Spotlight on Hull: time-based art on the margins

Emily WilczekUniversity of Lincoln

Abstract

In 2017 Hull has been designated UK City of Culture, a bid it won on the promise of 'coming out of the shadows'. But in its recent past Hull has been very much in the spotlight in the area of time-based art. This article looks at the emergence of this activity in Hull in the late twentieth century, and in particular the role of the artist-led organisation Hull Time Based Arts. Examples of Hull Time Based Arts’s programme are discussed in order to understand the significance of this organisation and in particular its programming of political, formal, and community specific artworks. The wider issues of community, funding, and arts education are also discussed as crucial factors underpinning artist-led activity in a city.

Keywords

Hull Time Based Artsartist-run organisationsart schoolstime-based mediacollectivesfunding

1

Introduction

Hull is ‘coming out of the shadows’ according to the city’s bid to be UK City of Culture 2017 (Weaver 2013). The city’s application played on the often negative press Hull has suffered in its recent past, including topping lists of ‘Crap Towns’ (Wainwright 2003), and ‘forever propping up the league tables of social and economic failures [...] to be sneered at by economists, policy wonks and metropolitan journalists’ (Jones 2016: 131). When the self-mythologizing that accompanies City of Culture status could risk overshadowing what has already taken place, it is important to recognise the achievements of artists in Hull’s recent past. In the late-twentieth and early twenty-first century, Hull was home to a thriving artistic community of international repute for time-based art. This article looks at how the arts infrastructure in Hull supported such a flourishing environment for artists, and in particular the contribution of artist-led organisation Hull Time Based Arts (HTBA). It is not intended that this should be a survey of HBTA’s activity1, but rather examples of work developed and commissioned by the organisation are chosen to illustrate what characterised it, why this was significant, and what elements contributed to its success and subsequent demise.

Running from 1984 to the mid-2000s, HTBA set out to provide production facilities and exhibition space for people wanting to produce ‘time-based art’, defined in its 1985 constitution as ‘non-commercial and experimental film, video, sound, music, performance, installation and related material’ (Gawthrop 1997a: 00:47), and later joined by digital and online media. HTBA was established as a membership organisation where annual fees would contribute towards promoting members’ work through screenings, workshops and seminars, alongside that of local, national and international artists (including commissioning artists such as Paul Burwell, Sarah Pucill and Stefan

1 A survey of activity would not be possible at the moment as The HTBA archive is currently waiting to be catalogued in the Live Art Archives at the University of Bristol Theatre Collection.

2

Szczelkun). As the membership grew and HTBA was able to secure more funding, the organisation acquired high-end production facilities (such as the Avidlab digital production suite in 1994), set-up connections with European partners (for example the European Media Artists in Residence Exchange in collaboration with Peter Zorn of the Werkleitz Centre for Media Arts in 1995) and became internationally regarded for its ambitious exhibitions programme and as a commissioner of what would now be called ‘socially engaged’ time-based art. The implication of defining its practice as ‘time-based’ was of something constantly evolving and intrinsically anti-conservative, without limiting the organisation’s remit to a specific discipline. HTBA distinguished itself among contemporary arts organisations in being artist-led, and in championing those disenfranchised from or by mainstream cultural production. I look at the impact of this organisation in relation to three aspects of its programming: political, formal, and community specific artworks, and locate these within broader theoretical discussions of community and place. Decisions beyond the control of small organisations – such as the local provision of higher education, and regional funding for the arts – can be crucial to their success or failure, but steps can be taken to safeguard their future. By discussing factors that lead to the demise of Hull Time Based Arts, I hope to sound a cautionary tale for the next generation of artist-led groups in the city.

The city and cultureWhen Hull Time Based Arts was established in 1984 it was against the

backdrop of city residents having called for a well-appointed arts centre for the preceding forty years. In 1946 a group of local residents published a pamphlet calling for ‘An Arts Centre in Hull for the enjoyment of Drama Ballet Music Opera Film & The Visual Arts’ (Kingston upon Hull Citizens Arts League). In 1965 a similar call was made by the Hull Arts Centre Group who were also unsuccessful in their proposal to provide the city with a new purpose built mixed-arts venue. The latter group did raise enough capital to convert a chapel into an arts centre in 1970, which later became the Hull Truck Theatre. Though the emphasis was primarily on drama, a small gallery space was figured into this building to exhibit local artists’ work, and there

3

was a willingness to show other art forms, including music and experimental film (Welton 2009). As a relatively small city with little municipal provision for contemporary art, strong links were forged in the 1960s and 70s between promoters, venues and artists in the spheres of art and music. The need for a venue in which to show local mixed media work encouraged other ad-hoc spaces to open such as the music-focused Brickhouse in 1971. The Brickhouse had a communal feel, hosting music, a café, talks, poetry, and performance art as well as bringing well-known bands to Hull such as The Who, David Bowie and Roxy Music (Welton 2009). According to co-founder, Barry Nettleton, the Brickhouse ‘was like an arts centre’ in its free ranging approach to culture (Blows 1981: 4), and was open to staging unconventional events, including early public performances by COUM Transmissions. Hull’s relative isolation from cultural centres encouraged the DIY ethos of venues such as the Brickhouse and groups such as COUM (Stubbs 2017). With a strong music scene and DIY arts venues willing to support more esoteric activities, Hull was becoming an exciting prospect for art students in the 1970s-80s. Certainly the city wouldn’t seem like the first choice for many prospective students wanting to immerse themselves in contemporary art, but what could have been the city's shortcomings - the geographical seclusion, economic deprivation and defiant uncoolness - actually had their advantages. An acceptance of more marginal art practices, a collaborative cultural scene, and very cheap rents were all part of the appeal for those wanting to live and make art in the city.

The existence in Hull of an art school that championed a freethinking, experimental approach to materials, and an open-minded attitude to media was key to the setting up of Hull Time Based Arts in the 1980s. The Hull School of Art was ‘vital to the city's cultural life’ (Wood 2002) and instrumental in ensuring a steady flow of would-be artists to the city both from within the UK and internationally. It also provided a focus for Hull residents who wished to develop their practice with access to a purpose built painting studios on Anlaby Road, and excellent facilities in print-making, sculpture, film, video, sound and photography at the Queen’s Gardens site. Founded as a monotechnic in 1861, the school first offered an honours

4

degree in Fine Art in 1974, becoming the Hull (later Humberside) College of Higher Education in 1976 (Foster 1997: 2).2 Film had been infiltrating Fine Art courses since the 1960s (Curtis 2007:24), giving students access to otherwise costly equipment such as cameras, processing laboratories, editing desks, printers and projectors. By the early 1980s Hull School of Art was particularly well provisioned in this area with lecturers such as David Woods and Phil Cosker in Design and Tony Hill (then Lecturer in Fine Art Film and a well-known artist-filmmaker in his own right) encouraging students ‘to do anything [they] wanted in the film side of things from multi screen super 8 projections out in the square behind the fine art building at Queens Gardens, to using 2inch video tape gear’ (Scott 2017). The art school also had several darkroom facilities for students to develop their own films, and its own 16mm optical printer: a device rarely available in art schools or outside dedicated filmmaking organisations such as the London Filmmakers' Co-operative.3

The appointment of Rob Gawthrop to the Fine Art department in 1983, an artist-filmmaker who went on to become Head of Art, contributed significantly to the school's emphasis on moving image and sound. Prior to arriving in Hull Gawthrop had studied Fine Art (Film Video & Sound) under David Hall at Maidstone College of Art (now University for the Creative Arts) and at the Royal College of Art. He arrived in Hull having gained experience of exhibiting experimental film, performance and sound in non-art locations, from working with artists Jeff Keen and Tony Sinden putting on film events under the Brighton arches. Gawthrop first came to the Hull School of Art at the invitation of Tony Hill as part of the Arts Council’s ‘Filmmakers on tour’ scheme, a project that he later used to bring many film and video artists to the college and local film theatre (Gawthrop 2017). Alongside Gawthrop, a number of other performance, sound and video artists were appointed to teach on the course, bolstering the provision for time-based media. These artists included Gina Czarnecki, an artist working with video and installation

2 Following the achievement of Polytechnic status in 1991, a year later it became the University of Humberside, by 1996 the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside, and finally the University of Lincoln in 2001. 3 After the closure of the Hull School of Art and Design the optical printer was moved to NoWhere lab in London.

5

and a member of the executive committee at the London Film-makers’ Co-op (1987-2002); Helmut Lemke whose practice with sound and live performance strengthened the audio element of the time-based media department; and Gillian Dyson, an artist originally from Hull who graduated from the Slade School of Art and later taught at Dartington College of Arts, returning to Hull initially to take up a performance artist in residence position. Dyson brought an emphasis on site-specific performance art to the school, and went on to work simultaneously part-time with HTBA as their Project Co-ordinator. The Fine Art course's strong provision for time-based media, in terms of both teaching and facilities, meant that since the early 1980s the Hull School of Art attracted national and international students to the city, many of whom developed their practice locally after graduation, were active in creating organisations and exhibitions for time-based art in the city, and formed strong links with organisations such as HTBA.

The impetus for students to self-organise events and exhibitions was embedded in the Fine Art course. Lecturing staff drew upon their own experience to encourage students to stage their own shows, set up arts organisations and found studio groups and galleries outside the art school’s institutional structure. Pete Owen, for instance, was Senior Lecturer in Painting at Hull from 1991-2004, during which time he was also co-organiser of artist-run gallery and project ‘City Racing’ in London, which he co-founded with Paul Noble, a former Hull School of Art student later short-listed for the Turner Prize (Hale et al 2002). George Saxon taught at Hull having previously been active with Housewatch, a group showing light, film, video, sound and performance in ‘new and challenging venues in a variety of public spaces and ordinary urban situations’ (Curtis 1996: 85). The encouragement from lecturers such as Owen and Saxon resulted in students setting up a number of their own temporary and longstanding art organisations in Hull, including the Red Gallery, studio group Quay Arts, and festivals such as 54º North. These were all made possible because of the accessibility of relatively low cost, versatile spaces in the city. The cumulative effect of this was that from the 1980s to early 2000s, Hull had a high retention of practicing artists staying in the city after graduation, many of whom worked in time-based

6

media, and who also underpinned much of the work force of other art organisations.

Hull Time Based ArtsEstablished in 1984, the main stimulus for setting up HTBA ‘came from

disenfranchised experimental filmmakers working in Hull’ (Gawthrop 1997b: 01:48). While the time-based media department within the Art School was expanding, the opportunity to exhibit work or access production facilities in film and video outside this institution, were still fairly limited in the early 1980s. At the time, the British Film Institute had stopped providing funding to the region; until this point there had been a film and video workshop (a legacy of the Channel 4 ACTT workshop agreement) at Hull Community Artworks (Gawthrop 2017). In autumn 1984 an open meeting was held at the Bluebell Inn ‘for anyone interested in experimental film, music, performance, sound and video’ (Gawthrop 1997b: 01:49). The intention was to form a members' association to promote their own work through public exhibitions, as well as secure production funding as a group: working collectively gave power to these artists that they would not have had individually. Those interested in setting up an organisation included John Stead (musician), Jo Millett (an artist and graduate of the Royal College of Art's Film & T.V. School who brought experience staging mixed media events at Brighton Open Studios), Alan Jeffrey and Tom Scott (graduates of the Hull School of Art), Andy Moss and Ruth Rixson (students), and Rob Gawthrop (lecturer). Representatives from two other Hull groups – Dave Ellis of Other Musics (who had been putting on improvised music), and Karen Rann of the Hull Open Performance Group (who organised live art events) – also attended the meeting and were subsequent collaborators with HTBA. The background of these founder members and collaborators meant that from the outset, HTBA was concerned with a variety of media not limited to film and video, and was outward looking and collaborative. Having established themselves after that initial meeting, the group were quick to put together their first public event on 29th November 1984 at the local municipal gallery (the Ferens), showcasing the work of HTBA members and submissions from a local open-

7

call (a strategy that helped to spread word of the new organisation to potential members (Gawthrop 1997b: 01:49)).

As might be expected from an artist-run organisation in its early days, events tended to be organised on a limited budget and in the spirit of co-operation and mutual enthusiasm for the work shown. That is not to say the group was not ambitious, or that they lacked professionalism, but it seems that there was a daring (some might say naïveté) to their exhibitions that a more experienced organisation might be less willing to risk. For instance, the second event organised by HTBA on 6th December 1984 (in association with The Open Performance Group and Other Musics), again held at the Ferens Gallery, featured work by international filmmakers such as Wojciech Bruszewski, alongside performances, installation, and film by local members. Paul Burwell, Anne Bean and Richard Wilson’s performance as Bow Gamelan left a strong impression on audience members that night. The event is described by Other Music’s Dave Ellis in his obituary of Burwell, and captures that night’s wild performance:

… oil drums were thrashed and set alight, scrap metal and gravel was hurled into a bank of tortured tumble dryers, bag pipes suspended from the ceiling magically inflated themselves, twitching and wailing in protest. Gongs boomed, bells clamoured, sirens wailed and showers of sparks flew from a trio of screeching angle-grinders. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more intense, the sound and activity would progress to another level. Crescendo followed crescendo of industrial-scale mayhem, until at last three figures stood centre stage amid the carnage with flaming letters atop their protective headgear spelling out the word BOW. As silence finally descended, a distant alarm bell could be heard somewhere in the building […] and even before the audience could reconfigure their disoriented senses, the sound of emergency vehicles could be heard rapidly approaching. (Ellis 2007)

8

This was characteristic of HTBA's support of mixed media events that championed members' work alongside that of more well-known artists, presenting challenging work that might not find a home within more exhibition-based mainstream art practices. The event also marked the beginning of a long-standing relationship between HTBA and Burwell, who went on to perform at many subsequent events in Hull, finally moving to the city in 2000 and setting up his own art space.

According to Tom Scott, the forming of a co-operative structure ‘was fundamental to the stability and the sense of identity of HTBA’ (2017). This can be seen, in part, as the legacy of previous organisations with similar aims, such as The Film-Makers' Cooperative (New York), an independent film distribution centre started in 1962 that was ‘governed by the filmmakers themselves’ with a ‘nonexclusive, nondiscriminatory’ catalogue (James 1992:10), or The Basement group (founded in Newcastle in 1979, becoming Projects UK in 1983 then Locus+ in 1993), an open access space run co-operatively for performance and time-based art (Grayson 2006).4 Gawthrop and Millett came to Hull having previously screened their work with the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, where the distribution policy saw that all films submitted would be listed and promoted equally in their catalogue, and that salaried posts would be time-limited, in order to share the advantage of paid-employment more broadly (Curtis 2007: 32). From the outset, HTBA shared similar concerns to these organisations about open access and creating an egalitarian organisational structure, but took this a step further in terms of equalities. For instance, written into their formal constitution in 1985 was a specific aim that HTBA would be ‘anti-sexist and anti-racist and to offer equal opportunities in organisation, language and production and actively promote the interests of under-represented groups, such as people with disabilities’ (Gawthrop 1997a: 00:47). Here was an organisation taking active steps to include those who had been disenfranchised elsewhere. In the midst of Margaret Thatcher's second term as prime minister, whose economic 4 Similar to HTBA, the Basement Group had strong ties to the Fine Art department at the local Polytechnic (staffed by Stuart Marshall, Mike Leggett, and Roger Wilson, among others), which Grayson describes as playing a ‘central role in experimental and time-based art in the city at the time,’ (Grayson 2006).

9

policies were hitting the North-East of England particularly hard, HTBA responded with an agenda to broaden public awareness of ‘non-commercial’, time-based arts. Their explicit social and political imperative positively engaged with those who had been under-represented in the past. The constitution is notable in its aim to promote local work alongside international artists, an aim already realised by HTBA’s second event.5 Furthermore, designating, in the organisation’s title and aims, that temporality in art was a prime concern, not only in film and video but extending beyond to performance, sound and installation, pointed the group’s interests towards the currency, even urgency, of their endeavours. By foregrounding temporal practices that were considered at the time marginal to the commercial art world, HTBA adopted a critical position to the culture of marketization prevalent at the time.

From the outset, as their constitutions shows, HTBA aimed to be collaborative and outward looking. Meetings were often held in local pubs, where plans would be made about how to develop the organisation and plan events to promote members' work. With no premises of their own, early HTBA events were peripatetic, being held in arts venues across Hull.6 The live, events-based culture that had already been established in some of these venues in the 1960s and 70s paved the way for HTBA to find willing hosts for their work. Touring programmes of film, performance and sound work by HTBA members established connections with regional arts venues including Counter Image (Manchester), the Midland Group (Nottingham), and Video Positive festival (Liverpool), that were similarly facilitating the making and distribution of moving image, ‘new’ media, and performance. This helped spread the word about HTBA’s activities and build momentum for time-based arts more broadly across the regions, to some extent de-centring such activity from London.

5 HTBA's full constitution is reproduced in Gawthrop, R. (1997a) ‘I to Y: From the indefinite article to anonymity’, in Phillips, A. (ed.) Out of Time: Hull Time Based Arts 1984-1998 Hull: Hull Time Based Arts, pp00:46-00:47.6 These included the Ferens Gallery, the Bluebell Inn, the Victoria Pier, the Spring Street Theatre and Hull Film Theatre.

10

HTBA matched their constitutional dedication to inclusivity with an organisational structure that supported members’ needs, and ensured collective decision-making. While not being formally demanded in their constitution, all key roles – the Director, Project Co-ordinator and Chair – were occupied by artists, an aspect that continued until 2003. Membership was initially open to anyone for a small annual fee, and those that joined could quickly benefit from being included in local group exhibitions, touring programmes, and, once the group was more established, access to shared production facilities. Because of a paucity of funds available to individuals in the late-1980s, the group set up a Members’ Production Fund to allow individuals to apply for money for their production costs: a significant help for those using relatively expensive materials such as film. In 1989 HTBA became a secondary co-operative, a new structure that required the purchase of a single, non-returnable, £1 share (Gawthrop 1997b: 01:51). This share stood as a token of the members’ shared ownership of the co-operative, allowing them to attend general meetings and the AGM, where policy issues were decided and the executive and other committees chosen. All staff had to be members, promoting a sense of ownership and responsibility. This structure was an important attribute of HTBA, meaning that it served the interests of its members, was non-profit making, and while benefitting from many privileges similar to a charity, could still operate politically. This last point was important, given the group’s ‘anti-consumerist principles… [and] issue-led practice’ (Dyson 1997: 00:56). Many of the artists commissioned by HTBA engaged with political concerns, though not in a proscriptive way, but as Critical Art Ensemble, speaking at an HTBA event in 1995 put it, their approach was ‘pedagogical rather than didactic’ (Barnes in Gawthrop 1997a: 00:47).

A good example of this ethical emphasis can be seen in the festival of film, video, performance, installation, music and debate that HTBA organised in 1992, based on a hastily organised application for funding, announced by the then Conservative government, for money available to European themed arts projects. This first incarnation of what was to become the annual

11

‘Running Out Of Time’ (ROOT) festival7 was themed on ‘European Boundaries’, a title deliberately chosen to provoke questioning responses from commissioned artists towards the agenda of the funding body. Most of the ROOT festivals took place under the supervision of Mike Stubbs, appointed to the organisation as part-time Co-ordinator in 1988, later becoming Director until 2000.8 Stubbs, a practicing video artist, brought with him experience of arts organisations from his work and education in other cities – including many international centres who had commissioned his work, alongside Cardiff and London as longer-term bases – helping him develop a forward-thinking approach to commissioning at HTBA. His career there was notable for bringing the company from fairly modest origins, to being ‘one of England’s significant agencies for experimental art’ (FACT 2007). The ROOT festivals encapsulated early on the ethos of HTBA in the breadth of work shown, and modes of engagement, which Mike Stubbs describes:

HTBA and the events consisting of ROOT attracted those on the edge, those not happy with the status quo or mainstream culture – idiosyncratic people, from those artists wanting to show with us and an audience / membership who, not sure about the ‘product’, but knew we were up to something and that it had the potential to talk with a non-art world. Equally, producers and enthusiasts of experimental art were attracted to a self-build organisation that seemed tolerant and informal. (Stubbs 2002: 3)

The ten ROOT festivals were each organised around a theme that reflected the interests of HTBA. For instance the 1999 festival, subtitled ‘TOOT: Totally Out Of Tune’, focused on experimental music and sound art as a distinct area of practice.9 The ROOT festivals presented ephemeral but

7 So called because of the sense of urgency to put the event on: funders had stipulated that the money must be applied for and spent within five months (Stubbs 2002: 3).8 He had already undertaken a year long Fellowship in Time Based Media at the Hull School of Art the previous year, where he had got involved with HTBA (Gawthrop 1997b: 01:53).9 The TOOT festival, held some years before similarly themed high profile exhibitions such as Sonic Boom (Hayward London 2000), Bitstreams (Whitney NY 2001) and Sonic Process (MACBA Barcelona 2002), was again closely linked to the art school, which had launched the BA (Hons) Phonic Art the same year.

12

engaging work drawn from networks of artists little known to the commercial art world. Three tendencies can be identified that characterised Hull Time Based Arts’ distinctive curatorial approach: supporting and commissioning artworks that were politically interventionist, formally experimental, and place-specific. Three different artworks: Ethnimage by Lisa Erdman, pol by Granular Synthesis and Lumina by Andy Hazell with Carolyn Mendelsohn, shown in the 1998 ROOT festival (subtitled ‘Lucid: New Ways of Seeing’), demonstrate this emphasis. Lisa Erdman’s work in ROOT ’98 exemplifies HTBA’s interest in curating artworks that intervene in everyday life, with a specific aim of questioning the politics of racial and cultural identity. Erdman’s work uses satirical humour to parody corporate culture; she describes her practice as being ‘interested in examining the internal and external mechanisms that shape our personal identities and our sense of cultural reality’ (Erdman 2007). Ethnimage used the format of a telesales video presented by Erdman as a live performed infomercial in Hull’s Princes Quay shopping centre. Pitching to the general public, Ethnimage promised to ‘change your identity in 28 days!’ (HTBA 1998: 14). Erdman presents herself in the video as the friendly and confident expert, familiar to viewers of shopping channels, and tapping into the language of self-help culture and makeover television shows. By parodying this hyped-up language, her video and performance drew attention to assumptions made about physical traits associated with racial identities, and how these are represented in the media. The work was inspired by Erdman’s desire to explore her own Dominican-American heritage and explore the construction of identity. By presenting Ethnimage in a public shopping centre, Erdman engaged with people who would otherwise not have encountered this subtly confrontational work.

As an organisation, HTBA can be understood to be working with what Grant Kester has called the ‘second generation of activist artists’ (Kester 2004: 126). Such artists typically moved away from the alienating hierarchical institutions of fine art, were more politically engaged, and sought to ‘engage audiences in the spaces and routines of their daily lives’ (Kester 2004: 126). Erdman's work, an exploration of the othering of racial identity, and located in the dailyness of the shopping centre is a model of

13

this definition. The politics of this second generation of activist artists, according to Kester, can be summarised as anti-elitist, and were practised through ‘a loose network of artist-run exhibition spaces, media arts centers, presses, and journals… funded largely through arts councils and private foundations’ (Kester 2004: 126). Kester cites HTBA as one such innovative and influential organisation, exemplifying both community-interest and anti-elitist concerns. The importance of such institutions, according to Kester, was that they provided a much-needed alternative to the commercial or traditional art centres, by supporting otherwise overlooked art practices, and finding new audiences.

pol illustrated HTBA’s commissioning of work whose emphasis was on new technology, liveness, and formal experimentation. Granular Synthesis (Kurt Hentschlaeger and Ulf Langheinrich), are named after the audio editing process where fragments of sound are reorganised to form other sounds. In 1997 they developed what had been an audio only process, to create software that is capable of audio-visual granular synthesis: the mixing of two discrete video sample streams frame by frame, as if the videos are intersecting each other (Granular-Synthesis n.d.). pol was presented in Hull Arena, an Olympic-sized ice rink, where the multi-screen video and sound work filled the space with volume and light, overwhelming the audience. Seven screens each contained a close up of singer Diamanda Galás in suspended animation, her facial movements slowed, chopped and stuttered to at times barely perceptible movement, accompanied by equally huge, fragmented, bass heavy, dense and physical sound. Granular Synthesis's interest in the ontology of ‘new’ media was shared by many artists commissioned by HTBA, in particular how these technologies could shape and reflect our encounters with the world. Many new media and communications devices became familiar items during HTBA's existence, including but not limited to video surveillance, fax machines, digital video, and the internet, all variously used by artists at HTBA. Artists such as Granular Synthesis’s material interest in the medium prompt questions of representation: how do emerging technologies open up new ways of perceiving others and ourselves? In pol, the live audio-visual processing

14

renders movement hacked up and jittery with humans morphing into machine-like figures.

Finally, ROOT ’98 presented a new commission by Hull based artist Andy Hazell in collaboration with Carolyn Mendelsohn. Lumina was a huge twin screen projection on the side of the P&O Norstar ferry. The images were drawn from the artists’ research into the passage of people through Hull’s docks in the late nineteenth century: ‘The Wilson Line brought in one thousand people a day at the end of the nineteenth century; where did those people go to? […] it’s almost as if that history didn’t exist, and it’s really influenced how Hull is…’ (Mendelsohn in Hazell 2013). To understand Hull one must look at its geographic position: flanked by the Humber estuary to the south and the River Hull to the East, these waterways have variously provided protection, trading routes, and encouraged migration and population growth. Lumina drew on Hull’s defining characteristic to explore areas of its history that were at risk of being forgotten. The event was timed meticulously with the Norstar ferry from Zeebrugge pulling into the dock just after dusk. The film opened up a neglected aspect of the city’s history: projected on to the side of the boat were archive photographs and films of passengers who had crossed that same stretch of sea, arriving in the same city, but under such different circumstances a century before. The event was a social occasion, with food prepared for the audience on arrival, live accordion music and information boards about the historical passage through Hull. Liberated from the archives, these images resonated with, and were enhanced by, their location at King George’s Dock. The cultural heritage of Hull, as managed through its museums and public projects, often emphasises the city’s links with the sea, but focusing on working lives can overlook the plight of the itinerant traveller. Lumina presented an alternative to the official public history – which has traditionally ‘told us who to commemorate and what we should remember’ – to make an artwork that drew on the lives of men and women too often disregarded by the ‘bastions of formal memory’ (Atkinson 2007: 17).

15

These three examples from ROOT ’98 – Ethnimage, pol and Lumina – demonstrate the political intervention, formal experimentation and significant local engagement in much of HTBA’s commissioning. Not all work shown during HTBA’s time would fall into one of these categories, but they are notable in their frequency. It is evident from these examples that the ROOT festivals provided a particularly good way to utilise Hull city as an art space, locating work beyond the gallery and embedding it in the very particular history of Hull. These interventions were an important strategy for HTBA to bring live and ephemeral work to a wider public, indeed part of HTBA's legacy can be seen in the growth of showing work in non-art spaces that emerged around this period as members dispersed and moved on (Scott 2017). HTBA were explicit in their desire to challenge artists to work outside the traditional gallery space, to show work in sites that do not usually show this kind of art - the shopping centre, the ice arena, the docks - thereby ‘grabbing the public’s attention, and giving us the opportunity to access new art in a variety of places’ (HTBA 1998: 4). Such places were rarely seen as neutral spaces, with their social and historical use often informing the creation of the work. This would be termed, according to Miwon Kwon, ‘place-specific’ art, that which engages with a site according to a social concern, rather than a more formal or phenomenological framework (Kwon 2002). Unlike ‘site-specific’ art in the 1960s, which addressed the formal aspects of a location, almost in ignorance of its historical or socio-cultural significance, Kwon discusses how later artists began to treat the site as a ‘place’, implying an ‘intimate and particularized’ treatment of the location (Kwon 2002: 108-9). Similarly to Kester, she sees these temporal and issue specific artworks as a way of reaching out to audiences in ways that are more direct and unexpected than in a museum or gallery setting. This type of issue-based public art is often made in relation to marginalised and disenfranchised communities, a description that could easily be applied to Hull. However, based on observations by other practitioners, including Mierle Laderman Ukeles, artists who work in communities can risk being seen as offering ‘community fix-up assignments or self-esteem workshops’ over formal concerns (Ukeles in Ashford 1997: 28).

16

With much public money for the arts under the New Labour Government available to those using art as a tool for social improvement, art lacking an ‘improving’ remit risked falling short of funders’ requirements (Carrington 2002). Earlier projects championed by Hull Time Based Arts, and upon which much of its reputation as a cutting-edge arts-organisation was founded, such as the Granular Synthesis commission, might not have gone ahead in the company’s later years because of its reliance on public funding that required (and judged in the most simplistic of ways) an add-on education programme and ‘enhancing’ outputs. By building up such a reliance on government funding organisations such as HTBA risk moving from being artist-led to policy-driven. It is a difficult path for an ambitious company to negotiate, and HTBA seemed to relinquish its once profound engagement with formal experimentation, in favour of the place-specific, issue-led practice that more readily brought in money.

Institutional changeIn the early 2000s it became apparent that the University of Lincoln

would be withdrawing from Hull and focusing investment on their Lincoln campus, resulting in a considerable deficit of higher education provision in the city, including the closure of the Hull School of Art, as well as broader financial loss to the local area (Utley 2001). Without a Fine Art course in the city for local aspiring artists to attend, Hull was unable to retain emerging artists seeking higher education, and was less likely to attract others in from outside.10 Primary among the arts organisations troubled by the closure of the art school was Hull Time Based Arts. The first major setback came in May 2005 with nine staff redundancies and a major building plan scrapped (Boulton 2005: 29). HBTA’s proposed Centre for Time-Based Arts (CTBA), was a £5.5m purpose built arts centre that had been in the planning stages for many years in partnership with The University of Lincoln who had intended to

10 The impact this would make on the city and the region was highlighted in a strongly worded editorial in Art Monthly: ‘the axed course is internationally recognised and has contributed to the region in immeasurable ways - the success of Hull Time Based Arts, the Red Gallery and Artlink Exchange is all a direct result of the existence of the art school and of its Fine Art degree course. The University of Lincoln is effectively taking the art out of the art school, but what it might not realise - but what the ACE report [Arts in England 2001] makes clear - is that such a decision also contributes to a regional cultural blight.’ (Anon 2002).

17

make an AHRC bid to fund a research centre there (Gawthrop 2017). Arts Council Yorkshire, who had earmarked £1.5m capital funding for the project, now turned down the application and simultaneously reduced HTBA’s annual revenue funding from £200,000 to £50,000 (Friedli in Boulton 2005: 29).11 Adrian Friedli, then Director of Visual Arts and Literature at Arts Council Yorkshire, commented that while he had known the organisation for ten years, recently visitor numbers had fallen away, a likely result of the art school’s closure. With the last students graduating from the Fine Art course in Hull in 2004, by 2005 the number of those students who had ‘made a disproportionate impact upon the City’s art-scene’ (Gawthrop 2004) would have been in sharp decline and with them audience numbers for more experimental art practices in Hull.

While factors such as poor visitor numbers and concerns about the quality of work explain the withdrawal of major funding, evidence suggests that HBTA had serious issues in its organisational structure up to two years earlier. On 10th June 2003 it had reformed from being a Secondary Cooperative to a Company Limited by Guarantee, a structure preferred by Arts Council Yorkshire and some members of staff. A new Board of Directors were appointed, chaired by Isabelle Tracy, replacing the existing Committee structure. This was followed by the resignation of a number of artists whose Committee roles had transferred to the new Board, including Phil Cosker, Gillian Dyson, and Rob Gawthrop. This was a major change to the make-up of HTBA, which was no longer an artist-led organisation serving its membership. In December 2003 a letter was sent to all members of the HTBA Board expressing serious concerns about the competence of then Director Walter van der Cruijsen, and signed by ten members of staff.12 The letter detailed concerns about the ability of the Director to implement a recovery plan that had been put in place to address the company’s deficit. Despite this being a clear vote of no-confidence in the Director by the majority of the staff, van

11 According to Adrian Friedli there were concerns about ‘the quality of the work, the range of work and whether what was being produced could justify the level of investment [… that] threw significant questions on the large capital investment’ (Friedli in Boulton 2005: 29).12 The signatories are kept anonymous by agreement with the former employee of HTBA who provided the letter.

18

der Cruijsen kept his position at HTBA until 2005. In HTBA’s 2003/04 Annual Report, Chair, Isabelle Tracy, was able to boast that the ‘staff team at HTBA has grown from ten to fourteen over the year […] We’ve even had to take on an extra building to accommodate everyone!’ (HTBA 2004). The upbeat tone of the Chair’s statement indicated nothing of the trouble that would lead to nine staff redundancies a year later.

To some extent the success of the organisation may have contributed to its own demise: the responsibilities of the Director at HTBA were broad and complicated, with no distinction made between the effective running of a business, and the curation of an arts programme. For a relatively small organisation, as HTBA was in its early days, balancing these two roles seemed perfectly feasible. However, with the receipt of higher levels of funding, and thus more money, people, projects, and space to manage, artist-led organisations need employees with business skills and experience to manage this. It is likely that the ‘business’ of running an arts organisation might often be seen as needlessly bureaucratic, and not at all what artists envisaged when first setting up an artist-led initiative. Resistance to efficient management, however, is unlikely to help this situation, as the inability to respond to legal requirements and the demands of funders is only likely to result in further outside scrutiny and cuts.13 With these business aspects an ever increasing element of the company’s remit, especially given the Government requirements of funding to have educational strategies, HTBA needed professionally trained business administrators, as well as inspired and motivated curators. In the day-to-day running of the organisation, HTBA had a well-qualified administrator and marketing manager, and to some extent expertise were in place for the development of CTBA from the appointed architects Farrell & Partners and the Wykeland Group, with whom HTBA had partnered to develop the project (HTBA 2004).14 However, 13 According to Ray McFee, a graduate of the Fine Art course in Hull, and Project / Programme Manager at HTBA (2001-2005), this was one of the contributing factors to the company’s poor direction in its later years: ‘a lot of people involved didn’t apply to a job because they wanted to do that job in that environment, they actually wanted to do a different job which was programme the art, or be an artist themselves, so there was always a struggle to do any of the business aspects such as audience development…’ (McFee 2009).14 Farrell & Partners had designed Hull’s flagship aquarium The Deep, opened in 2002, located opposite the proposed site of CTBA.

19

according to Rob Gawthrop, one problem was that ‘consultants frequently produced recommendations that were not actually realistic (income from admission charges, hire of equipment etc.)’ as well as over estimating the size of the project (Gawthrop 2017). These measures were not enough to ensure HTBA’s future. There is no single reason for the closure of HTBA, but certainly the concerns about the organisation’s ability to deliver its projects and subsequent funding cuts from Arts Council Yorkshire (Wood 2005), the disagreements within the organisation, and ‘errors’ made by the Committee / Board in mediating between these two groups (Gawthrop 2017), were contributing factors. After the major cut to their funding, money saved from the staff redundancies in 2005 was used to pay off HTBA’s existing debts.15 Programming was wound down, and HTBA was officially dissolved in 2009. Had HTBA chosen to limit its growth as a company, focusing on producing and exhibiting members’ work, it might still be in operation. While its ambitions were well-placed – Hull had for a long time wanted, and deserved, its own art centre – the Board, and members, needed to recognise that it would have to sacrifice a certain amount of autonomy, and a lot of its radical ethos. Unprepared to do this Hull Time Based Arts finally ran out of time.

Conclusion: city of cultureThe full impact on Hull as City of Culture in 2017 is yet to be seen. The

Ferens Gallery has been refurbished and will host the 2017 Turner Prize. New artist-led initiatives have been set up, such as Studio Eleven Gallery, the Museum of Club Culture and Ground, and longstanding organisations such as the Kingston Art Group continue to operate. Fine art education at degree level is once again available in the city, with Hull College’s BA (Hons) Fine Art. As a further education provider, Hull College is unlikely to attract the more ambitious national and international students that the Fine Art course had done previously, but it is positive to see a destination for local students wishing to study art, and Hull may again see a higher retention of practicing artists. With a critical mass of artists who sustain their practice in the city, Hull should resist the dominance of top-down arts facilities, a result of

15 This amounted to approximately £77,000 according to the last available Annual Report in 2003/04 (HTBA 2004)).

20

regeneration, reinvestment and the cultural strategy, which may fail to meet local needs.

According to Roddy Hunter, artist, lecturer and former member of Hull Time Based Arts, if a city is to have an alternative arts practice, i.e. one that provides a more critical, engaged and open model to that of a publicly-administered or commercial gallery, ‘artist-run initiatives and projects are not only an essential means of safeguarding – and by implication re-assessing – alternative arts practice; they actually present the sole means of doing so’ (Hunter 1997: 00:38). Hunter wrote this during his four years living and working as an artist in Hull, and was evidently inspired by the model set by HTBA in its middle-period. The artist-led organisation, at its best, should not seek to replicate its more institutionalised counterparts, but value a different, more radical mode of practice, one that can critique structures of economy, belief and society (Stubbs 1997: 00:31), value the marginal (both geographic, and in terms of artistic practice), all while bringing this work to a wider public. Hull Time Based Arts was established from a ground-up position by those very people who would benefit from such an organisation: artists, filmmakers, performers and musicians living and working in Hull, and dissatisfied with the opportunities to make or show work locally. This resulted in a particularised knowledge of the place, people and needs of a given community, enabling the organisation to work intimately with that community, through artist-led initiatives which were able to support critically engaged programming that other larger institutions, with more at stake, could not. However, as HTBA also shows, plans for expansion should be treated with caution. Hull Time Based Arts developed from its roots as an artist-led organisation that prioritised helping its members to gain access to production facilities, to emphasizing its public programme. The shift was slow and subtle – HTBA had always done both – but the effect was pronounced. With increased funding comes responsibility to funders and those perceived as the beneficiaries of this investment: be they the artists themselves or the wider community. Such responsibility may contradict the ethos of the group, leading to artistic stagnation, institutionalisation, and all of the structures and demands that lead the group to set up in opposition to the mainstream in the first place.

21

The concentration of power in the hands of the few – whether another organisation in a city, or just another city – leads artists to establish alternative, democratic, practices, but they must safeguard against becoming those dominant institutions they once opposed. As Hull steps into the spotlight in 2017, it must not overlook its luminous past.

Acknowledgements I’d like to thank Ray McFee and Rick Welton for taking part in interviews for this research, as well as Tom Scott for his correspondence. Thanks to Rob Gawthrop for providing corrections and clarifications on a draft of the article. I’m very grateful to Lucy Reynolds for her detailed guidance and feedback.

References

Anon (2002), ‘Editorial: Cultural Blight’, Art Monthly, 262, December – January. http://web.archive.org/web/20030406181527/hsa.kidsamson.co.uk/articles/index.html. Accessed 04 August 2016.

Ashford, D. (1997), ‘Democracy is Empty’, Documents, no. 10, pp23-30.

Atkinson, D. (2007), ‘Rethinking memory’, Walking Past: Soundwalks in Hull, Hull: Resound Community Partnership, pp17-23.

Blows, D. (1981), ‘Hull’s Days of Note’, Hull Daily Mail, 14 November, p.4.

Boulton, J. (2005), ‘Arts Centre Hit by Reduction in Annual Funding’, Hull Daily Mail, 31 May, p.29.

Carrington, S.; Hope, S. (2002), ‘Tracing Change’. http://www.welcomebb.org.uk/aboutarticle1.html. Accessed 14 August 2016.

22

Curtis, D. (ed.) (1996), A Directory of British Film & Video Artists, Luton: John Libbey Media.

Curtis, D. (2007), A History of Artists’ Film and Video in Britain, London: British Film Institute.

Dyson, G. (1997), ‘8 Posterngate’, in Phillips, A. (ed.) Out of Time: Hull Time Based Arts 1984-1998, Hull: Hull Time Based Arts, pp00:56-01:00.

Ellis, D. (2007), ‘Paul Burwell 1949 – 2007 A personal appreciation’, The Zoo & Logical Times. https://zooandlogicaltimes.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/paul-burwell-1949-2007-a-personal-appreciation-by-dave-ellis/. Accessed 10 August 2016.

Erdman, L. (2007), ‘bio’. http://www.lisaerdman.com/index.html. Accessed 14 August 2016.

FACT (2007), ‘The international career of FACT's new Director’, The Foundation for Art and Creative Technology. http://www.fact.co.uk/news-articles/2007/02/the-international-career-of-facts-new-director.aspx. Accessed 10 August 2016.

Foster, D. (1997), Unity out of Diversity: The Origins and Development of The University of Humberside, London: The Athlone Press.

Gawthrop, R. (1997a), ‘I to Y: From the indefinite article to anonymity’, in Phillips, A. (ed.) Out of Time: Hull Time Based Arts 1984-1998, Hull: Hull Time Based Arts, pp00:46-00:47.

Gawthrop, R. (1997b), ‘dep. arr.’, in Phillips, A. (ed.) Out of Time: Hull Time Based Arts 1984-1998, Hull: Hull Time Based Arts, pp01:48-01:55.

Gawthrop, R. (2004), ‘Backwards and Forwards’, in Hull School of Art Fine Art 2004 Degree Show Catalogue, Hull: Hull School of Art students.

23

Gawthrop, R. (2017), Discussion about HTBA, [email]. Sent to E. Wilczek, 20 April.

Granular-Synthesis (no date), ‘varp9’. http://www.granularsynthesis.info/ns/?goto=VARP9. Accessed 10 August 2016.

Grayson, R. (2006), ‘A History of The Basement Group to Locus+’. http://www.richardgrayson.co.uk/texts/TWNHWYEssay.html. Accessed 1 February 2017.

Hale, M.; Noble, P.; Owen, P. (eds.) (2002), City Racing: The Life and Times of an Artist-Run Gallery, London: Black Dog Publishing

Hazell, A. (2013), ‘Lumina’. http://www.andyhazell.co.uk/portfolio/lumina/. Accessed 10 August 2016.

HTBA (1998), ROOT ’98 – Lucid: New Ways of Seeing, [festival brochure], Hull: Hull Time Based Arts.

HTBA (2004), Annual Report 2003/04, Hull: Hull Time Based Arts.

Hull Arts Centre Group (1965), The Living Arts: The Future of the Arts in the City of Hull, Hull: Hull Arts Centre Group.

Hunter, R. (1997), ‘The Nomad Domain’, in Phillips, A. (ed.) (1997) Out of Time: Hull Time Based Arts 1984-1998, Hull: Hull Time Based Arts, pp00:38-00:39.

James, D. (ed.) (1992), To Free the Cinema: Jonas Mekas & the New York Underground, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jones, A.; Matthews, C. (2016), Cities of the North, Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications.

24

Kester, G.H. (2004), Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art, London: University of California Press.

Kingston upon Hull Citizens Arts League (1946), An Arts Centre in Hull for the enjoyment of Drama Ballet Music Opera Film & The Visual Arts and a place of meeting for local societies engaged in these or other cultural activities, Hull: Kingston upon Hull Citizens Arts League.

Kwon, M. (2002), One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

McFee, R. (2009), Questions on HTBA. [Interview] Interviewed by Emily Wilczek, 14 August.

Phillips, A. (ed.) (1997), Out of Time: Hull Time Based Arts 1984-1998, Hull: Hull Time Based Arts.

Scott, T. (2017), HTBA, [email]. Sent to E. Wilczek, 1 February.

Stubbs, M. (1997), ‘Brand Disloyalty’, in Phillips, A. (ed.) Out of Time: Hull Time Based Arts 1984-1998, Hull: Hull Time Based Arts, pp00:28-00:32.

Stubbs, M. (2002), ‘Unhappy Meals’, in Hull Time Based Arts (2002) ROOT X, [festival brochure] Hull: Hull Time Based Arts.

Stubbs, M. (2017), ‘Lineages: The Legacy of Live & media Art in Hull’, in: ReROOTed, 24-25 March, Hull.

Utley, A. (2001), ‘Analysis: “We want to set our own destiny”’, Times Higher Education, 5 October. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=165134. Accessed 10 August 2016.

25

Weaver, M. (2013), ‘UK city of culture 2017: Hull's “coming out of the shadows” bid chosen’, The Guardian, 20 November. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/nov/20/hull-chosen-city-of-culture-2017. Accessed 23 December 2016.

Welton, R. (2009), Questions on art in Hull [Interview] Interviewed by Emily Wilczek, 12 August.

Wood, A. (2002), ‘University teachers have “no confidence” in management’, Yorkshire Post, 10 October. http://web.archive.org/web/20030214094034/http://fhsa.org.uk/. Accessed 10 August 2016.

Wood, A. (2005), ‘Hopes of arts centre dashed’, Yorkshire Post, 30 May. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/hopes-of-arts-centre-dashed-1-2369049. Accessed 01 May 2017.

Author biographyEmily Wilczek is Senior Lecturer in Media Production at the University of Lincoln specialising in experimental approaches to moving image and sound. She organises ad-hoc short film screenings as part of the curatorial partnership Annexinema: http://annexinema.org

Author contact detailsEmily WilczekLincoln School of Film and MediaUniversity of LincolnBrayford Pool Lincoln LN6 7TS

ewilczek@lincoln.ac.uk

26