Spaces for Spaces: The Value of Space for Artistic Work (2)

A second public conversation in a series working towards a ‘framework of competing values’ for space for artistic work in the city, at Glasgow Studios, Anderlecht
25/01/2025, 15-19h

During these conversations organised by the Brussels Artist-Run Network, we discuss and imagine the value of artistic workspaces in an urban context. Spaces for artistic development and production are often invisible and undervalued in contrast to exhibition spaces. In cities where property prices are rising and rents are increasing, the value of physical space is often only perceived in financial terms.

This afternoon Glasgow Studios, the approach we choose to think about value is self-organisation and relations with owners. We will have testimonials and share experiences about setting up and running a self-organised collective workspace and its day-to-day operation. How can we collectively manage and preserve workplaces that are mainly used for individual practices? We will explore the key principles that determine these relationships, such as conventional rent vs temporary occupation, own property, legal structures, direct relationship with an owner, etc.
We will test the assumption that there is less occasion for self-organisation if the owner assumes a management role (Entrakt, Pali Pali, Arty Farty, Creative District, etc.).

Initiative: Jesse van Winden, Brussels Artist-Run Network
Facilitator: Katinka De Jonge
Artistic interventions: Elisabeth Woronoff, Tarek Jnib, who share their artistic research on Studio Citygate and Grand Hospice respectively, asking why these communities seem to fail to become communities.

 

What is at stake?

Space for artistic creation and development is a scarce commodity. Public attention to art often goes to museums and well-known institutions, which mainly function according to a logic of programming. At the scale of an artistic practice, presentations are crucial, but brief and often one-off. For development and production, there is less attention and less money. The ‘value’ of artistic production in the city is too little known. However, we do know that this value is certainly not only economic in nature.

Self-organised studio collectives and workplaces thrive on the networks that they constitute, and enable work synergy and collaboration through continuous, shared infrastructures. Personal relationships – so often undervalued – are at the heart of these support networks. Their value cannot be monetised, but their capital is paramount. Enduring relationships represent knowledge transfer, connection and affection. They give strength to cooperation.

For such relationships and networks to exist and be fruitful, infrastructure is needed. An infrastructure can consist of physical spaces, meetings, or virtual platforms, but always requires time spent together. When infrastructure is in place to support this potential synergy, a creative community and its members can fulfil what otherwise remains only imaginable. Yet physical space also always means immediate real estate – the ‘value’ of which is often understood primarily in financial terms.

Many of the spaces for artistic production in Brussels have no financial backing whatsoever. They are managed collectively and pragmatically on basis of the need for a studio. There is often ‘space’ but rarely ‘place’ (as the cultural policy plan in Anderlecht distinguishes between physical and mental space) for programmes and activities (presentation, networking, reflection, participation).

Of many such places, the stay is only assured for two to four years. This is because they regularly rely on the real estate logic of ‘temporary use’, which seems to have slowly become the ubiquitous solution. But ‘temporary use’ is a problematic concept. As a preconceived plan, it pushes monetary value for property owners and developers. At the same time, it abuses individuals and collectives, reinforces precarity, alienates citizens and incites gentrification and speculation.

Affordable temporary spaces almost always depend on renovations to use them – for too short a period of time. Such operations consume personal time, collective efforts and precious budgets of artists already working in precarious situations. Yet, after a significant investment (or perhaps even: waste) of time, energy and money, these workspaces led to a certain eviction barely a few years later.

The popularity of ‘temporary use’ and pop-up venues gives both artists and policymakers only an apparent solution. This exhausting cycle cannot be part of a sustainable normality. We suggest abandoning this model of temporary venues for artists and other art workers. Social needs abound and we want to stress that we do not believe that culture should take precedence over social housing. Artist  communities are socially conscious and organise their practice in collectivity. This creates solidarity: a much-needed trait among citizens. What is suitable for housing should remain (social) housing. But empty offices and industrial buildings can and should serve as valuable spaces for cultural and socio-cultural initiatives.

We want to look for longer-term solutions together, and formulate visions in consultation with a multitude of actors. We can already imagine government bodies implementing policies that secure real estate for non-profit use, for instance for artists who are currently active.

 

Practical

Location:
Glasgow Studios
Rue Glasgowstraat 18
1070 Anderlecht

Participation: for free and no registration is required
Language: English, facilitation in French

Many thanks to the Anderlecht Cultural Service for the support!