#balticmill

Abstract The entirety of an art institution is comprised of many elements. When united, these elements contribute to the creation of ‘a sense of a place’ and ‘the making of an impression’. The impression is somewhat a shallow reading of galleries elements; it can be instantaneous and intuitive. My writing has developed upon the impression made by BALTIC and WIELS into a further examination of each respective institution. I have considered the visual identity, physical spaces, exhibition spaces, expressed intentions and artist selections for each institution. I also investigated their project spaces, audience engagement and touched upon funding structures of both BALTIC and WIELS as a method for comparison. A recent visit to WIELS and talk with the Director Dirk Snauwaert and Senior Curator Zoë Gray provided insight into the organisation and instigated my investigation. While a longstanding knowledge of and regular visits to BALTIC was the foundation of this study. Further research conducted looked at the website of each institution, as this is the face they present to the public and contains reliable information provided directly by the organisations. Published and currently relevant literature about each space was limited so literary research focused predominantly on the history and function of institutions, exhibition spaces, audience relations and exhibiting art. Additional online research investigated further concerns of each institution that included the local area. This thesis is an overview of each institution in relation to the other with the final, unanticipated realization that the many similarities demonstrate a period for European art and institutional trends of the time.

The BALTIC opened to the public as an art space on 13 July 2002 and WIELS opened five years later, in May 2007. The choice to compare these two institutions was instinctive. On a recent course trip to Brussels, in the mornings prior to gallery visits, we engaged in conversations creating comparisons between what we were going to see that day and what we knew from home. These conversations provided a context in which to approach these new spaces and were also a means of mental preparation. The day we were visiting WIELS while discussing and briefly researching the space, I immediately compared it to BALTIC in Gateshead. I am going to use this thesis to explore why I came to this conclusion and to what extent; if at all, this comparison is merited. Investigating the many factions that shape each institution I am going to break down and compare the two spaces looking for differences and similarities that can be identified and expanded upon.  

An immediate comparison can be made on the surface, as both institutions visual identity share a similar aesthetic and therefore reflect a similar image presented to the public. The clean and modern presentation communicates the contemporary image that echoes the art presented by each institution.  The modern, minimalist and simple font is bold and commanding without unnecessary decoration. WIELS boasts an extra design element over BALTIC as the E is mirrored, creating an illusion at a glance. This is a minor difference as both institutions present a visual identity of capitalized names in a single colour. The designs are recognisable, bold and evidently a suitable standard for contemporary art as this format is also present in many other institutions of this kind.

(WEILS Facebook, 2015)

(BALTIC Facebook 2015)

These strong identities are constant across many aspects of each institution. The names appear on merchandise, publications, promotional material, respective websites and social media accounts. The colour sometimes changes but the branding maintains its recognisable characteristics. The social media platforms I mentioned are present for each gallery as widgets (linking icons) on their website that include Twitter, Facebook and for BALTIC, YouTube. The accounts for each institution is active with promoting posts, relevant shares and re-tweets that would be interesting for the contemporary art audience. The websites for each space have a similar, minimal aesthetics and accessible information presented in a simple and concise way. A significant difference between the two websites is the language availability; WIELS reflects the bi-lingual city in which it resides with French, English and Dutch being available while BALTIC only presents its native English. They both also offer subscription to newsletters, which is industry standard, and a successful way to maintain contact with an interested audience. These methods of promotion are key to attracting new visitors and maintaining a dialogue with those already acquainted with the spaces. The branded image of the institution is shared in a more informal manner through social media channels, with a potentially younger audience looking to engage with contemporary art.

This contemporary image is maintained in the physical spaces that the institutions exist in. Both institutions take their names from their locations former inhabitants. BALTIC is from the Baltic Mill, a previous flourmill and WIELS is a shortened name of the former Wielemans brewery. These names are now a visual identity, a brand that is recognisable.  These habitations have also to some extent become a brand in their bold aesthetic as “The façade of the institution offers a public face that must be mindful of its location and social, environmental and architectural context. It is both symbol and sign.” (Sharmacharja and Blazwick, 2009,Pg 16/17)

(Deviant Art, BALTIC, 2015)                                         

(WIELS Facebook, 2015)

Both institutions share the reinventing of old and industrial spaces into new venues in which to host contemporary art. As I mentioned BALTIC is a restored Mill and WIELS is a housed in a former beer brewery, originally designed by Adrien Blomme in 1931 and today has retained more features of its industrial past within the building than its counterpart.  These spaces, now transformed to host contemporary art, are eye-catching and unusual in their combination of the old and the new, a feature that each institution embraces. “The design of art institutions has become the most sought after of all architectural commissions… Museum buildings have become icons, brands, even franchises, deployed in urban regeneration schemes, adopted to enhance private property developments or hired out to aspirational developing economies.” (Sharmacharja and Blazwick, 2009, Pg 15)  Both WIELS and BALTIC brand their respective locations as they present images of the buildings on social media- their websites and even on merchandise. This choice to adapt the old rather than build the new not only resulted in an interesting aesthetic but also demonstrated the position each institution was adopting in the art world; “the decision to renovate and adapt former industrial buildings also meant a rejection of the traditional materials and architectural conventions used in art museum construction. In other words, the meanings of new museums and galleries could not- and should not, many directors believed- be the same. ” (Harris, 2004, Pg. 15). This makes each space local, as they are unique to that area and would not make sense in any other location. Reinventing the old to create a space for art stems from the 1960s idea to bring art into daily life and make it accessible to the public, rather than segregating it in an elitist art world (Klonk, 2009, Pg199). Each institution presents this past purpose and has a pride in its former life, which has a link to the history of the local community having provided employment, and to some extent been a backbone for the surrounding area.  This connection to the local area is relevant as “Just as the work of art can never be experienced in isolation, the institution must also be understood as part of a broader cultural landscape” (Sharmacharja and Blazwick, 2009, Pg22). These institutions also salvaged the aesthetic of their areas and preserved important pieces of history that could have been lost due to challenging architecture and heritage concerns restricting their re-use. 

The shells of the spaces remain somewhat untouched but the alterations to make each space suitable for art were dramatic and the challenge in such spaces is balancing the new purpose with the respect for the past.  The histories bring an aesthetic to each building that sets them apart from modern, purpose-built art spaces as they pose challenges, hold connotations and maintain features from their respective former life.  Having said this, both galleries present work in white cube spaces, be they varying dimensions. This conforming to the gallery norm allows contemporary art to exist successfully in each institution. “The ideal gallery subtracts from the work all cues that interfere with the fact that it is “art”. The work is isolated from everything that would detract from its own evaluation of itself:” (O’Doherty, 1976,1986, Pg14). This ideal seeks white walls, simple flooring and pure light that does not take from the work but coexists seamlessly in the space. “The meaning of an image is changed according to what one sees immediately beside it or what comes immediately after it” (Berger, 1972, Pg29), thus for the meaning of an artwork to be communicated it ideally needs to exist free from distractions. This distraction-free space has been accepted worldwide as the modern white cube whose initial conception was as “a translational device that attempted to bleach out the past and at the same time control the future by appealing to supposedly transcendental modes of presence and power” (O’Doherty, 1976,1986, Pg11). This space is ideal for the model of art that each institution hosts and presents a somewhat of a blank canvas for each galleries rolling program of exhibitions.

The genre of art that each gallery presents are similar as they are a combination of homegrown talent and international contribution that results in a varied and multicultural program. The inclusion of the international is appropriate in art institutions, galleries and museums as “The museum has the privilege of speaking the language of the times, which is a language intelligible to all and the same in every country” (Bourdieu and Darbel, 1991, pg3). The showcasing of international creativity also creates a context in which resident/local art can be read and appreciated. Each institution prides itself on its program and ambition in hosting contemporary art;

“BALTIC is an international leader in the ambitious and distinctive presentation, commissioning, development and communication of contemporary visual art… BALTIC exists to enrich people’s lives with a programme that deepens their knowledge, understanding and love of contemporary visual art while increasing and broadening its impact.” (BALTIC Website, 2015) “WIELS is an international laboratory for the creation and diffusion of contemporary art. While its focusing is on the visual arts, it pays particular attention to the crossings and interactions with other disciplines. The centre strives to present contemporary art in all its diversity and to offer a permanent dialogue with the most recent developments and debates in and about the art world.” (WIELS Website, 2015)

Neither organisation has a collection, which also ensures that the art presented to visitors is of-the-moment and is truly contemporary. The lack of collection also distances alliances with artists, which means that the spaces are more open to new work from whomever they deem appropriate at the time, as they have no obligation to display certain artworks. This gives the institutions a freedom to explore new art and take considered risks in their programming. Currently The BALTIC is playing host to the work of three artists; Jason Rhoades, Tony Swain and Ida Ekbald all of whom are contemporary and international being from the US, Northern Ireland and Norway respectively. WIELS is presenting a home-grown Belgian artist Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker that is suited to the Brussels historical interest in theatre and is a more circumspect choice. WIELS is supporting this exhibition with a series of events, talks and performances that relate to and expand upon the main work exhibited. The BALTIC is expanding upon the works of the three artists through tours and educational workshops that are in my opinion much safer routes to take. This difference could be in relation to the artist selection and its prominence to the local audience, with the safer artist choice balanced by gamble of challenging public events and the more precarious artist selection, being supported by tried and tested methods of public outreach.  

As well as showing the work of relatively established artists both institutions boast project spaces/ programs. These spaces are more experimental and present unrehearsed works and artists that may not be a suitable scale for the main gallery space. They also promote the creation of new art as they each have programs aimed at encouraging and enabling the production of art and development of artist practices. BALTIC 39 is the title of the project space hosted by BALTIC (BALTIC 39 Website, 2015) and WIELS boasts a residency program (WIELS Website, 2015).  Examining both spaces demonstrates some clear similarities that begin with the ethos upon which each exists. BALTIC 39 “enables artists and guest curators creative freedom to experiment and innovate, enabling them to stretch the boundaries of contemporary art practice.” (BALTIC 39 Website, 2015).  WIELS’ Residency Program is presented as “an international laboratory for talented emerging artists from all over the world. WIELS provides a unique framework for artists to pursue their practice and engage in current debates and researches that examine the potentials of contemporary artistic production.” (WIELS Website, 2015). Both spaces have proclaimed intentions to encourage the sharing of un-established art that would not be possible in the more demanding and prestigious main exhibition spaces. The spaces differ in location, WIELS residency program take place in studios located in the gallery building while BALTIC 39 is in a separate location in the city center. This difference may reflect the difference in participants as WIELS residency program takes applicants from around the world who are funded by their respective art councils to participate in the program. BALTIC 39 offers 33 studios to artists but also has a further connection to the local art scene with spaces for fine art students studying at Northumbria University’s Department of Art and Social Sciences.  The more selective process hosted by WIELS takes only 9 resident artists into the building, providing each with a studio and a structure of working with their practice being supported through peer crits and meetings. WIELS has a closer connection to the gallery and could be more selective and exclusive for this reason. BALTIC 39 appears to be more open with many studios but less structured an experience and a connection to university art students and a city focused project space. This space although having the BALTIC name is an offshoot of the gallery with a focus on allowing new artists to produce, rather than developing new art from artists in the manner of WIELS. These different spaces remain dissimilar in relation to funding, as you can see below;

BALTIC 39 is supported by Newcastle City Council and Arts Council England in partnership with BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art and Northumbria University. The redevelopment project of 39 High Bridge was funded by: European Regional Development Fund, Arts Council England, Tyne and Wear Partnership via Single Programme Funding from ONE North East, Northern Rock Foundation, The Sir James Knott Trust, The Barbour Trust, Newcastle City Council.  (BALTIC 39 Website, 2015)

WIELS Residency Program is supported by La Communauté française de Belgique, De Vlaamse Gemeenschap, De Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommissie, Fonds BKVB, Office for Contemporary Art Norway, EXKI, CECOFORMA, Pro Helvetia, The Agency for Cultural Affairs (Government of Japan), Goldschmidt Family, Xavier Hufkens Gallery, Nicole Marian - Almine Ruiz-Picasso - Cathy Vedovi, Sylvie Winckler, Biscuiterie Dandoy, Leo Van Tuyckom, Kunstkring Roger Vanthournout, Olivier Gevart, Suzon Ingber and Philippe Aisinber, Nathalie Guiot(WIELS Website, 2015)

The funding structures are evidently different with WIELS being more numerous, international and appearing more complex, which reflects the complexity of the governing/finance structures in Brussels (which I am consciously not going to discuss in this thesis).  This complexity in funding continues with the main institutional body as WIELS presents a comprehensive list of supporters and sources of funding;

For its artistic operations, WIELS is supported by The Flemish Community Brussels Capital-Region VGC - Vlaamse Gemeenschapcommissie The French Community The National Lottery The renovation and rehabilitation of the Blomme building was supported by Brussels Capital-Region (Monuments & Sites and special investment credits) European structural funds Urban 11 Municipality of Forest/Vorst King Baudouin Foundation Duvel Moortgat Eeckman Art & Insurance The architectural firm Art & Build is responsable for the renovation of the building completed in 2007. Partners Artistic Programme BNP Paribas Fortis Fondation WILLAME Fundacion Almine y Bernard Ruiz-Picasso para el arte PETERCAM Art on the Move Duvel Moortgat Institut Français JC Decaux Knauf Prohelvetia Villo! Media Partners Cobra De Morgen   FM Brussel H-art Klara Knack / Le Vif L'Express La Libre Belgique Partners Educational Programme Loterie Nationale Loterij Petit Bateau Thalie Art Foundation Community Partners Atrium Le Brass École n° 9 Geschiedenis - en Patrimoniumkring van Vorst La Maison des Femmes La Maison des Jeunes et le Service Prévention de la Commune de Forest Une Maison en + P.A.R.T.S. Ten Weyngaert

(WIELS Website, 2015)

I found all the above information on the galleries public website where the BALTIC was much more of a challenge to find out where funds came from. Some support is announced through logos on the website but much of this further information was not visible and had to be reached through other channels; BALTIC was initially founded with funding from The National Lottery through Arts Council England, Gateshead Council, Northern Rock Foundation, the European Regional Development Fund and One NorthEast, and receives continued support from Arts Council England and Gateshead Council. The center being a registered charity to which people can donate also sustains support. (BALTIC 39 Website/ Buchan P, 2013/ Gateshead Government Website, 2015/ NewcastleGateshead, 2015)

Although the funding structures are presented differently, each space receives funds from governing bodies and these are added to from outside sources.  The differences in transparency regarding funds could be a cultural difference as many of the spaces we visited in Brussels were unreservedly willing to discuss finances which is something less commonly done in the UK (again I am not going to investigate the cultural differences in depth).   A major disparity regarding funding is what each institution asks of the visitors. BALTIC is free admission with weekly free tours and events, with very few points of the public program asking for the purchase of tickets, with ticketed events often involving the use of materials that validates the cost (BALTIC Website, 2015). WIELS has a contrasting approach to BALTIC, with admission being charged most days to access the main gallery space, for the majority of the events and some of the tours (WIELS Website, 2015). This is a dramatic difference that affects the visitor experience.  Personally, I treat a visit as a more leisurely experience if I can come and go from the gallery as I please and I enjoy multiple visits, which is something I would be reluctant to do if I had to pay each time.  The choice to charge I believe would also discourage many prospective visitors and potentially an entire demographic that are new to art or this genre of art, as not everyone would be willing to pay to see something they are not familiar with. Although they have a difference in admission costs both WIELS and BALTIC are again united in their public program events and their intended audience. Each institution has events aimed at parents with toddlers, children, youths and adults with an overarching aim to educate.  Both WIELS and BALTIC share information in the name of education and preservation through documentation on their websites from past exhibitions that act as a record for artwork that is now historicized. BALTIC has developed this further with a vast digital archive being readily available. This advance in accessible information is another point where BALTIC appears more visitor-friendly than WIELS.  

Considering both galleries and their positions in their respective cities/countries I am aware that the need for the BALTIC to attract a wide variety of audience may be due to it’s location, out with the Capital city and concentration of culture that is London. Brussels has a much larger pool of potential visitors in the 1.139 million (2012) (Google-Brussels Population, 2012) populous to Gateshead/Newcastles 746,988(2011/2010) (Google- Gateshead Population, 2011 / Google- Newcastle Population, 2010), not to mention the travelling tourists that are attracted to the cultured capital. With their similarities each institution are presenting art to quite different audiences with different priorities and this is reflected in the dissimilarities I have recognised.

From my investigation of both institutions I can confidently say that my comparison was justified and relevant. Further interrogation into the infrastructures has revealed some major differences that have a specific effect on the visitor experience. Taking into consideration the different locations and audience as well as looking at each institution overall, across many points BALTIC and WIELS are remarkably similar spaces and organisations. This similarity and the mere existence of the spaces illustrate the movement of art institutions of the time, “In the last few decades we have witnessed a boom in museums and centres for modern or contemporary art. These are some of the institutions most flavoured by cultural policies worldwide since they are often conceived as miraculous crowd pullers whose creation can promote tourism, stimulate service industries, regenerate slums and revitalize a city in decline.” (Lorene, 2011, pg1) Both WIELS and BALTIC fall into this category having opened within five years of each other in 2002 and 2007. They are examples of the regeneration of industrial spaces through art and of the preservation of community landmarks that this ensures. They demonstrate the redirection of art towards the public and the ambition for art to enter the every-day. This research has presented a trend of the time and has captured a change in the international art world caused by the loss of industry and growing desire to share and promote culture to a wider audience.

References

Sharmacharja S and Blazwick I, 2009, A Manual for the 21st century Art institution, Whitechapel Ventures Limited and Koenig Books, London

Harris J, 2004, Art, Money, Parties; New Institutions in the Political Economy of Contemporary Art, Tate Liverpool University Press, Liverpool

Klonk C, 2009, Spaces of experience, Yale University Press

O’Doherty B, 1976,1986, Inside the White Cube, The Lapis Press

Berger J, 1972, Ways of Seeing, Penguin Books

BALTIC Website, 2015, www.balticmill.com

WIELS Website, 2015, www.wiels.org

Lorente J, 2011, The Museums of contemporary art, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Surrey

Bibliography

Books

Godfrey T, 1998, Conceptual Art, Phaidon Press

Berger J, 1980, About Looking, Bloomsbury Publishing

Berger J, 1972, Ways of Seeing, Penguin Books

Bourdieu P & Darbel A, 1991, The Love of Art, Polity Press

Bourriaud N, 2002, Relational Aesthetics, Les presses du reel

Cole I and Stanley N, 2000, Beyond the Museum; Art, institutions, people, Museum of Modern Art, Oxford

Harris J, 2004, Art, Money, Parties; New Institutions in the Political Economy of Contemporary Art, Tate Liverpool University Press, Liverpool

Inglis D & Hughson J, 2005, The Sociology of Art: Ways of Seeing, Palgrave Macmillan

Klonk C, 2009, Spaces of experience, Yale University Press

Lorente J, 2011, The Museums of contemporary art, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Surrey

Montmann N, 2006, Art and its Institutions, Black Dog Publishing, London

Norgan S and McIntyre K, 2003, B. Year One, BALTIC, Gateshead

Obrist, H, 2011, A brief history of curating JRP/Ringer

O’Doherty B, 1976,1986, Inside the White Cube, The Lapis Press

O'Neill P, 2012, The culture of curating and the curating of culture(s), MIT press

Rugg J and Sedgwick M, 2007, Issues in Curating Contemporary Art and Performance, Intellect Books, Bristol

Sharmacharja S and Blazwick I, 2009, A Manual for the 21st century Art institution, Whitechapel Ventures Limited and Koenig Books, London

Sherman D and Rogoff I, 1994, Museum culture, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

Tanner J, 2003, The Sociology of Art: A Reader, Routledge

Velthuis O, 2005, Talking Prices, Princeton University press

Online sources

Art Rabbit- BALTIC, 2015, www.artrabbit.com/organisations/baltic-centre-for-contemporary-art

BALTIC 39 Website, 2015, www.baltic39.co.uk

BALTIC Facebook, 2015, www.facebook.com/balticmill

BALTIC Twitter, 2015, www.twitter.com/balticmill

BALTIC Website, 2015, www.balticmill.com

BALTIC YouTube, 2015, www.youtube.com/user/balticbites

Buchan P, 2013, BALTIC Briefing Pack- Charity Trustees, Independent Trading Company Directors & Independent Audit Committee members, www.balticmill.com/documents (Peter Buchan

E-Flux – WIELS, 2015, www.e-flux.com/client/wiels_contemporary_art_cen/

Gateshead Government Website, 2015- BALTIC, www.gateshead.gov.uk/Leisure%20and%20Culture/attractions/BALTIC/Facts.aspx

Google-Brussels Population, 2012, www.google.co.uk/search?q=Brussels+population&oq=Brussels+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5849j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8

Google- Gateshead Population, 2011, www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Gateshead+Population

Google- Newcastle Population, 2010, www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Newcastle+population

NewcastleGateshead, 2015-BALTIC, www.newcastlegateshead.com/things-to-do/baltic-centre-for-contemporary-art-p24181

Transartists-WIELS, 2015, www.transartists.org/air/wiels

WIELS Facebook, 2015, www.facebook.com/WielsArtCentre

WIELS Twitter, 2015, www.twitter.com/wiels_brussels

WIELS Website, 2015, www.wiels.org

Images

WIELS Facebook, 2015, www.facebook.com/WielsArtCentre

BALTIC, 2015, www.jenzeepops.deviantart.com/art/Baltic-Art-Gallery-484732727