With the recent formation of the Visual Arts Network of South Africa, it seems opportune to ask whether there are any lessons for it to learn from past efforts in building arts organisations. With this history largely unwritten it is hoped that this partial overview will encourage further reflection on this question.

The previous government supported and recognised the South African Association of Arts, an umbrella body of membership based associations centred on a network of local and provincial galleries, with a national office in Pretoria. Formed in 1945 the SAAA succeeded the South African Fine Arts Society (founded in 1850). The SAAA failed to establish a Johannesburg branch, and its legitimacy was severely compromised by its relationship to the apartheid state, particularly its role in breaking the cultural boycott. Despite this pedigree, and in part due to the absence of any organised alternative, the new government’s Department of Arts, Culture, Science & Technology continued to recognise the SAAA as a representative national voice for the visual arts. In the mid nineties two branches, Durban (NSA) and Cape Town (now the Association for Visual Arts) seceded. Reeling from this loss, the SAAA set out to reform itself, rewriting its constitution to accommodate new ‘affiliate’ members, mostly museums and independently constituted organisations. Re-branding itself as the South African Association for the Visual Arts, SANAVA also claimed to have broken new ground by forming a branch in Langa and in recruiting black members. With SANAVA maintaining a national status, at least with DACST, it is not surprising that it has viewed the recent arrival of VANSA with some suspicion.

Within the liberation movement the creation of a national organisation for artists (or for the visual arts) was punted on numerous occasions going back to at least the 70s. It was also implicit in resolutions of the Culture in Another South Africa conference in Amsterdam, 1987, which called for the formation of ‘discipline-based’ arts organisations. Several such organisations were formed after CASA, including the Natal Visual Arts Organisation and the Cape Town based Visual Arts Group. With the seminal Art from South Africa exhibition (curated by David Elliott), organisations such as the VAG, NAVAO, Imvaba (Eastern Cape), Artists Alliance (Johannesburg) and Thupelo Workshop played a critical role in ensuring that the result was ‘representative’. This was possibly the closest that visual arts organisations in the struggle got in building a national network. At another level most of these organisations were part of regionally based umbrella bodies of cultural workers that were affiliated to the United Democratic Front. For the VAG it was through the Cultural Workers Congress, western Cape; and for NAVAO it was the Natal Culture Congress. At the national level the UDF established a Cultural Desk based in Johannesburg which ostensibly ‘consulted’ with regional structures and national disciplines. Increasingly the Cultural Desk was perceived of as representing the interests of Johannesburg based arts organisations. Shortly after the un-banning of political organisations in 1990 members of the VAG, NAVAO, Imvaba and the Artists Alliance were part of regional delegations invited to a national consultative meeting by the Interim Cultural Desk. This lead to the replacement of the Cultural Desk by a National Interim Cultural Coordinating Committee (later the Federation of South African Cultural Organisations).

FOSACO was doomed the moment key cultural brokers such as the national leadership of the Congress of South African Writers decided against joining. With the Johannesburg based organisations failing to send a delegation to FOSACO’s planned launch in Durban (only the Film & Allied Workers Organisation and Performing Arts Equity came as observers), FOSACO was stillborn and derided as ‘unrepresentative’. When COSAW shut its regional offices (which were also used by FOSACO’s regions) the unofficial ‘infrastructure’ of the fledgling organisation fell apart. With COSAW simultaneously launching the Arts For All Campaign (later the National Arts Initiative and finally the National Arts Coalition) with the participation of mostly Johannesburg based arts organisations, the stage was set for a new phase of organisation. The National Arts Coalition succeeded in projecting itself as the most representative arts organisation in South African history. It did this by recruiting prominent practitioners across the disciplines and regions; by recruiting both individuals and organisations; and in particular by bridging the “us and them” political fault-lines that characterized earlier initiatives. Focused on impacting on cultural policy the NAC ran its course once it had made its mark on the White Paper, and its disbandment ushered in a new void.

Today we are back at the stage of simultaneously establishing both umbrella bodies (the Network for Arts & Culture, South Africa) and discipline based organisations (the Musicians Union of South Africa, the Performing Arts Network of South Africa, VANSA, and the Writers Association of South Africa). However, whereas previous initiatives were predominantly rooted in national politics, now globalisation seems to be setting the agenda. VANSA and NACSA owe their births to the International Network for Cultural Diversity, consisting of arts and culture NGO’s. The INCD is linked to the International Network for Cultural Policy, consisting of arts and culture ministers from across the globe. These structures were initiated by Canada’s Minister of Culture, Sheila Cox, who was concerned by the implications of recent international trade agreements for arts and culture.

While the context for VANSA is new, some of the key challenges are the same. The first is legitimacy, which can only be conferred by both those VANSA aims to represent as well as by those it aims to lobby. VANSA will need to demonstrate an inclusive vision that accommodates the interests of all major strategic areas that make up the visual arts. In the event that it is perceived as serving the interests of an emerging elite at the expense of grassroots development, or vice versa, this will undermine its legitimacy. VANSA also needs to design an inclusive structure that does not only take disaffected individuals into account (i.e. those not content with current membership options), but also accommodates existing organisations that may wish to retain their independence. This may be easier said than done: existing organisations may not want to be swallowed by the new kid on the block. Certainly everyone joining SANAVA is not an option. Everyone joining VANSA is only an option if its bona-fides as a fresh start are acceptable to all key players. With VANSA having ‘launched’ without any constitution is it not still an option to convene a representative process to discuss what kind of organisation we really need? Or should we expect a futile turf war?

The second critical issue is sustainability. It is instructive to note that none of the volunteer driven membership organisations have survived. In contrast the gallery centred membership model has proved financially sustainable, both in umbrella form (eg. SAAA/SANAVA), as well as at the level of individual organisations (eg NSA and AVA as well as SANAVA branches). If VANSA models itself as a voluntary structure, putting its faith in fundraising from external sources, it may be in for a rude awakening. Project related funding should be a feasible option, but funding for organisational infrastructure may be more difficult if past trends are anything to go by. Donor funds or sponsorship can only be a bonus, not the premise for sustainability. A sustainable national organisation will need to draw on resources within its own constituency, and hence it may be in VANSA’s interests (and in the interests of all who want to see a legitimate, sustainable outcome) that it avoid taking on a confrontational tone with SANAVA, and that it clarify its relationship to the NSA and AVA beyond initiating dual membership. Let us hope that the leadership of our organisations is bold enough to commit to building a truly legitimate and sustainable national voice for the visual arts.