|
On 14 March 2008 I
was invited (at my request) to attend
a meeting of the so-called Policy Board
(PB) of the Jan van Eyck Academie to
explain some suggestions which I had
made concerning editorial policy. Read
below a summary of what happened.
 Present
at the meeting were: Koen Brams, Dominiek
Hoens, Laurens Schumacher, Imogen Stidworthy
and Daniel van der Velden. Meetings of
the PB are usually held in secret (“behind
closed doors” as
the Director prefers to say). I wanted
to make clear at the beginning that I
didn’t want to take part in a secret
meeting, but that the basic conditions
for the kind of discussion I would like
to have do
not exist at JVE (see questions on the
structure of JVE). I read a
statement (see below) which explained
what I was doing there — in short:
not to make a complaint but to make some
constructive suggestions; on my own initiative
and not claiming to represent researchers’ views
in general. The statement also
called attention to the fact that the
present situation (i.e. my meeting with
the PB) was, for structural reasons,
not conducive to a fair hearing of the
matter nor to a credible decision-making
process. I introduced two documents for
the record (the e-mails I had earlier
sent to Koen Brams).
 Statement
to the Policy Board, 14 March 2008
I addition to the statement, I tried
to explain briefly why I’m so pedantic
about procedures and institutional communications.
On the one hand, when procedures and
relationships are clear and unambiguous,
I can make progress with my work quickly
and efficiently. On the other hand, an
institution which takes care about clear
communications is one which is serious
about fair and equal treatment for all
members of the institution. I am personally
uncomfortable in a situation where I
could have an advantage or at a disadvantage
relative to my colleagues because the
institutional procedures are vague. I
am motivated, therefore, both by practical
concerns and by matters of principle.
I didn’t get any response to my
remarks on the constitution of the PB,
but the people present were willing to
talk about the issues I had brought up
concerning the Editorial Board (EB).
In fact, a quite lively discussion ensued.
I will try to summarise the main points
of the discussion [and will add some
comments in brackets].
Imogen Stidworthy conceded that the
paragraph I proposed was better written
than the original one contained in the “Researchers’ Affairs” document,
but she asked if the content was not
already in that document. I replied that
this was the whole point: I had tried
to interpret this document in a way that
made its implications more transparent,
but I could not be certain I had done
this correctly, because when I had asked
various people about the matter, I had
got contradictory answers. In my opinion,
this was sufficient indication that the
document needs to be revised thoroughly,
not only to make practical matters clear
but to address situations such as collaborative
work, which are not mentioned in the
current document. I also made the point
that I did not come here to do a line
by line critique of the JVE documents.
[Although I think this should be
done by a person qualified in the relevant
aspects of the law and in consultation
with the researchers whose production
is at stake.]
Koen Brams suggested that the EB does
not publish the “general policy
relating to research and production” for
which it is supposed to be responsible,
because the EB does not want to prescribe
what kind of proposals might be accepted.
I suggested that such a policy should
be expressed positively — in
a welcoming and encouraging way — and
moreover that what constraints do exist
(e.g. the total budget, the scale of
proposals considered most appropriate,
the standards of project management and
financial responsibility etc.) should
be made as clear as possible. Koen Brams
also pointed out that the EB wants to
consider the content first because they
would rather talk about ideas than about
budgets. [Fair enough. Why not state
this positively?]
Koen Brams claimed that everyone who
comes to JVE knows “exactly how
it works ... from their contacts” [Obviously
not from reading the Researchers’ Affairs
document]. Besides, he claimed, there
is plenty “jurisprudence”,
i.e. the records of the decisions of
the EB, for anyone who is not sure. I
pointed out that the “decisions” of
EB that I was able to review did not
appear to be consistent, nor are they
that easy to get hold of. [In fact, when
I had specifically asked staff members
and EB members for documentation of previous
projects, I did not get any. Nor was
anyone able to give me even a general
guide except to advise me “all
publications 'are created un-equal'” and — more
or less — “suck it and see.”]
Koen Brams claimed that since no one
had brought up these issues before [!],
that should be proof enough of the merit
of the current documents and arrangements.
[As if to imply that I had a problem
with it because of my ignorance and stupidity.
In saying this, Koen Brams failed to
acknowledge the considerable structural
inhibitions which might prevent researchers
from raising policy issues. Daniel van
der Velden acknowledged these inhibitions
during the meeting by referring to my
initiative as “courageous”.
Although I would only call it stubborn.
What should a researcher have to fear
from raising policy issues?]
I had referred to the tendency of the
EB, in its “decisions”, to
use language which, in my opinion, is
inappropriate and degrading to researchers,
and to insinuate itself into matters
in which it should not be concerned — for
example, the composition of a self-organised
collective project. I mentioned I was
upset by this. Daniel van der Velden
questioned me on this, and I tried to
explain that I had used my experience
only as an illustration and would like
to proceed with the discussion putting
personal matters aside.
My most radical [I would say, quite
reasonable] suggestion was that the notion
of “judgement” should be
eliminated from the procedure of the
EB. I proposed instead a procedure of
negotiation and agreement. I pointed
out that if you claim to judge something
but don’t acknowledge any criteria
[such as would be contained in a policy]
then this judgement can only be perceived
as arbitrary. However the consensus of
the PB appeared to be that judgement
is the EB’s raison
d’être and
that it is the EB alone which is the
arbiter of artistic and intellectual
merit. Dominiek Hoens tried to ridicule
my suggestion by imagining a situation
where a researcher would have to “agree” that
his/her proposal does not deserve support
from the EB. [Obviously, if no agreement
can be reached, a proposal would not
proceed.] My proposal was rejected as
absurd, apparently on the assumption
that artistic and intellectual judgement
is not only necessary, but essentially
unaccountable. I tried to explain that
a subjective element could even be included
in a policy statement; that the point
of a policy was to support the people
making the decisions and to assure the
people whom the decisions affect that
they were being treated fairly. I had
to emphasise that a policy is for the
judges [if they must judge], not for
the applicants. A policy does not imply
prescription and regulation of proposals,
but does imply a constraint on the behaviour
of those who would claim to judge them.
If the PB could not see a way of instituting
a credible form of judgement, then it
would be better if the idea of judgement
were abandoned.
Dominiek Hoens asked, could it not just
be assumed that researchers are treated
fairly by the EB? I explained that it
would be really OK to state the obvious,
but maybe we could make such an assumption
if the JVE had a general policy on
fair and equal treatment, including an
explicit anti-discrimination policy.
Just assuming we are all nice people
does not justify the lack of such a policy.
[The discussion highlighted the ambiguity
of the EB, which tends to appeal to various
incompatible editorial models, none of
which it resembles precisely in fact.
EB does not act like a public arts funding
body. EB does not act like a publishing
house. EB does not act like an academic
editorial board. Moreover, the EB appears
to institute hierarchies which are seemingly
incompatible with the general aim of
JVE (as I understood it) to foster an
environment of intellectual independence
and free, interdisciplinary collaboration
in a “post-academic” institution.]
 From: Laurens Schumacher
To: Anthony Auerbach
Date: 20 Mar 2008 09:12
Subject: statement from the policy board
Dear Anthony,
Following your inquiries into the Editorial
Board, our findings are that however
clearly goals, aims and policies are
stated, the matter of intersubjective
opinion over a production proposal in
the Editorial Board is an element
which cannot be eliminated from the process
of artistic judgment. This implies that
there are no stated rules, policies or
guidelines available which will guarantee
that applicants will know in advance
on how to enter into what is essentially
a preliminary agreement with the EB -
as you have suggested.
There is, however, a description of
the EB and its applications procedure
in the Researchers’ Affairs document,
which is given to every researcher at
the start of their research period. In
the interests of the flexibility to accommodate
the wide diversity of proposals and project
formats submitted, this is intended only
as a basic guideline. We appreciate your
efforts in making us aware that this
text is confusing in parts. This is mainly
a translation issue, which we will be
addressing.
We posit that, based on available documents
from past applications and meetings,
it can be concluded that the Editorial
Board is offering the best of its capacities
in offering feedback and giving applicants
the opportunity to revise their proposal
during the application process in dialogue
with the EB, which is nonetheless concluded
with a judgement by the EB of both the
(conceptual/artistic) content of the
proposal and feasibility of its realisation.
The judgement of this committee may be,
by necessity, negative, and may be experienced
as unwanted or disappointing; such are
the consequences of applying judgement.
Since Editorial Board applications increasingly
involve the interplay between different
institutions, often operating internationally,
it is essential that the EB is able to
intervene in the details of production
funding proposals and the allocation
of specific budgets. The given that the
Jan van Eyck is now operating in a variety
of institutional contexts with widely
variable standards, is creating this
necessity. Furthermore, it should be
added that the Editorial Board typically
decides upon the funding of production,
rather than research proposals.
This conclusion effectively ends our
correspondence and verbal exchange about
the Editorial Board; inquiries about
specific applications to the EB, such
as yours, will have to be followed up
with the EB.
Kind regards,
Policy Board of the Jan van Eyck Academie
Koen Brams
Dominiek Hoens
Laurens Schumacher
Imogen Stidworthy
Daniel van der Velden
 ...
return: Jan van Eyck Academie
|
