F. Unresolved Questions (UQ)

UQ. - i. Reading Guide:

The future: How do we envisage it... I feel it must be factored here somehow.

Do we see it as a projective path as Homi will put it, or do we see it as something we are living now?

To him, it’s as form of future anterior that is not far from the now. So this gives postcolonialism as time lag between the now and the envisaged end of this projective past.

In practical terms the colonial period had a start and an awareness of postcolonialism started at some point. Hence, mathematically speaking, one should be able to project a vision of this now or future, in order to be able to be properly postcolonial.

UQ. - Language:

We say that we resist using the typical ‘funding language,’ but we also say that sustainability is our highest value. Maybe we need to think about the typical funding terms and redefine them so that we, and other readers such as potential funders, understand that we are imagining a different way of describing what we do and why we do it. Terms such as impact, output, outcome, etc. This is also an important question regarding the presentation of the AC to outside individuals and organizations and our attitude about the typical work of fundraising.

UQ. - ii. Common Language / Index of Terms

Post-Colonial: The way that we talk about the effects of colonialism in each of our contexts should be clarified. Terms such as Postcolonial, Anti-colonial and Decolonial etc. and their effects need to be defined and identified as part of the conceptual basis for the AC Ecosystem.

Study: Is there a conceptual difference between the concepts of studying and the concept of learning? Or are they more more or less superposed? One leading to the other?

In the Common Language / Index of Terms we shift from ‘Sustainability’ to ‘Self-sustainability’ and in the section B2 in the text we use the title ‘Self-Sustainability as highest value for the Ecosystem (AC), but in the text we continue to use the word ‘Sustainability’. It seems that this should be clarified, and we should expand our thinking about this concept to directly address what we mean by sustainability and/or self-sustainability in affective and economic terms.

UQ. - B.1 Paradigm Shift in the Post-Colonial and Neo-liberal context:

• Isn’t this ecosystem and collaboration among the organisations just a burden, adding to the workload and perpetuating the precariousness of the contemporary working and living condition that each organisation is coping with? If there’s a strong common desire for this translocal encounter and mutual unlearning/ learning, what obstructs this desire to be further fulfilled and what direction for our future does this desire express?

• Considering AC’s position regarding capitalism and neoliberalism, what is the AC position regarding the art world and the art market, which have deep and obvious roots and connections to each of these systems? (This was one of Stefano and Tonika’s questions after reviewing the preliminary AC Future Plan. They ask if this is an issue that might be addressed in future assemblies, bangas, collective study etc.)

UQ. - B.2 Sustainability

Sustainability, as the highest value for the ecosystem, is a fundamental component in the self-determination of the ecosystem and of each organization. This concept is addressed throughout this document and specifically in section B.2.

After participating in the June meeting in Utrecht in 2015 Stefano Harney and Tonika Sealy made the following comments:

“The move to self-sustainability within five years will be difficult but more importantly it may take more time, effort, and imagination than anticipated. This will be time away from other activities within network, or indeed it may come to dominate these other activities. Perhaps more thinking about sustainability and funding needs to undertaken? Perhaps a new activity needs to be dedicated to this goal?”

This question appears in different parts of this document, and the answers to it affect different mechanisms that have been initiated. It is important to clarify the AC position relating to sustainability.

UQ. - D.1 Lifeline Plans / Sustainability Plans

The text describing lifeline plans was written before the original lifeline plans were developed. It was modified to become a history of the Lifeline plan process.

Will new organizations that enter the AC ecosystem be required to submit lifeline plans as well?

This is related to the question about membership and how new members are integrated into the ecosystem.

UQ. - D.3.1 Philosophy (Budget)

The opening paragraph is written as a criticism of the typical information that funding agencies require of applicants in order to secure resources for projects and administrative support. However, numbers of people impacted by the activities of organizations, the quality of the experiences of the people involved in the organizations projects and programs and the internal evaluation of the quality of the activities that each organization can serve as internal as well as external information. The text does not address this possibility. This question is not just related to sustainability and budgets but also to organizational self-evaluation, failure and pride in our accomplishments. What is AC’s position regarding processes of organizational self-evaluation as it relates to the statement about demonstration of successes? Are these processes always stressful or counter-productive, or is it possible that they can be considered as part of the internal study processes that occur within and among the organizations in the AC ecosystem?

UQ. - D.3.2 Allocation of funds - Collective Pot

What happens to the collective pot when organizations leave AC or become “un-funded” members? If they have savings how are they redistributed?

How will it be determined if an organization becomes self-sustainable before the end of the 5 year period?

What does it mean that they will “subscribe to self-limitation?” Will they divert the “unnecessary” funds into the collective savings?

UQ. - E.1 Philosophy: Self-accountability and study

How will the resource map become a source of study for individuals and accountability for groups outside of the AC?

Is the resource map a place in which organizations can list their successes and failures so that it can be collectively studied and seen by individuals outside of AC?

UQ. - E.2 Challenges Faced

The question about the Legal Entity still remains today and other questions include:

Whether it is possible to decentralize the existing funds and collectively manage them and any new funds raised.

Who could represent AC?

Where should the existing funds be deposited, and where will any new funds that are raised go?

Who would be able to sign on behalf of AC?

Is possible to work without registering AC?

How should a Trust be formed?

What will be the forms of the contracts within the AC and between the AC and other organizations.

UQ. - 4/ How to reach a consensus

What is the significance of a Block with respect to the Blocking organization’s participation in the AC ecosystem after having blocked a decision?

UQ. - E.3.1.c Banga (Knowmadic meetings)

Audu: Bangas are unique processes of their kind and must be one of the ways AC, per practice distinguishes itself from other world collaborations of its kind.

This is a point that should be included in the presentation of the AC.

UQ. - E.3.2.c Fundraising

How does AC see itself after the 5 years of support for the current members?

What is AC’s philosophical stand in regards to the language it could use to communicate what it does with others and the relations it could form. This unresolved question is especially acute in relation to fundraising. It could be grossly formulated in these terms:

Does AC want to maintain a radical position in regards to the use of language and refuse to communicate using “traditional” referents such as impact and audience building or would AC accept to still play the “traditional” game while making its position clear and using a language that could be seen as “simplified” but could be used as an entry point for funders and/ or communication purposes.

In other words, how do we portray ourselves in a non-obscure way, in a way that is open to others, using a language that could be understood without betraying ourselves and our principles?

What is the AC position regarding the concept of the impact of the AC network on a local and global scale? Should this even be considered? If so, how should this be presented?

As a group we need to clarify our position about this and whether we want to try to quantify our individual and collective impacts in the traditional sense, and/or if we want to use qualitative impact measures, or both, or if we want to use any kind of impact measures at all etc.

Are some or all of the organizations interested in project funding as opposed to, or in addition to, structural or administrative funding?

How might we form groups of organizations that might request funding in order to realize a collective project? Is this related to the existing mechanisms that we have; Bangas, ETP’s, etc.?

If some organizations decide that they want to participate in such a collective project how can they take advantage of being part of the AC to secure funding? How can they or should they contribute to the AC common pot if the funding is awarded and the project is realized?

This is related to the question of the Legal Entity, which we still need to solve, but some basic questions related to fundraising also have to do with identifying our individual and collective strengths and impacts and agreeing on ways to communicate them to potential funders. This is also related to our ethical principles and brings up questions about developing new relationships or continuing existing relationships with organizations who work with and within the constraints of the capitalist system (including the art world and art market).

UQ. - E3.3 Temporary Groups

How long is the commitment of each organization to the temporary groups? Or, what is the process for rotating these responsibilities?

What are the unfinished tasks of each working group? What processes can be implemented to help each other identify and finish these tasks?

UQ. - E.4 Membership, growth and openness of AC

What will the process be for integrating the new organizations into the AC ecosystem as it relates to the institutional funding, the collective pot and collective savings?

Should future growth of the ecosystem be collectively considered in the assembly?

Should DOEN still runs a separate AC grant program, and if so is it integrated into the AC ecosystem? If it is discontinued then is it contrary to the principle of openness?