skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Creative NZ is looking for some new peer reviewers to advise it on who should get funding. Anyone thinking about putting up their hand (you can get up to $40 an hour but the hours are tightly limited) may wonder what they're getting into, so some background.
Over the past decade Creative NZ has professionalised. There have been some positive results (e.g. clearer accountability and priorities) but also some negative ones. Its processes are more complex for users, it's more risk averse, and it's become remarkably protective of any information it receives. Confidentiality agreements are used to control outsiders working with them and to side step what we would consider the intent of the Official Information Act.
This is not just a problem with Creative NZ, of course, it's endemic throughout the public service. Ask any journalist. We had our own experience of it when we asked who had applied for the Venice Biennale gig for 2015. We weren't asking for the discussions or the opinions or the minutes of the meeting, just who had applied. We took it to the Ombudsman but Creative NZ was way ahead of us. All outsiders involved had been tied up with confidentiality agreements from the outset so we got zip.
So you have to ask why anyone would to sign up to be a peer reviewer when they have to agree in writing:
• to keep confidential all information supplied by Creative New Zealand and any information relating to the assessment of an application (including assessment panel discussions) and to only use this information for the purpose of assessing an application. This means that applications cannot be discussed.
• to ensure that all such information is stored securely and that it will be accessible to no one but me for the sole purpose of assessment and that electronic material is deleted at the end of the decision making process and any hard copy material is returned to Creative New Zealand.
• not to discuss or write articles, including social media, on the assessment panel’s recommendations.
• not to report back to other organisations on the work of the assessment panel.
• To bite down hard on the green capsule provided should they be detained or questioned outside CNZ premises
As Agent J of The Men in Black said, 'Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.'
Image: Secret Squirrel
The decision-making process of the selection panel for the Venice Biennale is not open to the public. We've never heard a convincing reason as to why this should be necessary, but this year, with 10 members, it started opening up anyway. By piecing together bits of information a picture of what went on can be suggested.
It was always going to be tough to get a decision out of such a large and diverse group of panelists. The mix was four curatorial, one artist, two fund-raisers, three arts council members, and a commissioner (a former chair of Creative NZ) who had the casting vote. In past years the curatorial voice was more dominant and in some memorable instances the commissioner just cut to the chase and made the call.
Our understanding is that this time there was a fifty-fifty split among the panelists and that a long and stressful debate ensued. There was always going to be mixed opinions about how a work so focused on eighteenth century colonisation was going to play in a Europe nearly two more years into coping with ongoing waves of refugees, leaking borders and terrorist assault. One version of events has at least one panel member so upset by the process they left the room.
Given the weighting of Creative NZ representatives and doing some arithmetic, we suspect that the fund-raisers probably voted for a different project. Getting money in is a huge and growing challenge for NZ at Venice. It was why there were two fundraisers/ patrons on the panel after all. The government contribution via Creative NZ is only part of the story. For instance, for the Denny outing it was the dealers who coughed up for the crucial networking party, the lavish catalogue as well as other costs along the way. In past years the ever-generous Jenny Gibbs has offered strong financial support so all eyes will be on Alastair Carruthers who apparently secured Reihana’s place with his casting vote.
Last week we put in a request to the Ombudsman that Creative NZ release the names of curator/artist teams who made proposals for the Venice Biennale 2015. Our argument was that it is impossible to evaluate the final decision without knowing the options on offer.
The Ombudsman’s Office will no doubt report back in due course, but as the Creative NZ panel has now met and made its selection to be probably announced next week, here's what we have pieced together from what is already known around the traps. There are still a few gaps so when (and if) we get them out of CNZ we'll let you know.
Robert Leonard curator / Simon Denny and Yvonne Todd artists (two separate proposals)
Rhana Devenport curator / Lisa Reihana and Alex Monteith artists (two separate proposals)
Aaron Kreisler curator / Dane Mitchell artist
Tina Barton curator / Billy Apple artist
Natasha Conland curator / Kate Newby artist
Sarah Farrar curator / Group show
Andrew Clifford curator / Seung Yul Oh artist
Charlotte Huddleston curator / Paul Cullen artist
Anthony Byrt curator / Steve Carr artist
Emma Bugden curator / Ronnie van Hout artist
Vera May curator / Hye Rim Lee artist
Mary Kisler curator / Gretchen Albrecht artist
Mercedes Vincent curator / Maddie Leach artist
Of the other four curator/artist teams we have heard not a word, however as all but one of the artists living in NZ are from Auckland perhaps they are all from the South Island (just kidding).
Image: Secret Squirrel
In a cavern, somewhere deep beneath the art world, is the unseen stream of decisions and deal-making. Only a small group of people visit and even fewer know where to get tickets for the boat. For instance currently floating along on the stream is the 2014 Walters Prize panel, whoever they are, who will be looking (or if the last one is anything to go by, not looking) at exhibitions like mystery shoppers. There's also a bunch of people who will be deciding on the next commissioner for the Venice Biennale (surveying the field it's probably between Alastair Carruthers and Massey's Heather Galbraith with Carruthers as the current off course favourite) and of course another mystery group will be deciding who's to go to Venice in 2015.
So here's a question - why are all these decisions being made in the dark? The appointment of the artistic director of Documenta in 2017 will be announced this November but it's public knowledge as to who's on that very significant panel. Why can't we have the same level of information on NZ plans? There are no commercial issues involved and there would be some major benefit. The Walters selectors could surely do with some input on exhibitions in NZ and overseas that might be worth considering and the Venice juggernaut needs all the good will and interest it can get.
And then there are the delays. Even when decisions are finally made why does it take so long to announce them? It can't be in hopes of a publicity blitz as the media releases are seldom picked up and the only people really interested could be drawn from the mailing lists of about ten dealer galleries. So why restrict knowledge of the final decisions to the committee, their immediate families, a few friends they bump into and people they meet at parties, some of who (hell maybe most) don’t give a damn?
That was really what got us to start publishing OTN back in 2006, to jumpstart communications. So if you hear any of this stuff let us know and we’ll make sure the rest of you find out. And yes, wild guesses and overheard conversations in public toilets are more than welcome.
