Reasoning about policies and different models of support for residencies have been the subject of discussion and debate for some time now with various public and private, national and international actors, first and foremost the Directorate General for Contemporary Creativity of the Ministry of Culture.
The starting consideration concerns the scarcity of resources dedicated to the residencies sector, especially in reference to that which is outside the live performance sector. On the one hand, there is a strong and frequent reference to forms of transdisciplinarity, but on the other hand there is still a lack of adequate forms of support and funding that are also able to go beyond the dichotomy ‘live performances’ versus other disciplinary fields.
A discourse on the development and support policies of residencies needs to place the figure of the artist at the centre. On the other hand, residencies arise as a response to the needs of the artist and work in neighbouring, fragile or otherwise weak territories, precisely because within the weaknesses are created those margins of expression and freedom that characterise some territories more than others (e.g. small towns vs. gentrified cities).
It is also necessary to find forms of support in order to be able, from a territorial point of view, to cover not only models that may be more sustainable (because within large cities it is also possible to create a system of a business model that is more compensated by the private commercial collateral), but also to be able to compensate for these situations of weakness.
The local dimension, collaboration and connection with territories
The residency is characterised as a practice of openness towards the ‘other’ and this ‘other’ is often the communities present in the various territories. On the one hand, in the production centres, a more solitary work within the space emerges, by virtue of the fact that one of the main needs of the artist is to research freely.
How and to what extent this research should intersect with territories or people is a question to be investigated. In any case, the centrality and independence of the artist is reaffirmed as a founding element of the practice of directing. On the other hand, in the territories, community and site-specific practices are exalted.
Returning to the experience of support for the performing arts, we can and must think about opening a channel of comparison and dialogue with the institutions and with the General Directorate for Contemporary Creativity precisely to encourage or hypothesise new support models, also in dialogue with the regions and going beyond the formalism of calls for proposals.
In this regard, if we were to stop at the formalism of calls for proposals, many organisations would probably not be able to recover the necessary resources.
Hence, within the mesh and institutional structures, it is necessary to go back to models that can help, in this very uncertain phase, to create a support mechanism for residencies. The need to keep a dialogue and all possible forms of collaboration open remains: resources are few, sometimes centralised on a few subjects, and even more often oriented towards investment in assets rather than management.
Generally, in fact, where there are funds earmarked for management, these are limited to a start-up phase and do not envisage follow-up and support for consolidation.
In delving into the local dimension, it is interesting to assess the models and dynamics affecting the city of Milan. What are the modes of management and to what extent is it desirable to generate a convergence, a dialogue, between public and private? At the moment, rather than thinking of an exclusive management of things by the public or the private sector, the public-private partnership model has been initiated and launched; this could be a path to follow and use to negotiate and renegotiate, on both sides, the forms of support for residences in general and/or the spaces that support residences.
La ricerca
Then two other issues arise: research is an indispensable element of residency processes and in Italy those who do research are generally and mainly universities. On the one hand, there is a strong analogy between the residency model and that of the university; on the other hand, the dialogue between these two dimensions, especially at the Italian level, is difficult to establish.
Therefore, certainly from this perspective there are margins to try to create new connections also on the basis of European experiences and practice-based forms of doctorates.
Creative burocracy
Finally, a remark on the bureaucracy that harnesses and slows down many collaboration and project development processes: we need to become promoters and implementers of a creative bureaucracy ¹: The idea is to try to force the meshes of bureaucracy within the limits provided, and this obviously implies a deep knowledge of it. What seems to me to emerge is how there is at the same time a delineated field of action, within which professionally advanced actors move and are able to draw clear and defined strategic lines. It is important to continue to nurture this constellation of actors to ensure that survival does not prevail over a vision of a possible future.
¹ creativebureaucracy.org