration's attention to the arts. The Goss Government introduced funding that “made a real difference to organizations”, from artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) to QAA (Interview with John Stafford 2016). QAA in particular, “prospered and generated real economy for artists, which suited the Government’s agenda” (Ibid.). The economic underpinning of QAA's programs — such as its artist referral service, which would later be expanded to public art project management services — made it possible for QAA to generate employment opportunities and thereby contributed to the ability of artists and artworkers to sustain a career in Brisbane (Interview with Lindy Johnson 2016).

QAA’s artist referral service, one of its member services, was developed as a first point of call for curators, consultants, project managers, business and government clients to source artists for employment, such as residencies in schools and hospitals, exhibitions and commissions. The artist referral service was comprised of a substantial image library and an online artist database, which together promoted artists' work and their abilities. Significantly, the service was partially funded by the Department of Employment. As Johnson explains, “no arts organization in the country had ever received funding from the employment department” (Interview, 2016). As a peak professional body, the purpose of QAA was to actively promote the many advantages of engaging creative professionals and it also encouraged links between artists and industry. Furthermore, under Johnson's leadership, QAA was able to secure funding from new and unlikely sources.

QAA was instrumental in developing the State's Art Built-in policy. However, the involvement of QAA and Johnson in developing the Art Built-in policy is not widely understood. Prior to the introduction of the State Government's Art Built-in policy, public art had been dominated by the community arts sector, or community artists with a performing arts background. To Johnson's credit, “she managed to...

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 129

manoeuvre in on that territory” and, with an understanding of contemporary art, “negotiate... on behalf of visual artists” (Interview with Jay Younger 2016). It was a manoeuvre that would generate funding and employment opportunities for Queensland artists. While at QAA, Johnson organized a public art conference, Metrozone (1990), which undertook research in the United Kingdom with Sandra Perceval at the Public Art Development Trust (1995) and modelled a public art commissioning process (Interview with Lindy Johnson 2016). In time, QAA parlayed its artist referral service into a project management service (1997-2000) for public art commissioning.65 This service was an early model for the State's public art policy. Through this process, Johnson shepherded the introduction of the State's public art policy and secured new work for contemporary artists.

John Stafford (Interview, 2016) asserts that QAA was a “politically active” professional arts organization that, with Johnson as CEO, cultivated close ties with Matt Foley, the Queensland Minister for the Arts (1992-1996 and 1998-2004).66 As a result, Foley had an art agenda that had been “developed in partnership with an arts organization”, which was “very much employment orientated” (Ibid.). Consequently, as Stafford light-heartedly explains, the Art Built-in policy could be viewed as “a cultural policy with a jobs focus or a jobs policy with a cultural focus”. The introduction of the Art Built-in policy delivered a significant “coup and... financial boon for Queensland artists” (Interview with Jay Younger 2016). As artist- run activities throughout the 1980s highlighted, it was an incredibly important step for art organizations to generate employment opportunities for artists in order to sustain an arts industry, and artistic careers, in Brisbane.

Significantly, Foley invited Lindy Johnson to be the Senior Policy Adviser (Arts) (1998-2005) for the Beattie Labour Government (Interview with Lindy Johnson 2016). Through her role as QAA's CEO, Johnson had been instrumental in lobbying for the introduction of the State's Art Built-in percent-for-art policy. As the Senior Policy Adviser (Arts) (1998-2005) for the Beattie Labor Queensland Government, Johnson continued to advocate strongly for public art, especially as a vehicle for artist employment. However, as the following section shows, the

65 Examples include: Cairns Convention Centre Stage 1 and 2 (1996 and 1999), Townsville Esplanade (1999) and Brisbane Powerhouse (2000). 66 From 1992-1996 Foley served as Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts, amongst other roles, in the Goss Government. From 1996-1998 Foley served as Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Justice and the Arts. Then from 1998-2004 Foley continued to serve as the Minister for the Arts, amongst other roles, in the Beattie Government.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 130

policy's aesthetic contribution to the city's public realm would be questioned, the selection of artists would begin to be seen as highly restrictive, and the economic arguments of Art Built-in would not be enough to justify its continuation. As a result, the State's public art policy would be changed from Art Built-in (1999-2007) to art+place (2007-2012) and, regardless of its economic benefits, ultimately abolished. The final section of this chapter will return to a discussion of QAA and their altered relationship with public art policies.

Art Built-in policy (1999-2007)

The Queensland State Government's commitment to commissioning art in public places was established with the introduction of the Art Built-in policy (1999-2007), which secured ongoing funding for public art. As discussed in the literature review, similarly to BCC's percent-for-art policy, the Art Built-in policy in principle allocated up to 2% of Queensland Government capital works, in excess of $250,000, to public art commissions. While the Art Built-in policy was a whole-of-government policy funded by capital works projects, the Public Art Agency (PAA) — a division of Arts Queensland, located in the Queensland Art Minister’s portfolio — was charged with implementing the policy. Honouring a pre-election commitment, Matt Foley, at the time Queensland Minister for the Arts (1998-2004), introduced the policy in 1999. Following Foley's retirement from politics in 2004, multiple arts ministers would have carriage of the policy — principally Anna Bligh and Rod Welford.67 Welford, following the recommendations made by Michael Keniger in The Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006), would introduce major alterations to the policy.68

From the outset, the Art Built-in policy aimed to materially transform the perception of Queensland's built environment. The opening pages of the Art Built-

67 Following Foley, Anna Bligh took over the arts portfolio (2004-2005). As part of a Queensland Government ministerial reshuffle, Bligh was promoted to Deputy Premier in July 2005 and the arts portfolio was passed to Rod Welford (2005-2009). In June 2007, Welford announced the replacement of Art Built-in with art+place, the Queensland Public Art Fund: a 'centralized funding model administered by Arts Queensland to allow more effective planning and commissioning capacity for high-quality public art projects', with an investment of $12 million over three years (art+place Guidelines for applicants 2007: 3). In early 2009, Bligh was elected Premier (2007- 2012) and would again oversee the arts portfolio (2009-2011). Rachel Nolan briefly oversaw the policy (2011-2012), until incoming LNP Minister for the Arts, Ross Bates (2012-2013), abolished the art+place policy in 2012. 68 Although this chapter refers to the introduction of the art+place policy (2007-2012), its deinstitutionalization is discussed in further detail in Chapter 6.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 131

in policy's vision statements draw directly from the Goss Government's watershed policy review, Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991: 121; PAA 1999: 1), which argued that:

Queensland has a mixed record in the area of heritage protection. Consequently[,] there is a pressing need to revitalize the experience and appreciation of Queensland public spaces, [and] a concerted effort [is necessary to] ensuring all future developments are well considered, well designed and sympathetic to community and the environment in which they are located... The failure of our urban environment... has made it imperative that public art be placed on the Queensland Government's agenda.

This statement re-imagines the city in a way that directly responds to demolition in the city during the Bjelke-Petersen era. As Anderson (Interview, 2016) also highlights, the Art Built-in policy and many of its champions, including Johnson, Stafford and Younger — all associated with ARIs of the late Bjelke-Petersen era — were “always trying to engage... with the history… [and] place”. Furthermore, the Art Built-in policy established a “very specific and focussed framework” that was “fundamental... [to] stating how people did public art”, which was often “a negotiated public art, rather than a... critical public art” (Interview with Peter Anderson 2016). Consideration of the aesthetic qualities — such as the inclusion of diverse contemporary, critical, ephemeral and/or temporary works — exemplified by projects such as InterFace (1988) would not be repeated or fully realized through the State's public art policies.

The Art Built-in policy, followed by the art+place policy (2007-2012), adopted an integrated model of site-specific contemporary art.69 The Art Built-in policy acknowledged that public art was 'historically... dominated by commemorative sculpture' or memorials that are often produced as 'an afterthought or in isolation' (PAA 1999: 2) — in other words, art that is not site-specific or critical, which is

69 While 'modernist sculpture absorbed its pedestal/base to sever its connection to or express its indifference to the site, [thereby] rendering itself more autonomous and self-referential... transportable, placeless, and nomadic... site-specific works, as they first emerged in the wake of Minimalism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, forced a dramatic reversal of this modernist paradigm' (Kwon 1997: 85).

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 132

often derided as 'plonk art'. By contrast, the Art Built-in policy outlined 'best practice contemporary public art' as art-making that involved 'a highly diverse range of activities that integrate art and design into the public domain' (Ibid.). The policy further outlined that 'the preferred approach to integrate public art [was] to... create appropriate work that has a direct relationship to the local environment and... culture' (Ibid., emphasis added). Accordingly, the policy's social and cultural achievements would be primarily defined by physical and conceptual integration (Keniger 2006: 12).

As outlined in the literature review, Deutsche (1996) draws a distinction between integrated models of site-specificity, which work to produce unified and harmonious spaces, and interruptive models, which function as a critical intervention into a site. As Deutsche warns, 'equating site-specific art with [public] art that creates harmonious spatial totalities is so profoundly at odds with the impulse that historically motivated the development of site-specificity that [it] nearly amounts to a terminological abuse' (1996: 261). Conversely, Deutsche asserts, the public realm remains democratic as long as its exclusions are taken into account. She states, 'conflict, division, and instability... do not ruin the democratic public sphere; they are conditions of its existence' (Deutsche 1996: 289. Rather than facilitate aesthetic or critical interventions, the Queensland State Government’s public art policies worked to secure consensus — or at least the appearance of consensus — whilst stripping away or suppressing the critical capacity of challenging, site-specific art. Although the State Government's policies ostensibly recognized that contemporary public art practices encompassed 'a highly diverse range of activities' (PAA 1999: 2), in practice the diversity of work supported was limited. The selection of concepts deemed appropriate by committees comprised of non-art experts and design professionals resulted in place-making processes Doherty has described as 'paternalistic' (2014) and Younger referred to as "perverse" (Interview 2016). Through a bureaucratic model that demanded consensus, a narrow and corrupted version of place-making was imposed.

It is equally, if not more, significant that the fundamental principle of the Art Built-in policy was to provide employment opportunities for artists whilst enhancing the built environment. Art Built-in policy statements clearly assert that in addition to enhancing 'the public amenity of government buildings and public spaces' the benefits of public art were to 'include an increase in job opportunities for artists

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 133

and cultural industry personnel and in associated industries such as manufacturing' (1999: 3). Furthermore, Art Built-in was a fulfilment of Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991: 123; PAA 1999: 1), which recommended that a 'percentage of the costs of significant capital works projects, especially those with major public access, be set aside to enable the incorporation of work by Queensland visual artists, craftspeople and designers'. Accordingly, the Art Built- in policy was considered a comprehensive fulfilment of the vision set out by Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), where support for art and artists in Queensland was affirmed as a major commitment of government.

The policy's assertions regarding employment opportunities were not merely superficial. By the time The Art Built-in Policy Evaluation was released, 179 projects and 1154 jobs had been created for Queensland artists and associated artworkers, with a total Art Built-in commitment of $23.1 million (Keniger 2006: 11). These figures would continue to increase until funding was capped with the introduction of art+place. The accumulation of these statistics, at least prior to the introduction of art+place, was a testament to the Queensland State Government’s commitment to supporting the creation of employment opportunities for the Queensland arts industry.

While the emphasis in policy utterances, ministerial statements, and the public art policy evaluations was on increased employment opportunities for artists, it is important to note that fabricators were major benefiters of these policies. While fabricators were alluded to as beneficiaries in the policy evaluations, the extent to which fabricators profited is not always clearly stated, nor is it widely understood. Johnson (Interview, 2016) explains that Arts Minister Matt Foley was able to deliver the Art Built-in policy with the support of manufacturers. In addition to employing Queensland artists, the Art Built-in policy stipulated that Queensland-based fabricators and materials should be utilized. The policy created the circumstances that allowed for the establishment and expansion of new and existing businesses, most notably Brisbane-based fabricators, Urban Art Projects (UAP). According to Michael Keniger's evaluation of the policy, artists' commissioning contracts represented 72%, or $8,707,266, of the total expenditure since 1999 (2006: 14), implying that artists were the major benefiters. In fact, this amount was divided between artists and fabricators, with at least 80% of that amount going to fabricators. Despite this, the Art Built-in policy offered a considerable source of income, coupled with creative and professional

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 134

development opportunities, for artists and arts professionals, as well as fabricators.

Regardless of the economic benefits offered by the policy, the policy's processes, especially its aesthetic outcomes, were not always well received within the visual arts community. In 2003, an article entitled “Bogus Art” by academic and critic Rex Butler appeared in The Courier Mail, which offered the most publicly scathing indictment of public art policies. In this article Butler (2003) asserted that the boon for Queensland artists, which was described by Jay Younger earlier in this discussion, was in fact limited to a select few artists, who were not necessarily the best artists practicing at the time. Butler thus refers to public art as an inferior form of arts practice constrained by the art-by-committee process.

In spite of these criticisms, Butler (2003) managed to cite a few cases of successful public art works, namely Scott Redford's Automatic for the people (ROCK) (2000)70 and Richard Tipping's Watermark (2000).71 Among the 'glaring mistakes' of the program, Butler lists an unrealized commission for the Judith Wright Centre, which he refers to as a 'heroically non-functional example' of the Art Built-in policy,72 as well as Wendy Mills' On this auspicious occasion (1998), commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC) as part of the Queen Street Mall refurbishment, and Sebastian Di Mauro's Chat (2002),73 commissioned by Consolidated Properties in fulfilment of BCC's Development Assessment (DA), both of which have since been decommissioned.

Butler squarely blamed the art-by-committee decision-making process for the poor quality of public art commissions. It is not unusual, however, for art to be

70 One of fifteen works that, in keeping with the Art Built-in policy, was commissioned by the Department of Public Works as part of the Roma Street Parklands development. Redford's text- based stainless steel work, which spells ROCK, references rocks as an element of landscape design, gay icons including Rock Hudson, and its location as a local Brisbane site for homosexual liaisons. 71 Commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC) as part of the Brisbane Powerhouse redevelopment as a cultural facility. Located between the Brisbane Powerhouse and the Brisbane River, and evoking the 1893 and 1974 floods, the submerged text of Tipping's 15 metre painted steel sculpture spells flood. 72 The Art Built-in commission for the Judith Wright Centre was a largely unrealized interdisciplinary collaboration between artists Jill Barker, Jeremy Hynes, Adam Donovan, musicians John Rodgers and Jeff Erbacher, curator Jay Younger and architect Michael Rayner. The collaboration focused on developing video projection that involved the permanent installation of a Pepper's ghost glass wall — a theatrical illusion used to produce holograms. Although its permanent installation wasn't successfully realized, as part of the opening of the Judith Wright Centre a further collaborative work was presented with performer Lisa O'Neill, Ghosting (2001), which incorporated video with a Pepper's ghost glass wall. 73 Colloquially known as 'the Hopoate', after the controversial former rugby league winger John Hopoate, who gained notoriety for distracting opposing players with his 'proctologist's... finger- pointing' (Butler 2003).

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 135

acquired through consultation with committees, such as the acquisition committees of gallery-museums, and this process often results in worthy selections. The real problem was the lack of aesthetic and contemporary art expertise held by committees — Public Art Advisory Groups (PAAGs) — involved in public art projects under the Art Built-in policy. While initially the Art Built-in policy stipulated that public art project managers (PAPMs) were required to manage the procurement of artworks in consultation with PAAGs, projects did not necessarily always involve curatorial expertise (Art Built-in Policy Statement, 1999: A1-2).74 Notable exceptions were projects with substantial budgets — more than $1 million — including Roma Street Parklands, curated by Timothy Morrell, and Brisbane Magistrates Court, curated by Jay Younger. Compared with public art project management, which amounted to 10% of Art Built-in's expenditure, curatorial services only amounted to 2% of the total expenditure since 1999 (Keniger 2006: 14). As architect Michael Rayner argues, it was thought that PAPMs 'would act as... sympathetic cultivator[s]' akin to curators (PAA 2003). Criticism of Art Built-in consistently expressed dissatisfaction with the so-called expertise provided by PAAGs, and to a lesser extent PAPMs.

Butler's article “Bogus Art” concludes with the provoking statement that, if the then prevailing types of public art continued to be commissioned, Queensland 'would be better off with no public art at all' (2003). Butler's conclusion sparked debate, including rebuttals in The Courier Mail by journalist Sandra McLean (2003) and Daniel Tobin (2003), Co-Director Urban Art Projects (UAP) and a major beneficiary of the policy. Although Butler's comments were based on aesthetic considerations, they stirred up anxiety for many arts practitioners, politicians and a government sensitive to criticism. Yet, within a cultural arena in which discussion typically and too easily gravitates to economic concerns, Butler's 2003 article provided the debate with a useful corrective in aesthetic terms.

74 The Art Built-in policy's guidelines recommended that each project form a consultative Public Art Advisory Group (PAAG) comprised of: a government-client representative; builders representing the managing contractor; the project manager; the project's principal architect and/or project personnel; the public art project manager (PAPM); and a curator, if required. PAAGs often also included a representative from the Public Art Agency (PAA). The guidelines also recommended the inclusion of community representatives, such as young people and Indigenous Australians. The intended purpose of PAAGs was to steer the process to a successful outcome by providing expert appraisals regarding artist selection, concepts, design development and commissioning.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 136

Elevated curatorial role

In response to the growing criticism of public art's poor aesthetic outcomes, publicly ignited by Butler (2003), the increased involvement of curators — often involved with supporting the creation of new work — was presented as a solution. Architect Michael Rayner even went so far as to pose curators as a 'cure' (PAA 2003). Broadly corresponding with the curatorial turn in visual arts and cultural debates, the escalated attention given to the role of curators in commissioning contemporary art for the public realm would be the topic of a public debate, “The Role of Curator is Essential to Create Great Public Art” (2003), hosted by the Public Art Agency (PAA) at the Judith Wright Centre. In addition to Butler and Rayner, other speakers included the architect Timothy Hill. This debate provides insights into how the Art Built-in policy and its quandaries were being discussed prior to Keniger's 2006 evaluation. In a way that neither the Art Built-in or art+place policy evaluations were able to, the debate raised issues associated with the policy's negotiated aesthetics. Moreover, the debate offered a rare opportunity for the expression of alternative points of view.

In the public forum that evening, Rayner characterized the Art Built-in commissioning process as a complex 'battlefield', often marred by a 'maelstrom of conflict... in need of a cure' (PAA 2003). Equating the qualities of curators to a nurturing midwife, Rayner argued that curators are uniquely placed and necessary to restore artists’ 'dignity and integrity' (Ibid.). More broadly, Rayner energetically borrows the language of contemporary art in a plea for the political autonomy of art. However, Rayner stipulates a constraint. His plea for autonomy is qualified by the requirement that the work of artists and curators work 'must involve an investigation into and an interpretation of the public realm and the culture that created that realm' (Ibid.). Rayner's comment suggests that it is necessary for artists and curators to have autonomy as long as it is directed toward interpreting the public realm and the concerns of urban design. He thereby offered a circumscribed case for autonomy.

Butler, echoing his points in the article “Bogus Art” (2003), again focused on the unrealized commission for the Judith Wright Centre — his favoured example and 'testament to everything that can... go wrong' with the Art Built-in policy (PAA 2003).75 For the most part, Butler did not directly address the debate's topic —

75 Op cit.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 137

“The Role of Curator is Essential to Create Great Public Art” — except to state that the process is 'over-curated — it's completely over-curated' (Ibid.). Instead of addressing the topic or his critique of the public art program, Butler resorted to a brief lecture on Kant's critique of aesthetic judgement. Butler (2003) previously suggested that successful public art requires a balance between singularity, universality and generality. In his contribution to the debate, Butler focused on universality, which he claimed is technically unachievable, while noting 'consensus can never actually be realized. That is, art is always made for the future, its value is never entirely... settled in the present'; thereby, 'great works of art... are always untimely' (PAA 2003). Through his Kantian focus, Butler emphasized the personal and subjective experiences of art between the work and viewer, with re-interpretations formed over a long period of time, unmediated by curators.

Overall, subjects raised in the debate included: the participation of large numbers of competing consultants in public art commissioning, and the expectation that artists would contribute as team members and 'collaborate as equals — as if collaboration will come... naturally'; the taste of committees dominated by non-art experts as well as a bureaucratic aversion to risk; implied issues associated with design and construct contracts;76 public art's role in assisting cities and their communities to 'reinforce... identity’; 'economic growth, investment in infrastructure' and employment prospects generated as part of the Art Built-in policy; and the policy's promise of a socially fair, 'cohesive and culturally vibrant society' (Ibid.). Additionally, although no artists were invited to speak, the debate acknowledged that the role of artists is essential to creating great public art (Ibid.).

As the last speaker, architect Timothy Hill began by summarizing the debate's proceedings. Overall, he questioned curators' capacity to 'fix' a situation that is 'boiling with strife' (Ibid.). Hill countered the proposal of art as 'a kind of remedy' by pointing out that this is not an optimistic position to adopt (Ibid.). He questioned the idea that curators — by smoothly organizing the administration of

76 Design and Construct (D&C) is the preferred procurement model for public works in Queensland. In D&C contracts, the construction company is engaged to oversee and deliver both design and construction services. While these contracts reportedly offer time and cost control measures, the principal client's oversight of the design process and its outcome is greatly reduced. As a result, builders and/or construction companies have significant decision-making powers in designing the city.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 138

this remedy — might succeed where other participants, albeit non-art experts, have failed. Hill, acknowledging the list of competing consultants, further observed that curators, as contributors to 'team art', are tasked with accompanying artists into a 'degrading' 'pattern of grotesque compromise'; especially if 'curating might equal consensus' (Ibid.). Hill added that public art processes are 'synthetic' or 'contrived' and that culture, rather than being something we merely observe, should be a situation we participate in. Here, Hill draws a subtle distinction that may best be translated as administrative infrastructure and team art versus authorship.

Hill provided a key summation of the debate's pervasive argument: 'to administrate is to create' (Ibid.). As Hill summarized, the entire debate focused upon expectations regarding infrastructural concerns rather than aspirational aesthetic concerns. In doing so, Hill raised a question; does public art's potential 'greatness lie in the way that it's been administrated, or does its greatness lie in its authorship?' (Ibid.). Similarly, Butler pondered if 'we should be discussing whether there can be such a thing as great public art at all' and questioned whether 'any great art [is] truly public?' (Ibid.). Indeed, rather than respond to the more agonistic questions or productive frictions raised by Butler and Hill (PAA 2003), the Art Built-in and art+place policy evaluations (Keniger 2006; Gray and Talvé 2010) instead could be considered to have pursued the 'to administrate is to create' line (PAA 2003). Both the evaluations of 2006 and 2010 centred on the infrastructure provided by these policies and proposed a limited curatorial role that focused only on selection.

As discussed at length in the literature review, both these evaluations of the public art policy, in pointing to a need for 'greater curatorial support and direction', actually circumscribed the role of curators as arbiters of taste (Keniger 2006: 25; Gray and Talvé 2010: 43). Following Keniger's recommendations, art+place introduced 'curatorial oversight... provided by a Curatorial Panel... chaired by a Government Curator reporting to Arts Queensland' (2006: 8). As a result, the Public Art Agency was replaced by a Government Curator and a ministerially- appointed Curatorial Panel with a relatively static, or unchanging membership.77

77 Appointed early 2008, the initial panel members were: Virginia Rigney (Chair), Curator Public Programs, Gold Coast Art Gallery (GCAG); Julie Ewington, then Head of Australian Art, QAGOMA; John Mongard, Director, John Mongard Landscape Architects and Associates; Michael Papageorgio, then Manager City Planning and Urban Design, Brisbane City Council (BCC); Timothy Hill, Architect, Donovan Hill. Over time, some panel members would change. By late

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 139

Project-specific Public Art Advisory Groups (PAAGs) would also more or less continue in their former role. Although the Curatorial Panel was comprised of some curatorial expertise, it was tipped in favour of architecture and urban design perspectives. In effect, the introduction of a Curatorial Panel, coupled with PAAGs, established a duplication or doubling of the processes that policed the State's public art practices. While Butler (2003) and others criticized the art-by-committee process, the introduction of another committee simply exacerbated the oversight issue. In this revised context, curating was primarily concerned with selection, rather than interpretation, or developing a reception for new work and/or audience development (for example through public programming).

This section has outlined shifting and ill-defined expectations of the curatorial role in public art commissioning processes. Given that public art processes would come to be dominated by non-art experts and design professionals, including architects, the following section addresses QAA's changed relationship to public art policies.

Demise of Artworkers' Alliance78

As discussed, QAA was a legacy of the artist-run activities and infrastructural activism of the late 80s. However, organizations including QAA would, in time, come to struggle with a changing political paradigm. As artist Richard Bell (2014) states:

The spirit of seventies activism that burned through the eighties to the bicentennial, seemed to wane in the nineties, partly due to government policy whereby the activists of the past were given official roles to become the bureaucrats of the present. They had their voices shut down.

2010, Rigney and Papageorgio were joined by Professor Virginia Lee (Chair), Mr Andrew Prowse (Deputy Chair), both landscape architects, architect Kevin O'Brien, Suhanya Raffel, then Director of Curatorial and Collection Development, QAGOMA, and artist Vernon Ah Kee. 78 In 2000, following Lindy Johnson's resignation, 'Queensland' was dropped and the organization was renamed Artworkers' Alliance. The organization prior to 2000 is referred to as QAA and after 2000 as Artworkers' Alliance.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 140

When arts professionals, like art historian Rex Butler, came to Brisbane from Sydney following the late Joh Bjelke-Petersen era, they encountered protagonists of that era — such as Stafford, Johnson and Younger — as part of 'the arts establishment' (correspondence with Professor Andrew McNamara July 5, 2017). Anderson further qualifies: the “shift from opposition to government [was] really... hard — to work out how to deal with something that... you have to be opposed to, then... arguably you’re not opposed to... The ways of working had to change and... some people manage[d] that better than others” (Interview with Peter Anderson 2016). Although QAA achieved a range of successes, they struggled to sustain an adversarial relationship to government.

QAA, with Lindy Johnson as CEO, had been instrumental in lobbying for the introduction of a percent-for-art program. Yet, QAA's relationship to the State's art policies changed with Johnson's resignation from QAA and her move to the Senior Arts Advisory role in 1998. While Johnson was a Senior Policy Adviser, she continued to defend the policy. To its credit, QAA had 'established the principle in Queensland that artists should not work without being paid. Art Built-in made this possible in practice' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 26). Following Johnson’s departure from the role of Senior Policy Adviser in 2005, Art Built-in was changed to art+place in 2007. The art+place policy regressed to a model in which artists were 'expected to a do a substantial amount of [development] work without reward' (Ibid.). In the shift from Art Built-in to art+place, design professionals took the lead role at the expense of contemporary art professionals working through organizations like Artworkers' Alliance (Ibid.).

As a peak professional body representing visual artists, Artworkers' Alliance failed to recognize or mobilize the arts community, which would have been necessary to critique changes associated with the introduction of art+place, especially regarding the changed scope of employment opportunities for artists. Johnson observes, “the arts community on a whole don't know how to advocate, because they don't know how the system works and then they don't know how to influence that system to their advantage” (Interview, 2016).

More broadly, governments — globally, federally and locally — questioned if and what they should be funding (Interview with John Stafford 2016). As Stafford explains, on the one hand, governments realized they could not continue to meet the exponential growth of arts community expectations (Ibid.). On the other hand,

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 141

governments, globally, also expected better economic performance and better corporate governance (Ibid.). Primarily, it was determined that advocacy is “not a function of government” (Ibid.). Both nationally and at a state level, there was “a shift in government policy” whereby governments questioned why they were funding organizations like Artworkers' Alliance, which had a charter for advocacy (Ibid.). In a climate of economic and budgetary decline, governments are less inclined to support or fund advocacy organizations, especially when they are coupled with poor corporate governance, and this led to the demise of Artworkers' Alliance.

Following a series of “bad appointments”, Artworkers' Alliance would come to suffer a “very slow death” (Interview with Jay Younger 2016). In 2011, Artworkers' Alliance, the State's peak arts advocacy for the visual arts, was closed. According to Stafford, “Artworkers' Alliance crashed and burned because of appalling levels of incompetency in governance and... because it had incompetent staff and board members at the time” (Interview, 2016).79 As a result, the State's peak arts advocacy organization was lost, leaving local artists and arts workers without a spokesperson representing their collective professional interest. This loss is pertinent to the discussion that follows in the next chapters, specifically regarding the deinstitutionalization of the Queensland State Government's public art policy.

Conclusion

In setting out to investigate the history and processes of the institutionalization of contemporary art practices, this chapter has illustrated some of the ways in which 'rights to the city' have been asserted and claimed by contemporary art practices, within the unique political conditions of Brisbane.

This chapter has primarily focused on the Queensland State Government's Art Built-in policy. As the previous chapter established, QAA was a legacy of the artist-run activities and infrastructural activism of the late Bjelke-Petersen era. Moreover, this chapter draws links between this infrastructural activism, its

79 Stafford, “for the record”, makes an exception of the organization's final Chair, artist Luke Roberts, who responsibly closed the organization (Ibid.). Stafford states: “I have [an] absolutely enormous amount of respect for Luke for doing his job as the Chair of the organization, in what must have been one of the most painful activities” (Ibid.).

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 142

institutional achievements in a new era, and the introduction of the State's public art policies. Through projects such as InterFace (1988) and bodies such as QAA, contemporary art practitioners played a significant role in defining discourses around their practices concerning the city. Initially, through her role at QAA, Johnson was instrumental in lobbying for and shepherding the introduction of a percent-for-art policy in Queensland.

This discussion has shown how, through professional advocacy organizations such as QAA and through institutionalization, the role of contemporary art practitioners was supported and altered by successive Labor governments and their art policies. A major achievement was the commitment of the Queensland State Government to providing financial support through the State's public art policies for art and artists, as well as the manufacturers/fabricators of public art in Queensland. However, this commitment did not always extend to the support of aesthetically critical work. The critical, site- specific and urban-civic aesthetic priorities of contemporary and temporary projects exemplified by InterFace (1988) were not accomplished through the State's public art policies. Furthermore, as was the case with artists, the curatorial role was limited, constrained and/or highly negotiated by these policies, most notably through granting curatorial oversight to larger teams or committees and by limiting the role of professional curators to artist selection.

The recognition and application of contemporary art practitioners' expertise, as this discussion reveals, was minimized in a number of ways under the public art policies established and modified by successive Labor Governments, from the 1990s to 2012: (1) through project teams and public art advisory groups (PAAGs); (2) in the terminology of the 2003 debate, “The Role of Curator is Essential to Create Great Public Art”; (3) the absence of art professionals in leading The Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006), which was instead undertaken by Michael Keniger, Queensland Government Architect (1999-2006); (4) and, following Johnson's resignation, the absence of effective leadership in QAA. In turn, QAA did not maintain a critical purview of changes to these policies and in fact became more marginal to the public art process. As institutional successes were achieved, QAA struggled to sustain a critical relationship with government. Furthermore, the shift from Art Built-in to art+place, indicated the further marginalization of both contemporary art professionals and QAA, as urban design professionals secured leading roles in public art programs. The domination of public art by urban design

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 143

specialists through these programs is especially ironic given that, as the previous discussion of projects such as InterFace (1988) demonstrates, artists had fought to secure such programs and, during the late 1980s, proved themselves capable of mastering the public realm in ways superior to design professionals of the time. The demise of Artworkers' Alliance meant there was a lack of professional contemporary art representation in public art programming.

The chapter's analysis of the processes of institutionalization is critical to the thesis' broader account regarding the conditions of public art production in Brisbane. The next chapter builds upon this analysis of the State's Art Built-in policy (1999-2007), by more fully accounting for the changes that accompanied the introduction of the art+place policy (2007-2012), especially regarding the ultimate deinstitutionalization of the policy.

Chapter 5 Institutionalization 144

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization

In 2012, the incoming Newman Government (2012-2015), with local newspaper The Courier Mail as its mouthpiece, aggressively criticized a series of commissions for the public realm: (1) Andy Goldsworthy’s Strangler Cairn (2011), which journalists described as 'an egg-shaped pile of rocks', sited in the Conondale National Park and commissioned by the Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Division (Shorten 2012; Frank 2012); (2) several works commissioned by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General for the Brisbane Supreme Court and District Court, particularly Yayoi Kusama’s Eyes are Singing Out (2012); and (3) Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12). The Newman Government's criticisms signalled the end of a popular and significant art policy — art+place (2007-2012).

As discussed in previous chapters, artists’ rights to the city and rights to imagine the city were gradually advanced through policies including the Queensland State Government's public art policies. Such policies, along with projects including the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993-present) and the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA), have been key mechanisms for successive, primarily Labor-led, state and city governments to produce the atmosphere of a creative city. In conjunction with investigating some of the ways contemporary art practitioners adopt or contest adversarial political positions, this chapter examines in detail the circumstances for the deinstitutionalization of policies supporting contemporary art practices in Brisbane.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 145

Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) was commissioned in advance of and installed following the Newman Government's election. Accordingly, this chapter first focuses upon the commissioning of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) with reference to the artwork itself, its commemorative function, the commissioning institution and collection to which the work belongs, and the government-client and the policy financially supporting the work. This chapter then examines in detail criticism of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), initially by artist Fiona Foley, followed by the Newman Government's expressed dislike of the commission and other public art commissions, including Yayoi Kusama’s Eyes are Singing Out (2012), in conjunction with cuts to the State's arts programs as a whole.

By drawing on comments associated with a series of press articles, this study also explores the public reception of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011- 12). The circulation of such public opinions can have a significant impact on the development of contemporary art policies. Critical reviews of commissions for the public realm, especially permanent works, are uncommon. While it is a standard practice for exhibition openings and public programs to provide public access to artists through artist talks, and invite reviews by professional art critics, these kinds of activities rarely accompany commissions for the public realm. As is highlighted by this study, if a commission is reviewed, it is usually by popular reportage and aesthetic issues are often overshadowed by other, usually economic, issues.

Michael Parekowhai, The World Turns (2011-12)

Located along the riverfront at GOMA, The World Turns (2011-12) is a life-sized bronze sculpture of an elephant and a kuril (small native water rat). Although the work is five meters tall, it looks diminutive beside GOMA. The World Turns (2011- 12) acknowledges the kuril, after which Kurilpa Point is named, as caretaker of the site. This kuril is credited with upending the elephant with its cultural and intellectual weight. The work harbours an institutional critique, in which the Indigenous kuril upends the mighty elephant of colonization and imported European knowledge. In lieu of a substantive interpretation, an analysis of the work is offered here as part of this study.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 146

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 147

The unanimous choice of the selection panel, The World Turns (2011-12) was commissioned to commemorate both the fifth anniversary of the opening of GOMA and the 20th anniversary of the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993- present). Despite this, the commission was swept into multiple contestations and criticisms. Initially, the commission sparked criticism from Indigenous artist Fiona Foley — primarily because QAGOMA had yet to commission a public artwork by an Indigenous Australian — and was then 'rubbished' by the former Liberal National Party arts minister, Ros Bates (Boland 2015). Most notably, neither the artist nor the elephant are Indigenous to Australia, and the $1million budget, a quarter of which was privately secured, was touted as emblematic of the spectacularly-deposed long-term Labor government's indulgences,80 especially its public art policies. QAGOMA's Director Chris Saines later offered a useful summation: with the change of government 'it got caught in the crossfire' (Boland 2015).

Having represented New Zealand at the 54th Venice Biennale in 2011, Michael Parekowhai has an established reputation as one of New Zealand’s leading contemporary artists. Primarily sculptural, Parekowhai's works often play with historical and political references, scale and humour to comment on the intersections between national narratives, colonial histories and popular culture.

QAGOMA has a longstanding relationship with Parekowhai, since the first inclusion of his work in the third Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art (APT3) in 1999 (QAGOMA 2015), and QAGOMA has purchased a number of his works, most notably, The Horn of Africa (2006).81 This work — a sculpture of a seal balancing a grand piano on its nose — is rich with filmic and literary references, including Jane Mander’s novel The Story of a New Zealand River (1920) and its translation to Jane Campion’s celebrated film The Piano (1993). The sculpture’s balancing piano, with the motif of the piano representing the ‘civilizing force’ of European settlement, may be read as a comment on the precariousness of nationhood. These references and motifs are repeated in He Kōrero Pūrākau mo Te Awanui o Te Motu: story of a New Zealand river (2011) — a grand piano

80 Having campaigned heavily on Labor's economic waste, the 2012 Queensland state election delivered a historic victory for the Liberal National Party (LNP), led by Campbell Newman. Consequently, Labor was left with just 7 of 89 seats in parliament — earning them the nickname the Tarago party. Drawing a line between Labor's waste, Newman's first symbolic gesture was to cut funds to the Premier's Literary Awards the day after his cabinet was sworn in (Lewis 2015). 81 In 2008, QAGOMA acquired Parekowhai's Horn of Africa (2006) in recognition of former Premier Wayne Goss' contribution as Chair of the Gallery's Board of Trustees (1999-2008).

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 148

embellished with Maori designs — that was the centrepiece of Parekowhai's exhibition at the Venice Biennale (2011). The commissioning of The World Turns (2011-12), and the survey exhibition Promised Land (2015) that followed, are the culmination of QAGOMA's longstanding relationship with Parekowhai.

Although Parekowhai, by preferring 'to remain ambiguous in interviews and public statements', is reluctant to offer conceptual closure, his earlier work provides key insights into The World Turns (2011-12) (McDonald 2015). As art critic John McDonald (2015) acknowledges, Parekowhai's works are often brimming with references that drop 'clues like overripe fruit from a tree'. The World Turns (2011-12) was derived from an earlier edition — Te Ao Hurihuri, translated The World Keeps Turning, part of a solo exhibition, The Moment of Cubism (2009), at Michael Lett, Auckland. In this exhibition's figuration, one of three elephant bookends, based on enlarged Wedgwood ornaments, pressed its head against the white cube, perhaps exasperatedly, while another was upended. The halted- action of the 'straining hefty beasts' alluded to 'the revenge of the colonized. A counter-attack by the appropriated' (Hurrell 2009). In a nod to the cultural institutions surrounding Kurilpa Point, the bookend of The World Turns (2011-12) refers to the containment, documentation and interpretation of western history and its visual culture, themes it shares with the earlier edition, The World Keeps Turning (2009).

The World Turns (2011-12) also recalls Piero Manzoni's Base of the world (1961) — Socle du monde, socle magique n.3 (1961) — Hommage à Galileo. This inverted iron plinth, which props the earth against its bearing surface, carries a direct relationship with Manzoni's Living Sculptures and Magic Bases — plinths that transforms people, for as long they stand on the plinths, into living works of art. Likewise, a viewer may imagine Manzoni's inverted Base of the world as the support for an enormous Living Sculpture, which sits atop a tiny Magic Base. Manzoni's Base of the world thus transforms the entire world into a Living Sculpture. Similarly, the upended elephant bookend of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) presses against the world, and Kurilpa Point becomes a pivotal point from which the world turns.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 149

The Commissioner: QAGOMA82

Alongside the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) in Tasmania — the largest privately-funded museum in Australia, housing David Walsh’s collection — Rex Butler has identified the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) as one of only three significant galleries in Australia, and the only noteworthy publicly funded institution (Neill 2011; Eltham 2012). In post-Bjelke-Petersen Brisbane, the Asia-Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993-present) has been significant for culturally repositioning the city. In turn, the APT has become a substantial state asset, particularly through its collection, which led to the expansion of the State's preeminent art institution through the establishment of GOMA. GOMA's construction has been a catalyst for ongoing gentrification and investment across the South Brisbane peninsula.

The Queensland Art Gallery (QAG) was established during the mid 1880s and early 1890s through considerable and conditional bequests and the efforts of artists including Isaac Walter Jenner and Godfrey Rivers. Without permanent premises, however, the collection remained fractured with 'chasms', and was outshone by regional galleries (Turner 2012). It was not until 1982 that QAG secured permanent premises, and it is through the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) that QAG began to develop a noteworthy collection. Significantly, the APT focused on the art of a critical region at a vital moment. Unlike other biennales or triennials, from its inception the APT has been acquisitive, collecting and commissioning. As a result, QAG now holds a coherent collection, particularly of contemporary Chinese art, that could not be assembled at its current value by a public institution.83 As for Ai Weiwei, China’s most influential dissident, QAG most likely holds more of his work than any other international museum. Some of Ai Weiwei’s works were gifted to QAG, thanks to the long relationship between the artist and the gallery (Ibid.).

The APT is today widely recognized as the project that transformed not just QAG’s fortunes but Queensland’s, and gave Australia a place within the contemporary art world. Indeed, the APT has a fair claim to being Australia’s most

82 Prior to 2006, referred to as Queensland Art Gallery (QAG), and from 2006, as the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) or (QAGOMA). 83 For example, from APT 2 in 1996: QAG acquired Cai Guo-Qiang’s famous gunpowder works for $100,000, Takashi Murakami’s crazed Mickey Mouse figure, Mr. DOB, and Zhang Xiaogang’s Three Comrades, from his now-famous Bloodline series, for $30,000 each. All of these works are now each worth almost or well in excess of $1 million. Further, Xu Bing’s A Book From The Sky, one of the seminal works of Chinese contemporary art, also 'bought for a song', is now worth millions (Turner 2012).

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 150

important exhibition. Conceived at a time when the then premier and arts minister, Wayne Goss, wished to transform the way Queenslanders perceived themselves, the project was pitched by former QAG Director Doug Hall 'as the mirror his political master was after' (Ibid.). Its international impact and its cultural, or soft diplomatic, reach would be crucial, not least as former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, amidst the recession we had to have, stepped up Australia’s engagement with the Asia Pacific region, particularly China, post-Tiananmen Square. The APT helped reposition the art of the region, when it was still largely seen as of ethnographic rather than contemporary art-historical interest, and established QAG's international reputation.

The APT has been extremely important in opening up the art and elasticity of Asia, particularly China with artists like Ai Weiwei, and challenging the supremacy of art centres such as London and New York. In the words of gallerist Anna Schwartz and art critic John McDonald, the APT has done nothing less than 'reposition Australia as a central player in the cultural arena... [and] given Australia a chance to get away from [its]... provincial hang-ups' (Turner 2012). Locally, while turning Queensland into an international player, it 'changed the pecking order between the galleries' (Ibid.). The upending of the old order is neatly encapsulated by the fact that the grand old lady of Australian galleries, the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), with its unparalleled historical collection, has been considered comparatively slow to embrace the suddenly game-changing art of our times.

As a format the biennial remains unassailable in its importance. Biennials, and triennials, have served to insert “peripheral” urban locations, of which Brisbane is one, into the international circuit, temporarily offering a new physical site that attracts contemporary art and art world members (Rosler 2010: 14-15). In Brisbane, the APT has steered the expansion of the State's preeminent art institution with the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA). In 2006 audience figures reached 750,000 when the APT opened QAG’s twin, Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA). The centrepiece of a $100 million redevelopment of the Cultural Precinct at South Bank, GOMA was spawned in the wake of APT 3 (1999) to capitalize on the triennial’s success and propel Brisbane as a contemporary art centre. Its construction has been a catalyst for ongoing gentrification and investment across the South Brisbane peninsula, formerly an industrial area now subject to intense redevelopment.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 151

The APT in Brisbane is now one of many biennial or triennial exhibition programs across the region, including those at: Busan and Gwangju in Korea, Singapore, Taipei, Yokohama, and Shanghai and Guangzhou in China. However, Hall claims there is a difference between the APT and many other biennials and triennials, like Singapore’s, saying the others are 'state exercises in artistic diplomacy, they’re not as grand and noble' (Turner 2012). Hall's claim is curious because the APT has, in addition to repositioning the city, also been a state exercise in cultural diplomacy with the region. Moreover, the exhibition has become more 'polished'; 'it used to be sprawling and it’s become more conventional — which is good and bad' (Schwartz in Turner 2012). The challenge for the APT is to ensure 'it remains the protruding nail in that Japanese sense' (Hall in Turner 2012). In other words, the ongoing challenge for the APT, and QAGOMA, is to maintain independent antagonisms or agonistic relationships.

State as client: art+place (2007-2012)

In 1999 the Queensland State Government introduced the Queensland Art Built- in policy (1999-2007), allocating up to 2% of Queensland Government capital works project budgets, in excess of $250,000, to public art. As the most comprehensive public art policy in Australia, Art Built-in was a nationally prominent policy that 'contributed materially to the public environment' of Queensland (Keniger 2006: 15). Adopting a series of recommendations made in Michael Keniger's Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006), the Art Built-in policy was succeeded in 2007 by art+place, the Queensland Public Art Fund: a 'centralized funding model administered by Arts Queensland' that allocated $12 million over three years (art+place Guidelines for applicants 2007: 3).

Drawing on Keniger's Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006) and Gray and Talvé's art+place evaluation 2007-2009 (2010), this section provides a background to the State Government’s policies guiding public art commissioning in Queensland and changes to their organizational structure, which impacted upon the public reception of Parekowhai's commission in particular. This section briefly addresses a shift in the intent of the State's revised public art policy from integration to a coupling of art and place, before concentrating on two key changes. These changes attempted to elevate the aesthetic quality and reception

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 152

of commissions for the public realm in Queensland. The first change was the introduction of flexibilities, including a provision to produce either permanent or temporary works, and a provision for commissioning international artists. The second change was the introduction of a Curatorial Panel, led by non-art experts with limited curatorial expertise, who were charged with undertaking exemplar projects, which, as discussed in the literature review, was a major cause for confusion.

In addition to changing the way the State funded public art commissions, the remodelled policy's name was changed to art+place to emphasize a connection between art and place. While the social and cultural achievements of Art Built-in were primarily circumscribed as physical and conceptual integration, successful commissions were largely defined by a 'coupling of art and place', in terms of good collaboration and site-specificity to the surrounding landscape and local heritage or community identity (Keniger 2006: 12; Gray and Talvé 2010: 17). In acknowledging criticisms regarding aesthetic outcomes, the transition to art+place largely built upon Art Built-in's reputation (Keniger 2006: 31; Gray and Talvé 2010: 48). Consequently, the direct relationship between these policies means that they cannot be read separately. Hence, this section analyses them together.

The remodelled policy also signalled a range of changes to the processes and assessment of public art commissioning in Queensland. Keniger emphasized that 'greater flexibility in the application of the policy' was required and 'that processes should be adopted to acquire the highest quality outcome in each project' (2006: 31; 29). Keniger further argued that 'the most able artists be appointed in each case' and that 'opportunities be created to enable' interstate and international artists to contribute to 'significant public projects... [and] the development of public art in Queensland' (2006: 10). Consequently, 'art+place was designed to encourage: [the] commissioning of local, national and international artists to produce permanent or temporary site-specific works' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 13). By adopting Keniger's (2006) recommendations art+place attempted to move 'away from fixed views of what public art should be and look like' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 17). In doing so, art+place aimed to enable 'a broader conceptualization of public art commissioning in Queensland' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 21). However, two key aspects of the policy changes would prompt confusion amongst arts professionals and stakeholders: firstly, its support of

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 153

commissions by artists not based in Queensland and secondly, the role of curatorial stewardship.

Although it was theoretically possible to commission national and/or international artists, no international artists and few interstate artists were commissioned under the Art Built-in policy. As Keniger confirmed, the majority of commissions employed Queensland artists and manufacturers (2006: 36). Working in unison with broader Queensland Government access and equity initiatives, 'Arts Queensland prioritized support for Queensland artists, professional arts practice, regional arts, Indigenous arts and culture and the social justice areas' (Keniger 2006: 11). The Art Built-in policy addressed all of these issues 'with varying degrees of success' (Ibid.). Considered a major achievement of the Art Built-in policy, Indigenous jobs represented 18.9% of all jobs generated under the policy – 'making local Indigenous artists visible in our public buildings is an achievement that works in concert with state and federal tourism strategies' (Keniger 2006: 15).

With the introduction of art+place there remained an emphasis on commissioning Queensland artists. Between 2008 and October 2009, art+place had funded 74 projects, generating over 450 contracts, predominantly benefiting Queensland artists and fabricators (Gray and Talvé 2010: 24). Commissions for major works by Indigenous artists included Fiona Foley’s Black Opium (2006) at SLQ, and Dennis Nona’s Salaul Au Tonar (2009), developed in partnership with Far North Queensland Ports Corporation as part of the Cairns Foreshore Development. Although projects funded by art+place continued commissioning Queensland artists, Arts Queensland's measures for evaluation were altered to assess the percentage of artists commissioned with a national and/or international reputation (Gray and Talvé 2010: 15).

Keniger's evaluation proposed that commissioning leading international or interstate artists 'would enable the transfer of skills, enrich the quality and standing of public art, and provide training and mentoring opportunities for young and emerging artists' and facilitate 'strong international networks' (2006: 36). According to Keniger, the Millennium Arts project, incorporating GOMA, provided a significant opportunity for commissioning national and/or international artists (2006: 11). Gray and Talvé's research further indicated 'wide support' for commissioning international artists and for art+place’s 'aspiration to commission

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 154

works with high levels of conceptual originality, quality and excellence of execution' (2010: 21). According to Gray and Talvé's evaluation, this direction might be 'extended by aggregating advantage from a deepened relationship with Asian artists developed by [the] Queensland Art Gallery’s Asia Pacific Triennial' (Ibid.). However, although it was possible to commission national and/or international artists, both the Keniger (2006) and Gray and Talvé (2010) evaluations make clear that commissioning in Queensland persistently focused upon local artists and fabricators. The Parekowhai commission, commemorating the APT and GOMA, was one of very few commissions not by a local artist.

According to Keniger, because 'Art Built-in processes worked to minimize risk and to preclude adventurous and experimental works', the remodelled policy would be 'enriched by curatorial oversight' provided by a ministerially-appointed Government Curator, Curatorial Panel and/or equivalent expertise (2006: 32). Acknowledging a 'need for the client to set aside personal taste and consider the tastes and views of their public audience', both public art policy evaluations pointed to a need for greater curatorial expertise (Keniger 2006: 25; Gray and Talvé 2010: 43). In theory, the Curatorial Panel was supposed to be 'responsible for raising the quality of public art, for promoting and leading public debate concerning public art... and assisting with the selection of projects and programs to be funded' (Keniger 2006: 32). However, in practice, the Curatorial Panel's role was ambiguous and confusing. As Gray and Talvé explain, its 'strategic directions, policy frameworks and project priorities' were unclear to both the Curatorial Panel and stakeholders (2010: 29-30). For many stakeholders the principal function of the Curatorial Panel was to approve applications, in essence performing a perfunctory administrative role to minimize the number of small and substandard projects.

Instead of demonstrating leadership, the ‘exemplar’ projects initiated by the Curatorial Panel were a major cause for confusion. The commissioning of one of the exemplar projects, Dennis Nona's Salaul Au Tonar (2009), developed in partnership with Far North Queensland Ports Corporation, prompted consternation (Gray and Talvé 2010: 30). Although the Curatorial Panel were entitled to initiate commissions, the application by Far North Queensland Ports Corporation for art+place funding was merely perfunctory and its approval — by the Curatorial Panel — was considered a 'fait accompli' (Gray and Talvé 2010: 30). Furthermore and most alarming was the ethical danger that the Curatorial

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 155

Panel could place itself in when it appeared to both initiate a work and approve its own commission (Gray and Talvé 2010: 60). Overall, art+place, in association with the Curatorial Panel, introduced additional control without delivering improved outcomes.

Thus far, this chapter has provided insights into the concepts and decision- making processes underlying Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12). The remainder of this chapter addresses criticisms initially raised by artist Fiona Foley and then by the Newman Government. By focusing on issues such as artist selection, such criticisms minimally address artworks, and instead refer to artworks as a prompt for progressing and amplifying other agendas.

Representation by artist Fiona Foley

Indigenous artist Fiona Foley84 is not unaccustomed to raising questions that prompt controversy. In an article titled “Revealed: Message Hidden in Sculpture” (Cosic 2005), Foley disclosed that her commission Witnessing to Silence (2004) — for the Brisbane Magistrates Court — which she had reportedly represented as being about fire and flood, really concerned the massacres of Aboriginal people. Due to a sensitive political environment Foley had couched the work in other terminology. In the curator's opinion, 'Foley was most likely correct in suspecting that the subject-matter of Aboriginal massacres may not have proceeded to fabrication' (Younger 2012a). Ms Anna Bligh, at the time Queensland Minister for the Arts and later Premier, responded to the revelation by saying that “Foley is a very talented Queensland artist... She is also very passionate about the oppression of Aboriginal people and it is not at all surprising that she would find an expression of that in her work.” Ms Bligh would further assert that “a work that encouraged thinking about issues of justice and injustice was appropriate to the site” (Cosic 2005). As the project's curator Younger pointed out: 'as a consequence of the Bligh-Foley hidden metaphor... Queensland artists received a... ministerial proclamation for [the] freedom of artistic expression and critical

84 Fiona Foley is an established contemporary Indigenous Australian artist whose work insists that viewers re-examine historical stereotypes. She is familiar with public art commissioning, both as an artist and as an advisor -— having been a member of Keniger's (2006) reference group. An Adjunct Professor with the University of Queensland, in 2013 Foley was a recipient of a Visual Arts Award by The Australia Council for the Arts, in recognition of her substantial contributions to the Australian visual arts sector.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 156

engagement in the public realm' (2012a). In a feature titled “When the circus came to town”, Foley (2011) criticized fellow artist Brook Andrew for seeking to use material without the appropriate Indigenous permissions and for operating under the 'umbrella of his pan-Aboriginal identity' (Douglas 2012). Andrew (Ibid.) would later respond by saying that Foley's:

claims are based on "personal reactions" and not "cultural protocol". The Aboriginal art world is somewhat vexed, and there are important issues of post-colonialism that need serious unpacking... I understand Fiona is a passionate advocate for her perspectives on cultural rights. But there have been differences of opinion and perspective on the notions of use and appropriation.

Here, Andrew was careful to emphasize that Foley's perspectives are her personal perspectives and do not necessarily represent the Indigenous or contemporary visual arts community as a whole, or traditional cultural protocol. Likewise, although Stafford posits that “artists of calibre can have [a] voice”, Younger argues, “artists should not be expected to do anything except represent their own ideas... Foley can speak on behalf of [artist] Fiona Foley and really should not be seen as representing a homogenous Indigenous community, for example” (Interviews, 2016). Here again, arts professionals are consistently careful to emphasize that individual artists represent themselves and not broader groups.

In response to the commissioning of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011- 12), Foley, later joined by Indigenous poet and activist Sam Watson, argued that an Indigenous artist should have been commissioned. However, Foley did not articulate why an Indigenous artist should have been commissioned for a work commemorating the fifth anniversary of the opening of GOMA and the 20th anniversary of the APT, except to say that the redevelopment of the cultural precinct and South Bank is 'visually barren of Aboriginal history and culture' (Browning 2012; Foley 2012).85 Foley did not raise the same argument with regards to the development of GOMA, nor for GOMA's other commissions for the public realm, one of which, We are shipwrecked and landlocked (2008-10), by

85 As the previous chapter discussed, the South Bank Parklands were — and continue to be — developed for a tourist's gaze.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 157

Scottish artist Martin Boyce, also adjoins Kurilpa Point Park.86 More importantly, Foley’s claim regarding the lack of a visual presence for Aboriginal culture did not acknowledge the presence of kuril dhagan, the Indigenous Knowledge Centre at the State Library of Queensland (SLQ), or existing works by Indigenous artists.

Although the Queensland Cultural Centre and South Bank Parklands are two distinct precincts,87 Foley’s specific suggestion was that South Bank should be adorned with commissions by artists Dennis Nona, Danie Mellor, Judy Watson, Arthur Pambegan and a 'long overdue public memorial to Eddie Mabo' (Foley 2012). Alongside exhibition and performance programs, such as the annual Clancestry at the Queensland Performing Arts Centre (QPAC), existing works include: two by Fiona Foley, Black Opium (2006), State Library of Queensland (SLQ)88 and Pi-ri (2006) situated near the Queensland College of Art (QCA); and Brook Andrew ANP Animated Neon Protozoa (2004), suspended at the entrance to the Queensland Museum. Additionally, Judy Watson's shoal (1998) wraps the CityCat ferry Gootcha (2010) and has an intermittent presence along the Brisbane River and at South Bank. Similarly, Foley did not refer to any of the ways that Mabo has been commemorated,89 most significantly, Mabo Day.90 Foley's claim that Indigenous culture is visually non-existent at South Bank was a key aspect of her argument, however, this claim is undermined by the existence of these works and events by Indigenous artists across the precinct.

86 QAGOMA's commissions for the public realm have included: Lee Mingwei, Bodhi Tree Project (2006); Scott Redford, The High/Perpetual Xmas, No Abstractions (2008); and Martin Boyce, We are shipwrecked and landlocked (2008-10). 87 Split by Melbourne Street, the Queensland Cultural Centre is managed by Arts Queensland, while South Bank Parklands Is managed by South Bank Corporation, a Queensland Government Statutory Authority. Following legislative changes, since 2013 oversight of the parklands has been largely transferred to Brisbane City Council (BCC). 88 A major commission — forming part of the Millennium Arts Project and the State Library of Queensland (SLQ) redevelopment — inspired by Rosalind Kidd's, The Way We Civilize: Aboriginal Affairs: The Untold Story (1997) and the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897, which would adversely impact Chinese and Aboriginal people in Queensland. The only other work commissioned as part of the Millennium Arts Project was Lee Mingwei, Bodhi Tree Project (2006), situated near the entrance to GOMA. 89 Such as: Matthew Harding (in consultation with Gail Mabo), Mabo Memorial Sculpture (2007), commissioned by Townsville City Council, in North Queensland. 90 Mabo Day (June 3) is a national day of recognition commemorating the High Court of Australia's landmark decision to overturn terra nullius and acknowledge Indigenous land rights or Native Title. While Mabo Day is a public holiday in the Torres Strait, there are periodically petitions calling for an Australia-wide public holiday. However, should Foley wish to campaign for a memorial in the capital, there is a relatively well-established process for commissioning commemorative public sculptures. Broadly adhering to commissioning practices for the public realm, the process involves an existing or purposely-formed community group raising funds, approaching a Local Councillor or political representative to assist in securing a site, and commissioning an artist.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 158

Even so, the positioning of The World Turns (2011-12) at Kurilpa Point and the significance of the site was an issue. The sightline to Kurilpa Point from kuril dhagan, including the Talking Circle structure,91 may be somewhat obscured by the underside of The World Turns (2011-12). GOMA — which obstinately faces the Windmill92 and with its extended roof claims part of Kurilpa Point — would appear to disregard the distress expressed by the Millennium Arts Project's Indigenous reference group.93

As part of the Millennium Arts Project, an Indigenous reference group, facilitated by Paul Memmott, was formed to provide feedback on the design of the public realm. Amongst its members were Lilla Watson and Joan Collins — a longstanding Indigenous liaison officer with QAG, credited with facilitating meetings with Indigenous representatives during Parekowhai's commission. Recommendations by the Indigenous reference group that were incorporated included: the use of native plants and protection for existing flora and fauna, such as Cupaniopsis anacardioides (tuckeroo), Elaeocarpus grandis (blue quandong), Eucalyptus teretiocornis (red gum) and Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay fig); maintaining the pathway from Montague Road around GOMA into the precinct clear of building overhangs;94 emphasis on the significance of kuril dhagan; and space for dance performances at Maiwar Green between GOMA and SLQ extending to the river’s edge.95 Many of these cultural contributions to the site are unmarked, or unaccompanied by signage, and are thereby rendered invisible to the casual viewer. Furthermore, Fiona Foley's proposal to showcase Indigenous artworks across South Bank — the most visited public realm in the State — was shared by the Indigenous reference group. As part of the Millennium Arts Project

91 Created through a collaboration led by architect Timothy Hill of Donovan Hill and Indigenous artist Laurie Nilsen. 92 A pivotal site from which the city was surveyed and which contributed to the oppression and continued domination of Indigenous peoples (Greenop 2014: 34). 93 The Millennium Arts Project at the Queensland Cultural Centre, South Bank primarily encompassed the development of the new Queensland Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) and the redevelopment of the State Library of Queensland (SLQ). 94 This pathway is superimposed over an Indigenous track. In this instance, (although attached to public buildings) overhangs were perceived to claim public land as private. More recently, Kurilpa Point has been substantially encroached upon by the Kurilpa Bridge. 95 Maiwar Green has been used for this expressed purpose. Most notably, as a venue for The Torres Strait Islands: A Celebration (2011) a significant collaborative project staged across the Cultural Centre, which coincided with the 140th anniversary of the Coming of the Light (the arrival of the London Missionary Society in the Torres Strait in 1871). Alongside GOMA's contribution, the exhibition Land, Sea and Sky (2011), Maiwar Green featured an extensive program that included a large kupmauri (earth oven) and performances with zamiyakal (dance machines).

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 159

two artworks were commissioned, of which Foley's Black Opium (2006) was the significant beneficiary.

In criticizing the Parekowhai commission, Foley's implicit target was GOMA. However, rather than specifically focusing on GOMA, by broadly referring to the institutions of the cultural precinct, which each address Indigenous representation to varying degrees, Foley's broader plea was diluted. Ultimately Foley's primary campaign was successful, resulting in the commissioning of Judy Watson's Tow Row (2016), located at the entrance to GOMA. However, a more adept advocacy organization may have leveraged the situation to campaign for an Indigenous cultural institution that rivals the scale and resources of GOMA. In 2012 the Bligh Government proposed a national Indigenous Museum as part of a South Bank ll development (Nancarrow 2012).96 The LNP-led state and city governments appear to have since replaced the proposal for an Indigenous institution with a new Science Centre. Other missed opportunities include: signage drawing visitors attention to the existing cultural material and soft architecture or landscape; a campaign for a commission commemorating Mabo in the capital city; and the introduction of urban design policies incorporating Indigenous design perspectives, as epitomized by Kevin O'Brien's Finding Country (2006-ongoing). As a result, it presently appears that ongoing Indigenous exclusion may have been prolonged in exchange for Judy Watson's Tow Row (2016).

Foley's criticisms, which predominately focused on artist selection and expenditure, provided ammunition for the Newman Government's criticisms, which in turn helped them to justify the deinstitutionalization of the art+place policy. The following sections address the Newman Government's criticisms and their public reception, before returning to a discussion regarding the lack of a professional arts organization to develop campaigns with a collective vision.

Clashing agendas: the political versus the cultural

Upon the Newman Government's election they immediately proceeded to cut investment in the arts. While previous Labor governments had cultivated a public taste for the arts, the Newman Government's cuts would assert that the arts were

96 A national Indigenous Museum had also been previously discussed as part of the Cairns Cultural Precinct development.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 160

not something to which the public was entitled. The Newman Government's cuts underscored discordant political and cultural agendas. In the context of funding cuts to the arts, this section briefly reviews the Newman Government's criticisms of a series of commissions for the public realm including: commissions for the Brisbane Supreme Court and District Court, particularly Yayoi Kusama's Eyes are Singing Out (2012); and Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12).

In respect to arts and cultural funding cuts in Queensland, the first target was the Premier’s Literary Awards, including the David Unaipon Award for unpublished Indigenous writers.97 Within days of taking office, the awards were axed as part of the Queensland Liberal National Party’s (LNP) promised cost- cutting drive.98

The axing of these Literary Awards attracted fierce-witted criticism. Author Matthew Condon said the decision to scrap the awards was 'spectacular in its idiocy' and described the prize money as a pittance (Cronin 2012). Condon suggested the amount to be saved by cutting the awards was similar to the 'cocktail onion bill for the year' of Queensland mining magnate, and then LNP benefactor, Clive Palmer (Ibid.). Additional comments included:

That’s exactly like going to buy a $14,000 car and going to another dealer to save yourself 25cents!

ch^os | April 04, 2012, 6:34AM (153 comments) (Hurst 2012a)

In Newman’s world, writing, bookstores, films and publishing are not real industries? These awards do not grow wealth and the skills of Queenslanders? [This] is not about money, it is about hatred of anyone to

97 An award Doris Pilkington won in 1990 for Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence (1996), which was adapted for a film (2002). 98 It was not the first time the awards were the subject of criticism by the LNP. A year earlier, in 2011, the LNP took issue with the short-listing of former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks’ controversial book for the Non-Fiction Book Award, suggesting any prize money may have to be confiscated under proceeds of crime laws. The then Premier Anna Bligh hit back at critics of the independent panel’s decision, suggesting the LNP’s then arts spokesman Scott Emerson was trashing free speech and “reducing himself to a book burner”. Bligh added, “The day that we see Premiers intervening in things like literary awards and making themselves self-appointed judges of the artistic merit… then Queensland takes a step backwards, and it will never happen while I am Premier” (Hurst 2012b).

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 161

[the] left of Genghis Khan. …But a casino for Clive, don’t you worry [about] that, already approved. Goodonya Ashgrove.

kfish | April 03, 2012, 6:45PM (110 comments) (Hurst 2012b)

Once you’ve read the collected works of Ayn Rand, what is [there] left to read? If anything, this doesn’t go far enough. They should announce a new Book Burning Award, abolish libraries, ban the letter ‘T’.

Jimbo | April 03, 2012, 8:02PM (110 comments) (Hurst 2012b)

These articles and comments in the Brisbane Times were accompanied by a 24 hour poll that posed the question: 'Do you agree with Campbell Newman's move to scrap the Queensland Literary Awards?' (Cronin 2012; Hurst 2012b). Attracting 7,442 votes, the poll returned a 68 percent 'No' vote. Together, the poll and comments indicate that the Newman Government's trashing of the Literary Awards was immensely unpopular.

Next, youth music programs took a hit and public art took a lashing, most notably Andy Goldsworthy’s Strangler Cairn (2011), commissioned for the Conondale National Park Great Walk: 'An egg-shaped pile of rocks that will crumble into its environment has cost taxpayers almost $700,000 after being built in a remote section of national park near the Sunshine Coast' (Shorten 2012). The public reaction as indicated by comments at the Huffington Post was mixed; although a little misguided by the description of the location, comments included: “if they spent that much on a bomb everyone would be cool with it” (Frank 2012).

Nor did Yayoi Kusama’s Eyes are Singing Out (2012), installed in the public square facing the new Brisbane Supreme Court and District Court, escape criticisms by the LNP and Courier Mail — a newspaper that lost any claim to impartiality when, in the days leading up to the 2012 Queensland election, its front page proclaimed that it endorsed Campbell Newman. In an article titled “The eyes have it in $1m psychiatric art attack”, Des Houghton (2012b) alluded to a heart attack while emphasizing that Kusama has been living in a psychiatric hospital for 36 years. In a follow-up article the next day (Houghton 2012a), Attorney-General and Justice Minister Jarrod Bleijie was credited with describing the Kusama work as 'puerile'. A quote describing the work, pulled out of context, 'suggestive not only

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 162

of a watchful public but also omnipotence, enlightenment and inspiration' was described in Houghton’s article as 'breathlessly... pretentious'. In context, the description by the project's curator, Jay Younger, is pretty straightforward, calling attention to the fact that in this work, as in much of her artwork, Kusama uses symbols that can communicate across cultures:

The disembodied eye featured in Eyes are Singing Out is a... symbol that [appears in many cultures throughout time, for example, in]... ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics... It is suggestive not only of a watchful public but also omnipotence, enlightenment and inspiration. Kusama reminds us that it is through the experience of... [sight that our humanity and] our empathy... [for others] is instigated and negotiated (Younger 2012b).

A self-proclaimed 'traditionalist', Bleijie did not like the other works by Gemma Smith and Sally Gabori either, despite the fact that both are directly painted onto interior surfaces in a manner reminiscent of frescos. Mirdidingkingathi Juwarnda (aka) Sally Gabori's painting Dibirdibi Country (2012), which brings together four beloved places in Gabori’s life, was translated to the wall overlooking the Banco Court. In the late 1940s her traditional homeland, low-lying Bentinck Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria, became uninhabitable due to severe drought and high tides, and the islanders were moved to Mornington Island: an event so traumatic that no babies were born/survived a generation. As such, Gabori is one of the last remaining speakers of her traditional language, the Kayardild language of Bentinck Island. In addition to the original trauma of being removed from traditional land, Gabori and her sympathizers are subjected to the indignity of Bleijie’s dismissive assessment of her work. In reference to Gemma Smith’s work, painted directly onto the ceiling (during painting Gemma often lay on a platform in the same way Michelangelo did when he painted the Sistine Chapel), Bleijie was quoted as saying, 'white paint would have been good for me' (MacDonald 2012). In the same article, which reminisced about former Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, columnist for The Courier Mail Robert MacDonald (2012) asked, 'Does that make him (Bleijie) a philistine?'

By October 2013, the arts portfolio had suffered a number of 'savage' cuts including $2.2 million from QAGOMA, $1.6 million from the Queensland Museum,

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 163

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 164

and $12.4 million from arts grants. According to Arts Minister Ros Bates, funding to the major arts organizations had more or less been maintained, and in some areas, funding had been increased; for instance, the Queensland Ballet Company benefited by an increase of just $25,000. Federal Arts Minister Simon Crean immediately appeared the strongest advocate for a sector reportedly worth over $30 billion to the national economy, stating 'Governments must view arts and culture funding as an investment not just a price tag' and called the cuts 'a short- sighted attack on an entire creative generation' (Crean 2012). Crean also referred to tourism, one of the four economic pillars for the LNP. But for this incarnation of the LNP, tourism and culture were not inextricably linked. To quote Crean again, 'This budget from the Newman Government shows they just don’t get it' (Crean 2012).

In rhetoric reminiscent of the cultural wars, the Newman Government referred to commissions for the public realm as a symbol of Labor's wasteful spending on trivial matters.99 Most concerning is that the cuts represent a fear that free and subsidized arts programs may establish a democratic taste for the arts: art is good, it is even good for the public, but it is not something to which the public is entitled (Bulka 1997; Porges 1997). The cuts further express a conservative belief that ultimately, arts funding is supported, governed and dictated by the private patrons that can afford it.

The furore around the Newman Government's changes to arts spending came to a head when the installation of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) was imminent. Arts Minister Ros Bates would brand The World Turns (2011-12) a shocking misuse of taxpayer dollars, while insisting her comments were 'not a smear on the artist or the sculpture' (Sweetman 2012). Bates' character would be ultimately tarnished by a nepotism scandal, in the meantime, as the Arts Minister charged with advocating for the arts, Bates explicitly rallied against arts spending. Bates' objection to the Parekowhai commission was that 'more than $1 million was spent on this single piece of art, commissioned by an artist who doesn’t live in Queensland — or Australia for that matter [sic.]' (Sweetman 2012). The commission was described as costing taxpayers just over $1 million, when in fact only $750,000 was funded through art+place, Queensland Public Art Fund (2007-

99 Although referring to the American Culture War of the 1990s, ‘cultural wars’ is consistently used to refer to a battle between conservative and progressive social values, coupled with debates attending to public morality.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 165

2012), and the remaining quarter was raised privately by the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. Furthermore, the short-listed artists were all from the Asia Pacific, as is appropriate for a work commemorating the APT’s 20th anniversary.

As Terry Sweetman (2012) pointed out, ‘it was an easy kick — particularly among people who can’t get off the couch to go to the football, let alone patronize a public gallery — but the funding and acquisition of art is long recognized as a legitimate role of government’. Despite Sweetman’s (2012) subjective misgivings about the commission, he acknowledged that the Queensland Cultural Centre had an unlikely godfather in Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and that ‘the precinct’s reputation is not built on government funding alone. It also rests on enlightened and imaginative stewardship that has, at times, been allowed to defy conventional wisdom and tastes’. By The Courier Mail's standards, Sweetman's (2012) article was balanced, however, the majority of the papers' coverage of the Parekowhai commission was not. Overall, the Conondale National Park and Supreme Court commissions, despite having some curatorial involvement, were easily aligned with political and bureaucratic decision-making, whereas the Parekowhai commission was distinguished by the curatorial, professional and institutional status of QAGOMA and as such, it was treated slightly more favourably.

Public reception

The cumulative press articles and associated online public comments, generated for purposes and readers other than this study, usefully illustrate the political and public reception of aesthetic works. The majority of the public, as represented by these comments, was not swayed by the economic arguments made by the Newman Government and The Courier Mail. Although the public comments reflected and engaged with arguments about artist selection and budget, the opinions expressed in them were more nuanced than the arguments presented by the Newman Government and The Courier Mail. Overall, the comments demonstrated that the public held a very different view to the one assumed by the Newman Government. Yet, the popular press consistently re-asserted the Newman Government's position and ignored the perspectives of its readership. An indicative sample of public comments is offered here:

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 166

Typical Liberal hypocrite — know the price of everything and the value of nothing. What a bumbling oaf on an Arts Minister

Scio POSTED AT 11:11 PM OCTOBER 16, 2012 | Comment 11 of 226

SHOCK HORROR!!! The Gallery of Modern Art spends money on... wait for it... modern art!! How dare they!!? From now on GOMA is to commission only from Brisbane artists with an upper limit of $297.24. That'll keep the 100,000s of international cultural tourists each year going to GOMA and pumping their money into the Qld economy. NOT. I mean really, what ancient era does Minister Bates hail from? Neanderthal or Cro Magnon?

Mike POSTED AT 3:34 AM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 28 of 226

Why not get rid of the whole South Brisbane cultural centre? Why should we spend taxpayer's money to house and subsidize arts, culture and science education in Queensland? What arty fart pinko had that idea? Oh... It was Joh and Russ...

David of Auchenflower POSTED AT 6:10 AM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 50 of 226

how ridiculous, why can't they have a vote from the public on items that should be purchased for the PUBLIC to view?

KM POSTED AT 7:10 AM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 71 of 226

Firstly, taxpayers['] money should be spent on services not art. This is a typical huge expensive waste. Secondly, it looks ridiculous and is an insult to elephants. Put it the right way up please. This is one of the usual wastes of money by Labor and is again proof that they cannot be trusted with money.

Sharrie of Melbourne POSTED AT 7:59 AM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 102 of 226

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 167

Let[']s see which is more valuable to the country, 25 people working fulltime at $40000 (decent money for someone who has just graduated uni) or self- congratulatory pretentious 'artwork'? Then again the imagery of a bloated expensive beast slamming into the dirt does remind one of a Labor government.

James of Launceston POSTED AT 8:16 AM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 112 of 226

To some its art, to some its an eyesore, I could not care less. Art is essential otherwise society and government buildings becomes sterile, and we certainly don't want the same landscape attitude to art that a certain infamous Austrian ex paper hanger had in 1933. Art should not be forced on us for arts sake, and 2% of the total cost of a building as it now stands is ridiculous. That is forcing art on us for arts sake.

Phidias of Qld POSTED AT 8:37 AM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 122 of 226

The Minister should stop micromanaging. Her job is to approve budget and policy after suitable scrutiny. How the budget is spent is up to QAG's Board of Trustees. The Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 specifically says "The board is subject to written directions of the Minister in exercising its powers."

Mike POSTED AT 9:28 AM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 142 of 226

Why would the government ever spend money on anything but a local artist? In any event, art is something that should be donated by wealthy patrons not purchased with public funds. Maybe if it was a significant historical piece... One wonders how those public servants who lost their jobs feel about the Bligh government wasting money like this.

b of b POSTED AT 2:22 PM OCTOBER 17, 2012 | Comment 213 of 226 (Helbig 2012).

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 168

Principally, the public comments expressed criticisms that call for consideration of other factors in addition to price in public art commissioning. Moreover, comments that referenced the former Art Built-in 2% policy (1999-2007), rather than the relevant art+place (2007-2012) policy, indicate that explanations based on the changed policy were absent or missing from the coverage. It is also notable that there was not a single piece of commentary associated with the press coverage which identified that abolishing the State's public art policy not only represented the loss of substantial funding and work for artists, it also ostensibly represented the loss of manufacturing jobs. The first comment listed above, quoting Oscar Wilde, punctuates the public response so regularly as to almost become cliché. However, it indicates that the public expects art and cultural activities to embody values other than economic ones. This is significant because it demonstrates that, without Artworkers' Alliance, or an independent body to speak or mobilize in its defence, the strongest defence came from the public. The visual art sector's response to abolishing the State's public art policy was nonexistent and suggests apathy.

Conclusion

This chapter first established the significance of Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), which encompasses its role commemorating QAGOMA and the APT's cultural contribution to the city, and the policy financially supporting the work. This chapter then addressed criticisms initially raised by artist Fiona Foley, which would effectively endorse the Newman Government’s critical agenda. Criticisms by the Newman Government coincided with and followed the installation of commissions, including Yayoi Kusama’s Eyes are Singing Out (2012) and Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12). Overall, the situation not only exposed the continued vulnerability of the visual arts sector, but also its political incompetence.

While other art forms mobilized against the Newman Government's cuts through measures such as the Queensland Writers Festival's custodianship of the Literary Awards, the strongest defence of the visual arts appeared in the public comment sections of the media. The visual arts sector lacked the leadership to address issues as they arose. As discussed in the previous chapter, the State's public art policy had come to be guarded by urban design professionals rather

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 169

than contemporary art professionals, limiting artists 'rights to the city'. With the change from Art Built-in to art+place, which was wrapped up in a promise of increased aesthetic quality, art professionals did not object to the budgetary restructure. The visual arts sector, and the State's public art policy in particular, was already vulnerable when the Newman Government attacked.

The Newman Government's attacks on the arts were attacks on the Labor Governments' legacies. This chapter has reiterated the significance of the APT and GOMA, both of which are legacies of the Goss and subsequent Labor governments. The Newman Government's attack on the arts and culture, and public art in particular, was fed by Foley's comments. The Courier Mail acted as a mouthpiece for the LNP, however, the reader comments attached to these press articles demonstrate that the publics' opinion is diverse, nuanced and broadly supportive of aesthetic pursuits rather than economic arguments. These comments directly challenge the views expressed by politicians who claim, without evidence, to represent public opinion. Ultimately the Newman Government would be immensely unpopular and only last a single term.

This chapter has shown how arguments focused on artist selection and economic concerns enabled the LNP to easily dispose of the art+place policy. Although Parekowhai was an entirely appropriate selection, the commission was poorly defended by the arts community and generated furore. Press articles of the time promoted an assessment of the commission limited to artist selection and budget. Consequently, and partly because no aesthetic interpretation of the commission was offered, the breadth of its symbolism was not widely understood, nor was it discussed as an aesthetic project.

A further finding of this study was that the ambiguity and confusion associated with changes to art+place impacted upon the reception of commissions, including Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12). Although Art Built-in had been very publicly introduced and communicated, the introduction of art+place suffered from a lack of similar attention. For both arts professionals and the public, especially in comments attached to press articles, Art Built-in's concepts lingered.

The furore culminating with the commissioning of Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12) demonstrates a consequence of not having a professional arts body to speak in the commission’s defence. This chapter has progressed an

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 170

argument that emerged in the previous chapter regarding the role of spokespersons in the stewardship of contemporary art. The absence of Artworkers' Alliance, or a similar professional arts body to provide leadership created a vacuum into which individual artist Fiona Foley stepped. Just as artists in the late 1980s progressed an alternative vision of the city, Indigenous artists and activists of today, including Fiona Foley, have another vision for the city. Foley's contribution to arguments concerning Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) are illustrative of larger concerns of the study. On the one hand, Foley's campaign encouraging QAGOMA to commission an Indigenous artist was ultimately successful. On the other hand, by simply focusing on a single commission, a greater opportunity to campaign for an Indigenous institution that could rival the scale and scope of GOMA was, unfortunately, missed.

The lack of a professional body representing the visual arts sector in Brisbane has emerged as a fundamental issue of the broader study. As this chapter has highlighted, an individual artist speaks for their individual interests and cannot be reasonably expected to represent the larger sector. This view of individual and collective responsibilities was shared by many of the study's participants, including Sarah Follent, Alice Lang and Kaylene McGill (Interviews, 2016), who acknowledge that without organizations like Artworkers' Alliance, it is very difficult for individual artists and arts professionals to challenge the status quo. Professional bodies are required, as they are better placed to secure the resources, energy and momentum to sustain campaigns with a collective vision.

The cycle of institutionalization is completed with the deinstitutionalization of the State's public art policy. The consequence is that artists' access and 'rights to the city' are substantially altered. The following chapter extends this analysis, examining the Brisbane City Council's (BCC) public art policy and processes and their impact on a work by artist Alice Lang.

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 171

Chapter 6 Deinstitutionalization 172

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization

In 2012, Brisbane City Council (BCC) and the State Government, both led by the Liberal National party (LNP), and the latter led by Premier (2012-2015) and former Lord Mayor (2004-2011) Campbell Newman, occupied apparently contradictory positions. While the Newman Government, and the local Brisbane newspaper, The Courier Mail, aggressively criticized public art commissioning and spending by the previous, Labor-led (ALP), State Government, BCC continued to undertake public art commissioning, including an iteration of its Vibrant Laneways program. Like the previous State Government, BCC was spending public funding to commission artists, including artists that were not from Queensland or even Australia, however, Council remained silent throughout the debate about public spending on art. On the one hand, the Newman Government was able to portray public art commissioning as wasteful and set about deinstitutionalizing a significant art policy — art+place (2007-2012). On the other hand, BCC continued to utilize public art commissioning as an integral part of urban development and marketing to portray the city in a favourable way to attract new residents, tourists and investment.

As the state capital, Brisbane is Queensland’s premier cultural destination and its 'economic engine room', producing almost half (48%) of the State's economy (BCC 2013b: 9). The creative industries contribute $3.4 billion a year to the State's economy, with annual exports valued at $1.1 billion, which provide 74,000 jobs, 62% of which are Brisbane-based (BCC 2013b: 6; 10). In the coming years, Brisbane is expected to 'account for more than 40% of employment growth

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 173

in South-East Queensland' (BCC 2013b: 10). BCC identifies the creative economy as a key sector for growth and as such, the arts economy, including commissioning for the public realm, are integral to BCC's urban development and marketing strategies.

While previous chapters have primarily focused on commissioning for the public realm in relation to the State's public art policies, this chapter provides an overview of BCC's cultural and urban policies. This specifically includes an analysis of the city government's public art strategies and practices, which, spanning 20 years, have been gradually altered by political and organizational changes. In 1995, BCC introduced the city's first public art policy — in advance of the State's Art Built-in policy (1999-2007). Although the practices guiding the commissioning of contemporary art in the city appear largely unchanged, they are implicitly subject to changing policy frameworks. This chapter posits that public art practices are increasingly tied to urban gentrification or the re-production of space, creative city strategies and city marketing. Most notably, commissions by BCC consistently grant individual and private interests significant decision-making powers. Unlike the State Government's public art policies, BCC's public art policies and practices have not previously been the subject of review.

As discussed in the literature review, emerging contemporary public art practices may be redefined as a process of unsettling and contesting public spaces that avoids the more 'paternalistic process[es] of place-making' (Doherty 2014). When public art is judged, on the street, as part of an event or biennial, the circumstances of the commission, the paternalism of its public-private financiers and collaborators are typically rendered invisible. To address this invisibility, this chapter investigates BCC's cultural and urban design statements, such as the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy, and analyses data from interviews with current and former BCC employees charged with implementing BCC's cultural strategies, including Scott Chaseling, Specialist Urban Design Delivery, as well as artist Alice Lang.

This chapter is also informed by my professional experience. As Curator, Contemporary Projects with Museum of Brisbane and then Urban Design, Brisbane City Council (BCC), I observed how projects such as Alice Lang's The Swell (2013) are censored to suit the personal preferences of particular bureaucrats and Councillors and private interests. I use this example because it

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 174

demonstrates how Council handles public art commissioning. This exemplar illustrates how, rather than acting in the public interest, Council defers to urban development and private interests. Commissioned as part of BCC's Vibrant Laneways program, The Swell (2013) was publicly funded, however, a private property owner was permitted to prompt editing of the work's content — effectively censoring the work. While this is by no means an isolated incident, for the purposes of this study, The Swell (2013) provides an example of: the artists' role in the cycle of urban gentrification; the tightly guarded symbolism of creativity; and a lack of scrutiny regarding BCC's public art policies, practices and decision- making processes. This study demonstrates that the content and temporary presence of commissions, such as The Swell (2013), have come to lack the stewardship of contemporary art professionals and are instead mastered by urban and political professionals. This study specifically investigates the influence of the city government's cultural practices, as well as the intended and unintended consequences of contemporary art being directed in the service of urban gentrification and city marketing.

Overall, this chapter addresses BCC's slowly evolving cultural practices chronologically. This chapter first offers an introduction to public art programs globally and nationally. This is followed by a relatively brief overview of BCC's cultural strategies and their evolution, which encapsulates commissioning for the public realm. This chapter then, by primarily drawing on the live music industry in the inner city's Fortitude Valley as an example, explores the city's concomitant drive for urban development, associated with gentrification and the re-production of space. This is further explored through Alice Lang's The Swell (2013), commissioned as part of BCC's Vibrant Laneways program. Such programs seek to proactively instrumentalize commissions for the public realm for the purposes of urban development and city marketing. Lastly, this chapter offers a brief analysis of BCC's recently introduced Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013- 22 (2013) strategy.

Public art policies and cities

There has been a substantial increase in public art programs globally since the late 1970s. In 1959 Philadelphia was the first city in the United States to adopt a percent-for-art (1%) program for acquiring or commissioning contemporary public

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 175

art in new developments and urban renewal areas. Seattle was another early adopter, implementing a percent-for-art (1%) ordinance in 1973 for eligible city capital improvement projects. Similarly, New York passed its percent-for-art (1%) legislation in 1982. Administrated by New York City’s Department of Cultural Affairs, the program requires one percent of eligible city-funded construction projects to be spent on art. The difference between these programs is whether a percentage of construction costs is drawn from Council-led construction or private property developments. Regardless, these programs are typically guided by leading professional arts expertise (including curatorial expertise) and have spurred the development of influential and independent non-profit organizations such as Creative Time (1974-present) and the Public Art Fund (1977-present) in New York.

In the United Kingdom, percent-for-art programs, coupled with the introduction of National Lottery funding in 1994, significantly contributed to an exponential growth in local authority officers and independent consultants specializing in public art. Twenty percent of National Lottery funding is distributed to the arts through government organizations, including Arts Council England and the British Film Institute (BFI). Arts Council England, amongst others, provides organizational and project funding for public art commissioning. Similar to organizations like Creative Time (1974-present) in New York, Artangel (1991- present), based in London, is a charitable organization that raises a mix of funding from government and organizational sources, including Arts Council England, and individual patrons. Accordingly, the development of commissioning programs in the United Kingdom has been supported by a range of professional contributors, including independent non-profit organizations.

In Australia, state and local governments have played a key role in the development of public art programs. These programs have largely arisen through the development of percent-for-art policies that, like their international counterparts, draw on a small percentage of construction costs to commission artworks. Increasingly, inner-city public art commissions are funded through private property developments as a condition of development approvals. Some state and local governments have developed comprehensive public art policies, and some offer guidelines for delivering public art projects. Arts Law has also established guidelines for public art agreements (or contracts) which protect both artists and commissioners, however, irrespective of such guidelines, public art

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 176

processes are not always guided by leading professional arts expertise and often struggle to meet best practice standards.100

State and local governments have become 'the most important providers of cultural funding' (Gibson 2001: 136). According to Gibson, because the Australia Council has tended to focus on 'a narrow range of arts practice[s]', 'state and local governments have [often] been much more successful in... developing cultural programs' that — by utilizing a broader definition of cultural practice, product and audience — are 'able to account for convergent forms of practice... and funding structures' (2001: 89, 136). However, unlike its international counterparts, Australia has yet to produce independent organizations that are less constrained by political machinations, like Creative Time (1974-present) in New York or Artangel (1991-present) in London. This organizational type is largely missing from the visual arts sector in Australia.

Public art programs are an integral part of local government art and/or cultural polices, with vastly varied budgets, scopes and ambitions. The City of Sydney spends approximately $34 million each year to support arts, culture and creative activities, which includes sponsoring major festivals, grants and public art commissioning (2014: 6). In 2012-2013, the City of Sydney contributed nearly $16 million toward festivals and events, and since 2011, the city has committed to investing $20 million over 10 years to commissioning public art (2014: 40, 14).101 In 2014, the City of Melbourne spent more than $14 million to support artists and art events (2014: 8). While the City of Melbourne's arts budget represents roughly half of the City of Sydney's art and cultural budget, BCC's is substantially larger than both.102

Of BCC's current $3 billion budget, BCC contributes approximately $100 million to programs that may be broadly considered cultural.103 In 2017-2018, BCC

100 As NAVA suggests, from opaque selection processes and criteria, to infringements upon artists’ intellectual property and moral rights, 'many of the issues relating to public art commissioning have remained' relatively constant for more than two decades (2017). NAVA further suggests, some local governments' dealings with artists are uninformed and even exploitative. The explanation too frequently 'offered by offending local governments' is that they provide opportunities for emerging artists (NAVA 2017). 101 The City of Sydney's Interim Guidelines for Public Art in Private Developments (2006) does not stipulate a percentage of construction costs for commissioning artworks, nor does the council provide an indication of developer's contribution to the program. 102 BCC's 1,342sqkm area is also substantially larger than both Sydney at 26sqkm and Melbourne at 36sqkm. 103 This figure includes substantial operational funding for the city's library services, followed by cultural facilities and venues, such as City Hall, Museum of Brisbane, the Brisbane Powerhouse

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 177

attributes almost $4 million to sponsoring major, community and multi-cultural festivals, including the Brisbane Festival, and a dozen city and state cultural organizations, such as the Brisbane Symphony Orchestra, the Queensland Symphony Orchestra and the Queensland Ballet. Additionally, in association with its urban design programs, BCC spends in excess of $4.25 million on public art projects.104 Furthermore, BCC speculates that between 2015-2019 developers may contribute up to $15 million through the percent-for-art program (correspondence with Kaylene McGill October 24, 2016).

Overall, the City of Sydney's first Creative City Cultural Policy and Action Plan 2014-2024 (2014) — a cultural policy that is noticeably reminiscent of BCC's former cultural policies, particularly in its community consultation process — and the City of Melbourne's Art Strategy 2014-17 (2014) outline reciprocal relationships benefitting arts communities and in turn cities.105 By comparison, BCC's equivalent Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy recasts cultural activities in an economic framework. Amongst other differences between these policies, it is particularly noteworthy that the City of Sydney and the City of Melbourne art/cultural policies both set out clear commitments to celebrate and protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, culture and its contemporary expression. What is more, the policies of Sydney and Melbourne address the presence of artists in their cities and seek to support the economy of artists.

In addition to offering support to realize ambitious projects, the City of Sydney and City of Melbourne art/cultural policies both seek to support artists and cultural organizations through the development of a more sustainable arts sector. Both documents identified that, because artists and cultural organizations struggle to secure affordable residential and studio space close to the city and/or near established cultural facilities and services, affordability is a key challenge facing the arts sector. In order to retain and attract artists, both Sydney and Melbourne's art/cultural policies propose advocating for and subsidizing affordable residential

and the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium, but excludes other 'Lifestyle and Community Services' programs, such as sporting programs, where easily identifiable (BCC 2017a: 17-18). 104 Some of these projects may be dubiously classified as public art projects. For instance, the 'City of Lights' project, an initiative from the Brisbane City Centre Master Plan 2014, typically installs multi- coloured lighting to 'highlight' pre-existing infrastructure such as the Victoria Bridge (BCC 2017b: 8). 105 Rather than develop a broader cultural strategy, the City of Melbourne maintains a dedicated arts strategy, which identifies the arts as central to driving the city's civic life and cultural brand.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 178

and studio spaces for artists, as well as presentation spaces in their respective cities. Recognizing that 'there are... useful local and international metrics on the social, economic and cultural benefits that artists and creative enterprise[s] bring to an area', Sydney's cultural policy suggests the city might potentially offer artists approximately 2,900 affordable rental dwellings and some of the city’s '1,636,799 square metres of vacant commercial... space' (2014: 64). While BCC also seeks to secure the presence of artists, its equivalent policy does not articulate the need to support artists in varied ways.

The following sections examine the development of BCC's cultural strategies, before discussing BCC's current Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy in further detail.

Cultural strategies associated with Brisbane City Council (BCC)

In late February 1991, BCC adopted a Cultural Development Strategy — the first metropolitan policy framework of its kind in Australia. Written 'in an entirely new language', it launched a holistic and integrated concept of cultural resource development and management (Mercer 1991: 13). The strategy was perceived to be new and holistic in that it adopted a broader view of culture, encompassing the arts, popular and non-Western cultural activities, and proposed to financially support these activities across Council. The strategy was underscored by the cultural policy position that conventional art forms — literature, performing and visual art — receive support through government patronage, while the majority of popular culture — music, film and television — is produced by the private sector. The strategy further argued that communities are typically consumers rather than participants in the production of art and culture. Thus, emerging from a community arts perspective, the strategy strived to democratize cultural production. Accordingly, the strategy embodied an 'ethical corrective' (Rancière 2009; 2006a) of what communities define as culture and how cultural resources are utilized in its production (Mercer 1991: 15).106

Although the strategy made an agreeable and significant cultural statement, it failed to recognize or grasp that contemporary visual artists and arts

106 The term 'communities' is used here 'as a way of describing a set of interests and a way of mobilizing those interests in relation to government' (Mercer 1991: 11).

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 179

practice already incorporated popular, multi-media and non-Western cultural debates. Certainly, from Peter Anderson's perspective, these types of assessments by cultural policy makers were often “driven by people who... weren't that interested [in these aesthetic developments]... Nor [did] they actually understand the infrastructure that they [were] often talking about” (Interview, 2016).107 On the one hand, this cultural statement by non-art experts proposed increased opportunities for many to participate in a breadth of cultural production in the city. On the other hand, without the stewardship of arts professionals, this strategy initiated significant ramifications for the conditions of contemporary art production in Brisbane, which ultimately curtail the ability of artists and arts professionals to participate in the city.

Coinciding with an early iteration of the 'cultural policy moment', the cultural development strategy was delivered in parallel with reforms associated with the Goss Government's Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991) (Stevenson 2000 in Glover 2011: 190).108 As previously discussed, Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991) introduced a series of key reforms that strategically supported individual artists, who were considered pivotal to driving the arts industry, as well as professional art form expertise and peer review. As with Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), developed under Goss' instructions, under former (ALP) Lord Mayor Jim Soorley (1991-2003), the development and delivery of BCC's cultural strategy “was a very [open and accessible] consultative... policy process” (Interview with Peter Browning 2016). However, unlike the State Government, Council did not introduce a series of structural reforms, but instead heavily leaned upon this comprehensive consultation process to provide professional expertise and feedback.

By the time the Creative City Strategy (2003) was introduced, art and cultural programs were integrated through multi-disciplinary teams.109 As BCC's

107 For example, the three-tiered gallery system discussed in Chapter 4. 108 Closely associated with the Institute for Cultural Policy Studies at Griffith University, this 'cultural policy moment', 'from the early-1990s to the early-2000s, was characterized by political and scholarly interest in the civic and symbolic utility of culture, and... its management' (Glover 2011: 190). 109 Peter Browning has previously estimated that the shift toward a creative city strategy began in 2000 — three years before the Creative city: Brisbane City Council's cultural strategy 2003-2008, co-authored by Charles Landry, was launched in 2003 as part of an electoral campaign (Atkinson 2007: 6). Although there are some similarities between Landry and Florida, Landry is distinctive in that he argues for creative cities where people are free to imagine and develop innovative programs to address social issues. As discussed in the literature review, consistent with neoliberalism, Florida's (2004 et al.) economic theories hinge on attracting a creative class.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 180

former Manager of Cultural Policy, Peter Browning explains, this iteration of the cultural strategy progressed to “understanding … that we (Council) weren’t a big player in [the] arts, but we were a huge player in culture” (Interview, 2016). As BCC owns multiple assets, including libraries, parks, streets, buildings and urban infrastructure, and because Council sets out the planning scheme, Council is in a position to offer coordinated infrastructural support. As a result, Council started to consider and work with art and culture in an increasingly integrated way. Working with city planning and across a range of capital works projects, the cultural strategy would be linked to a broader agenda addressing the urban, environmental, social and economic future of the city. During this period, BCC's cultural and creative city strategies mobilized a broader definition of culture and a whole-of-Council approach to culture.110

Public art is one of the key and ongoing successes of BCC's cultural development and creative city strategies. Public art is a highly visible activity that is consistently referred to across BCC's strategies above other art and cultural activities, such as BCC sponsored companies the Brisbane Powerhouse and Museum of Brisbane. In 1995, BCC introduced the city's first public art policy. Within in a year, BCC appointed a Public Art Officer with the Community and Lifestyle Division. Today, BCC's public art collection holds a diverse range of permanent artworks by local, national and international artists. These artworks are primarily acquired through new Development Assessment (DA) contributions associated with the percent-for-art scheme and through BCC's capital works and community development programs.111

Initially, the Public Art Policy Officer's role was supported by the oversight of a cultural policy team. A key aspect of the Public Art Officer's role involved working closely with Development Assessment (DA) to oversee the percent-for- art scheme. In time, the role of Public Art Policy Officer became jointly funded by Community Lifestyle and Urban Design, City Planning & Economic Development. Following (LNP) Lord Mayor Campbell Newman's election in 2004, the Community

110 Browning adds, 'this approach recognized that arts and culture was central to [the] development of Brisbane’s knowledge, creative and visitor economies', which has been 'the main driver of investment over the last 25 years' (correspondence with Peter Browning June 14, 2017). 111 As discussed in the literature review, through the Development Assessment (DA) process, developers are encouraged to set aside 0.25% of development budgets estimated to exceed $5 million for commissioning public art.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 181

and Lifestyle Division underwent a series of dramatic restructures.112 As a result, the cultural policy team was dismantled and the role of the Public Art Officer became wholly funded by and situated within Urban Design, City Planning & Economic Development. Despite these changes, the role of Public Art Officer — occupied by the same arts worker for close to 20 years — represented a certain continuity of public art policies and practices.113

The removal of the cultural policy team's expertise and oversight would highlight the vulnerability and precariousness of BCC's cultural and creative city strategies.114 Unfortunately, as Atkinson (2007: 6) has suggested, the Creative City Strategy (2003) became 'a wish list of projects, rather than a strategic framework', which made it easier to dismiss. Then, with the election of (LNP) Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, 'the focus on creative cities... dissipated' and as a result, the strategy was 'stripped... of much of its depth' (Ibid.). Considering there are 'limits to the abilities of a small, and characteristically politically weak, cultural policy agency to achieve its ambitions', as Glover (2011: 200) explains, 'transforming cultural policy into a domain incorporating... social... and... economic policy makes the domain titanically large'. Glover thereby suggests that while whole-of-Council cultural policy development might complete 'an ideological wish for the ablation of 'high' and 'low' definitions of culture — and a concomitant erosion of traditional aesthetic arguments for arts funding — it has profound implications for policy processes' (Ibid.).115 Without the stewardship of a cultural policy team, BCC's public art policies, like the State Government's public art policies, would come to be dominated by urban design, rather than art and/or cultural professionals.

As a result, BCC's urban designers are substantially charged with not only defining the ways arts professionals participate in imagining the city, but also

112 In a return to the three 'Rs': rates, rubbish and roads, the 'Can-Do' Campbell Newman Lord Mayoral campaign promised five tunnels as part of a $4 billion plan to ease traffic congestion (one of these toll tunnels would later go into receivership). In March 2004, Newman was elected Lord Mayor with an unprecedented ALP majority Council. In Newman's second term as mayor (beginning in 2008) the LNP secured a Council majority. In retrospect, Newman's withdrawal from BCC's cultural programs may be perceived as a rehearsal for the unmitigated deinstitutionalization of state policies such as art+place (2007-2012), as discussed in Chapter 6. 113 As part of this study, an interview was sought with BCC's Public Art Officer, however, approval was denied by Councillor Julian Simmonds, currently Chair, City Planning. 114 As Landry argued, creative city strategies need to include 'an organizational change agenda built around creativity and innovation' (Atkinson 2007: 6). Furthermore, Landry argued, 'when such a strategy reaches the implementation stage, it is easy to fall into simply addressing responsibilities such as arts funding, rather than looking at creativity across policy areas' (Ibid.). 115 Although Glover's (2011) statements were specifically regarding Arts Queensland, they are equally applicable to BCC.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 182

leading the creative industries economic development. Senior Urban Designer, Kaylene McGill, argues that “any leads we've taken [with] public art ha[ve] been pretty much in the City Centre Master Plan Team/Urban Renewal led space”, which “always advocate[s] for... public art as... part of their toolkit [for] creating better urban spaces” (Interview, 2016).116 Scott Chaseling, Specialist Urban Design Delivery, adds, “Council is all about economic development and we've managed to, within our portfolio (Urban Design), look at how we grow economic development within the arts industry” (Interview, 2016).117 Unlike the State Government's public art policies, BCC's ongoing cultural practices, specifically public art practices, have not been the subject of review. Subsequently, Council lacks both evidence-led policy and ongoing consultation with the sector to build the case for aesthetic value.

Strategies to deliver public art in the city are highlighted in a number of recent policy, strategy and planning documents.118 Previously, the now out-dated BCC's Art in Public Places 2005-2010 thematic policy strived to express the city's 'vibrant and creative culture' by establishing Brisbane as 'one of the world's great public art cities' (BCC 2005: 7). These earlier statements regarding public art, although ambitious, simply aspired to express the city. By comparison, recent strategy documents consistently refer to public art as enriching the cultural life of and pride in the city, contributing to the experience of a place, and activating public spaces for the purposes of encouraging investment, urban regeneration and cultural tourism. Drawing on similar terminology, these revised statements seek for public art to serve the city through economic instrumentalization. McGill suggests that having a series of statements reiterating and “pushing for” public art in multiple strategy and planning documents, especially the economic development plan, is stronger than having an overarching public art policy (Interview with Kaylene McGill 2016). As well as highlighting the fact that the lack of an overarching public art policy is intentional, these statements also signal the shift from an arts and/or cultural policy to a creative economic strategy, which is

116 McGill's role resides with City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, Brisbane City Council (BCC). 117 Ibid. 118 These include: Brisbane Vision 2031, Economic Development Plan 2012-2031, Unique Window of Opportunity Report 2011, Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22, Corporate Plan 2012- 2013 to 2016-2017, Brisbane City Plan 2014, City Centre Master Plan 2014, Draft City Centre Neighbourhood Plan 2014, River's Edge Strategy 2013, Youth Strategy 2014-2019, as well as Art in Public Places 2005-2010.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 183

dispersed though a range of documents that are less accessible to art and cultural expertise.

The dispersion of Council's cultural strategies has occurred simultaneously with the expansion of BCCs urban development activities. Although the practices guiding the commissioning of contemporary art in the city remain largely unchanged, they are increasingly tied to urban design, gentrification, creative city strategies and city marketing. Most notably, with these commissions by the city, individual and private interests are consistently granted significant decision- making powers. The following section explores the city's concomitant drive for urban development, gentrification and the re-production of space by primarily drawing on the music industry in the inner city's Fortitude Valley as an example and precursor to BCC's ongoing cultural strategies and programs. The final section of this chapter revisits BCC's cultural strategies, which, in their most recent form, seek to lead the creative industries economic development and consequently define the ways arts professionals participate in imagining the city.

Development-led urban design

BCC proudly proclaims, 'Brisbane is an urban success story' (BCC 2011: 2). Central to the city's transformative success is Urban Renewal Brisbane (URB).119 Prompted by the Keating Government's Building Better Cities program, URB was established in 1991, at a time when Brisbane was still perceived as a big sprawling country town, a sleepy cultural backwater, struggling with economic stagnation, industrial obsolescence, depreciating inner-city land values and urban decay due to population and retail shifts to the expanding suburban fringes (Simons 2011; Interview with Peter Browning 2016). URB was tasked with leading a master- planned urban renewal program promoting high-density residential development in Brisbane’s inner northeast — at that time, 'the single largest urban renewal project ever attempted in Australia' (BCC 2011: 6).120 BCC estimates that $8.75 billion has been invested into URB's redevelopment of 120 hectares of obsolete

119 Formerly known as the Urban Renewal Taskforce. 120 The program's inner northeast areas included: Teneriffe, Newstead, New Farm, Fortitude Valley and Bowen Hills.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 184

industrial land (BCC 2011: 3). More than twenty years later, URB now manages over 1,000 hectares and is a lead agent across Brisbane’s inner city.

According to (LNP) Councillor Amanda Cooper, URB reformed the city’s former adversarial approach to planning (BCC 2011: 3).121 In other words, BCC is no longer permissive of demolition in the city in the way usually associated with the Bjelke-Petersen era. Instead, URB has achieved microeconomic reform by facilitating 'creative' partnerships with the private development sector while coordinating public sector funding, and by galvanizing 'community opinion' (BCC 2011: 3). Its 'modus operandi' has been to 'slash red tape’ (Ibid.). In the same document, Guy Gibson further elaborates: 'URB actively researched commercially-viable investment opportunities, liaising with landowners and investors to facilitate development, even to the point of pursuing owners of catalyst sites' (BCC 2011: 7).122 Public art and cultural programs have been a feature of URB's gentrification program. This is a practice BCC also applies through programs such as Vibrant Laneways, often at the expense of cultural credentials.

BCC makes a series of inflated and incongruous statements, particularly regarding URB's involvement in the redevelopment of Fortitude Valley — or 'the Valley’, as it is commonly known. Most notably, BCC claims that 'URB redefined Brisbane’s inner north-east without destroying the fabric of existing communities' (BCC 2011: 14). While BCC acknowledges that the precinct 'remained a colourful incubator for live music', hosting long-standing venues such as The Zoo (1992- present) that emerged alongside artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) during the early 90s, BCC claims that it was through URB's work that the Valley became a magnet for the creative industries.

According to BCC, by the time URB commenced redevelopment of Brisbane’s inner northeast, the precinct 'had deteriorated into a tired collection of empty shop fronts, run-down commercial premises and seedy nightclubs' (BCC 2011: 10). As BCC highlights, the Valley was perceived to be 'unsavoury' and its mainstream 'appeal was limited' (Ibid.). URB claims to have introduced strategies to strengthen the Valley’s long-established cultural function and revive the precinct's nightlife, principally, by introducing the Fortitude Valley Special

121 Councillor Amanda Cooper was formerly Chair, Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment. Following the 2016 elections, the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee was renamed the City Planning Committee. 122 Guy Gibson was BCC's first Project Manager, Urban Renewal.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 185

Entertainment Precinct (2006). Following a long-running dispute between pre- existing music venues and new residents in the area, coupled with a campaign by Brisbane's burgeoning music industry, BCC established the Fortitude Valley Special Entertainment Precinct (2006) to protect the long-term future of the music- based entertainment industry in the Valley. Consequently, the Valley was designated Australia’s first dedicated entertainment precinct, which saw restrictions on amplified live music volumes relaxed and regulations introduced requiring property developers to invest in noise-cancelling insulation (BCC 2011: 10). However, the Valley’s status as the city's only Special Entertainment Precinct helped paved the way for the creative precinct's demise.

In the cycle of gentrification and subsequent cultural shifts in the area, new residents moved in and rents rose, squeezing out pre-existing creative tenants. Consequently, the once alternative neighbourhood, synonymous with the city's live music scene, would become 'monopolized by mainstream mega-clubs' and 'nightclub barons' (Feeney 2010a; Stafford 2013).123 While venue owners acknowledged that change is inevitable and cyclical, the city's planning laws prevented culture, especially music culture, from moving elsewhere (Feeney 2010b). Although master plans served to ignite the conversion of the Valley’s run- down shop-fronts and industrial areas into high-density, mixed-use developments, they also undermined the creative communities that substantially contributed to establishing the precinct's creative status.

Small galleries and artist-run-initiatives (ARIs), which emerged prior to and alongside music venues such as The Zoo (1992-present), were also a part of the gentrification cycle and have since disappeared, with only some commercial and institutional galleries remaining.124 URB claims that 'emphasis was placed on art and sculpture in public spaces' (BCC 2011: 10). In fact, there are very few examples of public art commissions in the Valley and even fewer examples of

123 In 2007, music industry bible Billboard named Brisbane one of five new global hot spots. In addition to referring to bands such as Regurgitator, the magazine cites the live scene and supportive crowds based around the infamous Fortitude Valley; the championing of new alternative bands by independent radio station 4ZZZ; and a rise in recording and video studios as factors in attracting music business (Eliezer 2007: 35). 124 These galleries included artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) such as ISN'T Studios (1992-1996) and Soapbox Gallery (1997-2005), as well as commercial galleries such as Phillip Bacon (1974- present) and Peter Bellas (1987–2007). The once lively arts precinct also attracted Arts Queensland (State Government) investment in institutional infrastructure including Festival House, commonly known as 381 Brunswick Street, where Artworkers' Alliance was formerly located, and the Judith Wright Centre, where the Institute of Modern Art (IMA) (1975-present) has been located since 2001.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 186

noteworthy aesthetic commissions. Instead of cementing the Valley's role 'as critical to the cultural life of the city', URB's involvement has, if anything, served to memorialize art and culture of the area (BCC 2011: 13).

Although URB has undergone iterative name changes, the Urban Futures Brisbane board remains integral to URB’s operations.125 URB, with the Urban Futures Brisbane board, has oversight of a range of programs including the BCC Vibrant Laneways program, an initiative of the City Centre Master Plan 2006, which continues as part of the City Centre Master Plan 2014. The program has come to primarily identify small public precincts and minimally upgrade infrastructure to encourage alfresco dining, retail opportunities, further redevelopment and investment. Public art commissions form a key feature of the program. In addition to 'showcasing local artists', these commissions are charged with dynamically delivering on repetitive marketing terms — rejuvenate, revitalize, enliven, activate, enhance (BCC 2016b). In other words, these commissions provide marketing opportunities that draw attention to public spaces earmarked for further redevelopment.

Grow A Set, The Swell (2013) & Vibrant Laneways

Commissioned as part of the BCC Vibrant Laneways program, Alice Lang's The Swell (2013) was comprised of a series of text-based works which present brightly coloured lines that hypnotically encircle Gen-Y phrases: Grow A Set, Yeah Right, Same Diff and ask me what I'm asking for. Lang notes, “I made that work while Julia Gillard was Prime Minister and, at the time, it had a different kind of resonance, for me personally, because feminism was coming back as a dinner table or household topic” (Interview with Alice Lang 2016).126 Derived from ongoing conversations between the artist and her mother, The Swell (2013),

125 BCC (2011: 3) has described this board as 'a high-profile board [comprised] of architects, urban designers and other professionals offering unfiltered, fearless and considered advice on all of URB’s... projects'. However, in recent years this board's membership has been closely aligned with pro-development interests. At the time of writing, only one its 10 members is not closely aligned with development; another, Pradella, is an outright developer. It would be more accurate to describe this board's expertise as encompassing commercial property, finance, construction and development. 126 At the time, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (2010-2013) was the subject of unprecedented incidents of 'serial abuse', encouraged by opposition leader Tony Abbott (McTernan 2013). These persistent events informed Gillard's Misogyny Speech, delivered 9 October 2012, which attacked misogyny in public life and prompted the Macquarie Dictionary to redefine misogyny (Rourke 2012; Ireland 2012).

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 187

explores 'the meaning, presence and experience of feminism within the lives of Australian women' (BCC 2012). Even though The Swell (2013) was publicly funded for public space, a private property owner was permitted to prompt an edit of the work's content — effectively censoring the work.

More-or-less a year after the work had been approved, Lang was asked to change a component of the overall work, because a private property owner expressed concern without stipulating what that concern was. Lang was given three options: (1) replace the offending lightbox panel — Grow A Set — by instead displaying the artwork's attribution, (2) accept a variation to the commission by developing an alternative piece to replace Grow A Set or (3) withdraw the entire artwork — The Swell — from the Vibrant Laneways program. Discussion was not an option offered by BCC. Effectively, as Lang summarizes, “the only options were make a new one or leave it blank” (Interview, 2016). Lang opted to develop a new piece, proposing three, perhaps tongue-and-cheek phrases, as alternatives: Suck it up, Hang in there baby or She'll be right. The urban design unit accepted Hang in there baby.

The property owner’s concern about what is a rather benign colloquial phrase is not the controversial aspect of the alteration of Lang’s artwork for the Laneway’s commission. What is controversial is the BCC’s elevation of the property owner — a stakeholder who was not a party to the commissioning agreement with the artist — to the position of key decision maker. It is standard practice for public art commissioning briefs and/or contracts to contain a public realm clause. Such a clause stipulates that a proposed artwork should not intentionally seek to outrage members of the public by flaunting accepted standards of social decency, i.e. artworks that are offensive, racist, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, sexually explicit or containing sexual references will not be tolerated by the commissioning client. Such a clause should instruct both artists and clients by outlining the grounds on which a proposed artwork may be rejected. Moreover, such a clause helps to make clear that it is not the prerogative of a public commissioner to reject a proposed artwork without a sound reason or simply because a private property owner and/or stakeholder dislikes a proposal.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 188

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 189

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 190

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 191

As Lang observes, “there was a power dynamic [where]... the property [owner] had more power in the [situation] than I did” (Interview, 2016). This is by no means an isolated incident. Through redevelopment programs such as Vibrant Laneways, BCC partners with property owners to present commissions for the public realm. As the City Centre Master Plan 2006 highlighted, developers and/or property owners, particularly through BCC's percent-for-art Development Assessment (DA), are granted a dominant decision-making role in commissions for public art on behalf of the city.127 Hence, it is a relatively common occurrence in such commissions by the city that individual tastes and private interests are granted significant influence, and this particular practice has rarely, if ever, been scrutinized.

BCC has come to refer to the Hutton Lane wall-mounted lightboxes, where The Swell (2013) was exhibited, as part of BCC's temporary outdoor galleries. However, BCC's Vibrant Laneways program superficially draws on the status of galleries while denying the criticality of contemporary art practices. In regards to the lightboxes at Hutton Lane, Lang observes, “if it's meant to sort of replicate a gallery wall then it wasn't particularly contemporary in the way it was arranged” (Interview, 2016). As Lang explains, “a bunch of lightboxes that are... arranged on a wall in a weird kind of salon hang, it's almost as if it's just taking the gallery space and putting it on the side of a building, which, I feel, is one of those ways in which public art is kind of misunderstood or misrepresented” (Ibid.). The layout of the lightboxes was determined by urban designers and their arrangement is reminiscent more of an advertising display than contemporary art. At the most basic level, urban designers did not engage with artists, or even viewers, in the design of the display.128 Indeed, as Lang adds, “an urban planner’s idea of public art is very different to a curator's or an artist's” (Ibid.). Consequently, as Lang further observes, “there's not a lot of diversity in... public art [by BCC] or the format in which it comes” (Ibid.).

Moreover, Lang makes the astute observation that artists are being engaged to represent BCC and the city's brand messages. She states commissions for the

127 As discussed in this chapter and the literature review, through the Development Assessment (DA) process, developers are encouraged to set aside 0.25% of development budgets estimated to exceed $5 million for commissioning public art. 128 The Vibrant Laneways lightboxes are installed well above eye-level — due to an unsubstantiated fear of vandalism, inferring that the city's citizens are vandals and/or criminals. Furthermore, the lightbox dimensions do not correspond with standard paper sizes, which makes the production of these commissions unnecessarily complicated.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 192

public realm are “representative of the brand of the city — Brisbane City Council and... New World City” and “artists' work can be absorbed into that as a marketing tool” (Interview with Alice Lang 2016).129 Lang further states:

these projects are a bit tricky because the work is being viewed as symbolic. It's as if the content of the artwork doesn't matter — it's the fact that there is art in these lightboxes or there's art on [a] bridge because a festival is going on. In that sense, it's a little problematic, because it's super cheap marketing (Ibid.).

Ultimately, Lang asserts, “artwork is robbed when it's turned into a marketing exercise” (Ibid.).

Scott Chaseling, Specialist Urban Design Delivery, strongly disagrees that artists are required to represent BCC or the city's brand messages. However, while insisting that Council “is supportive of challenging themes”, Chaseling supplied another example of how BCC’s selection of public art suppresses critique and requires conformity with BCC's messages (Interview with Scott Chaseling 2016). In 2014, an artwork proposal by a design student portrayed a critique of the Regent Theatre demolition. The proposal was composed of an image of the Regent Theatre's interior, overlaid with the text 'Regent', and mirrored below, 'Regret'. As Chaseling describes, the proposal aligned “evocative text with lost pieces of architecture” (Ibid.). At the time, BCC had “supported a development application that allow[ed] for a certain amount of demolition” at the Regent Theatre (Ibid.). From Chaseling's perspective, exhibiting this proposal would have “contravened” BCC’s position by conveying an inconsistent and confusing message (Ibid.).130

129 The phrase 'New World City' is central to the city's brand campaign. The phrase is associated with a list and categorization of 100 global or world cities compiled by Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), a global real estate firm based in Chicago. To make the list, cities must have a metropolitan economy in excess of $100 billion and be ranked in the top 20 in at least one area of global business. In Brisbane's case, it's higher education and the digital economy. However, according to Greg Clark, the world is unconvinced 'that Brisbane has cultural depth' and thus, the city's ranking suffers (Atfield 2015). 130 Yet another example involves BCC's contradictory position regarding street art, which tends to treat private property as public. In September 2010, BCC's Graffiti Reduction Unit (GRU) trespassed to paint over a mural by Anthony Lister — first and foremost a street artist — which was commissioned by an adjoining property owner in the inner city's Fortitude Valley. Even though Lister's work was commissioned by a private property owner, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 193

According to Chaseling, BCC's urban design unit seeks to “strike a balance” between “artwork empathy” and “understanding... the politics of Council” (Interview, 2016). As Chaseling describes, BCC's public art review process involves a group of individuals — “the faceless people behind the artwork outcomes” — deciding whether Council “can stand behind this or no, this is too challenging” (Ibid.). These “public art decision-makers [are]... more comfortable” if BCC does not receive “any complaints” (Ibid.). Chaseling adds, “it's really a case of not bringing Council’s reputation into disrepute” (Ibid.). However, examples such as Alice Lang's The Swell (2013) illustrate that “the politics of Council” and its marketing prism are placed well ahead of “artwork empathy”. Moreover, artists are in fact required to represent BCC and the city's brand messages. As such, BCC consistently rejects concepts or criticisms that are perceived to undermine the city's brand messages. Ironically, BCC's instrumentalization of contemporary art unduly “contravenes” the city's creative aspirations and brings the city’s “reputation into disrepute”.

It is therefore not surprising that BCC's vision for public art is convoluted and unclear. As Lang states: “I honestly don't know what the Brisbane City Council['s] public art policy [is or] what their position is... in terms of... [how] they intend public art to function... within Brisbane” (Interview with Alice Lang 2016). Following Alice Lang's commission, The Swell (2013), for BCC's Vibrant Laneways program, BCC introduced a revised cultural strategy, which explicitly recasts art and culture in the service of economic development. Although this strategy has only recently been introduced, the following section undertakes a limited analysis.

asserted that 'a proposal for the mural should have been presented to Council for approval' (Trenwith 2010). More recently, in November 2014 and in the wake of a Council complaint, Lister 'was charged with 12 counts of wilful damage and spent an hour in a Brisbane watch-house' (Eltham 2016). According to Eltham (2016), 'it seems as though... Council has been working with Queensland Police to target Lister'. BCC has, for instance, painted over his legal 2010 and 2013 murals — the latter, commissioned by Council. In January 2016, Lister was prosecuted, however, 'the high-profile show trial ended badly for police and... Council. The magistrate, Barry Cosgrove, found Lister not guilty on the principal charge and declined to record a conviction on four counts of wilful damage. Police withdrew [the] eight other charges' (Ibid.). Eltham (2016) further adds that the case 'highlights the poverty of… [Council's] rhetoric'. Simultaneously, BCC has been commissioning work by street artists, such as Matthew Stewart's Evolution (2015), located along Coronation Drive, commissioned by Cirque du Soleil with the endorsement of (LNP) Lord Mayor Graham Quirk. These commissions are “lighter... cheaper”, “easy to execute” and, according to Chaseling, typically “hard to take issue with... [or] deride” (Interviews with Scott Chaseling and Alice Lang 2016). Furthermore, these commissions explicitly require street artists to address 'New World City' as a theme (BCC 2016b). It is even more alarming that these commissions are especially cheap because, by not paying concept fees, BCC has not necessarily paid street artists fully for their labour (BCC 2016b). Whether BCC seeks to control street art by approval and/or commissioning, both approaches equally contravene Council's stated cultural objectives.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 194

Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22

The Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy is positioned within a somewhat complex policy matrix. It is a component of The Brisbane Economic Development Plan 2012-2031 (2012) and reiterated by other planning documents including the Brisbane City Centre Master Plan and Brisbane Vision 2031 (BCC 2013b: 26). While previous cultural policies descended hierarchically from the city's vision, the city's current Brisbane Vision 2031 (2013) is positioned in tandem with, and perhaps even superseded by, the city's economic plans. Building upon the report Brisbane’s unique window of opportunity: Leveraging long-term sustainable economic growth for Brisbane beyond the resources boom (2011) and the Brisbane Economic Development Plan 2012-2031 (2012), the subsequent Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy aims to, as these titles suggest, seek out economic growth beyond the resources boom (BCC 2013b: 3).131 Importantly, the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013- 22 (2013) strategy sets out to consolidate or 'umbrella' a spectrum of art and cultural programming strategies — including the presently outdated Art in Public Places 2005-2010 (2005) policy, the Vibrant Laneways program, the graffiti strategy and community projects — recasting them within an economic framework and 'the city's brand agenda' (BCC 2013b: 18).

Like the Creative City Strategy (2003), the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy continues to argue for attracting Florida's (2004 et al.) creative class — mobile, elite global citizens. As discussed in the literature review, 'despite its conceptual and methodological weaknesses', Florida's (2004 et al.) 'influential theory of the creative class', has had a 'significant ideological impact' on the city's urban policies (Peck 2005; 2010; Krätke 2012; 138; Schmid 2012: 54).132 The creative economy strategy contends that to have the city populated by 'as many dynamic, educated, and empowered people as possible is the first job of city government' (Glaeser 2011 in BCC 2013b: 2). To achieve BCC's vision for a creative economy, the creative economy strategy primarily proposes

131 The Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 strategy reinforces five key objectives of the Brisbane Economic Development Plan 2012-2031: (1) Global reputation: Brisbane, Australia’s New World City; (2) Productive Brisbane; (3) Talent attraction and global connections; directly addressing (4) Lifestyle city; and finally, (5) Leadership, engagement and implementation (BCC 2013b: 4). 132 In association with promoting creative city concepts, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and Brisbane City Council (BCC) organized multiple visits and speaking engagements in Brisbane by Florida, such as The Flight of the Creative Class (2004) at the Queensland Performing Arts Centre (QPAC).

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 195

expanding upon the city's cultural and creative infrastructure, and expanding on existing cultural platforms and links with Asia (BCC 2013b: 1; 17). Consequently, 'new urban development is about attracting people to move to a place' and enabling people to digitally work globally while simultaneously enjoying the city's 'luxury settings' and lifestyle (BCC 2013b: 7). This directly impacts economic development. As 'cities create a... culturally creative experience' for new residents and tourists, the breadth and quality of the city’s creative attributes becomes critical to attracting Florida's creative class (BCC 2013b: 2). Furthermore, as BCC's creative economy strategy outlines, attracting these new creative residents drives planning, regulatory management, operational and public realm decisions that also stimulate entrepreneurship, private investment and ensure the commercial sustainability of Brisbane’s cultural offerings (BCC 2013b: 3).

In the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy, BCC highlights research by others indicating employment growth associated with the creative sector: creative industries, creative services and the creative class.133 While the creative industries are predominantly comprised of micro and small enterprises, creative services are also associated with other enterprises, particularly business-to-business services such as architecture, design, software development, advertising and marketing, and the employment of 'embedded' creative workers in other industries, including finance, government and education. Nationally, from 1996 to 2006, creative services grew by approximately 4.5%, which represents more than two-and-a-half times the growth of the rest of the economy, which grew by 1.75% (BCC 2013b: 6). Accordingly, for BCC, growing the city's creative economy has become a key strategy.

Capitalizing on the presence and visibility of artists or the “novelty of the creative person” is central to BCC's art and cultural activities (Interview with Carmel Haugh 2017). According to Scott Chaseling, Specialist Urban Design Delivery, “we (Council) want to... show new pathways for Brisbane artists” and that (expressing a lingering anxiety of the Bjelke-Petersen era) “you can actually work here” (Interview, 2016). However, as previous chapters highlight and artist Alice Lang reiterates, there's “a strong attitude” expressed by politicians and “the mainstream media in Australia... that fail[s] to recognize artists as workers”

133 BCC highlights research by others, including: 2006 Census data and research by the 2006 Australian Business Register, both in ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), Creative Economy Report Card 2011.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 196

(Interview with Alice Lang 2016). Lang further explains, it “comes down to... a return [on] investment, rather than that return... sustaining an artists' economy — that's not seen as a legitimate return” (Ibid.). Further, echoing Peter Anderson's observation, Council's policy makers continue to misunderstand “the infrastructure that they [are] often talking about” (Interview with Peter Anderson 2016). Consequently, as long as Council struggles to grasp how to sustain an artists' economy, the city is likely to struggle to secure the presence of artists.

As in earlier iterations of BCC's cultural and creative city strategies, Council seeks to consolidate their art and cultural assets through the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy. However, unlike in previous iterations, Council does so by simply recasting arts and culture within an explicitly economic framework and without necessarily generating new employment opportunities. As Creative Sector Development Coordinator, Carmel Haugh estimates, 90% of Council's art and cultural activities were already in existence prior to the introduction of the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013) strategy (Interview Carmel Haugh 2017).134 Thus, BCC articulates a series of soft targets that are already being delivered and/or achieved.135 Even with these soft performance targets, Haugh states that, to date, Council has not “communicated... [or] measured” their cultural activities very well (Ibid.). Despite this, from Haugh's perspective, Council continues to “set the conditions” for the production and display of art and culture in the city (Ibid.).

Council considers its leadership role to involve strategically leveraging their creative partnerships across the city in order to raise “the profile of the creative sector and creative economy of Brisbane” (Interview with Carmel Haugh 2017). Coincidently, Haugh expresses an interest in bilateral “communication and stakeholder engagement” (Ibid.). In spite of this, in Haugh’s words, rather than seeking professional arts expertise, “we've collaborated with economic development to understand who the creative economy is” and with “the Senior Urban Economist, drafted a set of industry and occupation definitions” (Ibid.). Furthermore, Haugh states that rather than support the micro and small arts sector or professional arts expertise, critical to cultivating innovation, Council has sought

134 Haugh's role resides with Creative Communities, Lifestyle and Community Services, Brisbane City Council (BCC). 135 For instance, the Brisbane Vision 2031 (2013a: 34) sets a target for 'the majority of Queensland's creative industry workers' to be Brisbane-based, yet 62% of employment in the creative industries is already Brisbane based (BCCb 2013: 6; 10).

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 197

to “innovate... internally through... [Council's] business improvement methodologies; which are based on... the [Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013)] strategy” (Ibid.). While Haugh maintains that rigour is a consideration, Chaseling insists that Council offers “absolute rigour both from the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy..., but also [with] the City Centre Master Plan 2014, which endorses... outcomes” such as Vibrant Laneways (Interviews with Carmel Haugh 2017 and Scott Chaseling 2016).

Given all the issues this chapter has discussed, Council's claims to rigour, especially aesthetic rigour, are not credible. While the city's strategic statements convey a range of opportunities, there are equally, in practice, limitations imposed upon commissioning art in the public realm. For Lang, “there [are] limitations [placed] on the kind of work you can display — you can't be particularly explicit or even necessarily critical of the process through the work” (Interview with Alice Lang 2016 ). Such projects rarely delve “into the nature of public sculpture, site- specific or relational work” (Ibid.). Consequently, such projects rarely succeed in their goals of integrating contemporary art into the public realm, and thereby fail to examine the public realm as a site for contemporary art.

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed Brisbane City Council's (BCC) art and cultural practices, including its public art strategies and processes, in four parts. First, this chapter highlights the progression from an arts and cultural strategy to a creative city strategy, which has since been replaced by an economic strategy. This process, coupled with a shift that increasingly addresses and/or develops public space as private space, involves a redirection of art and cultural activity to economic ends. This process loosely corresponds with three political periods in the city's government. The first period is aligned with (ALP) Lord Mayor Jim Soorley (1991-2003), which saw an expansion of BCC's contribution to art and cultural activities. The second period is aligned with (LNP) Lord Mayor Campbell Newman (2004-2011). Although particular activities aligned with economic outcomes were continued, such as public art, with a return to the three 'Rs' of local government (rates, rubbish and roads) there was a retraction of BCC's cultural policy activities. Following Newman, the third and current (LNP) period is explicitly

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 198

directed toward an economic framework, urban development, the city's brand messages and marketing.

This study provides a background and context for Council's current art and cultural practices. BCC's Cultural Development Strategy (1991) introduced a broader view of culture. However, the strategy failed to grasp that contemporary art practices already incorporated a broader view of culture including popular culture. Even so, public art was a key and ongoing success of the strategy. In time, BCC's Cultural Development Strategy (1991) progressed, with the support and oversight of a cultural policy team, into a whole-of-Council strategy — the Creative City Strategy (2003). In 2004, incoming (LNP) Lord Mayor Campbell Newman forced the cultural policy team to disband. In addition to the departure of key staff and the associated loss of institutional memory, this event also highlights that Council's cultural strategies greatly relied upon the cultural policy team. Without the necessary guidelines or mechanisms in place, or the active direction of the cultural policy team, the cultural strategy was not fully implemented.

BCC's Cultural Development Strategy (1991) was delivered in parallel with reforms associated with the Goss Government's Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), which introduced a series of fundamental reforms that strategically supported professional arts expertise, peer review and individual artists, who were considered pivotal to driving the arts industry. Subsequently, public art practices in particular would increasingly become dominated by urban designers. These developments also parallel similar changes to the State's public art policies, from the Art Built-in policy (1999-2007), to art+place (2007-2012). Unlike Goss' state reforms, Council's cultural strategies did not establish the necessary mechanisms for involving professional arts expertise, specifically, peer review. Consequently, Council has cultivated a high tolerance for amateur activities and continues to eschew professional arts expertise, which impacts upon Council's capacity to comprehend an arts economy.

The second part of this chapter addressed the role of BCC's cultural strategies and the simultaneous drive for urban development. Council's appetite for urban development, gentrification and the re-production of space capitalizes on the proximity of art and cultural settings. The involvement of BCC in gentrification, specifically through the role of Urban Renewal Brisbane (URB) in the inner city's Fortitude Valley is explored as an example. While this example

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 199

primarily focuses on the live music industry, it equally involves artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) and art institutions of the area. BCC, however, claims undue credit for the development of this creative precinct. Overall, this example illustrates that BCC's and URB's involvement undermined the creative communities who had established the precinct's creative status. Although broadly consistent with the processes of gentrification, in this instance, gentrification did not displace existing residents, but instead displaces the creative industries with more sanitized mainstream versions. In other words, the creative industries are used to displace themselves. Even so, this example precipitates the formula that the Vibrant Laneways program implements.

The third part of this chapter examined Alice Lang's The Swell (2013), commissioned as a part of BCC's Vibrant Laneways program. Advantageously, BCC has at once sought to preserve public space in inner city laneways — which had been disappearing due to site amalgamation — and promote the commercial activation of these underutilized spaces.136 However, recognizing the role of art and culture in the gentrification of the inner city's Fortitude Valley, BCC's Vibrant Laneways program utilizes art as a marketing tool. As this chapter has discussed at length, Council consistently requires artists to represent BCC and the city's brand messages, and suppresses concepts or criticisms that undermine these brand messages. Furthermore, private property owners are bestowed with key decision-making powers. These issues are exacerbated by a lack of attention or scrutiny of Council's art and cultural practices.

The final part of this chapter briefly surveyed BCC's current cultural strategy: Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013). This strategy continues to espouse the perceived benefits of attracting Florida's creative class, without regard for the 'conceptual and methodological weaknesses' associated with Florida's theories (Krätke 2012; 138). Moreover, this strategy superficially borrows the optimistic and benign language of cultural development and recasts this language solely for the purposes of economic development. These recast cultural statements have been increasingly dispersed across a range of documents that are less accessible to art and cultural expertise. Without the oversight of

136 Site amalgamation is the process by which developers purchase multiple sites in order to improve their development potential and in the process sometimes absorb and/or demolish laneways. More recently, BCC has made some provisions for the creation of new pedestrian laneways to improve the permeability of Brisbane’s long (200m) city blocks.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 200

professional arts expertise, peer review, arts leadership and/or advocacy, this dispersion also promotes statements riddled with contradiction and confusion. As illustrated in the final part of this chapter, topics such as innovation and rigour are discussed and interpreted very differently by urban design and art professionals.

Moreover, BCC's art and cultural strategies and practices are ambivalent toward the needs of contemporary art practices. Instead, art and cultural activities, and public art practices in particular, are instrumentalized as part of a toolkit for improving urban spaces and marketing the city. While these strategies covet innovation and the presence of artists, they do not recognize that innovation is cultivated in the small to medium arts sector, in artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) or even advocacy organizations such as the Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984-2011). Furthermore, it's these spaces that help secure the presence of artists. Without peer review, it is this kind of perspective or insight that is missing from BCC's statements and practices, which further highlights a need for professional advocacy. Given the lack of scrutiny regarding these strategies, BCC's art and cultural practices remain largely unchallenged.

Chapter 7 Instrumentalization 201

Chapter 8 Conclusions

The thesis contributes to understanding a previously unexplored area of Brisbane's recent cultural history: its policies for commissioning contemporary visual art for the public realm. While other aspects of Brisbane cultural history of this period have been explored, this PhD thesis fills a gap in knowledge by contributing a history of the visual arts sector, in particular public policy in regard to public art. Curatorial practices and the commissioning of contemporary art for the public realm is considered in terms of a network of relationships with government policies, city-making and marketing. As noted, although the visual arts sector was a leader in developing government art policies in the late 1990s, in more recent years the sector became increasingly disengaged from these public realm processes. The resulting discussion provides an insight into the influences that shape the culture of the contemporary city of Brisbane.

Furthermore, the research has examined contemporary art, exhibition- making and commissioning in Brisbane in light of changing economic and political circumstances. Although contemporary art professional’s rights to the city and rights to imagine the city of Brisbane at times benefitted from the stewardship of professional organizations such as Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984- 2011), these rights are consistently altered, even stifled, by the city's political processes. With a political culture that is resistant to public discourse and professional critique, a situation exists where constraints can be stipulated, in ways that have a significant influence on the practices of contemporary artists, curators and other arts professionals. One of the principal consequences of this

Chapter 8 Conclusions 203

situation is that contemporary art processes are instrumentalized by governments for the purposes of economic and urban development, as well as city marketing. By these means, commissioning for the public realm is greatly influenced by peripheral forces or powers, such as governments, bureaucrats, urban designers, developers and private interests. What is more, as this study has illustrated, the increased economic role for the arts creates situations where the preferences of private interests are given priority over public interests. Moreover, contemporary art professionals are not necessarily well practiced in negotiating adversarial political situations, especially as they arise with seemingly peripheral participants, such as urban designers.

The research has focused on two periods: 1985-1988 and 2012-2015. These periods coincide with adversarial political climates encompassing socio- political, governmental and art policy changes in Brisbane. The first period, 1985- 1988, coincides with the end of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era and leads to the beginning of the Goss (ALP) Government. The second period, 2012-2015, coincides with the Newman (LNP) Government and represents the deinstitutionalization of policies formulated throughout the former Labor era. To examine each of these periods, the research has drawn upon a series of concrete examples — the exemplars — THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988); InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988); Michael Parekowhai’s The World Turns (2011-12); and Alice Lang’s The Swell (2013). Each exemplar has contributed to imagining the city and at times, challenged prevailing visions for the city. In keeping with genealogical discourse analysis, the research has examined the genealogical correlations between these two periods in order to critique the current conditions impacting upon contemporary art production in Brisbane. As a result, the research has tied the present with a trajectory of infrastructural and aesthetic activism of the past.

This chapter first provides a summary of the research findings, then addresses the study's limitations and opportunities for further research, and lastly, its implications and significance.

Chapter 8 Conclusions 204

Summary of the research findings

The first part of this thesis addressed the late Bjelke-Petersen or pre-Fitzgerald era — 1985-1987. This period coincides with an adversarial political climate encompassing socio-political changes in Brisbane. With the election of the Goss Labor State Government, this period was superseded by significant cultural policy reforms, leading to a coherent state arts policy: Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991).

In Brisbane, the late Bjelke-Petersen era was marred by electoral malpractice, systemic political and police corruption, and an extensive pro- development demolition program that largely erased an older capital city, which in turn, transformed the city's built form. Within this hostile political environment, contemporary visual artists claimed spaces in the centre of the city and by forming spirited creative precincts embodied an agonistic relationship.137 In doing so, artist-led projects, including THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988) and InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), proposed an alternative vision for the city.

That the hostile political environment of the Bjelke-Petersen era forced artists and arts professionals out of the city is a dominant narrative. Although state institutions such as the Queensland Art Gallery (QAG) secured permanent premises for the first time during the late Bjelke-Petersen era, the arts sector, by and large, lagged in funding and infrastructural support. Furthermore, as this study has shown, due to the city's demolition program, artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) were typically short-lived enterprises because they had short-term lease arrangements. This study strongly contributes to the understanding that artists and arts professionals left Brisbane during the Bjelke-Petersen era because there was a lack of cultural infrastructure and funding in place, which was exacerbated by an escalating recession. Consequently, there were not adequate employment opportunities to sustain them in Brisbane. The hostile political environment and the city's demolition program simply made it easier to leave.

During this late Bjelke-Petersen period, artist-run-initiatives (ARIs), including THAT (1985-1988), contributed to infrastructural activism leading to the formation of professional organizations such as Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA)

137 As previously noted and discussed in the literature review, 'agonistic' relationships maintain tensions or antagonism with adversarial positions (Mouffe 2007; 2000).

Chapter 8 Conclusions 205

(1984-2011) — which in turn contributed to the development of state policies, including Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991) and, eventually, the Art Built-in policy (1999-2007). The Goss Government, elected December 1989, articulated cultural policy reforms through a coherent state arts policy and funding structure. The resulting policy document, Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), both affirmed support for art and artists, and declared a changed relationship between government, artists and art professionals. At the same time, Brisbane City Council (BCC) developed a Cultural Development Strategy (1991) that would, to some extent, parallel these reforms.

It is also during this period that the Asia-Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993- present), one of the most important exhibition programs in the region, was conceived. The APT has been especially significant for establishing the Queensland Art Gallery's (QAG) international reputation and for culturally repositioning Brisbane. Goss' Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), together with projects such as the APT, articulated and expressed yet another vision for the city. Accordingly, this study has reiterated the significance of the APT and the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA), both legacies of the Goss and subsequent Labor Governments. With the development of innovative exhibition programs such as the APT — which were supported by Goss' cultural reforms — the city benefitted from a government receptive to the political and aesthetic autonomy of arts professionals. Importantly, by increasing cultural funding and investment in infrastructure, Goss and subsequent Labor Governments contributed to generating employment opportunities that not only enabled artists and art professionals to remain in Brisbane, but transformed the city's cultural reputation.

Critically, with this renewed political environment, QAA was in place, which allowed artists and arts professionals to progress mutually beneficial infrastructural support. This study has investigated how, through the cycle of institutionalization, the role of contemporary art practitioners, with the advocacy of professional organizations such as QAA, has been supported and altered by government art policies. QAA was established to secure artist fees and stability, which was closely tied to developing infrastructural support. Through QAA, artists and arts professionals were involved in the processes of professionalization and institutionalization, whereby contemporary artworkers began to effect policy change, especially at a state level. In doing so, QAA contributed to establishing

Chapter 8 Conclusions 206

the infrastructural and aesthetic conditions of contemporary art production in Brisbane.

One of the substantial ways QAA developed and delivered employment opportunities for artists was by lobbying for and shepherding the introduction of the Queensland State Government's Art Built-in policy (1999-2007). The introduction of this policy honoured a pre-election commitment and a vision for well-designed public space throughout the State and its capital. This study further highlights that the State's public art policies financially benefitted manufacturers/fabricators. These policies initiated an increased economic role for the arts, which would be further consolidated by later state and city governments. Additionally, the Art Built-in policy's model for commissioning contemporary art, locked with physical and conceptual integration, stripped the commissioning process of its critical capacity. In comparison to earlier ambitions exemplified by InterFace (1988), Art Built-in was an aesthetically compromised art program.

As this study has illustrated, the expertise of contemporary art practitioners was tightly controlled and minimized, primarily by design professionals through project teams and public art advisory groups (PAAGs). Although QAA had been instrumental to the introduction of the State's public art policy — Art Built-in (1999- 2007), which was later changed to art+place, the Queensland Public Art Fund (2007-2012) — the organization did not maintain a critical purview of changes to these policies. Following Lindy Johnson's resignation from QAA, the organization did not maintain its fundamental advocacy role and therefore its relationship to policies changed. Instead, urban design professionals assumed a leading role in public art practices. Again, this development would also be paralleled by Brisbane City Council's (BCC) public art policies and practices. This domination by design specialists is especially peculiar given that, as artist-led projects including THAT (1985-1988) and InterFace (1988) demonstrate, artists had previously proved that they were capable of mastering the public realm.

Overall, this study enhances an understanding of the links between ARIs of the late 1980s, the formation of QAA, professionalization and institutionalization, and the development of state government policies. Initially, artist-led activities developed an agonistic relationship to government. However, there was a failure to develop and maintain a new or revised agonistic relationship with the State Labor Governments following Goss. As this study has argued, it was not fully

Chapter 8 Conclusions 207

anticipated that the cycle of institutionalization requires the ongoing attention of arts professionals.

The second part of this thesis turned to more recent events, which correspond with the Newman LNP State Government's (2012-2015) term. Elected in March 2012, the Newman Government set about deinstitutionalizing a range of art policies and programs, including art+place (2007-2012) — Art Built-in's successor. Furthermore, this study shows that this aggressive attitude was rehearsed when Newman, as Lord Mayor (2004-2011), retracted much of Brisbane City Council's (BCC) cultural policy activities by disabling its cultural policy team. Coupled with a shift that redefines public space as private space, this change of policy initiated a redirection of art and cultural activities into economic frameworks, urban development and city marketing.

This study has demonstrated how prevailing discourses, primarily focused on artist selection and economic concerns, supported the Newman LNP State Government (2012-2015) in swiftly disposing of the art+place policy (2007-2012) without opposition. With The Courier Mail acting as its mouthpiece, the Newman Government attempted to discredit a series of commissions: Andy Goldsworthy's Strangler Cairn (2011), Yayoi Kusama's Eyes are Singing Out (2012) and Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12). While portraying public art commissioning as a wasteful folly, the Newman Government set about deinstitutionalizing a significant art policy — art+place (2007-2012). The Newman Government and The Courier Mail's treatment of commissioning for the public realm was limited to artist selection and budgets. For the most part, these arguments were not countered by the contemporary visual arts sector, which demonstrated a lack of advocacy and leadership.

The Newman Government's attacks on the arts were substantially attacks on the former Labor Government’s legacies; significant legacies of the Goss and subsequent Labor Governments include both the Asia-Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993-present) and the Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA). For the most part, by reproducing and legitimating their rhetoric, The Courier Mail was biased in favour of the Newman Government's attacks. However, many of the reader comments attached to these press articles demonstrated that the public was broadly supportive of placing aesthetic pursuits ahead of economic arguments. Furthermore, these comments consistently challenged the opinions expressed by

Chapter 8 Conclusions 208

politicians, who claim to represent public opinion but do so without evidence. Unfortunately, these comments would remain in the echo chamber of online comment sections and did not serve to persuade The Courier Mail to pursue impartial and/or investigative reporting.

The aforementioned series of commissions, including Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12) and, consequently, the art+place policy (2007-2012), further suffered from the lack of a professional arts body to speak in their defence and were thereby poorly defended by the visual arts sector. Partly because no aesthetic interpretation of these commissions was offered, their concepts were not understood, nor were they discussed as aesthetic projects. Instead, press articles of the time promoted an assessment of these commissions that was simplistically limited to artist selection and budget. As a result, contemporary arts professionals' rights to imagine the city were considerably altered.

The absence of Artworkers' Alliance or a similar professional arts body created a vacuum into which an individual, artist Fiona Foley, stepped. In reference to Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), Foley's comments — which also predominately focused on artist selection and budget — would legitimate the criticisms of both The Courier Mail and the Newman Government. Although Foley's criticisms prompted the commissioning of Judy Watson's Tow Row (2016), the focus on simply advancing a commission by an Indigenous artist meant that an opportunity for a more ambitious campaign was missed. As this study has suggested, such a campaign might promote an Indigenous institution that rivals the scale and scope of GOMA. As this study has argued, professional bodies are required because they are better placed to secure the resources, energy and momentum to sustain campaigns with a collective vision.

This study also strongly suggested that the ambiguity and confusion surrounding changes to the State's public art policies impacted upon the reception of commissioned works. Although Art Built-in had been very publicly introduced and communicated, the State's revised public art policy, art+place, did not receive similar public attention or explanation. While Art Built-in had promoted the selection of Queensland-based artists, art+place attempted to promote the selection of some international artists. This was a significant change tied to addressing issues of aesthetic quality, but was certainly not well understood by

Chapter 8 Conclusions 209

the visual arts sector, reporters or the public. Nor was it widely understood that abolishing the State's public art policy meant the loss of some manufacturing jobs.

While this study has substantially analysed the development of state public art policies, this study also reviewed Brisbane City Council's (BCC) art and cultural practices, including its public art strategies and processes. This study has provided a background and context for BCC's current cultural practices by outlining the progression from an arts and cultural strategy, to a creative city strategy, and then to an economic strategy. In addition, this progression of events corresponds with three political periods in the city's government. The first arts and cultural strategy, the Cultural Development Strategy (1991), was aligned with (ALP) Lord Mayor Jim Soorley (1991-2003) and involved an expansion of BCC's art and cultural activities. The second iteration was a creative city strategy, the Creative city: Brisbane City Council's cultural strategy 2003-2008 (2003), but with the election of (LNP) Lord Mayor Campbell Newman (2004-2011), BCC underwent a retraction of much of its cultural policy activities. The third iteration of the BCC’s cultural strategy is an economic strategy, Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 (2013), through which the Quirk (LNP) city government's cultural activities are explicitly directed towards economic growth, urban development and city marketing.

Developed in parallel to the major cultural policy reforms articulated in the Goss State Government's Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), BCC's Cultural Development Strategy (1991) adopted an ethical corrective and a broader view of culture. However, unlike Goss' state reforms, BCC's cultural strategies did not establish mechanisms for involving professional visual arts expertise, specifically, peer review. Instead, BCC's cultural strategy greatly relied upon the agency of a cultural policy team. With the oversight of a cultural policy team, BCC's cultural strategy developed into a whole-of-Council strategy — the Creative City Strategy (2003), which was formally launched as part of an election campaign. However, in 2004 incoming (LNP) Lord Mayor Campbell Newman forced the cultural policy team to disband. This, coupled with a shift that increasingly develops public space as private space, initiated a redirection of art and cultural activities into economic frameworks, urban development and city marketing. Consequently, as discussed in Chapter 7, BCC has cultivated a high tolerance for amateur activities, bestowed private property owners with key decision-making powers, and continues to

Chapter 8 Conclusions 210

eschew professional arts expertise — all of which impacts upon BCC's capacity to realize an arts and/or creative economy.

In association with the Cultural Development Strategy (1991), BCC introduced the city's first public art policy in 1995 — in advance of the State's Art Built-in policy (1999-2007). As this study has illustrated, like the State's public art policies — Art Built-in (1999-2007), followed by art+place (2007-2012) — BCC's public art strategies and practices are dominated by urban design professionals, as well as private property developers and/or owners. This study addressed, in Chapter 7, BCC's appetite for urban development and gentrification that capitalizes on the proximity of art and cultural settings. BCC claims undue credit for the development of the inner city's Fortitude Valley as a creative precinct. Contrary to BCC's claims, residential gentrification in the area has displaced the creative communities who had established the precinct's creative status. Furthermore, this model precipitates the formula for BCC's Vibrant Laneways program — one of BCC's flagship cultural development programs. BCC's Vibrant Laneways program utilizes art as a marketing tool in the gentrification or reproduction of laneways. The ongoing impact of Council's cultural economic strategies are examined in reference to a work by Alice Lang, The Swell (2013), commissioned as part of BCC's Vibrant Laneways program. As this study has demonstrated, Council consistently requires artists to represent BCC and the city's brand messages, suppressing concepts or criticisms that undermine these brand messages.

Overall, this study seeks to enhance an understanding of the actual and potential roles that artists and arts professionals play in shaping discourses concerning the city. While there are well-known publications regarding the history and politics, literary fiction and popular music of Brisbane (e.g. Evans and Ferrier 2004, Hatherell 2007 and Stafford 2004), there is little material regarding the visual arts during this period. Therefore, this study addresses a gap in the current state of research concerning local histories in Brisbane. This PhD research makes a substantial contribution to this area by documenting and contextualizing the recent history of contemporary visual arts practices in the public sphere of Brisbane. This history — encompassing artist-run projects, exhibition-making and commissions for the public realm — is considered in relation to the socio-political contexts shaping the city. It is a significant, yet discrete, and therefore obscure history that is little known by the wider public, or the more specialist audience of

Chapter 8 Conclusions 211

emerging artists and arts professionals working in Brisbane. Familiarity with this history is extremely informative and constructive for arts professionals working in this city.

The findings of this study offer important caveats or implications for future practice. This requires an assessment of the study's limitations, which suggests opportunities for further research. Finally, I wish to conclude by further elaborating upon the study's key implications.

Limitations and opportunities for further research

The main limitation to a study such as this is the lack of quantitative and qualitative information offered by Brisbane City Council (BCC). In the time since BCC first introduced its public art policy in 1995, the State Government developed and implemented a public art policy (1999), evaluated its policy, changed its policy (2007), produced another evaluation (2010), and deinstitutionalized its policy (2012). Unlike the State Government, BCC has not undertaken or published a single evaluation of its ongoing public art practices. Nor has BCC evaluated its cultural and creative city policies. While this study has benefited from the State's evaluations, the lack of comparable evaluations of BCC's policies means the study has drawn upon useful, but somewhat oblique information — for example, Urban Renewal Brisbane // 20 year celebrations (BCC 2011) — which would best be described as marketing material. Although this study contributes to formulating an assessment of BCC's cultural practices, above all it shows that this lack of scrutiny is a significant issue and an area ripe for further investigation.

At times during this study, specific and quantitative data pertaining to artists and art professionals would have also been useful. Although the Australia Council, for instance, draws on census data to produce general and averaged information about artists — for example, artists' incomes, gallery attendances and economic contribution — to promote the role of art and culture in society, the available data has not been particularly useful in meeting the purposes of this study. Evidence- based research is required to inform arguments regarding future and strategic investment in the creative sector. To establish a more accurate portrait, a detailed survey of art professionals in Brisbane might include data addressing subjects such as: exhibition and commissioning fees; residential housing and professional

Chapter 8 Conclusions 212

workspaces or studios; and the local, national and/or international locations of projects. Such data is likely to assist further research, strategic statements and policy development.

As this study has shown, the cultural investment agenda of local and state governments does not necessarily viably sustain a local arts community or its economy. While governments have invested substantially in institutional infrastructure, such as exhibition spaces, artists' exhibition and commissioning fees are comparably minimal and vulnerable to cuts. Furthermore, while an artist, curator or related arts professional might reside in Brisbane, the bulk of their professional work may very well be located elsewhere. In order to capitalize on and secure the presence of artists in Brisbane, investment in institutional infrastructure should be extended to include studios and residential housing for artists. Further research might, therefore, consider the case for building alternative institutional infrastructure that more directly supports artists and arts professionals.

Although alternative art spaces, artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) and/or artist-led projects are a dominant feature of contemporary art practice, policy-making is undertaken by governments, often without consulting with, or taking into consideration, participants from these entities. Furthermore, in a sector that values alternatives, it is notable that art professionals have not initiated alternative policy- making projects. As creative city and public art policies (in particular) have become dominated by urban design professionals, it may be a useful strategy for contemporary art professionals to engage with, appropriate and/or agitate urban design language in order to propose alternative visions for the city. As an example, architect Kevin O'Brien's project Finding Country (2006-ongoing) reimagines the city by setting out an urban design methodology that includes editing the city's built fabric. As an aesthetic project, Finding Country (2006-ongoing) also has the capacity to ignite and promote discussions that further policy development. While this project primarily exists as an exhibition and as part of O'Brien's practice, it could serve as an illustrative model for how contemporary art professionals might develop alternative policies in the future.

The role of advocacy and professional organizations, principally QAA, became a dominant feature of this study. However, as the parameters of this study were limited to specific periods, it was not possible to fully examine and elaborate

Chapter 8 Conclusions 213

upon each iteration of QAA following Lindy Johnson's resignation. A future study might, for example, examine later iterations of QAA, looking at influential changes, coupled with its successes and failures. Alternatively, another future study might usefully focus upon the ongoing role of these types of advocacy and professional organizations, especially as this thesis posits that these organizations are potentially pivotal to negotiating aesthetic autonomy.

This study has reconfirmed that Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), as a watershed document, was foundational to ongoing policy development for roughly a decade. The parameters of this study largely focused upon public art policies in Brisbane, however, a future study could focus on parallel aspects of Queensland: A State for the Arts (1991), including the outcome of strategies that prioritized Indigenous, regional and/or design practices. Alternatively, a future study might examine investment in the institutional infrastructure of the 1990s, such as the State-Government-funded Festival House (usually known as 381 Brunswick St) and Judith Wright Centre, and the BCC-funded Brisbane Powerhouse. These institutions primarily house arts organizations and performing arts venues. Such a study might elaborate upon the arts precinct established by ARIs in the inner city's Fortitude Valley during that era and how further infrastructural investment by governments diverted the precinct’s focus from contemporary visual art into performing arts.

Implications and significance

This study asserts that a renewed, or revised, agonistic agenda be cultivated to address the extra-institutional art and cultural activities of city and state governments. As discussed in Chapter 2, while the term 'agonistic' is attributable to Mouffe (2007; 2000), the impulse for negotiating conflict, antagonism and/or 'agonistic' relationships is consistently shared amongst Lefebvre (1996; 1991), Deutsche (1996), Rancière (2009), and Szeemann (1972 in Haines 2012). As Lefebvre (1996; 1991) proposes, imagination is a political project that shares an affinity with 'agonistic' relationships, which, as Mouffe (2007; 2000) suggests, seek to sustain critical pressures in order to productively maintain difference and tension with adversarial positions. Along with Lacau and Mouffe (1985), Deutsche further argues that the public realm only remains democratic if its exclusions are taken into account, and thus asserts that 'conflict, division, and instability... do not

Chapter 8 Conclusions 214

ruin the democratic public sphere; they are conditions of its existence' (1996: 289). Similarly, Rancière argues that 'art cannot merely occupy the space left by the weakening of political conflict' and that the politics of aesthetics relies upon the consistent re-articulation of dialectical clashes (2009: 50). Together, these political projects seek to sustain difference, multiple alternatives, conflict, division and instability, and notably differ from the prevailing cultural practices of local state and city governments, which privilege consensus building and/or the strategic management of dissenting discourses.

As this study has clearly shown, artist-led projects of the late 1980s in Brisbane, such as THAT (1985-1988) and InterFace (1988), developed lively precincts and along with QAA — which was influential in developing the Art Built- In policy (1999-2007) — helped to forge critical and innovative discourses in the city. A key characteristic of these artist-led projects of the late 1980s was the formation of groups, which aided the sustainability of their infrastructural and aesthetic activities. However, following the cultural reforms that were instigated in collaboration with the Goss Government, arts professionals did not anticipate other adversarial positions. As this study has identified, the cycle of institutionalization requires the consistent re-articulation of critical pressure. Without this critical advocacy the function of aesthetic projects has come to be viewed primarily in economic terms.

In reference to political criticisms regarding a series of commissions, including Michael Parekowhai's The World Turns (2011-12), and the deinstitutionalization of the State's art+place policy (2007-2012), as well as constraints placed on Alice Lang's The Swell (2013), commissioned by Brisbane City Council (BCC), this study has clearly shown that these aesthetic projects suffered from a lack of support from the visual arts sector, which appeared apathetic. As the role of artists and arts professionals and their contribution to the city has become increasingly controlled through the art policies of governments, commissions by the city have also increasingly supported individual and private interests, and thereby, grant significant decision-making power to the private sector. In other words, the private sector is more or less emboldened to design the city. This deference to private interests represents a diminishing of public space — a situation Virno refers to as 'a publicness without a public sphere' (2004: 40). This study has shown that, rather than facilitate diverse aesthetic or critical interventions, state and city public art policies — guided by the paternalism or

Chapter 8 Conclusions 215

perverseness of non-art experts and urban design professionals — have worked to secure the appearance of consensus whilst stripping away or suppressing agonistic conflict that may arise with critical contemporary art interventions. Additionally, governments, such as Brisbane City Council (BCC), are regressively attempting to innovate internally within government and independently of the creative sectors. However, it is in the interests of state and city governments seeking to capitalize on the presence of artists and their activities to support agonistic relationships.

Accordingly, this study has clearly established the need to sustain agonistic relationships with state and city governments. This recommendation aligns with the aforementioned research by Mouffe (2007; 2000), Lefebvre (1996; 1991), Deutsche (1996) and Rancière (2009), and is strongly supported by the empirical research produced as part of this study. Moreover, this study has established a need for the provision of professional expertise and advocacy, and strongly suggests that professional arts and advocacy organizations can play a pivotal role in negotiating the political and aesthetic autonomy of contemporary art (Kelly 2000: 224). Professional advocacy bodies have been pivotal to developing innovative policies and generating employment opportunities in the past, and this research project has shown how they were able to secure the presence of artists and creative professionals. Unless governments, together with arts professionals, prioritize provisions for critical interventions, then their ambitions for the creative sector will continue to be easily rendered vacuous.

In substantiating the need for maintaining critical pressure, this study thus makes a valuable contribution to an understanding of contemporary aesthetic projects and their part in imagining and thereby shaping the city. This research is of benefit to those with a specific investment in the role of contemporary art in city- making including: artists, curators, policy-makers, professional and/or advocacy bodies, funding bodies, commissioners, and urban designers. It is also instructive to those working in similar contexts and other cities, as well as to any other citizen that is invested in the idea of re-imaging the city for public interests.

Chapter 8 Conclusions 216

References

Alberro, Alexander and Blake Stimson. 2009. Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists' Writings. Cambridge: MIT Press. Althusser, Louis. 1970. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Translated by Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly Review Press. Accessed April 25, 2014. http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/LPOE70ii.html;marxists.org. Anderson, Peter. 1993. “From Policy to Programs: Interview with John Stafford.” Culture and Policy 5: 15-25. Anderson, Peter. 2015. “Marginal Notes: Towards a History of an Artist-run Scene | Brisbane, The 1980s.” eyeline 82: 59-65. Anderson, Peter. 2016a. “About THAT: Mostly an Interview with Paul Andrew.” ARI Remix, February 9. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://remix.org.au/artist-profile-peteranderson/. Anderson, Peter. et al. 2016b. “Artist-run-initiatives: DIY change agents?” Public program, chaired by Anderson, University of Queensland (UQ) Art Museum, April 9. Anderson, Peter. 2016c. ephemeral traces: Brisbane's artist-run scene in the 1980s. University of Queensland (UQ) Art Museum. Catalogue essay. Andresen, Brit and Mara Francis. 2009. “Survival: Implementing Tomorrow's City.” Paper presented at 2nd International Urban Design Conference, Gold Coast, September 2-4. Accessed January 12, 2015. http://www.urbandesignaustralia.com.au/images/Papers09/Brit%20Andre sen_Sedimentary%20City_SENT_27%20July%2009_opt.pdf.

References 217

Andrew, Paul. 2016. “Interview with Brian Doherty.” ARI Remix, January 16. Accessed January 30, 2017. http://remix.org.au/interview-brian-doherty- the-artist-run-impulse-1980s/. Aranda, Julieta, Brian Kuan Wood and Anton Vidokle. 2010. “What is Contemporary Art? Issue Two.” e-flux journal #12 January: 01-03. Accessed November 18, 2014. http://worker01.e- flux.com/pdf/article_109.pdf. Arts Committee. 1991. Queensland: A State for the Arts. Brisbane: Arts Division, Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development. (0724243194). Atkinson, Rowland. 2007. “The Consequences of the Creative Class: The Pursuit of Creativity Strategies in Australia’s Cities.” Proceedings of the State of Australian Cities Conference, Adelaide, November 2007. http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/research/centres/cf/ Cfpresentations/SOAC07Atkinson_Easthope.pdf. Australia Council. 2014a. “Arts in Daily Life: Australian Participation in the Arts.” Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/ workspace/uploads. Australia Council. 2014b. “Art Facts: visual arts.” Accessed October 22, 2014. http://artfacts-stg.cogat.webfactional.com/visual-arts. Babias, Marius. 2005. “On the Strategic Use of Politics in the Context of Art.” In Art, City and Politics in an Expanding World: Writings from the 9th Istanbul Biennial. Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts: Turkey. Bacon, Philip. 1988. “Foreword.” In Sculpture: The World Expo '88 Collection. Philip Bacon Galleries: Brisbane. Barker, Heather and Charles Green. 2011. “No place like home: Australian art history and contemporary art at the start of the 1970s.” Journal of Art Historiography 4: 1-16. Accessed June 26, 2014. https://arthistoriography. files.wordpress.com/2011/05/barker-green-no- place.pdf. Barrett, Claer. 2012. “A Conversation with Richard Florida.” Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.ubmfuturecities.com/document.asp?doc_id=523551. Beauregard, Robert. 1986. “The chaos and complexity of gentrification.” In Gentrification of the City, edited by Neil Smith and Peter Williams, 35–55. Winchester: Allen & Unwin.

References 218

Beeson, Mark. 2003. “East Asia, the international financial institutions and regional regulatory reform: A review of the issues.” Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 8: 305-326. Beeson, Mark. 2007. “Competing Capitalisms and Neoliberalism: The Dynamics of, and Limits to, Economic Reform in the Asia-Pacific.” In Neoliberalization: States, Networks, Peoples, edited by K. England and K. Ward. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9780470712801.ch2. Bell, Richard. 2014. “Artist Statement.” In Giving Voice: the art of dissent. Salamanca Arts Centre: Hobart. Exhibition Catalogue. Accessed March 24, 2017. http://www.salarts.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Giving- Voice- CATALOGUE.pdf. Bennett, Tony. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London and New York: Routledge. Bennett, Tony. 1996. "The Exhibitionary Complex." In Thinking About Exhibitions, edited by Bruce W. Ferguson, Reesa Greenberg, and Sandy Nairne. London: Routledge. Bergen Biennial Conference. 2009. “The biennial debate will never be the same.” Accessed July 10, 2015. http://www.e-flux.com/ announcements/the-biennial-debate-will-never-be-the-same/. Berger, Maurice, ed. 1998. The Crisis of Criticism. New York: The New Press. Berrebi, Sophie. 2008. “Jacques Rancière: Aesthetics is Politics.” Art & Research 2 (1): 1-5. Accessed June 26, 2014. http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v2n1/berrebirev.html. Bishop, Claire. 2004. “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.” October 110 Fall: 51–79. Bishop, Claire. 2006. “The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents.” Artforum, February: 178-183. Bishop, Claire. 2012. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London and New York: Verso. Boas, Taylor C. and Jordan Gans-Moore. 2009. “Neo-Liberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan.” Studies in Comparative International Development 44 (2): 137–161. Boland, Michaela. 2015. “South Bank world turns once more.” The Australian. April, 1. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/visual-arts/south-bank-

References 219

world-turns-once-more/news- story/2f4c57666ec915223999631328adc915. Bolton, Matt. 2013. “Is art to blame for gentrification?” The Guardian, August 30. Accessed October 29, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2013/aug/30/art-blame-gentrification-peckham. Bonnin, Margriet. 1988. Publications review. Sydney: Australia Council, Visual Arts Craft Board (VACB). Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson, 241-258. New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bourriaud, Nicolas. 1998. Relational Aesthetics, Translated by Simon Pleasance and Fronza Woods. France: Les presses du reel. Bourriaud, Nicolas. 2012. “The Collapse of Distance.” The Exhibitionist 6: 41-42. Briggs, Brad. 2010. “John Maynard Keynes: The Man Who Transformed the Economic World.” Investing Answers, January 21. Accessed August 11, 2015. http://www.investinganswers.com/education/economics/john- maynard-keynes-man-who-transformed-economic-world-621. Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2003. Creative city: Brisbane City Council's cultural strategy 2003-2008. Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2006a. Brisbane City Council 2006 Draft Master Plan. Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2006b. Living in Brisbane 2026. Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2011. Urban Renewal Brisbane // 20 year celebrations. (N2011-02783). Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2012. Vibrant Laneways. Accessed July 7, 2015. http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/vibrant-laneways-art- program-catalogue-2013-14.pdf. Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2013a. Brisbane Vision 2031. (N2013-03144). Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2013b. Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013- 22. (J2013-03509).

References 220

Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2013c. Public Art: Developer Handbook – Percent for Art Contribution. Brisbane: Brisbane City Council (BCC). Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2016a. “Brisbane Canvas Project, Suburban Site Opportunities, Artist Brief.” Coordinated by Scott Chaseling, Specialist Urban Design Delivery, October 2016. Brisbane City Council (BCC). 2016b. “Vibrant Laneways program.” Accessed June 27, 2016. https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/facilities- recreation/arts-culture/vibrant-city/vibrant-laneways-program. Browning, Daniel. 2012. AWAYE!: The elephant in the room. ABC (broadcast February 25). Radio program. Bryant, Nick. 2015. “Can Do? Campbell Newman's Bid for Queensland.” The Monthly. Accessed June 18, 2015. https://www.themonthly.com.au/ issue/2011/december/1347591112/nick-bryant/cando-campbell-newman- s-bid-queensland. Bulka, Michael. 1997. “Wanna buy some art?” New Art Examiner July-August: 22-27. Burbidge, Nancy. 1960. “The phytogeography of the Australian region.” Australian Journal of Botany 8 (2): 75-211. DOI: 10.1071/BT9600075. Bürger, Peter. 1974. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Translated by Michael Shaw. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butler, Rex. 2003. “Bogus public art.” The Courier Mail, June 7. Cahill, Damien. 2004. “The radical neo-liberal movement and its impact upon Australian politics.” Paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Adelaide, September 29 – October 1. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ apsa/docs_papers/Aust%20Pol/cahill.pdf. Calvino, Italo. 1974. Invisible Cities. Translated by William Weaver. San Diego: Harcourt Bruce & Company. Cameron, Stuart and Jon Coaffee. 2005. “Art, Gentrification and Regeneration – From Artists as Pioneer to Public Arts.” European Journal of Housing Policy 5 (1): 39-58. Carabine, Jean. 2001. “Unmarried motherhood 1830-1990: A genealogical analysis.” In Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, edited by Wetherell, Taylor and Yates, 267-310. London: Sage.

References 221

Cascardi, Anthony J. 2010. “Prolegomena to Any Future Aesthetics.” In Art and Aesthetics After Adorno, Bernstein, J. M. [et al.], 7-40. Berkeley: The Townsend Center for the Humanities. Chandler, Lisa. 2009. “Journey without maps: unsettling curatorship in cross- cultural contexts.” Museum and Society: 74-91. City of Melbourne. 2014. City of Melbourne Arts Strategy 2014-17: A Creative City Through The Arts. Arts and Culture Branch. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/city-of- melbourne-arts-strategy-2014-17.pdf. City of Sydney. 2006. Interim Guidelines for Public Art in Private Development. http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf _file/0005/139811/INTERIM_GUIDELINES_PUBLIC_ART_IN_ PRIVATE_DEVELOPMENTS_SEP2006.pdf. City of Sydney. 2014. Creative City: Cultural Policy and Action Plan 2014. http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf _file/0011/213986/11418-Finalisation-of-Cultural-Policy-Document-July- 2016.pdf. Condon, Matthew. 2013. “25th anniversary and lasting legacy of Brisbane's World Expo 88.” Sunday Mail, April 28. Accessed June 12, 2015. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/th-anniversary-and-lasting-legacy- of-brisbanes-world-expo-88-1988-marked-brisbanes-coming-of-age-and- the-city-has-not-looked-back/story-e6frg6n6-1226630746038. Cosic, Miriam. 2005. “Revealed: Message hidden in sculpture.” The Australian, March 10. Costar, Brian. 2005. “Sir Joh, our home-grown banana republican.” The Age, April 25. Accessed June 15, 2015. http://www.theage.com.au/ news/Opinion/Sir-Joh-our-homegrown-banana- republican/2005/04/24/1114281449030.html. Costar, Brian. 2015. “Campbell Newman and the Ghost of Joh Bjelke-Petersen.” The Age, January 30. Accessed June 18, 2015. http://www.theage.com.au/comment/campbell-newmans-campaign-and- the-ghost-of-joh-bjelkepetersen-may-haunt-election-night-20150130- 131u49.html. Crean, Simon. 2012. “Newman budget kills Queensland creativity.” The Drum, September 18. Accessed March 19, 2014.

References 222

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-18/crean-arts-funding-in- queensland/4267544. Creative Australia, Australian Government. 2013. “Cultural Dividends in the Economy.” In Creative Australia: National Cultural Policy. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://creativeaustralia.arts.gov.au/assets/Creative- Australia-PDF-20130417.pdf. Cronin, Danielle. 2012. “Push for new awards to fill void left by Premier.” Brisbane Times April 4. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ entertainment/books/push-for-new-awards-to-fill-void-left-by-premier- 20120404-1wbwl.html. Crooke, Gary W and Tony Fitzgerald. 2014. “Abuse of power does nothing to protect us.” Accessed December 10, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/news/ 2014-02-03/fitzgerald-crooke-queensland/5230272. Crooks, Harold and Mathieu Roy. 2011. Surviving Progress. Directed by Harold Crooks and Mathieu Roy. Produced by Daniel Louis, Denise Robert and Gerry Flahive. New York: First Run Features. Documentary. Cutler, A. Claire (2001), "Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization: A Crisis of Legitimacy." Review of International Studies 27 (2): 133–150. doi:10.1017/S0260210500001339. Davis, Ben. 2013. “Are Artists to Blame for Gentrification?” Slate, October 15. Accessed October 27, 2014. slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2013/10/are_artists_to_blame_for_ gentrification_or_would_soho_chelsea_and_bushwick.html. De Duve, Thierry. 2008. “Art in the Face of Radical Evil.” October 125: 3-23. Decter, Joshua. 2009. “Zones of Conflict.” Artforum 47 (8): 187-188. Demirovic, Alex. 2013. “Is neoliberalism hegemonial?” Widerspruch 62: 127-138. Deutsche, Rosayln. 1996. Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics. Cambridge and London: MIT Press. Doherty, Brian. 2016. “The work of art as social project.” Paper presented at the Art Association of Australia & New Zealand (AAANZ) 2016 Conference, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, December 1-3. Doherty, Claire, ed. 2013. “The New Rules of Public Art.” Public Art (Now), December 12. Accessed January 4, 2014. http://publicartnow.com/ 2013/12/12/the-new-rules-of-public-art/.

References 223

Doherty, Claire, ed. 2014. “Public Art (Now): Out of Time, Out of Place.” Situations. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.situations.org.uk/ public-art-now-publication/. Douglas, Tim. 2012. “Rising star Brook Andrew busy earning his stripes,” The Australian, January 02. Accessed December 2, 2015. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/rising-star-brook-andrew-busy- earning-his-stripes/story-e6frg8n6-1226234358533. Duncan, C. 1991. “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship.” In Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, edited by Ivan Karp and Steven Lavine, 88-103. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. Eagleton, Terry. 1990. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Blackwell. Ekeberg, Jonas, ed. 2003. New Institutionalism. Oslo: Office for Contemporary Art Norway. Ekeberg, Jonas. 2013. “Institutional Experiments between Aesthetics and Activism.” In Self-Organised, edited by Hebert, Stine and Anne Szefer Karlsen, 50-61. London: Open Editions. Eliezer, Christie. et al. 2007. “The New Global Hot Spots.” Billboard Magazine, January. Elliott, Ross. 2015. “Is it time for a suburban renewal?” The Pulse, February 5. Accessed June 12. 2015. http://thefingeronthepulse.blogspot.com.au/ 2015/02/is-it-time-for-suburban-renewal.html. Eltham, Ben. 2010. “Culture is bigger than the arts.” Overland 200, Spring. Accessed August 11, 2015. https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue- 200/feature-ben-eltham/. Eltham, Ben. 2011. “If MONA is our Guggenheim, does Walsh deserve a free pass?” Crikey, August 3. http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/03/if-david- walsh-goes- down-what-happens-to-the-art/?wpmp_switcher=mobile. Eltham, Ben. 2012. “Newman's great and onerous power.” The Drum, May 22. Accessed July 18, 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-22/eltham- --campbell-queensland/4025876. Eltham, Ben. 2016. “If Brisbane wants to be a 'new world city' it should stop persecuting artists and act like one.” The Guardian, February 3. Accessed July 25, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/

References 224

artanddesign/2016/feb/03/if-brisbane-wants-to-be-a-new-world-city-it- should-stop-persecuting-artists-and-act-like-one. Eltham, Kate. 2008. “One Book Many Brisbanes a worthy investment.” The Courier Mail, June 4. Accessed June 10, 2015. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/brisbane-book-a-worthy- project/story-e6frerdf-1111116527499. Enwezor, Okwui. 2010. 'Topographies of Critical Practice: Exhibition as Place and site.” The Exhibitionist 2: 46-52. Eslake, Saul. 2007. “Economists and the Arts.” Presented for the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Australian Business Arts Foundation – South Australia Chapter, April 16. http://www.theage.com.au/ ed_docs/SaulEslake_AdelaideApr_2007.pdf. Evans, Raymond, and Carole Ferrier, ed. 2004. Radical Brisbane: an Unruly History, Melbourne: Vulgar Press. Fagan, David. 2010. “Lord Mayor Campbell Newman digs a hole for himself over Clem7 tunnel coverage.” The Courier Mail, March 15. Accessed June 17, 2015. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/lord-mayor- campbell-newman-digs-a-hole-for-himself-over-clem7-tunnel- coverage/story-e6freoof-1225841103138. Fairclough, Norman. 2001. “The Discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse as data: A guide for analysis, edited by Wetherell, et al., 299-266. London: Sage. Fazakerley, Ruth. 2008. “Negotiating public space: discourses of public art.” PhD thesis, South Australian School of Art, University of South Australia. Feeney, Katherine. 2010a. “End of an era for Valley venue.” Sydney Morning Herald, November 4. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/end- of-an-era-for-valley-venue-20101104-17fff.html#ixzz4BXJW6bKR. Feeney, Katherine. 2010b. “The day the music died.” Sydney Morning Herald, November 6. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/the-day-the- music- died-20101105-17hm3.html#ixzz4BXL5iuA9. Feiss, E. C. 2014. “Response to Grant Kester's “The Device Laid Bare”.” e-flux journal 54 April: 1-4. Accessed November 25, 2014. http://worker01.e- flux.com/pdf/article_8980926.pdf.

References 225

Fitzgerald, Gerald E. (Tony). 1989. Report Of A Commission Of Inquiry Pursuant To Orders In Council (Fitzgerald Report). Brisbane: Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. Fitzgerald, Gerald E. (Tony). 2014. Remarks issued at the Griffith University Tony Fitzgerald Lecture, Brisbane, September 10. Accessed December 10, 2014. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/tony-fitzgerald- remarks-full-transcript-20140911-10fb83.html?rand=1410398169015. Lecture transcript. Flew, Terry. 2012. “Six theories of Neoliberalism.” In Emerging and Enduring Inequalities: the Annual Conference of the Australian Sociological Association 2012, 26-29 November 2012, Brisbane: University of Queensland. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ 58620/1/Six_Theories_of_Neoliberalism.pdf. Florida, Richard. 2004. “The Flight of the Creative Class.” Presentation based on (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class and How it is Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Brisbane: Queensland Performing Arts Centre. Florida, Richard. 2012. “What Critics Get Wrong About the Creative Class and Economic Development.” CityLab, July 3. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/07/what-critics-get-wrong-about- creative-class/2430/. Florida, Richard. 2013. “More Losers Than Winners in America's New Economic Geography.” CityLab, January 30. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/01/more-losers-winners-americas-new- economic-geography/4465/. Flyberrg, Bent. 2014. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” In SAGE Qualitative Research Methods. London: SAGE. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857028211. Foley, Fiona. 2011. “When the circus came to town.” Art Monthly Australia 245:5-7. Foley, Fiona. 2012. “The elephant in the room: public art in Brisbane.” Artlink 32 (2): 66-69. Follent, Sarah. 1989. “Editorial.” eyeline 9: 1. Foster, Hal. 1985. Recordings: Art, Spectacle, Cultural Politics. Washington: Bay Press.

References 226

Foucault, Michel. 1984. “What is Enlightenment?” In The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow, 32-50. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, edited by Paul Rabinow New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, Michel. 1997. Ethics: subjectivity and truth. New York: The New Press. Frampton, Kenneth. 1983. “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance.” In The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster, 16-30. Seattle: Bay Press Inc. Frank, Priscilla. 2012. “Andy Goldsworthy's Ephemeral Rock Sculpture 'Strangler Cairn' Cost Australian Taxpayers Almost 700,000.” The Huffington Post, August 29. Accessed June 12, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ 2012/08/29/andy-goldsworthys-ephemer_n_1836688.html?ir=Australia. Franke, Anselm. 2009. “Across the Rationalist Veil.” e-flux journal 8, September: 1-10. Accessed November 27, 2014. http://worker01.e- flux.com/pdf/article_79.pdf. Fraser, Andrea. 2012. “There's no place like home.” In Whitney Biennial 2012, edited by Elisabeth Sussman and Jay Sanders, 28-33. New York: The Whitney Museum of American Art. Galloway, Kate. 2013. “Queensland Political Culture: Executive Dominance Trumps Civil Liberties.” Accessed December 10, 2014. http://rightnow.org.au/writing-cat/article/queensland-political-culture- executive-dominance-trumps-civil-liberties/. Gamble, Andrew. 2001. “Neo-liberalism.” Capital and Class 25 (3): 127–134. Gibson, Lisanne. 2001. The uses of art: constructing Australian identities. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Glover, Stuart. and Stuart Cunningham. 2003. ‘The New Brisbane.’ Artlink 23 (2): 16-23. Gopnik, Adam. 2012. “Postscript: Robert Hughes.” The New Yorker, August 7. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/books/page- turner/postscript-robert-hughes. Gould, Bryan. 2008. “Who voted for the markets?” The Guardian, November 27. Accessed October 27, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2008/nov/26/economy-marketturmoil. Graham, Linda J. 2005. “Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault.” Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education,

References 227

2005 Annual Conference, Sydney, 27 November – 1 December. eprints.qut.edu.au/2689/1/2689.pdf. Gray, Sally, and Annie Talvé. 2010. art+place 2007-2008 evaluation. Brisbane: Arts Queensland, Queensland Government. Greenop, Kelly. 2014. “History Receding: The complicity of Australian architecture in colonization and beyond.” In Courting Blackness: Recalibrating Knowledge in the Sandstone University, edited by Fiona Foley, Louise Martin-Chew and Fiona Nicoll, 32-39. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press (UCP). Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger, 1989. Cambridge: MIT. Haines, Chelsea. 2012. “Exchange of Views of a Group of Experts: Introduced by Chelsea Haines.” The Exhibitionist 6: 23-27. Hajek, Andrea. 2014. “Oral History Methodology.” In SAGE Research Methods Cases. London: SAGE. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4135/978144627305013504183. Hall, Stuart, 2001. “Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse.” In Discourse as data: A guide for analysis, edited by Wetherell, et al., 72-92. London: Sage. Hall, Stuart, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe and Paul Willis, eds. 1980. Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson. Hammersley, Martyn. 2005. “Ethnography and Discourse Analysis: Incompatible or Complementary?” Polifonia 10: 1-20. Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Routledge. Harding, David. 1997. “Public Art: Contentious Term and Contested Practice.” In Decadent: Public Art – Contentious Term and Contested Practice, edited by David Harding, 9-19. Glasgow School of Art: Foulis Press. Harrington, Christine B. and Turem, Z. Umut. 2006. “Accountability in Neoliberal Regulatory Regimes.” In Public Accountability, Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, edited by Michael W. Dowdle, 195-219. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Mike. 2012. "Why is Tony Blair lending credibility to Kazakhstan's dictator?" The Telegraph, February 2. Accessed July 17, 2015.

References 228

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ politics/tony-blair/9102135/Why-is- Tony-Blair-lending-credibility-to-Kazakhstans-dictator.html. Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, David. 2008. “The Right to the City.” New Left Review 53: 23-40. Harvey, David. 2009. “Places, Regions, Territories.” In Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom, 166-201. New York: Columbia University Press. Harvey, David. 2012. Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution. London and Brooklyn: Verso. Hatherell, William. 2007. The Third Metropolis: Imagining Brisbane through art and literature1940-1970. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Hayden, Dolores. 1997. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge: MIT Press. Heenan, Dianne. 2017. “Student Union Cultural Activities – A Collective Memoir.” ARI Remix. Accessed January 30, 2017. http://remix.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/Dianne-Heenan-Memoir-Activities-UQ.pdf. Heiser, Jörg. 2008. “All of a Sudden: Things that Matter in Contemporary Art: An Interview with Jörg Heiser.” Art & Research 2 (1): 1-6. Accessed September 17, 2014. http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/ v2n1/pdfs/heiser.pdf. Helbig, Koren. 2012. “Arts Minister Ros Bates labels giant elephant art The World Turns example of Labor 'waste'.” The Courier Mail, October 17. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.couriermail.com.au/ news/queensland/arts-minister-ros-bates-labels-giant-elephant-art-the- world-turns-example-of-labor-waste/story-e6freoof-1226497317733. Helmrich, Michelle. 1988a. “Interfacing the InterFace.” eyeline 6: 8-9. Helmrich, Michelle. 1988b. “That's That. But Is It?: That Contemporary Art Space 1985-1988.” eyeline 5: 16-19. Hewitt, Andy and Mel Jordan. 2004-2005. Three Functions. Accessed May 23, 2014. hewittandjordan.com/work/vitrine.html. Hill, Dan. 2007. “Father of modern Brisbane,” City of Sound, December 21. Accessed April 18, 2017. http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2007/12/clem- jones-fath.html.

References 229

Holert, Tom. 2013. “Burden of proof.” Artforum International 51: 250-259, 298. Accessed May 23, 2014. http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 1318502187?accountid=13380. Hook, Derek. 2001. “Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis [online].” London: LSE Research Online. Accessed July 19, 2015. http://eprints.ise.ac.uk/archive/956. Hope, Neil. 2008. “The Need to Embrace 'Corporate Governance' as a Comprehensive Principle in Local Government in Australia and the Need for Reform.” Dialogue 6 (2). Accessed July, 18, 2015. http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/dialogue/Vol6/Vol6.2/NeilHope.pdf. Houghton, Des. 2012a. “The eyes have it in $1m psychiatric art attack.” The Courier Mail, June 8. http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/the- eyes-have-it-in-1m-art-attack/story-e6frfq80- 1226388156636?pg=1#comments. Houghton, Des. 2012b. “Our new courthouse is a work-of-art.” The Courier Mail, June 9. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/our-new-courthouse-is-a- work-of-art/story-e6frerdf-1226389457282. Hughes, Robert. 2008. The Mona Lisa Curse. Directed and produced by Mandy Chang. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Documentary. Hurrell, John. 2009. “The Ascent of the Suppressed.” eyeCONTACT, 2 December. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://eyecontactartforum .blogspot.com.au/2009/12/ascent-of-suppressed.html. Hurst, Daniel. 2012a. “New premier tears up literary awards.” Brisbane Times, April 3. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/entertainment/books/new- premier-tears-up-literary-awards-20120403-1wad1.html. Hurst, Daniel. 2012b. “Chorus of criticism after literary awards shelved.” Brisbane Times, April 4. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ entertainment/books/chorus-of-criticism-after-literary-awards-shelved- 20120403-1wap2.html#ixzz1r3Hrkt9E. International Council of Museums. 2013. ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. Accessed June 17, 2014. http://icom.museum. Ireland, Judith. 2012. “Misogyny definition to change after Gillard speech.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 17. http://www.smh.com.au/ national/misogyny-definition-to-change-after-gillard-speech-20121016- 27q22.

References 230

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Life and Death of American Cities. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd. Jelinek, Alana. 2013. This is Not Art. New York: I.B. Taurus & Co Ltd. Jones, Kate and Scott Prasser. 2012. “Resisting executive control in Queensland's unicameral legislature – recent developments and the changing role of the speaker in Queensland.” Australian Parliamentary Review, 27 (1): 67-84. Joselit, David. 2012. After Art. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Jung, Yuha. 2014. “Ethnographic Case Study in Place-Based Research: Planning to Be Comfortable with Uncertain Moments and Unexpected Encounters.” In SAGE Research Methods Cases. London: SAGE. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305013514711. Kaplan, Fred. 2010. “Showing a Couple's Eye for Art (and Money).” New York Times, April 9. Accessed August 7, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/arts/design/10scull.html?_r=0. Keefe, Alexander. 2013. “Going Going Gone: Christie's record auction is actually a gauge for how far the art market has fallen.” Quartz, November 14. Accessed August 7, 2014. http://qz.com/147201/christies-record-auction- is-actually-a-gauge-for-how-far-the-art-market-has-fallen/. Kelly, Kathryn. 2014. “Organic performance growth.” RealTime 120: 44. Accessed June 9, 2015. http://www.realtimearts.net/article/issue120/11550. Kelly, Michael. 2000. “The political autonomy of contemporary art: the case of the 1993 Whitney Biennial.” In Politics and Aesthetics in the Arts, edited by Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell, 221-263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keniger, Michael. 2006. Art Built-in Policy Evaluation. Brisbane: Arts Queensland, Queensland Government. Kerr, David. 1983. “Open Sandwich Conference of Alternative Art Spaces: A Working Paper.” Accessed January 26, 2017. http://mass.nomad.net.au/ wp-content/uploads/2015/05Osworking-paper.pdf. Knott, Matthew. 2015. “Turnbull government overhauls George Brandis' arts 'slush fund'.” Sydney Morning Herald, November 20. Accessed August 19, 2017. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-

References 231

government- overhauls-george-brandis-arts-slush-fund-20151119- gl35nc.html. Kolb, Lucie & Gabriel Flückiger. 2013a. “New Institutionalism Revisited.” oncurating 21: 6-17. Kolb, Lucie & Gabriel Flückiger. 2013b. “The term was snapped out of the air: An interview with Jonas Ekeberg.” oncurating 21: 20-23. Kotkin, Joel. 2013. “Richard Florida Concedes the Limits of the Creative Class.” The Daily Beast, March 20. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/ 2013/03/20/richard-florida- concedes-the-limits-of-the-creative-class.html. Krätke, Stefan. 2012. “The new urban growth ideology of creative cities.” In Cities for people, not for profit: critical urban theory and the right to the city, edited by Neil Brenner, Peter Marcuse and Margrit Mayer, 138-149. New York: Routledge. Kwon, Miwon. 1997. “One Place after Another: Notes on Site Specificity.” October 80: 85-110. Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso: London, New York. Lacy, Suzanne. 2010. Leaving Art: Writings on Performance, Politics, and Publics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Lee, Pamela M. 2012. Forgetting the Art World. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lefebvre, Henri. 1968. “Marxian Thought and Sociology.” In The Sociology of Marx. Translated by Norbert Guterman, 3-24. England: Penguin Books. Lefebvre, Henri. 1974. The Production of Space. Translated by D. Nicholson- Smith. 1991. Malden: Blackwell. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. Critique of Everyday Life. Vol. 1. Translated by John Moore. London and New York: Verso Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. Writings on Cities. Translated and edited by Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas. Cambridge: Blackwell. Lesser, Casey. 2017. “How Artist-Run Galleries Shaped New York's Downtown Art Scene,” Artsy, January 16. Accessed January 26, 2017. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-artist-run-galleries-shaped- new-yorks-downtown-art-scene. Lewis, David. 2015. “Queensland election 2015: What led to Campbell Newman's political demise?” ABC News, February 1. Accessed July 18,

References 232

2015. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-01/queensland-election-2015- what-led-to-campbell-newmans-demise/6060934. Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park,CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Lind, Maria. 2007. “The Collaborative Turn.” In Taking Matters into Common Hands: On Contemporary Art ad Collaborative Practices, edited by Johanna Billing, Maria Lind and Lars Nilsson, 15-31. London: Black Dog Publishing. Lind, Maria. 2009a. “Active Cultures: Maria Lind on the Curatorial.” Artforum 48 (2) October: 103. Lind, Maria. 2009b. “Complications; On Collaboration, Agency and Contemporary Art.” Public: New Communities 39: 53-73. Lind, Maria, and Alex Farquharson. 2007. “Integrative Institutionalism: a Reconsideration.” In The New Administration of Aesthetics, edited by Tone Hansen and Trude Iversen. Torpedo Press: Oslo. MacDonald, Robert. 2012. “Politics is always a mixed bag but is there any value in this egg-shaped pile of rocks?” The Courier Mail, September 3. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/comment-art-of-politics-can-be-both- predictable-and-a-surprise/news- story/e9cf6c5997ca34db7ee9fc08b187904f. MacNeill, Kate. 2008. “When historic time meets Julia Kristeva’s women’s time: the reception of Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party in Australia.” Outskirts: feminisms along the edge 18. Accessed March 24, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/34967. Mader, Rachel. 2013. “How to move in/an institution.” oncurating 21: 35-45. Madison, D. Soyini. 2005. Critical ethnography: method, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Malouf, David. 1975. Johnno: a novel. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Malouf, David. 1985a. 12 Edmondstone Street. London: Chatto & Windus. Malouf, David. 1985b. “A First Place: The Mapping of the World.” Southerly 45(1): 3-10. Marcuse, Stefan. 2012. “Whose right(s) to what city?” In Cities for people, not for profit: critical urban theory and the right to the city, edited by Neil Brenner, Peter Marcuse and Margrit Mayer, 24-41. New York: Routledge.

References 233

Mathison, Sandra. 1988. “Why triangulate?” Educational Researcher 17(2): 13- 17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017002013. Maxwell, Joseph. 2005. Qualitative research design: An internative approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. McDonald, John. 2015. “Michael Parekowhai's Promised Land delivers plenty.” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 5. http://www.smh.com.au/ entertainment/art-and-design/review-michael-parekowhais-promised- land-delivers-plenty-20150601-ghe5l5.html. McDowell, Tara. 2010. “Overture.” The Exhibitionist 2: 2-4. McDowell, Tara. 2012. “Endnote.” The Exhibitionist 6: 69. McLean, Sandra. 2003. “Power to the people's art.” The Courier Mail, June 11. McLean, Sandra. 2004. “Boy meets girl in tale of one city.” The Courier Mail, July 14. McTernan, John. 2013. “Julia Gillard: Australian blokes have done their country down.” The Telegraph, July 8. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ transcripts/1323_telegraph.pdf. Mercer, Colin. 1991. “Brisbane's Cultural Development Strategy: the process, the politics, and the product.” Paper presented at The Cultural Planning Conference, Mornington, Victoria, December 1991. Mirowski, Philip. 2013. “The Thirteen Commandments of Neoliberalism.” The Utopian, June 19. Accessed August 18, 2015. http://www.the- utopian.org/post/53360513384/the-thirteen-commandments-of- neoliberalism. Monbiot, George. 2013. “If you think we're done with neoliberalism, think again.” The Guardian, January 15. Accessed October 27, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2013/jan/14/neoliberal- theory- economic-failure. Morrison, Lindy. 2005. “Stranded.” In The Dismissal: Where Were You on November 11, 1975? edited by Sybil Nolan. Melbourne University Press. Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. “For an Agonistic Model of Democracy.” In The Democratic Paradox. London and New York: Verso. Mouffe, Chantal. 2006. “Markus Miessen in conversation with Chantal Mouffe.” Accessed April 28, 2014. roundtable.kein.org/node/545.

References 234

Mouffe, Chantal. 2007. “Artistic Activism and Agonistic Spaces.” Art & Research 2 (1): 1-5. Accessed February 15, 2015. http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v1n2/mouffe.html. Mudge, Stephanie L. 2008. “The state of the art: What is neo-liberalism?” Socio- Economic Review 6 (4): 703–731. Myers, Julian. 2011. “On the Value of a History of Exhibitions.” The Exhibitionist 4: 24-28. Nancarrow, Dan. 2012. “Bligh unveils plans for South Bank expansion.” Brisbane Times, February 12. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bligh-unveils-plans-for- south-bank-expansion-20120212-1sz8v.html. NPSR (Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing, Queensland Government). 2014. “Tamborine National Park.” Accessed May 18, 2015. http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/parks/tamborine/about.html. Negt, Oskar and Alexander Kluge. 1993. Public Sphere and Experience – Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. Neill, Rosemary. 2011. “Mass appeal.” The Australian, July 2. Accessed November 10, 2015.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/mass- appeal/story-e6frg8n6-1226084238179. Nonini, Donald M. 2008. “Is China becoming neoliberal?” Critique of Anthropology 28 (2): 145–176. Novack, Kate and Andrew Rossi. 2011. Page One: Inside the New York Times. Sundance: Magnolia Pictures. Documentary. O'Brien, Kevin. 2006-ongoing. “Sep Yama: Finding Country.” Accessed January 12, 2015. http://www.findingcountry.com.au. O'Keeffe, Anne. 2011. “Media and discourse analysis.” In The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by James Gee & Michael Hanford, 441-454. London: Routledge. Olssen, Mark. 2003. “Structuralism, post-structuralism, neo-liberalism: Assessing Foucault's legacy.” Journal of Education Policy 18 (2): 189-202. O'Neill, Paul. 2007. “The Curatorial Turn: from Practice to Discourse.” In The Biennial Reader: An Anthology on Large-Scale Perennial Exhibitions of Contemporary Art, edited by Elena Filipovic, Marieke Van Hal and Solveig Ovstebo, 240-259. Norway: Bergen Kusthall.

References 235

Osiander, Andreas. 2001. "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth." International Organization 55 (2): 251–287, doi:10.1162/00208180151140577. Overton, Sarah. 1989. Australia's Bicentennial Arts program 1988. Sydney: Australian Bicentennial Authority. Ozkan, Derya. 2011. “In Conversation with Oda Projesi. Art's Indecent Proposal: Collaboration. An Attempt to Think Collectively.” oncurating 11, Public Issues: 54-84. Parliament of Australia. 1983. “Senate (Hansard).” Accessed May 3, 2017. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3 A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1984-10-18%2F0077%22. Parliament of Australia. 1986. “Senate (Hansard).” Accessed May 3, 2017. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMB ER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1986-10- 22%2F0081;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1986-10- 22%2F0003%22. Parliament of Australia. 2015. “Senate (Hansard).” Accessed August 19, 2017. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3 A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fc3d90ba0-0cf0-40f5-b619- 9d3ed6ad10bf%2F0160%22;src1=sm1. Peck, Jamie. 2005. “Struggling with the Creative Class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29 (4): 740-770. Peck, Jamie. 2010. “Jamie Peck on Struggling with the Creative Class.” Science Watch, Fast Moving Front Commentary, November. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/fmf/2010/10novfmf/ 10novfmfPeck/. Perman, Stacy. 2015. “Pop goes the art market.” Fortune, March 28. Accessed July 12, 2015. http://fortune.com/2015/03/28/art-art-auctions/. Piekkari, Rebecca, Catherine Welch & Eriikka Paavilainen. 2009. “The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals.” Organizational Research Methods 12: 567-589. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428108319905. Porges, Tim. 1997. “Colonel Mustard, in the Library, with a Lead Pipe or Too Many Missionaries Spoil the Broth.” New Art Examiner July-August: 28- 32.

References 236

Portelli, Alessandro. 1997. Battle of Valle Guilia: Oral history and the art of dialogue. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Pound, Roscoe. 1953. The Lawyer From Antiquity to Modern Times. St Paul: West Publishing Co. Powers, Penny. 2001. The Methodology of Discourse Analysis. London: James and Bartlett Publishers. Prasser, Scott and Nicholas Aroney. 2009. “Real Constitutional Reform After Fitzgerald.” Griffith Law Review, 18 (3): 596-620. Public Art Agency (PAA), Arts Queensland. 1999. Art Built-in Policy Statement. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Public Art Agency (PAA). 2003. “The Role of Curator is Essential to Create Great Public Art.” Transcript, Public debate, Judith Wright Centre, Brisbane, March 21. Purcell, Mark. 2002. “Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant.” GeoJournal, 58: 99-108. Purcell, Mark. 2013. “Henri Lefebvre: Spatial Politics, Everyday Life, and the Right to the City by Chris Butler.” Society and Space, May 15. http://societyandspace.org/2013/05/15/henri-lefebvre-spatial-politics- everyday-life-and-the-right-to-the-city-by-chris-butler-reviewed-by-mark- purcell/. QAGOMA. 2014. “QAGOMA Remembers Wayne Goss,” QAGOMA Blog, November 10. Accessed June 14, 2015. http://blog.qag.qld.gov.au/qagoma-remembers-wayne-goss/. QAGOMA. 2015. “Michael Parekowhai's first major Australian exhibition opens at GOMA.” Media Release, March 27. Accessed February 1, 2016. visualarts.qld.gov.au/news/media/2015/issue111_release/index.html. Radical Times Historical Archive. 2012. “A Brief History of Brisbane Radio Station 4ZZZ-FM.” Accessed June 11, 2015. http://radicaltimes.info/PDF/4ZZZhistory.pdf. Rake, Peta. 2011. “Inclusivity and Isolation: Artist Run Initiatives in Brisbane.” Fillip 15: 70-78. Accessed February 2, 2015. http://arcpost.ca/articles/inclusivity-and-isolation-artist-run-initiatives-in- brisbane. Rancière, Jacques. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Translated by Julie Rose. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

References 237

Rancière, Jacques. 2006a. “The Ethical Turn of Aesthetics and Politics.” Critical Horizons 7 (1): 1-20. Rancière, Jacques. 2006b. The Politics of Aesthetics. London: Continuum. Rancière, Jacques. 2007. “The Emancipated Spectator.” Artforum March: 271- 280. Rancière, Jacques. 2009. “Contemporary Art and the Politics of Aesthetics.” In Communities of Sense: Rethinking Aesthetics and Politics ed. Beth Hinderliter et. al. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Rancière, Jacques. 2011. “The Thinking of Dissensus: Politics and Aesthetics.” In Reading Rancière ed. Paul Bowman and Richard Stamp, 1-17. New York: Continuum. Remeikis, Amy. 2014. “Tony Fitzgerald slams Newman's 'politically motivated' apology.” Brisbane Times, July 25. Accessed December 10, 2014. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/tony-fitzgerald-slams- newmans-politically-motivated-apology-20140725-zwtxn.html. Renn, Aaron M. 2009. “The White City.” New Geography, October 18. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the- white-city. Reynolds, Alice. 2011. “Non-artist residents feel like 'criminals' in Soho.” The Villager, January 27. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://thevillager.com/villager_405/nonartistresidents.html. Ribalta, Jorge. 2009. “Experiments in a New Institutionality.” In Relational Objects, 225-265. Barcelona: Museu d'Art Contemporani de Barcelona (MACBA). Accessed October 16, 2013. macba.cat/PDFs/jorge_ribalta_colleccio_eng.pdf. Robbins, M. 1994. “Philosopher's Art Escapes the Duty of Reality.” The Australian, 22 April: 6. Robbins, Richard. 1999. Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rosler, Martha. 2010. “Take the Money and Run? Can Political and Socio- critical Art “Survive”?” e-flux journal 12 January: 01-19. Accessed June 15, 2014. http://worker01.e-flux.com/pdf/article_107.pdf. Ross, Peter. 2004. Rewind: Bellevue Hotel. ABC (broadcast October 17, 2004). Television program. Accessed January 14, 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/rewind/txt/s 1218262.htm.

References 238

Ross, Toni. 2011. “Departures from postmodern doctrine in Jacques Rancière's account of the politics of artistic modernity.” Transformations Journal of Media and Culture, Rancière: Politics, Art & Sense 19. Accessed January 7, 2015. http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_19/ article_06.shtml. Rourke, Alison. 2012. “Julia Gillard's attack on sexism hailed as turning point for Australian women.” The Guardian, October 13. Accessed July 25, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism- australian-women. Royal Institute of Architects (QLD) (RAIA). 2014. Queensland Cultural Centre (QCC): Nomination for Heritage Listing. http://www.architecture.com.au/docs/default-source/qld-policy- advocacy/final-south-bank-heritage-listing-submission-22-7- 14.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Rudd, Kevin. 2008. The Today Show, Channel Nine (broadcast May 23, 2008). Television program. Said, Edward. 1983. The World, the Text and the Critic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Salt, Bernard. 2012. “Magnetic force of middle-class suburban dream.” The Australasian Business Review, April 28. Accessed October 8, 2012. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/magnetic-force-of- middle-class-suburban-dream/story-e6frg9jx-1226340995341. Schmid, Christian. 2012. “Henri Lefebvre, the right to the city, and the new metropolitan mainstream.” In Cities for people, not for profit: critical urban theory and the right to the city, edited by Neil Brenner, Peter Marcuse and Margrit Mayer, 42-62. New York: Routledge. Schwartz, Madeleine. 2014. “The Art of Gentrification.” Dissent Magazine, Winter. Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-art-of-gentrification. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. 2015. “Chapter 5: Committee views and recommendations.” In Impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts. (ISBN 978-1-76010-335-4) Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Accessed August 19, 2017. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/ Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Arts_Funding/Report/c05.

References 239

Shapcott, Thomas. 1986. Hotel Bellevue. London: Chatto & Windus. Sheikh, Simon. 2008. “Publics and Post-Publics: The Production of the Social.” In Art as a Public Issue: How art and its institutions reinvent the public dimension, Open 14, edited by Chantal Mouffe: 28-36. Shmith, Michael. 1988. “Be prepared for a spectacular hard to ignore.” The Age, April 22. Shorten, Kristin. 2012. “Rock art by Andy Goldsworthy worth $700,000 built in remote section of Queensland national park.” The Courier Mail, August 28. Accessed June 12, 2015. http://www.couriermail.com.au/ news/queensland/rock-art-by-andy-goldsworthy-worth-700000-built-in- remote-section-of-queensland-national-park/story-e6freoof- 1226459300134. Simons, Margaret. 2011. “Who Should Look After the Cities?” Inside Story, June 2. Accessed June 12. 2015. http://insidestory.org.au/who-should-look- after-the-cities/. Sinnerton, Jackie. 2013. “Critics slam Brisbane's Vibrant Laneways Program.” The Courier Mail, November 30. http://www.couriermail.com.au/ news/queensland/critics-slam-brisbanes-vibrant-laneways-program/news- story/2b3792ff76cf13e25e3f9b0955452aa3. Skinner, Peter. 2003. “Reflections on Inside-Outside Space.” Paper presented at 2nd International Conference of the Association of Architecture Schools of Australasia, Melbourne, September 28-30, 2003. Accessed January 12, 2015. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:3545/insideoutsidetext.pdf. Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York: Routledge. Smith, Roberta. 2010. “Appetite for New and Next New.” New York Times, April 15. Accessed August 7, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2010/04/16/arts/design/16scull.html. Smith, Terry. 2012. Thinking Contemporary Curating. New York: Independent Curators International. Sorkin, Michael. 2009. “Stimulus/Response.” Inaugural Nielson Design Lecture with Michael Sorkin, State Library of Queensland, Brisbane, November 7, 2009. Available online: http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/_slqmedia/ video_and_audio_content/art-and-design/nielson-design-lecture-with- michael-sorkin.

References 240

Sorkin, Michael. 2011. All Over the Map: Writing on Buildings and Cities. Brooklyn: Verso. Sorkin, Michael. 2012. “Occupying Wall Street.” Architect, August. Accessed August 27, 2014. architectmagazine.com/arts-and-culture/occupying-wall- street.aspx?dfpzone=general. Stafford, Andrew. 2004. Pig City. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Stafford, Andrew. 2013. “Valley's live music scene flew too close to the sun.” Sydney Morning Herald, May 24. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/ music/valleys-live-music-scene-flew-too-close-to-the-sun-20130524- 2k67l.html. Stavraki, Georgia. 2014. “Going Reflective: Making Sense of the Process of Designing a Case Study Research under the Interpretive Paradigm.” In SAGE Research Methods Cases. London: SAGE. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4135/978144627305013496531. Steyerl, Hito. 2010 “Politics of Art: Contemporary Art and the Transition to Post- Democracy.” e-flux journal #21 December: 1-6. Accessed April 15, 2014. http://worker01.e-flux.com/pdf/article_8888181.pdf. Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalization and its Discontents. New York: WW Norton. Sweetman, Terry. 2012. “Arts and wiles of politics at play.” The Courier Mail, October 19. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/arts-and-wiles-of- politics-at-play/news-story/6e8d84bcdd9366094a0f8b6f6c3786d0. Szeemann, Harald, ed. 1972. “Exchange of views of a group of experts.” Museum International24 (1): 5-32. Szulakowska, Urszula. 1987. “Brisbane Dada: Collaborative Art in a Stagnant Culture.” eyeline 1: 14-17. Szulakowska, Urszula. 1997. “The avant-garde and its patrons: the development of experimental art in Brisbane c. 1980-1988.” Queensland Review 4 (1): 18-29. Tanke, Joseph. 2011. “What is the Aesthetic Regime?” Parrhesia 12: 71-81. Tannert, Christoph and Ute Tischler, ed. 2004. Men in Black: Handbook of Curatorial Practice. Berlin: Revolver. Thomas, Hedley. 2011. “Brisbane mayor Campbell Newman begins long march.” The Australian, March 23. Accessed June 17, 2015. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/brisbane-mayor- campbell-newman-begins-long-march/story-e6frg6z6-1226026357981.

References 241

Thomas, Jim. 1993. Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Thompson, Craig, Howard R. Pollio & William B. Locander. 1994. “The spoken and the unspoken: A hermeneutic approach to understanding the cultural viewpoints that underlie consumers expressed meanings.” Journal of Consumer Research 21: 432–452. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209409. Thompson, Nato. 2010. “Social Capital and the Unknown.” The Exhibitionist 2: 39-42. Thompson, Nato. 2012. “Reflections on Living as Form.” The Exhibitionist 6: 61- 67. Throsby, David. 2001. “Public funding of the arts in Australia – 1900 to 2000.” In Year Book Australia 2001, edited by Dennis Trewin, 548-561. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Tilston, John. 2014. Meanjin to Brisvegas: Snapshots of Brisbane's Journey from Colonial Backwater to New World city. 2nd ed. Arundel: Yellow Sail Company. Tobin, Daniel. 2003. “Bogus art? Bogus life!” The Courier Mail, June 14. Trenwith, Courtney, 2010. “New lines drawn in graffiti war.” Brisbane Times September 14. Accessed July 25, 2016. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/new-lines-drawn-in-graffiti- war-20100914-15agv.html. Tribe, Keith. 2009. “The Political Economy of Modernity: Foucault’s College de France Lectures of 1978 and 1979.” Economy and Society 38 (4): 679– 698. Turner, Brook. 2012. “A mirror of change,” Financial Review, October 20. Accessed October 17, 2014. http://www.afr.com/lifestyle/arts-and- entertainment/art/a- mirror-of-change-20121030-jipys. Van Dijk, Teun A. 1985. “Introduction: Discourse Analysis in (Mass) Communication Research.” In Discourse and Communication, 1-9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Van Dijk, Teun A. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi Hamilton, 352-371. Oxford: Blackwell. Van Schaik, Leon. 2005. Mastering Architecture: Becoming a Creative Innovator in Practice. West Sussex: Wiley-Academy.

References 242

Vanderlinden, Barbara, and Elena Filipovic, ed. 2005. The Manifesta Decade: Debates on Contemporary Art Exhibition and Biennials in Post-Wall Europe. Cambridge: MIT Press. Vaughn, E.J. 1974. America's Pop Collector: Robert C. Scull-Contemporary Art at Auction. Directed by and E.J. Vaughn. Produced by E.J. Vaughn. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art. Documentary. Velthuis, Olav. 2005. Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Verrender, Ian. 2014. “Think Whitlam ruined our economy? Think again.” The Drum, ABC News, 27 October. Accessed May 3, 2017. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-27/verrender-think-whitlam-ruined- our-economy-think-again/5842866. Virno, Paolo. 2004. A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life. New York: Semiotext(e). Van Dijk, Teun A. 1985. “Introduction: Discourse Analysis in (Mass) Communication Research.” In Discourse and Communication, 1-9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Van Dijk, Teun A. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi Hamilton, 352-371. Oxford: Blackwell. Vogel, Felix. 2013. “Notes on exhibition history in curatorial discourse.” oncurating 21: 46-54. Von Trier, Lars. 2003. Dogville. France: Canal+ and France 3 Cinema. Film. Wade, Gavin, ed. 2000. Curating in the 21st Century, United Kingdom: The New Art Gallery Walsall and The University of Wolverhampton. Ward, Frazer. 1995. “The Haunted Museum: Institutional Critique and Publicity.” October 73: 71-89. Waterhouse, Patrick, ed. 2013. Colors: Looking at Art 87 Looking at Art. Ponzano Veneto: Fabrica Spa. Wetherell, Margaret, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon Yates. 2001. Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage. Whitton, Evan. 1993. The Hillbilly Dictator: Australia’s Police State. 2nd ed. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Whybrow, Nicolas. 2011. Art and the City. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.

References 243

Williams, Alex. 2009. “On the Tip of Creative Tongues.” New York Times, October 2. Accessed November 10, 2014. nytimes.com/2009/10/04/fashion/04curate. Woodley, Naomi and Sabra Lane. 2012. “MPs reluctant to support code of conduct.” ABC News, May 14. Accessed July 18, 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/mps-reluctant-to-support-code- of-conduct/4009436. Yepes, Ruben. 2014. “Aesthetics, Politics, and Art's Autonomy: A Critical Reading of Jacques Rancière.” Evental Aesthetics 3 (1): 40-64. Accessed January 7, 2015. http://eventalaesthetics.net/evental-aesthetics-vol-3-no- 1-2014/ruben-yepes-ranciere-aesthetics-politics-autonomy/#_edn27. Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. London: SAGE. Younger, Jay. 2012a. “Curator Statement.” In Queen Elizabeth ll Courts of Law. HPW (Department of Housing and Public Works). Accessed October 28, 2014. http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/ SiteCollectionDocuments/PublicArtQEIICourts.pdf. Younger, Jay. 2012b. “The Coupling of Art and Government: Dilemmas in Government Commissioned Public Art.” The International Journal of the Humanities 9 (7): 95-116. Zeplin, Pamela. 2003. “Ten Days on the Island, or, Rough Seas on the Trans- Tasman Crossing.” Paper presented at the Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools (ACUADS) 2003 Conference, Tasmanian School of Art, University of Tasmania (UTAS), Hobart, October 1-4. Zukin, Sharon. 1982. Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. Zukin, Sharon. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge and Oxford: Blackwell. Zurbrugg, Nicholas, ed. 1997. Jean Baudrillard, Art and Artefact. London: SAGE Publications.

References 244

Appendices

245

Appendix A List Chronology

1968-1987 Joh Bjelke-Petersen | Bjelke-Petersen was the longest serving Premier of Queensland and one of the most controversial political figures of 20th century Australia. Bjelke-Petersen's premiership was marred by electoral malpractice, crony capitalism and systemic police corruption, which earned him the title 'Hillbilly Dictator' (Whitton 1993). Bjelke-Petersen's 'notorious inability to distinguish between private interest and public duty was contagious' (Costar 2005). Through the Fitzgerald Inquiry (1987-1989), Bjelke-Petersen's government was confirmed to be institutionally corrupt.

1968-present Queensland State Government establishes arts portfolio | The Queensland State Government first established a portfolio for Cultural Activities within its Ministry for Education and Cultural Activities. The portfolio was established in advance of the Australia Council. Although the Australia Council for the Arts — the Australian Government's arts funding and advisory body — first began operating mid 1968, it was not incorporated as an independent statutory authority until 1975 (Throsby 2001).

1975 4ZZZ | 102.1 FM | An independent community radio station, 4ZZZ was established to provide an alternative to mainstream news and current affairs. The station was founded in a 'repressive and anti-democratic atmosphere' in Brisbane, at a time when Australia had the second highest concentration of media ownership in the western world (Radical Times Historical Archive 2012).

Appendix A Chronology 247

1975-present Institute of Modern Art (IMA) | The IMA was established to mitigate Brisbane's peripheral status by fostering the commissioning and appreciation of new Australian and international contemporary art. Since its inception, this institution has been central to contemporary art discourses in Brisbane.

1981-present Metro Arts | In 1976, with support from the Australia Council's Capital Aid for Leisure Fund, work began on converting a late-nineteenth century warehouse into a community arts centre. In 1981 the Community Arts Centre was officially opened when all of its spaces — art galleries, a theatre, rehearsal rooms, creative workspaces, a cinema and a restaurant — were fully operational. The centre was renamed the Metro Arts Centre in 1988 and listed with the Queensland Heritage Register in 1992. Today, Metro Arts continues to be a multidisciplinary organization that develops visual art and theatre programs, and is the only arts centre to be continuously located in the CBD. However, as Kathryn Kelly has observed, Metro Arts' dual programming has at times fostered an awkward relationship resembling 'divorced parents in an uneasy custody agreement' (Kelly 2014: 44).

1982 Queensland Art Gallery secures permanent premises | The Queensland Art Gallery (QAG), established in 1895, moved to its long-awaited permanent premises, designed by architect Robin Gibson and described as 'the opus' of Gibson's oeuvre (RAIA 2014). Following the 1974 floods, Gibson's project brief for QAG was expanded to develop a master-planned Queensland Cultural Centre at South Bank, comprised of The Queensland Performing Arts Centre (QPAC), the Queensland Museum and the State Library of Queensland (SLQ).

1980s First era artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) | These spaces included: E.M.U., 109 Logan Road, Woolloongabba (1979-1980); ZIP (1981-1987); multiple ARIs associated with the One Flat collective (subsequently O' Flate), specifically Red Comb House, 190 Roma Street (c. 1981-1982) and One Flat Exhibit, first located at 19 Edmondstone Street and later at 355 George Street (c. 1982- 1984); A Room, 446 George Street (1984); Belltower Studios, 424 Brunswick

Appendix A Chronology 248

Street (1984-1990); The Observatory, 92-102 Little Roma Street (1985-1986); THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988), located at the rear of the John Reid & Nephews building, 20 Charlotte Street, and sister space John Mills National (JMN) (1986-1987), next door in the John Mills Himself building, 40 Charlotte Street, with a focus on performance. Founding members of THAT and JMN would develop AXIS (1987-1989); Bureau (1988-1989); Arch Lane Public Art (1987-1990).

1984-2011 Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) | QAA was an incorporated, not-for-profit membership-based organization established in 1984 to address the professional and financial concerns of visual artists. Alongside affiliate member organizations including artisan (formerly Craft Queensland) and the Arts Law Centre of Queensland (ALCQ), QAA developed a program of seminars, workshops and publications to assist the professional development of artists.

1987-present eyeline | Initially published under the auspices of QAA, eyeline is an Australian arts journal that publishes criticism and analysis of the contemporary visual arts, craft and related media across Australia, the Asia- Pacific, and internationally.

30 April-30 October 1988 World Expo 88 – South Bank Parklands | Bolstered by the success of the 1982 Commonwealth Games (Brisbane), Expo 88 is broadly considered a turning point in the history of Brisbane. Attracting more than 18 million visitors, the event promoted economic development, particularly tourism in Queensland. The largest event of the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations, it was the world's first 'free enterprise' World Exposition and spurred a major redevelopment at the South Brisbane site and nearby areas. 17 hectares of the South Brisbane site would later became South Bank Parklands, an independent authority managed by South Bank Corporation. Amongst its transformative legacies, the event also popularized outdoor dinning in Brisbane (Condon 2013), and many of the approximately 100 sculptural works were retained, primarily as part of Brisbane City Council's Public Art Collection.

Appendix A Chronology 249

1989-1996 Wayne Goss | In the wake of the Fitzgerald Inquiry (1987-1989), Goss ushered in a range of enduring electoral and law reforms, as well as stable economic management, merit-based appointments to the Queensland Public Service and decriminalization of homosexuality. As Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development, Arts Minister (1989 to 1992) and Chair of the Queensland Art Gallery’s Board of Trustees (1999 to 2008), Goss was instrumental in the development of APT and QAGOMA as an 'internationally recognized institution' (QAGOMA 2014). In 2008, QAGOMA acquired Michael Parekowhai’s iconic sculpture, Horn of Africa (2006), in recognition of Goss’ contribution as Chair.

1990s Second era artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) | ARIs established in the 1990s include: ISNT Studios, Gipps Street (1992-1996); Doggett Street Studio (1993- 2013), co-founded by artists Scott Whitaker and Allyson Reynolds – a commercial gallery space available for artists to hire; Fortitude Gallery (1996- 1997), established with artist Chris Worfold; White Box Gallery (1996-1997), established with artist Tracey Smith; Plotz Gallery, James Street (1996-1997); Process Gallery (1997-1998) and Carbon Based Studios, 459 Adelaide St (1997-1998); Soapbox Gallery, 95 Brunswick Street (1997-2005); Shop 49B, James Street (1999); Satellite Space, Studio 17/354 Brunswick Street (1999- 2001).

1993-present Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) | The Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art (APT) is the Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art’s (QAGOMA) flagship contemporary art project, and one of the region’s most respected and influential exhibitions. Since 1993, the APT series has driven the Gallery’s focus on contemporary art and regional engagement, and enabled the development of one of the most significant collections of Asian and Pacific contemporary art.

1995 Brisbane City Council (BCC) introduced the city's first public art policy | This policy continues to be administered through the Development Assessment (DA) process, which encourages developers to contribute 0.25% of total estimated budgets exceeding $5 million (BCC 2013).

Appendix A Chronology 250

1999-2007 Queensland Art Built-in policy | The Queensland State Government introduced the Art Built-in policy, allocating up to 2% of Queensland Government capital works, in excess of $250,000. As the most comprehensive public art policy in Australia, Art Built-in was a nationally prominent policy that 'contributed materially to the public environment' of Queensland (Keniger 2006: 15).

2000s Third era artist-run-initiatives (ARIs) | ARIs established in the 2000s include: Modus Studios 2000-2001; The Farm and Local Art (2002-2004); Boxcopy (2007-present); ProppaNOW (2003-present), an urban-based Indigenous artists collective; Moreton Street Spare Room (MSSR) (2006-2009); The Wandering Room (2007-2014); No Frills* (2008-2011); inbetweenspaces (2008-2012); Accidentally Annie Street Space (AASS) (2008-2012); LEVEL (2010-present), initially located at 11 Stratton Street, where multiple galleries including Smith + Stoneley (1998-2000) were formerly located; Current Projects (2011-2013); The Hold Artspace (2013-2015).

2002-2009 One Book One Brisbane, Brisbane City Council (BCC) | One Book One Brisbane was modelled on One Book One Community, a program established in 1998 by Seattle’s Washington Centre for the Book. Of the more than 150 community-wide reading programs to have flourished globally, Brisbane was the only Australian city to confidently invest in a civic literacy program (Eltham 2008). The program attracted more than 2000 entries: from Peter Carey's True History of the Kelly Gang (2000), the inaugural winner, to David Malouf's Johnno (1975), a joint-winner with Rebecca Sparrow's debut novel, The Girl Most Likely (2003), in 2004, and Rosamond Siemon's The Mayne Inheritance (1997) in 2003 – a fictionalized story of notable University of Queensland's benefactors, for whom the building that houses the UQ Art Museum is named. As with other One Book One Community programs, One Book One Brisbane attracted criticism. Primarily, commentators questioned whether, by limiting the spirit and scope of the competition to books selected for their Brisbane-based setting, One Book One Brisbane had become too parochial (McLean 2004).

Appendix A Chronology 251

2006 Millennium Arts Project, Queensland Government | Although the project upgraded and expanded arts facilities throughout the State, the Millennium Arts Project primarily involved design and construction of the new Queensland Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) – the largest art museum in Australia solely dedicated to modern and contemporary art – and the redevelopment of the State Library of Queensland (SLQ).

2006 Fortitude Valley special entertainment precinct | During the 1990s, prompted by the Keating government's Building Better Cities program (Simons 2011; Elliott 2015), Brisbane City Council led a master-planned urban renewal program promoting high density residential development in the area. Following a long-running dispute between pre-existing music venues and new residents in the area, the special entertainment precinct was created to protect the long-term future of the music-based entertainment industry and mixed-use development in Fortitude Valley.

2007-2012 art+place, the Queensland Public Art Fund | In response to a number of recommendations made in Keniger's Art Built-in Policy Evaluation (2006), the Art Built-in policy was replaced in 2007 by art+place, the Queensland Public Art Fund: a 'centralized funding model administered by Arts Queensland' that allocated $12 million over three years (art+place Guidelines for applicants 2007: 3).

2004-2015 Campbell Newman | Formerly Lord Mayor of Brisbane (2004-2011), Campbell Newman was elected Premier of Queensland March 24, 2012. As Premier (2012-2015), Newman's 'first symbolic gesture came the day after his cabinet was sworn in when he cut funds to the Premier's Literary Awards' (Lewis 2015). Newman's 'Napoleonic tendencies' (Fagan 2010; Thomas 2011), with 'the autocratic style of a tin-pot military dictator' (Bryant 2015), were often considered 'reminiscent of the reign of Joh Bjelke-Petersen' (Costar 2015).

Appendix A Chronology 252

Appendix B List of artworks and projects

A A Room (1984), coordinated by Barbara Campbell, George Street; Activities (c. 1973 – c. 1993), University of Queensland (UQ); Brook Andrew, ANP Animated Neon Protozoa (2004), Queensland Museum; Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) (1993-present), QAGOMA; AXIS (1987-89) Paul Andrew, Jay Younger and Lehan Ramsay

B Jean Baudrillard, The Ecstasy of Photography (1994), curated by Nicholas Zurbrugg, Institute of Modern Art (IMA); Martin Boyce, We are shipwrecked and landlocked (2008-10), QAGOMA

D Sebastian Di Mauro, Chat (2002), commissioned by Consolidated Properties (decommissioned); The Demolition Show (1986), curated by John Stafford, The Observatory

E Entrepot (1983-87), coordinated by Mark Thomson, Charlotte Street; eyeline (1986-present)

Appendix B List of artworks and projects 253

F Fiona Foley, Witnessing to Silence (2004), Brisbane Magistrates Court; Fiona Foley, Pi-ri (2006), near Queensland College of Art (QCA), South Bank; Fiona Foley, Black Opium (2006), State Library of Queensland (SLQ)

G Sally Gabori (aka) Mirdidingkingathi Juwarnda, Dibirdibi Country (2012), Banco Court, Brisbane Supreme and District Courts; Andy Goldsworthy, Strangler Cairn (2011), Conondale National Park

H Matthew Harding, Mabo Memorial Sculpture (2007), commissioned by Townsville City Council; Jeanelle Hurst, Highrise Wallpaper (1988)

I InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988), coordinated by Jeanelle Hurst

J John Mills National (JMN) (1986-87), established by Virginia Barratt and Adam Boyd, Charlotte Street

K kuril dhagan, State Library of Queensland (SLQ); Yayoi Kusama, Narcissus garden (1966/2002), QAG; Yayoi Kusama, Eyes are Singing Out (2012), Brisbane Supreme and District Courts

L Land, Sea and Sky (2011), QAGOMA; Alice Lang, The Swell (2013), commissioned as part of BCC's Vibrant Laneways program

Appendix B List of artworks and projects 254

M Piero Manzoni, Base of the world (1961); Wendy Mills, On this auspicious occasion (1998), Queen Street Mall, Brisbane City Council (BCC) (decommissioned); Lee Mingwei, Bodhi Tree Project (2006), QAGOMA; A Monochrome Set (1987), curated by Diena Georgetti, THAT Contemporary Art Space

N Dennis Nona, Salaul Au Tonar (2009), Cairns Foreshore

O The Observatory (1985-86), coordinated by Anna Zsoldos, Robyn Gray, Lehan Ramsay and Jay Younger, Little Roma Street; One Flat – O'Flat (1981-84) initially located at Red Comb House Roma Street138; Lisa O'Neill, Ghosting (2001), Judith Wright Centre

P Michael Parekowhai, The Horn of Africa (2006), QAGOMA; Michael Parekowhai, The World Keeps Turning (2009), The Moment of Cubism (2009), Michael Lett, Auckland; Michael Parekowhai, He Kōrero Pūrākau mo Te Awanui o Te Motu: story of a New Zealand river (2011), Venice Biennale 2011; Michael Parekowhai, The World Turns (2011-12), QAGOMA; Michael Parekowhai, Promised Land (2015), QAGOMA

Q Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) (1984-2011)

R Anne-Maree Reaney, From the Margins (1986), THAT Contemporary Art Space; Scott Redford, Automatic for the people (ROCK) (2000) Roma Street Parklands; Scott Redford, The High/Perpetual Xmas, No Abstractions (2008), QAGOMA

138 Activities associated with One Flat are not linked by a single name or physical space (Anderson 2016c) — for example One Flat Exhibit (1981-84), initially located at Red Comb House, 190 Roma Street, then O'Flat, 19 Edmondstone Street, and then One Flat Exhibit George Street Branch, 355 George Street (1982-85). Subsequently, Jeanelle Hurst — a leading member of the One Flat collective — would coordinate InterFace: City as a Work of Art (1988), which is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

Appendix B List of artworks and projects 255

T THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988); Jean Tinguely, Heureka (1963/64),139 Richard Tipping, Watermark (2000), Brisbane Powerhouse, Brisbane City Council (BCC); The Torres Strait Islands: A Celebration (2011), Cultural Precinct, South Bank

W Gary Warner's sound work Boom Box Town and Country (1988); Judy Watson, shoal (1998), 'Gootcha' CityCat (2010), Brisbane City Council (BCC); Judy Watson, Tow Row (2016) QAGOMA; Ai Weiwei, Boomerang (2006), QAG

139 One of 90 artworks that were loaned or commissioned for Expo 88. As previously noted, following Expo 88, many of these works were purchased by BCC, including: (1) Arnaldo Pomodoro, Forme del Mito (1983), loaned for Expo 88, purchased by BCC and now located at Jacob's Ladder on Turbot Street; (2) Greg Johns, Continuous Division (1988), commissioned by Expo 88 and purchased by BCC, located at northern entry to the Roma Street Parklands; (3) Baile Oakes, Gestation (1988), commissioned by Expo 88 and purchased by BCC, now located George Street entrance to the Queen Street Mall; (4) Gidon Graetz, Mirage (1972), loaned for Expo 88, purchased by BCC and the Mayne Estate (UQ), located in the Brisbane Arcade, Queen Street; (5) Peter D Cole, Man & Matter (1988),commissioned for Expo 88 and purchased by the Queensland Government, and located along the Kangaroo Point Cliffs Boardwalk.

Appendix B List of artworks and projects 256

Appendix C Participants

Peter Anderson, arts writer; recently curated ephemeral traces: Brisbane's artist-run scene in the 1980s, University of Queensland Art Museum (2016). Paul Andrew, formerly founding coordinator THAT Contemporary Art Space (1985-1988) and currently coordinator ARI Remix (2012-present). Peter Browning, formerly Manager of Cultural Policy, Brisbane City Council (BCC). Scott Chaseling, Specialist Urban Design Delivery, City Planning & Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, Brisbane City Council (BCC). Brian Doherty, formerly involved with The Cultural Activities Centre (Activities) at University of Queensland (UQ); Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) and eyeline. Sarah Follent, Executive Editor eyeline. Carmel Haugh, Creative Sector Development Coordinator, Creative Communities, Lifestyle and Community Services, Brisbane City Council (BCC). Jeanelle Hurst, artist and coordinator InterFace: City as a Work of Art, or City Under Redevelopment (1988). Lindy Johnson, formerly CEO Queensland Artworkers' Alliance (QAA) and Senior Ministerial Arts Advisor, Queensland Government.

Appendix C Participants 257

Alice Lang, Australian artist based in Los Angeles and formerly a founding Co- Director of LEVEL, an artist-run-initiative (ARI), Brisbane. Kaylene McGill, Senior Urban Designer, City Planning & Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, Brisbane City Council (BCC). John Stafford, formerly Executive Program Officer, Public Art Agency (PAA) and Director of Visual Arts, Craft and Design, Arts Queensland (AQ). Professor Jay Younger, Brisbane-based artist, curator and academic.

Appendix C Participants 258