We did not, at the start of the project, realise how much re-designing of the project would be required as we went along. We expected some but from Intercult’s perspective, holding the responsibility for the project schedule, there was a time for research, a time for concept creation and planning and a time for implementation: [Read more...]
At the outset of SEAS we spoke a lot about the commissioning, coproducing and the events themselves seeing the presentation of the artworks as the “outcome” of the project. SEAS was obsessed with schedules and deadlines (amusingly satirised by Cristina David’s video piece NON-Linear Time.) This detail-obsession dominated Intercult’s thinking since we were responsible for [Read more...]
The coorganiser group contained hosting and producing organisations (eg Intercult itself, KIT, Tromso Kunstforening etc) and arts companies (BADco and Hotel Proforma). In retrospect, this was an uneasy fit. The hosting/producing organisations had responsibility either for activities scheduled throughout the project (for example Intercult and Sfumato) or for events that were sometimes two and a [Read more...]
It was a major gamble and proved to be a huge challenge to begin the project presentations in Ukraine. Not only did we have 14 new shows but most of the shows we had not seen, our technical team had no experience of presenting the productions, and some of them had not even been in [Read more...]
Partnership and Funding In an EU project there are always two parts to the budget and financing: the total budget of the project and the part of the budget reportable to the EU – the “eligible expenditure.” In many projects they are the same thing. But it is often the case that what the coordinator [Read more...]
As a general principle we decided that the majority of the EU grant should be spent on artistic creation and on artists. Each coorganiser proposed artists to take part in the project and an early meeting took place in Constanta, Romania in September 2006 (before the EU application was made) to introduce the artists to [Read more...]
Raising own investment The Intercult and the coorganisers then set about raising their own investment. The budget was designed to make it possible for the partners to report a part of their usual running costs (salaries and overheads) that are usually covered by their structural or regular funding. The costs of the presentations in each [Read more...]
In each hosting venue it was also vital to have the support (financial and in-kind) of the local politicians and cultural budgets. This was a double-edged sword. On one hand municipalities were ready to help and had the resources to do so, and many were excellent. On the other hand sometimes their assistance tied the [Read more...]
The partner groups who we found made the most of the SEAS opportunities were usually the younger, more activist-orientated artists, students and independent event-makers who leapt at the chance to communicate with professional artists from other countries and participate as volunteers and helpers in the project. Examples of strong and satisfying partnerships include the Exit [Read more...]
In programming a SEAS event the project employed a principle of co-curation between the host/coorganiser and Intercult as the executive producer. This principle was built into the structure of the partnership and the budget. The fees of the international artists commissioned by the project were covered by EU money so that that the hosts could [Read more...]
