Rajataide Association was formed to serve art

and artists in 1996. It is not a trade union, but a

forum for those interested in contributing to the

contemporary art scene. It's members are mainly

young professional artists, but there are also

students and cultural workers from various fields.

To keep its view fresh also in the future, the

right to vote or take part in the board of directors

has been reserved to those under 36 years. Older

age, however, does not prevent participation to

exhibitions and other activities of the association.

Gallery Rajatila is an art gallery near Tampere

city center maintained by Rajataide association

since 1997. Gallery Rajatila concentrates to display

contemporary art and artists. Gallery Rajatila is

committed to offering opportunities to young

emerging and recently established artists with

interesting and fresh ideas. Our object is to

enable versatile and experimental exhibitions.

\

Rajataide Association

Gallery Rajatila

Hämeenpuisto 10,

33210 Tampere, Finland

\

www.rajataide.fi

Front cover, left to right : Arttu Merimaa, Of Simulation and Dissimulation \

Maija Kovari, Sempervivum Soboliferum \ Sanni Seppä, I Love Animals, part 1:

Nordic Birds \ Jenni Lahtinen, Dance \ Jussi Koitela, Study Circle

Publication by

Rajataide Association

\with contributions from

Pelin Tan and artist members

of Rajataide Association

\ page 3 \ Pelin Tan: The Question Autonomy in the Practice of Commons: Present and Future of Artist Run Practices

\ page 14 \ In Dialogue with Members of Rajataide Association

\ page 22 \ Featured Artists

\ Miina Hujala \

3

T h e Q u e s t i o n o f

A u t o n o m y i n t h e

P r a c t i c e o f C o m m o n s :

P r e s e n t a n d F u t u r e o f

A r t i s t R u n P r a c t i c e s

— An Essay by Pelin Tan —

4

“The creation of instituting society, as instituted society, is each

time a common world – kosmos koinos: the positing of individuals,

of their types, relations and activities; but also the positing of

things, their types, relations and signification – all of which

are caught up each time in receptacles and frames of reference

instituted as common, which make them exist together.”

— Cornelius Cotariadis ¹ —

In the last ten years, most artist run practices around

the world reached to an edge to face governmental

cultural policy, new public space regulation, spectacle

institutional constellations and conditions of

precarious labour. Although these recent and harsh

conditions (or crisis) are squeezing the artist run

practice or alternative collective space practices; at

the other hand, it provides new potentialities to invest

within such crisis. Thus, the potential future of these

practices is inert in what degree that they deal or

resist with the crisis. Moreover, new methods / models

of dealing and resisting are necessary. How artist run

practices will come over with this? Does the question

of autonomy in terms of space, economy and art form

is possible in perspective of institutional criticism?

5

The core causes for the establishment of artist

run spaces are based on the need of self-organized

exhibition spaces, the need of display non-object

oriented of art forms or related relational art practices

(which is generally neglected by the art market and

gallery circle), to establish non-hierarchical self-

organization among other networks and a flexible

control of funding dissemination.

According the problems that I introduced

above, I certainly believe that artist run spaces have

also abilities in flexible “network labour” that produces

collective action, disseminate and control surplus

value by introducing a minor parallel economy.

Above that, these practices have the flexibility to

evolve within the social – political urban everyday life

that able them to trans-crossing other networks of

assemblies other than contemporary art (like food,

literature, design…). I can think and compare few

artists run practices around the world that share

maybe not the same conditions but same present

and futures. For example, BASSO / Berlin, Arrow

Factory / Beijing, Souzy Tros / Athens, IRA / Tokyo or

Woofer Teen from Hong Kong and many others.

All of them are involved in criticism of certain social

– political problems in everyday life, urban space.

Their spaces are hubs that people from different

practices can converge and produce together

temporarily. Different than a structured institution

(art institution, museum, biennial…), these places

6

can instantly reply to urgent social – political

issues. The flexibility of collective practices enables

to take an instant positioning and a public response.

Gift economy and flexible labour exchange are

forms and base of such practices. The “instituent”

practice is defined by the art theorist Gerald Raunig 2

as participating in processes of instituting and in

political practices that traverse the structure and

institution. As he analysis the relationship of the

constituent power and participation in such self-

organized practices: “The various arrangements of

self-organization promote broad participation in

instituting, because they newly compose themselves

as a constituent power again and again, always tying

into new local and global struggles…”; and he defines

the insistent practice of instituting in artists run

collectives: “…countless smaller and larger impulses

for collective insurrection and for the emergence

of constituent power, a series of events, in which

desiring is learned, a permanent new beginning,

an instituent practice that animates an astonishing

amount and is incredibly persistent at the same

time”. It is interesting so in his analysis the relation

between authoritarian power and collective desire.

Arrow Factory is situated in a local neighbourhood

in Beijing run by basically three curators / artists with

the help of the other artists. This artist run space, is

a site-located space rather than a site-specific one; an

ephemeral artistic practice that permeates everyday

7

\ Maija Kovari \

life and artistic production, rather

than an institutional urban practice;

an everyday practice in which the

audience and artist are dissolved in

each other, representing more than

a collaborative, socially engaged art

practice… These are the operative

aspirations of this artist-run-space,

situated in an area of the city currently

under pressure, revealing the multiple

stratifications of recent urban

conditions. How can such artistic

initiatives resist the proliferation

of neoliberal urban production,

while simultaneously remaining

independent? This is one of the

main issues when reflecting on the

emancipatory role of such spaces.

Arrow Factory signals the creation of a

new community, not only inside their

neighbourhood circle but also in a

trans-local circle. Local people, artists,

international visiting artists, other

artist-run spaces from different parts of

the world have found in Arrow Factory

perspective and ideas. Similar to Woofer

Teen in Hong Kong; an artist run space

in lower middle class neighbourhood

in Kowloon surrounded with urgent

8

urban issues of homeless, migration,

neoliberal urban gentrification and

over-regulation of public space. Woofer

Ten artists are involved with problems

of urban space in Hong Kong such as

homeless, control of public spaces,

community engagement and craft-

minded practices. By being involved

locally in Kowloon and everyday reality,

this non-profit art space has also a well

working artists residency that hosts

artists around the world. Woofer Ten

organizes talks, exhibitions, public

engagements and site-specific projects

and the basic maintenance supported

by governmental fund “Hong Kong Arts

Development Council”. They admit

that as the activists do not have a space

for gather and self-organization; they

provide collective support and the

space in order to act collectively. This

artist run space is networking with

designers, political activists and other

artists around the world. Like IRA

in the heart of Tokyo, which has a

similar structure, though they do not

prefer to be governmentally funded,

and so create their own exchange

economy. IRA (Irregular System A.)

9

is run by mainly 10–15 activists, artists, designers

and others. IRA shares their space as with networks

such as activists and food collective and musicians.

They present several difference research based or

relational art practices such as sewing workshops

or research done by artist on urgent urban / ecological

issues. In summary, these examples although they are

in the different geographical and cultural realities they

do present common practices as part of alternative

social and cultural production.

I would like focus more on the model of a

factory, a working space as an exhibition, which is a

format of a social production that in my opinion refers

to an indefinable “surplus value” in the framework of

community economy. What do I mean here as a social

production? Is it in a discursive context or economical

context? Do artists produce such work, which has a

certain economical value or is this whole collective inter-

subjectivity based on the distributed social surplus

value that makes possible of such a format? What is the

relation between collective art practices between “the

existing flows of surplus value”?3. In trying to construct

a local ethics of distribution of social production and

building a community economy Gibson - Graham

asks: “How might non-producers of social surplus

have a say in how surplus is generated, appropriated,

distributed, and those to which it will not?”4. Before

reaching to this question, the social surplus value here

(in this exhibition) has been produced not only as an

10

outcome of production of the artist who establishes

and creates the events, seminars, archive, library

based on certain discursive statements but also by

the contribution of participants, who actually might

have diverse practices in their own studios. According

to this, generally, the model needs a “community” in

order not only to create the environment, discursive

space but also the surplus value that is a redundant

production in several forms that takes place in the

a free working art space or such an process based

multiple model. The value created during the events,

workshops and socially engaged exhibitions that also

stems from the discursive relation of the site, city,

institution that contains an open-ended risk.

Examples of artist run spaces such as

BASSO / Berlin or Souzy Tros / Athens present such

alternative instant “communities”. BASSO initiated

by Yusuf Etiman who also produces a magazine with

artists, designers and other groups. As well as Souzy

Trost initiated by artist Maria Papadimitrou with

artists, designers and people from an immigrant

NGOs. Both places are run by self-minor economy

that stems from its own co-existing communities.

In the past BASSO organized film, performance

screening, exhibitions and public talks. It also rents

out few artists office / studios in order to cover the

general rent. However, with Suzy Trost the space is

in a neglected area of the city periphery of Athens.

It is a small former warehouse/factory that is family

11

property and which the artist have

transformed into a common space

for sewing, cooking and gathering

together. As other spaces, this

space organizes food exchange

and sewing practices as a socially

art engaged practices in order to

deal with the current economical

crisis. The question of autonomy

in such spaces and practices push

forward and creates the practices of

Commons.

In conclusion, it is sure that

according to a trans-local review of

such artist run spaces signifies a

future alternative institution and

a counter-culture social production

(against the general mainstream

institutional production). As we

experience in such practices,

there is a transparence becoming

with / within everyday life realities,

collective curating, a locally

engaged rhizomatic network and

a possible “instituent” practice

against institutionalism.

\ Kaisa Luukkonen \

12

13

1 Cornelius Cotariadis, The Imaginary Institution of Society,

Trans. by K.Blamey, The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts

(Original book 1975).

2 Gerald Raunig, Instituent Practices, No.2: Institutional

Critique, Constituent Power, and the Persistence of Instituting,

Discourse, Muhtelif Contemporary Art Magazine, Spring 2008,

No.3 (co-editor Pelin Tan).

3 In their article, Özçelik and Madra define surplus value

and its distribution that at the end of their argument they question

the who and how reclaiming it could be a counter-hegemonic nodal:

“For us, a relation to class is enacted whenever there is an effect

stemming from the extent to or the form in which surplus-labor is

produced, appropriated, and distributed. Hence, there are continuous

attempts to institute class relations at sites as diverse as households,

universities, neighbourhoods, highways, and unions, as well as within

transnational corporations. Similarly, class relations are shaped by

a variety of discourses ( gender, political, legal, religious, ecological,

as well as economic) that interrupt and re-channel the existing

flows of surplus-labour or attend the production of qualitatively new

ones. In turn, relations to class processes sustain certain political

identifications and cultural claims at the expense of others, which

are restricted from or completely deprived of accessing the flows of

surplus labour…”, p.82, Özçelik/Madra. Further: “…In the absence of a

counter hegemonic nodal point, these disparate ‘‘acts of reclaiming’’

could indeed easily be co-opted by the capitalist-all. We believe that

the axiom of communism could serve as a useful counter-hegemonic

nodal point that would impart a ‘‘surplus’’ meaning to each and every

act of reclaiming…”.p.94

4 Gibson - Graham

— References —

14

What are the differences between Rajataide and gallery? What makes Rajataide an artist run space?

Rajataide organization works

according to the common Finnish

association model. The board of 8

persons is selected in the meeting of

the members for a one-year span at a

time. The activity of the association

is organized by its active members:

part of the members run the gallery,

part are taking care of the association

and economy of the both. In addition,

there are varying working groups

producing alternative projects under

the umbrella of the association.

Rajataide (which in Finnish

means “border art”) is association,

which manages Gallery Rajatila

(“border space”). Many of the members

I n D i a l o g u e

w i t h M e m b e r s o f

R a j a t a i d e A s s o c i a t i o n

— Interview by Pelin Tan —

15

are and have been visual artists but

there are also people interested in

other fields for example comics or

experimental music. For Rajataide

artist-run has meant offering

exhibition space and possibilities to

participate in versatile projects for

young artists who have not so much

exhibition opportunities.

There is a need of addressing

the question of what is the relationship

between the gallery and the association

since most of the artists exhibiting are

not members nor are the exhibitions

curated by the members solely. The

space is therefore more an opportunity

to exhibit - organized by Rajataide

association. That is logical related

to the local situation of a small town

of Tampere where spaces to exhibit

contemporary art are scarce.

Is artist-run activity just that

– creating possibilities to present

artworks and projects? From the

outlook it seems that the gallery

program is at the very essence of the

association’s practice but with a

closer observation the involvement

of the members of Rajataide is also

connected in maintaining the local

art scene, sustaining the grass-root-

level activity and keeping alive the

community of artists.

Is economically Rajataide dependent on membership fees? Do you generate this network in a productive artistic form? Are you planning that or is it already happening?

Rajataide association is not reliant

on membership fees. Rajataide is

funded through grants (main funders

being the estate and the city) as well

as the rents collected from artists

exhibiting in Rajatila gallery. Rajataide

association works as a platform that

enables the working groups (consisting

of the members) to apply funding for

projects and happenings. In this sense

the activity can be fruitful and sensible

for the more active members.

The problem in running the

16

\ Arttu Merimaa \

\ Saara Vallineva \

\ Timo Bredenberg \

17

\ Karoliina Paappa \

\ Jaana Laakkonen \

\ Jussi Koitela \

18

\ Sanni Seppä \

\ Johanna Havimäki \

\ Jenni Lahtinen \

19

\ Antti Pussinen \

\ Juhani Tuomi \

\ Hanna-Mari Matikainen \

\ Laura Rytkönen \

20

organization, and the gallery, is that

the association does not have a hired

employee. This creates a problem

concerning long-term development

and sustaining the gathered know-

how since part-time working staff

and volunteers have to learn things

anew every year.

When thinking about the

Rajatila Gallery and as a more general

issue a question rises; do artist-run

galleries benefit the livelihood and

practice of artists that exhibit there?

In Finland the artist-run galleries

aren’t actively selling the works of the

artists exhibited. In addition to that,

some artists want to keep the prices

of the works “under the counter”.

It seems that in Finland there is a

twofold attitude towards selling.

On one hand artists want to sell,

and on the other hand it is considered

shameful to market one’s own art.

One would assume that it would be in

the realm of interest of the artist-run

gallery associations to consider the

livelihood of artists. What is causing

this distortion?

In the current situation, the

gain for an artist paying to present

his /hers art is left to minimum. One

could ask if galleries run by volunteers

have the time or the will to really think

what is the benefit for the exhibitor.

Then again what does it mean if the

artist-run galleries are turning from

organizations offering alternative

spaces more towards imitations of

the commercial galleries?

It seems that the relatively

passive gallery spaces paid by the

exhibiting artists have become

somewhat of a conventional model in

Finland. It is possible that at least for

some of the artist-run galleries the

exhibiting itself has become some

kind of a secondary activity, and that

people are more interested in different

kinds of projects and other activities,

which the gallery program and the

association can enable.

21

What is Rajataide’s opinion on cultural policy in Finland?

The Rajataide association is a

fragmented entity of opinions.

Rajataide has over 80 members, and

various different working groups.

It aims to be democratic in decision-

making. A formulated opinion is a

paradox in this kind of a situation.

In the association there is a will

to become a more substantive actor

at least in the local art scene.

One of the associations working

groups is the 1/2 Art magazine, which

already is a prominent agent as a voice

for opinions for both people involved

in Rajataide and as well as to others.

One of the reasons Rajataide

association hasn’t formed a mediated

and discussed opinion on cultural

policy in Finland is because the group

of active members in Rajataide change

pretty often and there hasn’t been a

system formed that would carry a

formulated common opinion through

this changing. But it does not mean

Rajataide association doesn’t have

opinions. There are many big

changes going on in cultural politics:

shift to creative economy and the

reorganization of the Arts Council

of Finland. Like many artist-run

associations and groups Rajataide

is aspiring to comment on these

developments and figure out new

ways of operating.

22

F e a t u r e d

A r t i s t s

23

Timo Bredenberg, still from Sparta, 2011.

Digital video; 9.08 minutes

www.timobredenberg.com

Johanna Havimäki, Mr. Red, 2012.

Various materials

www.johannahavimaki.com

Miina Hujala, Replaced Acts, 2010. HD Video

www.miinahujala.fi

Jussi Koitela, Safe Play, 2011. Installation view,

Safe Play Event, Korjaamo Gallery, Helsinki

www.jussikoitela.com

Maija Kovari, Bench, 2011. Wall painting

www.kovari.fi

Jaana Laakkonen, Drapes, 2012. Acrylic

and water-soluble oil on MDF, 94,2 × 87 cm

www.jaanalaakkonen.com

Jenni Lahtinen, Ojaneva, 2010.

Watercolour on paper, 18 × 26 cm

www.jennilahtinen.blogspot.fi

Kaisa Luukkonen, Keep on Dreaming, 2012.

500 balloons, 500 needles, helium, tent,

24 days. Photograph by Karoliina Paappa.

kirppukaruselli.wordpress.com

Hanna-Mari Matikainen, Black Animal, 2010.

Digital print, 78 × 110 cm

sites.google.com/site/hannamarim

Arttu Merimaa, Of Simulation and Dissimulation,

2012. Videoinstallation

www.arttumerimaa.net

Karoliina Paappa, Series: Die-Cut, Young Girl in

the Children’s Room, 2011. Digital photograph

www.karoliinapaappa.fi

Antti Pussinen, My First Killer Laser Robot, 2012.

Aluminium, electronics, hunting scope, wireless

security camera, laser pointer, wood, acrylic,

Controller unit: joystick, television, electronics,

110 × 110 × 130 cm

www.anttipussinen.net

Laura Rytkönen, The Cold Bloods, 2012.

Video; 11 minutes

www.laurarytkonen.com

Sanni Seppä, I Love Animals, part 2: Gezeichnet in

Finland, 2011. Coloured pencil on paper

and kapa board, 2,3 × 3,2 m

Photograph by Jyri Pitkänen.

www.sanniseppa.com

Juhani Tuomi, A Dead Poet, 2008.

Oil on canvas, 70 × 50 cm

Saara Vallineva, Trash Plants, 2012.

Grocery net bags, iron wire

Photograph by Brittany Mahood.

www.saaravallineva.blogspot.fi

Publisher: Rajataide ry, Tampere, 2012

Editorial work: Karoliina Paappa

Essay: Pelin Tan

Writers, Rajataide ry : Johanna Havimäki, Miina Hujala,

Jussi Koitela, Arttu Merimaa, Karoliina Paappa

English corrections: Kaisa Luukkonen

Graphic design: Marion Robinson

Paper: Edixion offset 140 g, Cover: Edixion offset 300 g

Printed by: Aldus Ltd., Lahti, 2012

This publication has generously been supported by:

Arts Council of Finland

FRAME Foundation

Pelin Tan is an academic, writer, and curator

based in Istanbul involved in research-based

artistic and architectural projects that focus

on urban conflict and territorial politics, gift

economy, the condition of labour, and mixed

methods in research.

She was a research / curatorial resident at

IASPIS (Stockholm) and GeoAir (Tbilisi) and

has worked as a guest curator at Witte de With

(Rotterdam). Tan has curated Knut Asdam and

Radical Aesthetics at DEPO (Istanbul), Innocent

Act, and StudyoKAHEM, an architectural research

project at the 10th Istanbul Biennial. She was

also a co-curator of 1st Istanbul Design Biennale.

After receiving her PhD in Art History,

Tan worked on her postdoc on the methodology

of artistic research with Ute Meta Bauer at the

MIT Program in Art, Culture and Technology.

She has contributed to and edited numerous

publications and is Editor of Muhtelif magazine

and Advisory Editor of ArtMargin (MIT Press)

and NOON, the Journal of Contemporary Art

and Visual Culture of the Gwangju Biennial

Foundation. She is currently an Assistant

Professor in the New Media department

at Kadir Has University in Istanbul, and The

Japan Foundation Fellow, researching artist

run practices in Japan.