Well Gedacht Publishing is a Berlin and Vienna based collective founded by Ipek Burçak and Eren Ileri in 2019, as a spin-off of record label Well Gedacht. Recognizing DIY publishing as part of their artistic practice, Well Gedacht Publishing brings out artists' publications in collaboration with fellow artists living in Europe as part of diaspora communities. Their output
varies from books and zines to epub, from sound storage to performative formats.
This interview was published at LOCOMOTION MAGAZINE.
Well Gedacht: Did artist residencies become a norm or a must for artists? Are residencies necessary for artists to get recognition and to collect points for their CV?
FFR: The perception of it being a norm for artists to participate in residencies might be simply from the major increase in residencies, especially in the EU. Maybe artists located elsewhere feel less pressure or perceive it less like a norm -- possibly still desirable, but as an exception because there are less paid opportunities. Besides location, interest towards art residencies depends very much on the practice. Availability and access to studio spaces (especially in the context of real estate speculations) can be also a drive for artists to seek for art residencies. Another aspect that tends to install residencies as a norm are research-based practices needing to access resources that are located in a specific place (archives, embodied knowledge, architecture, landscape…) and therefore displacement. Art residencies can provide an opportunity for the material conditions that might benefit a specific practice to come together. Are these conditions standard for every practice? For example, most art residencies today offer displacement and short-stay. Do these two elements fit with every art practice?Art residencies exist in a wide spectrum: from residencies that openly have a soft-power diplomatic approach emanating from a nation-state (Institut Français, Goethe Institut, Japan Foundation, etc…) to self-organised small-scale artist-run initiatives based on volunteer
work (most of the art project spaces) and in between all the possibilities of commercial galleries offering (often dubious) short term production-oriented residencies; art schools hosting hybrid teaching/research residency programmes (Braunschweig projects, Brest art
school, etc.)... Again, the multiplicity of residencies makes it more apparent and widespread as a possibility, therefore perhaps institutioning itself as a norm.If we focus only on residencies that are fully or mostly funded, then it could seem like a must, especially for people in the early stages of their practices (regardless if they just got out of an art school or just decided to publicly share their art practice). Funded residencies seem to be a clear opportunity to pursue research or to produce some work while at a hosting institution that offers human and material resources. They might offer a framework, the opportunity to share artworks, and often the possibility to have encounters that could reduce precarity through expanding or starting to build a network.As for “collecting points”, this is true as much as it is true for anything that a person decides to add as a line on their resumé: if what is considered “valid” or important is often determined by social pressure and context, it should be important to point out that everyone can invent a residency (as much as an exhibition) with fellows, friends and colleagues. If open and shared, this should be as valid -- if not more meaningful -- that any institutionalized residency or exhibition.
WG: When we trace the traveling artist phenomenon back, Western art history is abundant with mostly white male figures who traveled to countries foreign to them to get inspired by, and objectified the people and places they saw. For example the orientalists helped build the stereotypical image of the ‘East’. Can we see artist residencies as a continuation of this tradition, but also, not less importantly, fulfilling the needs of the neoliberal art market such as the biennials, fairs etc.? Could there be similarities or differences between the artist residencies of today and the idea of the early-modern traveler artist?FFR: This is a really interesting and dense question. We would like to write a well-researched dissertation on it. But for the purpose of zine capacity, under the notion of a neoliberal art market and traditional artist career path, there would be certain believed accomplishments that would lead to the ultimate goal of selling, or representation and selling, what might be believed as success. Within that structure, perhaps residencies fit -- especially the ones seen as “career milestones” to attend.
The “traveling artist phenomenon” that we see in Western art history firstly had to do with wealthy patrons, often governmental or church-based, that sent artists to document different cultures and places, oftentimes with a so-called diplomatic function or in relation to a specific canon (for example the Prix de Rome established by the French monarchy to send a selected artist to learn from a place considered exemplar for the Classic art). This transformed into
wealthier white artists that could travel and “seek inspiration”, also exploit and fetishize people, traditions, etc. or inversely to reinforce the white-washed existing canon. Now often successful artists have more than one base, to seek inspiration out as well, to get a break from “reality”. In a way residencies offer this opportunity to a wider public (generalizing and ignoring here all the ways people are disqualified in application or nomination processes, etc). This could be considered a leveling or part of the neoliberal condition, to have to displace
oneself to find a way to focus, get new ideas, make meaningful work and connections… It really depends on the artist and the institution, the ideologies and responsibilities of both. Ultimately artist residencies are still mainly funded by the global North and they essentially set the guidelines and prioritise which ideas will be investigated and by whom.
WG: Do you get feedback from artists about their experiences? Would you think that artists want to participate in residencies to travel, see places and build networks or also sometimes just to get paid and to be able to concentrate on their artistic practice for a certain time period without the wage work they have to do in their daily lives?
FR: Working mostly with publishing open calls, we receive feedback on the period that precedes the experiences of the residencies more than the residencies periods themselves. An exception would be the singular interviews we publish, in which a specific reality is magnified and discussed. Needs can vary based on personal reasons and practice, and in turn these change during a lifespan. If there was a need to see places and build a network while being paid at an early stage, it could be that the same individual/collective would need time and space to concentrate later on and would be able and willing to pay for that.
We have some ideas on what’s important to FFR platforms users based on their comments, messages and the survey we conducted in 2020. For example, answering the question “Which criteria do you apply when looking for a residency?”, the vast majority answered “financial
support”. Of course, our public is mostly practitioners that would not be able to afford residencies without financial support, or who refuse fee-based models. Paradoxically, the second best choice was “location”, while “tourism” was the less selected option. So displacement appears to be an important parameter. And maybe there is some hesitancy around the idea of being a tourist while in residency.
For the question “Residency had a good impact on…” the most popular answer is “Network”. Maybe there is a connection to build between the notion of displacement and building a network?
WG: How do you see the future of artist residencies, considering the current situation and many kinds of crises we are living in (ecological, capitalism, etc)? How can they evolve? Have you come across residency programs that are conceived for artists who are locals?
FFR: We’re not (yet) proficient in palmistry so we’ll talk about the present. While it is difficult to say that there are residency programmes that frontally challenge capitalism, we observe many different attempts to offer programmes that reflect on its entanglements (global warming, patriarchy, white supremacy, ableism…) and offer specific alternatives.
Our filtering out non-funded opportunities is also an attempt to alleviate classism, but of course there can be other hindrances based on citizenship, visa and travel, diploma and “career”, etc.
Some examples:
Last year HIAP offered a residency reflecting on slow and land-based travel. We observed in general an attempt to avoid flying from European and especially Scandinavian countries in the last few years. If it is a positive policy in absolute terms, the remarks about it made by Lázaro Gabino Rodríguez in his Open letter to Jérôme Bel about the asymmetries (and injustices) that stopping global North-South exchange could feed must be taken into account. There are a couple of initiatives that welcome parent artists, and more specifically mothers. Two interesting proposals are Mothers in Arts that experimented with daycare in early parenthood (so far only existed in a trial phase in 2017) and was funded by a national fund and Artist Residency in Motherhood that is a remote, open-source, self-organized residency without a selection process.
The covid pandemic pushed many initiatives to “go local” or “go online”. As an example, the residency DIMORE in Padua, Italy, offered a residency for local artists during the first lockdown without any production obligation as a way to break isolation and give financial and curatorial support during hard confinement. The initiative continues and has evolved to offer studio and long term support. Another initiative influenced by the constraints of the covid pandemic is the Swimming in AIR by Tenjinyama Studio in Sapporo, Japan, that offered an online only residency because of the ban entry for foreigners in Japan. The important element in both initiatives was to keep the doors open and to continue to support artists during the pandemic, especially in spring 2020.
WG: You are doing an amazing job by collecting residency programs together that are fully funded and making the search process for other artists a lot easier, as there are many residencies out there where the artist don’t get any fee, or even in some you have to pay rent. Do you think the ones where the artist pays should still exist? lol. How did yourpractice with fully funded residencies affect your own choices or views about artist residencies?FFR: We do prefer Fully Funded Residencies 🤳Even if we totally snub them, among these fee-based residency programmes there is a huge difference between profit-oriented and self-organised and/or artists-run. We have noticed some commercial galleries (often based in wealthy contexts) that offer ridiculous “residencies” using the bait of a solo show and the possibility to sell artworks: this is simply shameless exploitation.
On the other hand, we know small residencies, often based in marginal spaces and in contexts without any public funding, that are run by practitioners that want to support contemporary art locally. These are interesting initiatives whose fees barely cover the necessary costs and reproductive labour. In these cases it is difficult to determine when a
programme becomes exploitative (either for the participant artist or self-exploitative for those who run it without resources) so financial and organisational transparency are key.
Paradoxically, many of us are applying less frequently to open calls since we started working on FFR. Our views on residencies have definitely been informed by discussing open calls and accessibility, how to build a useful platform together and through conducting interviews. We realize that there is too much upstream work involved in the application process and focus our energy on calls that resonate more closely to our respective practices. Some of us, who need a long period of reflection only consider longer residencies, while others are open to short term or it fits with their schedules and practice.
WG: What was the best and weirdest residency experience that you have experienced or heard of?
FFR: Two months of only sun/no darkness in Iceland. Being part of a collective that self-organise artist residencies, we’ve been selected to organise two sub-residencies in an institutional programme in a context that we totally ignored: an ever-going confusion on who was guest and who was host hovered over all of us before, during, and after the residencies.
A telepathic residency. Sending good thoughts through the process. Being invited to a residency to develop the residency. Half of the group decided that we need to be in the studio for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, do some community service on Saturday and have Sundays free.
LOCOMOTION MAGAZINE
Editor: Ipek Burçak
Language: English
Pages: 80
Size: 20,5 x 27 cm
Weight: 224 g
Ed. of 500
Year: 2021
Print: Offset
Binding: Perfect binding
ISBN: -
Cat. Nr: WGP007
Tags: travel, immobility, artist residencies, locomotion, melting, heat, asphalt, space travel, anti-travel
Locomotion
is a one-off travel zine with contributions from art-related actors,
engaging with modes and troubles of travel. Featuring contributions by
Samar al Summary, Fully Funded Residencies, Burak Taşdizen, Azar
Pajuhandeh, Ipek Burçak, Ada Karayel and Eren Ileri. It is a wandering
around (im)mobilities of non-humans, artist residencies as a way of
survival, road and driving memories, heatwaves and meltings, and
commercial space travel.
Locomotion is designed by Ada Karayel, and co-faciliated by Eren Ileri.
Illustrations are made by Goodnewsforbadguys.
GET YOURS HERE
Well Gedacht Publishing is a Berlin and Vienna based collective founded by Ipek Burçak and Eren Ileri in 2019, as a spin-off of record label Well Gedacht. Recognizing DIY publishing as part of their artistic practice, Well Gedacht Publishing brings out artists' publications in collaboration with fellow artists living in Europe as part of diaspora communities. Their output
varies from books and zines to epub, from sound storage to performative formats.
This interview was published at LOCOMOTION MAGAZINE.
Well Gedacht: Did artist residencies become a norm or a must for artists? Are residencies necessary for artists to get recognition and to collect points for their CV?
FFR: The perception of it being a norm for artists to participate in residencies might be simply from the major increase in residencies, especially in the EU. Maybe artists located elsewhere feel less pressure or perceive it less like a norm -- possibly still desirable, but as an exception because there are less paid opportunities. Besides location, interest towards art residencies depends very much on the practice. Availability and access to studio spaces (especially in the context of real estate speculations) can be also a drive for artists to seek for art residencies. Another aspect that tends to install residencies as a norm are research-based practices needing to access resources that are located in a specific place (archives, embodied knowledge, architecture, landscape…) and therefore displacement. Art residencies can provide an opportunity for the material conditions that might benefit a specific practice to come together. Are these conditions standard for every practice? For example, most art residencies today offer displacement and short-stay. Do these two elements fit with every art practice?Art residencies exist in a wide spectrum: from residencies that openly have a soft-power diplomatic approach emanating from a nation-state (Institut Français, Goethe Institut, Japan Foundation, etc…) to self-organised small-scale artist-run initiatives based on volunteer
work (most of the art project spaces) and in between all the possibilities of commercial galleries offering (often dubious) short term production-oriented residencies; art schools hosting hybrid teaching/research residency programmes (Braunschweig projects, Brest art
school, etc.)... Again, the multiplicity of residencies makes it more apparent and widespread as a possibility, therefore perhaps institutioning itself as a norm.If we focus only on residencies that are fully or mostly funded, then it could seem like a must, especially for people in the early stages of their practices (regardless if they just got out of an art school or just decided to publicly share their art practice). Funded residencies seem to be a clear opportunity to pursue research or to produce some work while at a hosting institution that offers human and material resources. They might offer a framework, the opportunity to share artworks, and often the possibility to have encounters that could reduce precarity through expanding or starting to build a network.As for “collecting points”, this is true as much as it is true for anything that a person decides to add as a line on their resumé: if what is considered “valid” or important is often determined by social pressure and context, it should be important to point out that everyone can invent a residency (as much as an exhibition) with fellows, friends and colleagues. If open and shared, this should be as valid -- if not more meaningful -- that any institutionalized residency or exhibition.
WG: When we trace the traveling artist phenomenon back, Western art history is abundant with mostly white male figures who traveled to countries foreign to them to get inspired by, and objectified the people and places they saw. For example the orientalists helped build the stereotypical image of the ‘East’. Can we see artist residencies as a continuation of this tradition, but also, not less importantly, fulfilling the needs of the neoliberal art market such as the biennials, fairs etc.? Could there be similarities or differences between the artist residencies of today and the idea of the early-modern traveler artist?
FFR: This is a really interesting and dense question. We would like to write a well-researched dissertation on it. But for the purpose of zine capacity, under the notion of a neoliberal art market and traditional artist career path, there would be certain believed accomplishments that would lead to the ultimate goal of selling, or representation and selling, what might be believed as success. Within that structure, perhaps residencies fit -- especially the ones seen as “career milestones” to attend.
The “traveling artist phenomenon” that we see in Western art history firstly had to do with wealthy patrons, often governmental or church-based, that sent artists to document different cultures and places, oftentimes with a so-called diplomatic function or in relation to a specific canon (for example the Prix de Rome established by the French monarchy to send a selected artist to learn from a place considered exemplar for the Classic art). This transformed into
wealthier white artists that could travel and “seek inspiration”, also exploit and fetishize people, traditions, etc. or inversely to reinforce the white-washed existing canon. Now often successful artists have more than one base, to seek inspiration out as well, to get a break from “reality”. In a way residencies offer this opportunity to a wider public (generalizing and ignoring here all the ways people are disqualified in application or nomination processes, etc). This could be considered a leveling or part of the neoliberal condition, to have to displace
oneself to find a way to focus, get new ideas, make meaningful work and connections… It really depends on the artist and the institution, the ideologies and responsibilities of both. Ultimately artist residencies are still mainly funded by the global North and they essentially set the guidelines and prioritise which ideas will be investigated and by whom.
WG: Do you get feedback from artists about their experiences? Would you think that artists want to participate in residencies to travel, see places and build networks or also sometimes just to get paid and to be able to concentrate on their artistic practice for a certain time period without the wage work they have to do in their daily lives?
FR: Working mostly with publishing open calls, we receive feedback on the period that precedes the experiences of the residencies more than the residencies periods themselves. An exception would be the singular interviews we publish, in which a specific reality is magnified and discussed. Needs can vary based on personal reasons and practice, and in turn these change during a lifespan. If there was a need to see places and build a network while being paid at an early stage, it could be that the same individual/collective would need time and space to concentrate later on and would be able and willing to pay for that.
We have some ideas on what’s important to FFR platforms users based on their comments, messages and the survey we conducted in 2020. For example, answering the question “Which criteria do you apply when looking for a residency?”, the vast majority answered “financial
support”. Of course, our public is mostly practitioners that would not be able to afford residencies without financial support, or who refuse fee-based models. Paradoxically, the second best choice was “location”, while “tourism” was the less selected option. So displacement appears to be an important parameter. And maybe there is some hesitancy around the idea of being a tourist while in residency.
For the question “Residency had a good impact on…” the most popular answer is “Network”. Maybe there is a connection to build between the notion of displacement and building a network?
WG: How do you see the future of artist residencies, considering the current situation and many kinds of crises we are living in (ecological, capitalism, etc)? How can they evolve? Have you come across residency programs that are conceived for artists who are locals?
FFR: We’re not (yet) proficient in palmistry so we’ll talk about the present. While it is difficult to say that there are residency programmes that frontally challenge capitalism, we observe many different attempts to offer programmes that reflect on its entanglements (global warming, patriarchy, white supremacy, ableism…) and offer specific alternatives.
Our filtering out non-funded opportunities is also an attempt to alleviate classism, but of course there can be other hindrances based on citizenship, visa and travel, diploma and “career”, etc.
Some examples:
Last year HIAP offered a residency reflecting on slow and land-based travel. We observed in general an attempt to avoid flying from European and especially Scandinavian countries in the last few years. If it is a positive policy in absolute terms, the remarks about it made by Lázaro Gabino Rodríguez in his Open letter to Jérôme Bel about the asymmetries (and injustices) that stopping global North-South exchange could feed must be taken into account. There are a couple of initiatives that welcome parent artists, and more specifically mothers. Two interesting proposals are Mothers in Arts that experimented with daycare in early parenthood (so far only existed in a trial phase in 2017) and was funded by a national fund and Artist Residency in Motherhood that is a remote, open-source, self-organized residency without a selection process.
The covid pandemic pushed many initiatives to “go local” or “go online”. As an example, the residency DIMORE in Padua, Italy, offered a residency for local artists during the first lockdown without any production obligation as a way to break isolation and give financial and curatorial support during hard confinement. The initiative continues and has evolved to offer studio and long term support. Another initiative influenced by the constraints of the covid pandemic is the Swimming in AIR by Tenjinyama Studio in Sapporo, Japan, that offered an online only residency because of the ban entry for foreigners in Japan. The important element in both initiatives was to keep the doors open and to continue to support artists during the pandemic, especially in spring 2020.
WG: You are doing an amazing job by collecting residency programs together that are fully funded and making the search process for other artists a lot easier, as there are many residencies out there where the artist don’t get any fee, or even in some you have to pay rent. Do you think the ones where the artist pays should still exist? lol. How did yourpractice with fully funded residencies affect your own choices or views about artist residencies?
FFR: We do prefer Fully Funded Residencies 🤳Even if we totally snub them, among these fee-based residency programmes there is a huge difference between profit-oriented and self-organised and/or artists-run. We have noticed some commercial galleries (often based in wealthy contexts) that offer ridiculous “residencies” using the bait of a solo show and the possibility to sell artworks: this is simply shameless exploitation.
On the other hand, we know small residencies, often based in marginal spaces and in contexts without any public funding, that are run by practitioners that want to support contemporary art locally. These are interesting initiatives whose fees barely cover the necessary costs and reproductive labour. In these cases it is difficult to determine when a
programme becomes exploitative (either for the participant artist or self-exploitative for those who run it without resources) so financial and organisational transparency are key.
Paradoxically, many of us are applying less frequently to open calls since we started working on FFR. Our views on residencies have definitely been informed by discussing open calls and accessibility, how to build a useful platform together and through conducting interviews. We realize that there is too much upstream work involved in the application process and focus our energy on calls that resonate more closely to our respective practices. Some of us, who need a long period of reflection only consider longer residencies, while others are open to short term or it fits with their schedules and practice.
WG: What was the best and weirdest residency experience that you have experienced or heard of?
FFR: Two months of only sun/no darkness in Iceland. Being part of a collective that self-organise artist residencies, we’ve been selected to organise two sub-residencies in an institutional programme in a context that we totally ignored: an ever-going confusion on who was guest and who was host hovered over all of us before, during, and after the residencies.
A telepathic residency. Sending good thoughts through the process. Being invited to a residency to develop the residency. Half of the group decided that we need to be in the studio for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, do some community service on Saturday and have Sundays free.
LOCOMOTION MAGAZINE
Editor: Ipek Burçak
Language: English
Pages: 80
Size: 20,5 x 27 cm
Weight: 224 g
Ed. of 500
Year: 2021
Print: Offset
Binding: Perfect binding
ISBN: -
Cat. Nr: WGP007
Tags: travel, immobility, artist residencies, locomotion, melting, heat, asphalt, space travel, anti-travel
Locomotion
is a one-off travel zine with contributions from art-related actors,
engaging with modes and troubles of travel. Featuring contributions by
Samar al Summary, Fully Funded Residencies, Burak Taşdizen, Azar
Pajuhandeh, Ipek Burçak, Ada Karayel and Eren Ileri. It is a wandering
around (im)mobilities of non-humans, artist residencies as a way of
survival, road and driving memories, heatwaves and meltings, and
commercial space travel.
Locomotion is designed by Ada Karayel, and co-faciliated by Eren Ileri.
Illustrations are made by Goodnewsforbadguys.
GET YOURS HERE