The Elusive Spaces of Arts Residencies

Nika Mušič

The brief historical overview discussed in the first article of the AiR series suggests that international artist-in-residence (AiR) programmes are by no means a homogeneous field. Various studies over the last 20 years emphasise how the field of AiR programmes is constantly changing and is characterised by such fragmentation, complexity and diversity that it is hard to define and classify. But is there a common denominator amongst this diversity?

The Diversity of AiR Programmes

AiR programmes emerged in different historical periods to respond to the particularities of their time – and they do respond, in both senses of the word! First, they align with a given period's perception of art and artists and with prevailing ideas about the artist's role in society. Second, they react to the social changes of that period.

Consider, for example, the artists' colonies at the end of the 19th century that responded to industrialisation by retreating to the countryside and framing the rural in opposition to the urban. Or the programmes of the 1960s and 1970s that supported artistic production in the realm of the public and the collective, aligned with post-formalist art practices that had once again become political and socially critical.

Nowadays, there are so many AiR programmes that international residency platforms have emerged, presenting them in their databases to help artists search for and select them more easily. Already years ago, the Artist Communities Alliance, which has around 300 members throughout the United States and in more than 20 countries worldwide, listed over 1,500 AiR programmes. Similarly, TransArtists, the database managed by DutchCulture includes over 1,400 programmes, and they claim no two programmes are alike.

Classifying AiR programmes is difficult not only because they take many different forms around the globe, but also because substantial variation already exists within individual national contexts. What, then, are the fundamental, relatively stable traits shared by these programmes?

Across Definitions: Time and Space to Create

According to the European Commission's Policy Handbook on Artists' Residencies (2014), AiR programmes "provide artists and other creative professionals with time, space and resources to work, individually or collectively, on areas of their practice that reward heightened reflection or focus".

Even in more recent definitions, despite the mark that globalisation has left on the development of AiR programmes, the core function of arts residencies remains the support of artistic development by providing time and space for creativity, research and reflection.

To include as many manifestations of the programmes as possible, DutchCulture uses the term artist-in-residence in a relatively broad sense. This, however, does not mean they are unaware of potential misuse or that they uncritically include any project that calls itself an AiR on their platform. Rather, DutchCulture outlines the following basic characteristics that most programmes should share.

Common Characteristics of AiR Programmes

1. The AiR programme is connected to the field of arts (in the broadest sense).

2. An organised opportunity for artists to live and create in a different environment.

DutchCulture emphasises that the term AiR also includes opportunities that do not necessarily cover both aspects – some only offer a studio (a possibility to work without accommodation), others only accommodation (a place to stay without a space for work). Their database typically includes programmes that provide only accommodation, but rarely those that only offer a studio.

Furthermore, a "different environment" does not necessarily assume geographical mobility. Rather, it refers to a shift in the context or conditions of artistic practice. Artists can also encounter otherness in their own environment. The AiR programme can expose them to contexts they had previously been unfamiliar with, for example, by placing them in government institutions where they participate in policy-making and social initiatives, in scientific and research institutions or technological companies. Such programmes, at the intersection of the arts and other (non-creative) sectors, do not require a physical relocation, but enable artists to enter previously unknown structures, question existing processes and introduce creative approaches into other environments.

On the other hand, the geographical mobility of artists does not automatically constitute an AiR programme. Projects that require artists to travel elsewhere, but are not conceived in a way that makes the artist's residence or sustained presence in that location essential, are usually not included on the TransArtists platform.

3. Temporary time and space.

As Taru Elfving and Irmeli Kokko explain in the introduction to the edited volume with the telling subtitle Contemporary Artist Residencies: Reclaiming Time and Space, the understanding of space and time in the present day has changed: past and future collide in the present, and there are no longer any clear boundaries between here and elsewhere. Although AiR programmes are a part of the international art world marked by the ever-accelerating pace of global circulation, they also resist the productivist ethics of homogeneous linear time. Instead, they cultivate different temporalities by providing time and space free from neoliberal pressure for production. And it is this heterogeneity of time and space that also generates a heterogeneity of approaches in the realm of arts residencies.

In the context of the changed understanding of space, mobility and presence, the questions asked by Dr. Miriam La Rosa (Art Residency Research Collective) also emerge: if the AiR concept has historically been inextricably tied to mobility, how can it be rethought when physical travel is no longer feasible (for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic)? How to redefine the meaning of space and habitus when the artist's mobility is replaced with a different form of relocation and interruption to the everyday? Contemporary hybrid AiR models challenge the monopoly of physical presence of the artist as the fundamental element of arts residencies.

Between the lines of time and space, it is also possible to situate a comparison between an arts residency and the temporary autonomous zone, as proposed by Bojana Panevska of DutchCulture. Drawing on Hakim Bey, she refers to the concept of the temporary autonomous zone as a temporary, yet actual location in time and a temporary, yet actual location in space, which also has a virtual, momentary location online and thus exists in the informational space as well as in the "real world". Such a definition can encompass various manifestations of AiR programmes, from those more traditional to digital residencies.

4. The host strives to ensure the opportunity's continuity.

5. The host is "stable"; the guests change over time.

Just a note about hosts and guests. To be included in the TransArtists database, the organisers of AiR programmes must meet certain criteria, which, from a purely practical perspective, also reflect the nature of residency hosts and guests. The host must strive to retain the residency opportunity (it should not be a one-time occurrence) and must provide a professional opportunity. The host's motivation for running an AiR programme must not be profit-oriented. If the artists are required to cover certain costs, the host must set a reasonable and realistic fee based on the residency's location. Residency guests are expected to be international artists, preferably of different nationalities, to whom the host allows to apply to the AiR programme via an open call (meaning that the artists do not gain access to the residency solely by invitation, and preferably not only through bilateral exchanges).

Across Definitions: Relationships and Networks

Reflecting on the AiR hosts and guests, and the nature of their relationships, inevitably leads us to reflect on other relationships and networks that AiR programmes foster. In fact, some definitions of AiR are grounded precisely in connection and collaboration and emphasise the importance of exchange.

As Miriam La Rosa emphasises, the AiR programmes offer a collaborative space of change, a discursive space for exchanging opinions, experience and critical dialogue, a space to collaborate with others in new contexts. Over the course of a residency, artists, host organisations and the local community establish relationships that are perhaps based on different expectations but allow everyone involved to expand professional and personal networks.

In relation to the notion of collectivity, Taru Elfving and Irmeli Kokko ask how the AiR programmes as hubs for temporary communities also nurture these communities, with relationships built not on competition or transactions, but on trust and generosity. Additionally, AiR programmes are part of the intensive international circulation of art(ist)s, which simultaneously establishes global networks and local connections, often focused on the inclusion of local audiences or communities.

By applying Actor-Network Theory (ANT), Kathryn S. Roberts and Sara Malou Strandvad (2022) propose examining arts residencies through the lens of creative ecologies, offering insights into their complex dynamics and how networks form within the space of cultural production. Arts residencies serve as havens for autonomous work and thus constitute microecologies of cultural production in which artists at different stages of their careers and with works at various stages of development establish relationships that provide stability or a challenge. In this transitional space, artistic creation unfolds under different circumstances, marked by the distance from everyday life. At the same time – because of its temporary nature – this special artistic time and space is linked to other art institutions and practices and even transcends local and national ecosystems.

Author Bio

Nika Mušič has a background in comparative literature and many years of experience in publishing, where she worked as an editor in the field of contemporary and children's literature, as well as a proofreader and literary critic. Since 2024, she has been employed at Motovila (CED Slovenia), fostering cooperation in the cultural and creative sectors.

The text was written in February 2025 in the framework of the public procurement “Development and upgrade of information portals of the Ministry of Culture for the transition to the eKultura platform” in which Motovila Institute collaborates as a partner with Ljudmila Art and Science Laboratory.

External links

The Elusive Spaces of Arts Residencies

Contents

The Diversity of AiR Programmes

Across Definitions: Time and Space to Create

Common Characteristics of AiR Programmes

Across Definitions: Relationships and Networks

Author Bio

See also

External links

Operated by

Financed by