Simon Roodhouse and Monika Mokre
Introduction
This paper focuses on an important Austrian development, which
on closer examination enables consideration to be given to;
There is no pretence in providing a survey of museum cultural
or creative quarters throughout the world or analysis of the theoretical
and conceptual frameworks that may be associated with this approach
to urban regeneration. It is unashamedly a detailed analysis of
a major cultural development, which may have value for the future
management of similar projects. Perhaps more significantly it
provides a useful insight into the Austrian approach to arts policy
and management.
Austrian Cultural Policy Influences
The Austrian government in office since February 2000 has been
emphasizing from the margins the need for new economic structures
for culture, the arts, education, science and even social affairs.
Severe cuts of public subsidies have been a consequence of this
policy which have also impacted on institutions within the MuseumsQuartier
– though the political intention to build and maintain this
quarter mainly out of public funds remains beyond question. However
the claim that “creativity should more and more become part
of economics” (Franz Morak, Austrian Secretary of State
for the Arts) introduces a radical break with traditional Austrian
cultural policy and poses serious problems for artists and arts
institutions in Austria.
To understand this situation it seems necessary to describe two
main features of Austrian arts policy:
· Austria defines its national identity to a high degree
in terms of artistic and cultural values. To other countries and
foreign citizens it presents itself as a "cultural nation".
Foreign observers are often astonished by the big public attention
artistic events attract - but this interest is very superficial
with the engagement centred on events such as festivals, international
concerts and of course cultural scandals.
· A second characteristic of arts policy in Austria has
been until recently the extremely close relation between politics
and the arts. The arts have been almost 100 percent financed by
public means, private sponsorship has scarcely any importance
at all. That's why the artists depend to a very high degree on
the benevolence of politicians and bureaucrats.
The roots of this situation are historical. The prosperity of
the Habsburg territories was an important reason for the flourishing
of the arts as well as for their dependence of state support.
"Economic historians suggest that considerable portions of
the Habsburg territories, and the Austrian lands in particular,
which included Vienna, were highly prosperous at the end of the
18th century, at least in relative terms. Their per-capita incomes
were probably well ahead of those of Brandenburg (Prussia) and
very likely higher than that of France. Only England and the Low
Countries may have been in a superior position. Prosperity brought
great wealth to well placed members of the nobility and the small
group constituting the upper bourgeoisie of Vienna and the nearby
territories, among them Hungary and Bohemia (including Prague).
They spent liberally, running their courts and mansions in a lavish
style which included the services of many composers and performers."
(Baumol and Baumol, 1994, p.73)
Furthermore, culture and the arts have traditionally been a means
to promote the political ends of the Austrian state: “Already
at the time of the monarchy cultural policy was not only patronage.
Art as the highest means to build up a state, as an outstanding
possibility of appropriating history, should help to ensure the
unity of the diversifying national interests. The huge buildings
of the “Ringstraße” built in the second half
of the 19th century (...) bear witness to these considerations.”
(Österreichisches Zentrum für Kulturdokumentation, -forschung
und –vermittlung, 1992)
The generous public support for the arts as a characteristic
of cultural policy has survived the end of the monarchy. "The
state’s support for culture continued in its own management
the long-term practise of the royal court" (Pleschberger,
1991, p. 63).
It would be extremely attractive to ascribe the end of this kind
of cultural politics to the political changes actuated by the
change of government in 2000; as a matter of fact new ways of
financing the arts have been in discussion for at least a decade
now. The recent history of the MuseumsQuartier can be seen to
coincide with this discussion: Missions for this quarter have
been constantly oscillating between the idea of a “cultural
manifestation” of Austria and the striving for the largest
number of visiting tourists as possible. But the concept of bringing
“creative industries” into the MQ in order to generate
at least a moderate income from rents has gained momentum under
the new government creating further pressure on small under funded
cultural initiatives. As there is hardly any knowledge in Austria
on how to find sponsors, and sell artistic products, at the moment,
lip service is paid to the creative industries while in reality
the big and traditional museums that are the most prominent parts
of the quarter continue to be financed by substantial public subsidies.
So, up to now the new market orientation of cultural policy has
not been much more than a catchword and/ or a veiled menace for
cultural initiatives. The above-described close relation between
politics and the arts lead to a situation in which rules of accountability
and measurability have never been clearly defined but were replaced
by negotiating processes between officials and representatives
of cultural institutions. For observers from outside Austria it
is surprising how little information on hard facts such as revenue,
visitor numbers etc. is available. Decision-making processes on
public support for the arts are usually based exclusively on artistic
judgements (often of a specialized jury). In this way, a broad
room for arbitrariness is opened, as aesthetic quality is not
really a category that can be measured. On the other hand, the
broad room for negotiations enhances the flexibility of Austrian
cultural policy that can be good for artistic innovations.
The MuseumsQuartier is a typical outcome of this policy with a
commitment to state funding based on the value of the arts to
Austrian society as an intrinsic part of life. It does seem problematic
that no performance indicators are given to the highly subsidized
institutions that will be part of this project and that the MQ
company is able to run an annual deficit (Waldner, CEO, QM).
A Description of the MuseumsQuartier
The MuseumsQuartier is a “brand name” for a particular
physical single cluster site, the Imperial stables, which at present
comprises about 40 diverse cultural organisations1 and culturally
related activities occupying 53,000 square metres of useable space.
This includes two new museum buildings, and two discrete theatres
with seating capacity of 1,200. Additional exhibition space is
available for hire along with offices, workshops and ateliers.
This short-term space has been grouped together under the brand
name Quarter 21. Many of the smaller cultural organisations are
included the Quarter 212,(see note 2 for a description of Quarter
21) described as “a structure of self- responsible, constructively
competing content-entrepreneurs, a modular-action platform for
independent small institutions, culture offices and temporary
initiatives”. (Waldner, MQ company) Alternatively it can
be described as the vehicle for a cultural industry cluster with
a focus on creative activity, new and multi media technology.
Common facilities are also incorporated into the overall scheme
such as signposting, an information centre (infopool), toilets,
seating areas, and public courtyards.
In addition to these institutions there are also private tenants,
restaurateurs and shopkeepers as well as those who have rented
space over the years and have their homes there.
A typical smaller cultural organisation found in the MuseumsQuartier
is basis wien, a documentation centre with online database on
contemporary art in Austria that also aims at presenting and discussing
contemporary art. basis wien relies on grants from the State Government
and the City of Vienna and found itself in a major finacial crisis
in summer 2002, when fundings of both bodies were reduced as well
as paid out very late and a mainly EU-funded project was therefore
at risk. Its precarious financial situation also places the organisation
in a weak-negotiating position when determining its future with
the MuseumsQuartier company. However, contrary to other smaller
and critical institutions such as depot and public netbase that
have been driven out of the MuseumsQuartier basis wien could come
back to its quarters within the MuseumsQuartier after having spent
more than a year in an interim location.
The major institutions such as the Leopold Museum, which perceives
itself as a national museum and is funded almost entirely by the
state government, forms one of the key MuseumsQuartier landmarks.
It is a private foundation set up to care for and display the
collection of Professor and Mrs Leopold, comprising over 5,200
items in perpetuity. The Foundation is the single most important
collection of the Austrian 20th century artists, Egon Schiele
and Gustav Klimt, and was established in 1994 with the purpose
of preserving Professor Leopold’s collection and retaining
it in Austria. The collection valued at 6.5billion schillings
by Sothebys New York in 1994 was handed over to the foundation
by the Leopold family on condition that the state and the National
Bank of Austria (a sponsor) paid them 2.2billion schillings in
14 instalments up to 2007. (Parnass, Tenth special edition of
the Art Magazine) In addition the state agreed to provide premises
in the MuseumsQuartier, covering the costs of the new building,
supplying the Foundation with an annual budget for purchases and
will also cover the Foundation’s annual operating deficit.
The Foundation board of governors, which is responsible for the
all aspects of its work, comprises four members appointed personally
by Professor Leopold and four members appointed by the state,
drawn from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture on the
one hand and the Ministry of Finance on the other hand. It is
not difficult to see how closely this is related to government
and the incestuousness of the Austrian cultural establishment
All members are remunerated and serve for five years with the
exception of Professor and Mrs Leopold who are life members. The
board has established a Directorate and approved the appointment
of Professor Leopold as the Museum Director for his lifetime.
Incidental to but an example of the closeness of the museum to
the development of the MuseumsQuartier was the appointment by
the board of the then Director of the MuseumsQuartier Development
Company to the Foundation as the Business Director for six months.
Both Directors were given powers to conclude contracts on behalf
of the Foundation approved by the governors. (Interview Romana
Schuler) This is not untypical of the Austrian approach to managing
the arts and enables a small cultural establishment under the
political auspices of the city and state to shape and control
cultural provision and programming.
The Influence of a Building and Location
The MuseumsQuartier cluster of cultural activity forms part of
the historic city centre and is expected to strengthen the existing
provision, primarily museums such as the Kunsthistorische Museum
(Museum of the History of the Arts) and the Natural History Museum
situated in the immediate neighbourhood, by adding a more active
and lively contemporary dimension. At the same time, it is intended
to provide an up to now missing link between the Imperial Palace
with its museums and the narrow meandering streets of an old suburb
at the rear of the stables. It is easily reached by the metro
and tram system. The vision is to create a major cultural focus
in the historic city centre for visitors.
The Imperial Stables, a seriously decaying national heritage site,
presented a significant physical and restoration challenge in
the sense of marrying in a single location the needs of a wide
variety of organisations with the severe limitations of important
but decaying 18th century buildings.
The ornately decorated Winter Riding School, formally designed
reflecting the tradition and expectations of the empire at that
time, now contrasts with the comparatively austere functionalism
of the adjacent Kunsthalle of the City of Vienna, Leopold Museum,
and Museum of Modern Art. The exterior of the Kunsthalle is entirely
built of red brick and truncated at both ends. Inserted at either
end is a gleaming metallic cantilevered surface. The Kunsthalle
is an independent structure that is, however, placed very closely
to the longitudinal front of the Winter Riding School and whose
brick roof overlaps the ridge of the latter.
The exterior of the Leopold Museum is a white stone cube. It is
contrasted by the leaner dark grey stone block of the Museum of
Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna.
The juxtaposition of the historical and contemporary is a surprising
and successful feature which epitomises an underlying philosophical
approach to the development, that of integrating the past with
the present. It is, however, a characteristic of the quarter that
is only visible from the inside. Externally the new structures
cannot be seen; the main front of the building is the original
18th century facade. This solution is the result of a long fought
over compromise between those who wanted the Viennese city centre
to retain its historic form and those advocating contemporary
architecture.
There are at least six to eight restaurants, cafes, and bars,
with some cafes open until 4.00am. In addition there are museum
bookshops in the Leopold Museum, Museum of Modern Art Ludwig Foundation
Vienna, and the Kunsthalle, a large art bookshop with an attached
café in the main entrance leased out directly by the MuseumsQuartier
Development Company. The chairman of the MuseumsQuartier Development
Company describes this as “the landlord with his own shop
in his own home” and does not perceive this activity as
contrary to the purposes of the company such as facility manager
or an exploitation of a unique position. In all cases these facilities
are sub contracted out to private operators and it is expected
that they will compete with each other for business and similar
facilities in the individual museums.
Little attempt it seems has been made to avoid duplication and
overlap in order to provide the visitor with choice and maximisation
of income for the operators. It seems that competition is viewed
in this case as healthy and an example of diversity and autonomy
at work. However these activities are an important source of revenue
for the MuseumsQuartier Development Company and the museums and
will ultimately rely on a substantial regular flow of visitors
throughout the year if they are all to succeed.
Other facilities include a general bookshop, the infopool, a visitor
centre, toilets, seating areas, clear signposting and special
tours for groups in German and English. The MuseumsQuartier Development
and Operating Company provide all these facilities.
A State Instrument: The MuseumsQuartier, (MQ), Company
The MuseumsQuartier Developing and Operating Company, the umbrella
organisation, was set up in 1990 to manage the MuseumsQuartier
on behalf of the State and City Governments. It is a limited company
with shareholders, a board of directors and a Chief Executive.
The federal government established the terms of reference as:
“1. The objective of the enterprise is (…) the planning,
construction, maintenance, the administration of the real estate
and the management of the MuseumsQuartier (…).
2. The company is (…) entitled to all businesses and measures
that are necessary and useful to achieve the aim of the company.
The competences of the museums (…) are not affected by this
entitlement
3. Above all the following activities can be carried out by the
company:
a) Planning, management and realization of investments to create
the MuseumsQuartier including the acquisition of areas necessary
for the MuseumsQuartier;
b) to make available and keep ready rooms, equipment and services
for the institutions of the Republic of Austria, above all for
the collections and museums of the Republic.
c) the acquisition, planning, preparation, organisation and carrying
out of exhibitions and events as well as the organization and
carrying out of related fringe events and leisure time programmes;
d) the letting and leasing of rooms in the MuseumsQuartier,
e) in connection with the MuseumsQuartier the running of cinemas,
distribution and marketing of movies as well as production, showing,
distribution and marketing of videos;
f) advertising and P.R. as well as edition of publications for
the MuseumsQuartier;
g) visitor services by arranging visits of artistic and educating
events etc, also in commission of third parties;
h) running of an information service.”
(Grundsatzliche Uberlegungen zur Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheitenan
den Misterrat vom 26 September 1996)
This company is wholly owned through a share distribution by the
state government and the Vienna City Council, the landowners.
The MQ company has extensive powers, which go well beyond that
of typical facilities management functions for a particular site.
It has a clearly defined creative programming role.
The letting arrangements a key remit of the MQ company as facility
managers are inevitably complex in such a large scheme. The major
institutions, for example, are independent organisations with
substantial funding from government. However, the city and the
state are the primary MQ shareholders, and the main contracts
are let to them and they in turn sub - let the contracts to the
organisations they fund. Consequently through this mechanism the
city and the state determine the tenants for the MuseumsQuartier.
In the case of the smaller organisations the contracting takes
place through the Quarter 21 administration, which is also managed
by the MuseumsQuartier company. In every case the contracts include
a service charge to include keeping the site clean and tidy, which
- in combination with the rents - provides a major source of revenue
for the company.
Organisational Simplicity, Confusion
and the Creative Dilemma
The adopted organisational structure for the MuseumsQuartier
is based on a land ownership model, with a limited company, the
MQ company as the umbrella organisation responsible for the site
and its operation including the renting of space.(Gesellschaftsvertrag
der MuseumsQuartier – Errichtungs – und Betriebsgesellschaft
mit beschtankter Haftung. 29 Marz 1999.) The company rents space
to the nearly 40 cultural organisations such as the Leopold Museum
and the Museum of Modern Art Ludwig Foundation, Vienna. (These
organisations are autonomous with their own boards of management
and constitutions.) This stakeholders require all the rentable
space on the site to be let in order to minimize the annual deficit
and enable the company to generate surpluses, which can be used
to cross, subsidize the rent for the poorer and smaller cultural
organisations.
At one level the organisational relationship is that of landowner
and tenant, however, structural disjuncture occurs when the MQ
company engages in cultural promotion and presentation activities
or attempts to control the autonomy of the individual organisations
through the introduction of common ticketing and telephone systems
as it believes it can. The Mission Statement of the MuseumsQuartier
emphasizes this “(…) by seeking as much autonomy as
possible and pursuing as many common interests as necessary, the
MuseumsQuartier strives for the degree of joint facilities needed
for the successful operation of the complex as a whole.”
(Gesellschaftsvertag der MuseumsQuartier- und Bertriebsgesellschaftmit
beschnkter Haftung. 29.Marz 1999)
This has the result of a loss of independence for tenants and
increased competition between tenants and the landlord leading
to a reduction of efficiency and a predictable lack of cohesion.
This general situation causes confusion and at times friction
over roles and responsibilities, with the independent cultural
organisations guarding their autonomy as much as possible and
resisting stakeholder funding pressures to conform.
These complexities are amplified with the Quarter 21 concept,
which is a mechanism to enable the MuseumsQuartier company, to
directly control the smaller spaces by choosing the tenants through
a selection procedure for the Quarter 21 spaces owned, managed
and let on a short-term basis by the MuseumsQuartier Co. Consequently
there seems to be a blurring of the MQ company role as facilities
manager with that of cultural patron, and promoter. This becomes
all the more obvious if one takes into account that the implementation
of Quarter 21 not only brought new institutions to the MuseumsQuartier
but drove out other institutions at the same time. Public Netbase,
the Institute for New Culture Technologies, and depot Art and
Discussion – both small institutions that participated in
activities against the Austrian right-wing government –
were not given acceptable leases within the Quarter 21 although
they had been active in the MuseumsQuartier already during construction
works.
The management structure of the MQ company has no formal constitutional
relationship with the occupants of the Museums Quarter which is
surprising given the size and nature of the site as well as the
number and diversity of tenants. For example there are no representatives
from the 20 tenants on the MQ company Board of Directors although
there is a formal sub committee, which includes all tenants chaired
by the Director of the MuseumsQuartier Company who reports to
the Board. In addition no tenants association or equivalent independent
organisation exists to act on the behalf and represent collective
interests of the tenants.
The management model for the MuseumsQuartier is hierarchical with
the company controlled by the state and the city that indirectly
determine the strategic policy and operational decisions. This
involvement goes well beyond the conventional facilities management
role incorporating the active engagement in promotion, ticket
sales and programming. Although the organisations in the MuseumsQuartier
are constitutionally independent the majority are directly or
indirectly funded by the state or city. Consequently the level
of autonomy to act independently of the MQ company is severely
curtailed. This situation became especially problematic in the
years 2000-2002 when the city government was social-democratic
while Austria was governed by a coalition of Christian-Democrats
and the extreme right Freedom Party. The habitual competition
for public recognition between these two bodies was thus enhanced
by their political differences.
Individual programming of events such as exhibitions remains
a competition between individual tenants and the MQ company. Whilst
there is a desire to recognise “richness in diversity”
by the MuseumsQuartier Co., the demand for cohesion and synergy
seems to be the preferred policy.
The difficulty with a hierarchical structure and control management
system is that they fetter the creativity of tenants because creative
activity is often about breaking rules extending boundaries and
challenging conventions.
Hegel describes breaking rules and challenging conventions as
the means to arrive at new ways of seeing and interpreting the
world, that is new knowledge.
“—the absolute freedom of art, by which art can attach
itself freely to any substance it chooses in order to exercise
the imagination on it, has made of the new artist a tabula rasa.
Infinitely susceptible to new shapes because no shape can be regarded
as final, he is in a state of perpetual self – transformation,
engaged in what Hegel quaintly calls unendliche Herumbildung,
an infinite plasticity.”( Aesthetik II, p232.- p236.)
The questions, then, for the MQ company is whether through the
existing management structures creativity can be fostered and
whether the company can live with the consequences of the outputs
that may be at times unpopular and controversial as Hegel aptly
describes. This poses less of a problem for the MQ company, in
its relationship with the large state or city funded organisations
such as the Leopold Museum where the creative controversy will
often rest with the interpretation by the curatorial staff of
the collections. However the conceiving, making, production and
presentation of the contemporary arts presents entirely different
challenges to the MQ company managers. There does however seem
to be an implicit policy that those chosen to occupy space in
Quarter 21 are expected to operate as businesses, by paying rent,
and meeting their annual operating costs rather than focus on
creative activities.
The MuseumsQuartier Company understands its role as a developer,
facilities and promotional manager not least because this is enshrined
in the terms of reference and mission determined by the state
government when the company was set up. The facilities and promotional
management roles are the priorities over the next 12-18 months
as the site becomes operational and the requirement to attract
visitors increases, however the management of artistic programming
of the site has commenced with Quarter 21 and the engagement in
creative programming stemming from the progressive commissioning
of the “common” exhibition and display spaces.
The Stakeholders, State trusts,
foundations and related legal structures
The critical stakeholders of the MuseumsQuartier are the Vienna
City Council and the Federal Government. Not only do they own
the site but also have the controlling interest in the MuseumsQuartier
company and fund directly or indirectly the majority of the organisations
occupying the site. The annual subsidies going to the different
institutions are estimated at around 14,5 Millions Euro (= 14,3
millions US$) if neither the subsidies for the Vienna Festival
of 150 Millions ATS nor the annual rates for the purchase of the
Leopold Collection are taken into account. These stakeholders
have a multiplicity of interests that is the development of an
important site in the historic city centre, the perpetuation of
major cultural institutions and support for contemporary arts
practice which are all connected with the promotion of Austria
as a world cultural centre. The civil servants see it from the
city and the state perspective as a mechanism for re-positioning
Austria in the modern world by celebrating the past and showcasing
the contemporary.
The Leopold Foundation, one of the major tenants, is a private
foundation with a board of governors 50% of which are state nominees.
Although there are aspects of the foundation structure that reflect
the particularities of the Austrian legal system it is recognizable
as a model found in other parts of the world. The state trust
model, a similar convention to the foundation is used in the MuseumsQuartier
by the tenants and one used by governments as a means of exercising
devolved control for example Sheffield Museum and Gallery Trust
(Roodhouse 2001).
In particular national museums have been established, as state
trusts with a board of Trustees and are autonomous of government,
although government approves all the appointments to the board
and receives an annual revenue grant from the state. It supposedly
gives the managers of the museum or cultural organisation greater
freedom to manage and the Austrian government more flexibility
to choose how and at what level to fund the organisation for “agreed” purposes.
Other legal structures that have been adopted are limited companies,
which is the preferred model for the MuseumsQuartier Development
company. The association model is popular with smaller cultural
organisations as it is relatively easy to establish at low cost
and has little direct government interference, although it is
possible for the State through grants to influence their governance.
This diversity of legal structures generates additional complexities
for the MQ company as the facilities manager, requiring different
tenancy agreements that recognise the legal independence of each
organisation. The common factor however, is that either the state
and /or the city of Vienna fund most if not all of the cultural
organisations the MuseumsQuartier directly or indirectly.
Financing the MuseumsQuartier and its Inhabitants: A Public Sector
Dinosaur?The capital cost of converting the stables into workable
space and building two new museums is estimated to be over $200m,
which has been provided by the city and state governments both
as grants and as guarantors for the banks (to facilitate cash
flow), who have lent the money to the MQ company. It has been
recognised by the city council in particular that the MQ company
vehicle was the most efficient devolved mechanism available to
city and state for the purposes of a major capital project and
subsequently leasing the rentable space. (Boris Marte, Buero des
Stadtrates fur Kultur der Stadt Wien)
The revenue needed to operate the site and provide the facilities
as well as service the debt is derived from the rents of the occupants.
It is expected that the rental income and the service charges
will, when the site is fully let cover all the costs incurred
by the company in repaying the capital debt and servicing and
maintaining the site.
However, the city and state governments provide the subsidised
rentals for the poorer cultural organisations by allowing the
company to run an annual deficit.
There is very little private sector involvement in the MuseumsQuartier
and the commercial activity seems to be centered on the selling
of food and drink, and books. All venues sell tickets and this
on average amounts to 10% of the annual revenue for these organisations.
Sponsorship is evident and the MQ company is actively looking
for sponsors, unfortunately, a coordinated strategy with the tenants
is not well developed. In addition it is recognised by the Federal
Government that sponsorship is difficult to attract in Austria,
as there are few major international companies and the traditional
source of patronage, the aristocracy is no longer in a position
to fulfill this role.
From whichever financial perspective the MuseumsQuartier is considered,
the city and the state governments are the biggest and most important
capital and revenue funders. In reality the Federal Government
is Austria’s primary cultural patron replacing the aristocracy
and supported by city councils. (Ministerialrat Dr Rudolf Wran,
Bundesministeriuim fuer Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur.)
In general there seems to be little pressure on the managers of
the MQ company to attract visitors because the bulk of the income
is derived from the leases and that is largely guaranteed by the
city and/or state governments. In its first full year of operation
the MuseumsQuartier attracted 1,116 millions of visitors. Visitor
numbers thus only slightly exceeded the forecasted 1,1 millions
based on a conservative calculation of the 1999 performance of
the key museums and centres However national and international
critical acclaim matters and at this stage, in the development
of the MuseumsQuartier, visitor numbers, do not seem to be a critical
success factor in financial or cultural terms. Consequently there
is little interest in performance indicators.
It does not seem as though the managers in the MuseumsQuartier
are under the same pressures of colleagues in North America, Italy,
France, the UK or Australia in attracting more and more visitors
and alternative revenues. For the MuseumsQuartier cultural manger
emphasis is placed on the importance and significance of the cultural
product and/or service in national and international terms. Artistic
critical acclaim is seen as the primary performance indicator.
Cultural Programming, A question of
control?
With the number and diversity of cultural organisations involved
in the MuseumsQuartier all with a direct interest in programming
as the central focus of their work, it is no surprise to find
limited cooperation particularly if artistic critical acclaim
is the primary performance indicator. Jealousy and mistrust between
the organisations and collectively with the MuseumsQuartier over
programming is evident, largely as it relates to the core identity
and purpose of the organisations themselves, in other words their
rationale for existence. Although at an informal operational level
there is evidence of information exchange the mechanism for formal
interchange and exchange of ideas, plans and future activities,
have noticeable limitations as a communication tool. In particular,
the representatives of the institutions are only able to make
recommendations for action, which can be accepted or rejected
by the MuseumsQuartier board and management.
This safeguarding of the individual organisational identity through
the protection of programming is unsurprising although there is
an inevitable danger, in duplication, overlap and confusion. Consequently
there is little in the way of formal joint exhibition and event
planning as it is expected that as programming is a “creative”
activity organisations and individuals will build up their own
relationships over time, which may lead to future collaboration.
At present there is no incentive to collaborate and particularly
with the MuseumsQuartier. The diverse and ad hoc nature of the
programme offerings is perceived as strength and the quarter’s
attractiveness to the visitor. This is underlined by the Federal
Government, “ which values the freedom of the arts”
sees no need for “artistic” cooperation and does not
wish to interfere directly in the affairs of individual cultural
organisations, even though it funds them (Ministerialrat Dr Rudolf
Wran, Bundesinisterium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur).
This “richness in diversity” approach has conveniently
side stepped other complications such as joint education and marketing
programmes. In the case of education the large museums, the children’s
museums and creativity centre as well as the Architektur Zentrum
Wien all have a direct interest in children, and relationships
with schools. A similar pattern can be detected for public lectures
and discussions. Staff are employed on behalf of their organisations
to develop and deliver education and marketing programmes with
no formal interaction or channels of communication to facilitate
the sharing of practice, ideas and information between the tenants
and the MuseumsQuartier Company.
Marketing and branding the MuseumsQuartier, conflict or co-operation?
The one obvious area of common interest and mutual benefit for
all concerned in the MuseumsQuartier is marketing including branding
and yet confusion abounds and fragmentation exists between the
individual organisations and the MQ company over roles and responsibilities.
There is a general lack of internal communication between the
tenants and the company - a central tenet of marketing- with no
agreed marketing strategy -, which includes all parties and their
activities. The Leopold Museum, for example, is developing its
own marketing plan without reference to the Museum of Modern Art
or the Kunsthalle. Similarly the Vienna Festival plans seem to
have little relevance to the Architektur Zentrum Wien programme,
Quarter 21 and the Children’s Museum activities let alone
the museums and galleries.
The company, however, accepts responsibility for marketing and
branding of the quarter as a location, and that the marketing
of programmes is an “individual” matter left to the
tenants themselves regardless of how confusing this may be to
visitors.
It is expecting to “arouse the curiosity of the old and
new target groups” (MQ Company marketing Plan 2001) with
an annual expectation of attracting 1.1million visitors with the
Leopold Museum as the star attraction with around 250,000 to 300,000
visitors a year.
For all this there has been limited consultation and discussion
between the MQ company (location and branding marketers) and the
tenants (specific brand image/communication concept marketers)
about how they want to be represented in the marketing literature
produced to promote the location. This is indicative of the structural
fault lines, which has resulted in a lack of effective communication
channels. Although there is an established logo for the MuseumsQuartier,
described as “simple, practical, effective, consciously
non-artistic” (MQ Briefing Information 2001) it has not
yet been enthusiastically adopted by the tenants and used only
partly in their literature and general marketing.
Many of the organisations generate temporary exhibitions and tour
these shows nationally and internationally with related lecture
programmes and education services for children, all of which need
marketing. There is little evidence of working collaboratively,
a lack of understanding of the benefits of supporting each other
in strategic partnerships and the MQ company failing to promulgate
these concepts. For the company to do this requires an overall
strategy to be developed, agreed by all concerned, resourced and
realised.
There is a general consensus that the MuseumsQuartier and its
marketing activities are expected to increase visitor numbers
for the tenants and that this growth is largely through international
tourists. Much of the evidence and understanding of the existing
audience is derived from tenant ticket sales. For example the
Kunsthalle with around 160,000 visitors in 1999 has identified
that 80% of them are under 40 years old, 51% come from the city
and 24% are overseas visitors. There are an equal number of men
and women with a high number of students. The Museum of Modern
Art Ludwig Foundation, Vienna, attracted between 110,000 to 150,000
visitors in 1999 to its two sites in the city and expects to at
least maintain 150,000 visitors in the new premises in the MuseumsQuartier
with a higher proportion of overseas tourists. The Vienna Festival
is well established and with the new and expanded facilities predicts
paying audiences of around 200,000.
The smaller organisations are largely serving local, regional
and national cultural markets often associated with practitioners,
critics and curators. It is expected that the MuseumsQuartier
will act as a “honey pot” for practitioners and a
visible focal point for international collaboration. How this
is to be measured remains unclear, and, whether this reflects
the nature of creative practice is yet to be seen. For all this,
there remains deep distrust between the tenants and the company
and between tenants themselves and consequently there is a reticence
to share what is perceived as sensitive “ commercial “
information about visitors.
Conclusion: The last of the Big Spenders or an International
Exemplar?
What is perhaps the most surprising aspect of this project is
the willingness of the Austrian government at national and city
level to commit substantial levels of capital and revenue funds
on cultural activity in a time of public sector constraint. This
can be regarded as a bold and welcome example to the world or
the last vestiges of an old empire, just as France and the United
Kingdom have been required to reinvent roles as a result of the
loss of empire. The close interrelation between the state and
the arts can be understood as a legacy of Joseph II, the son of
Maria Theresia, who started this tradition (Marchart 1999). What
ever else is said regarding this project the management challenges
are considerable and the key to future success is how the MuseumsQuartier
reinvents itself after the building works are complete and the
business of attracting visitors comes to the fore along with the
need to make the Quarter 21 work as a centre for the development
of creative businesses.
Is this however the ultimate cultural palace? The quarter can
be described as the ultimate cultural palace as far as the city
and the state is concerned but the problem lies in the perception
of the cultural tourist, which has yet to be seen.
Although the Quarter has set out to combine the business of presentation
with practice epitomized by the establishment of Quarter 21 alongside
the Leopold Museum it has yet to be proved whether this combination
will work. There are no formal mechanisms for genuine interchange
between tenants to encourage interaction between presentation
and practice. There is also a danger that the practice activity
is seen as a showpiece for the public which has never worked in
the past and is likely to drive creators elsewhere.
What also follows from this is whether the management and related
structures are capable of encompassing the essential anarchy of
artistic practice. The indications are that the structures that
have been put in place are set up to enable the state and city
to exercise control and hence aesthetic judgment as public patrons,
public netbase and depot being cases in point. Is this a desirable
model for the well being of cultural activity in Austria?
What is difficult to understand in the Quarter is whether the
original intention of saving a national heritage site and meeting
the housing needs of a number of cultural organisations has been
overtaken by a desire to engage in the new cultural agenda, the
creative industries. Consequently, the need for a long term negotiated
agreed and realistic strategy has never been stronger and a shared
vision has yet to materialise.
Disappointingly, there is little evidence to suggest that this
development will make a tangible difference to the individual
practitioner in the city except for those who are lucky enough
to be chosen to occupy ateliers as artists in residence or rent
space in Quarter 21. If anything there are emerging concerns that
cultural resources from the city and the state will be jeopardised
as the Quarter 21 develops.
Although this development makes best use of an important set of
buildings, and answers the housing the arts crisis it is doubtful
if any measurable expansion of the activity in the city is likely
to occur as a result. However there is little doubt in the early
stages the Quarter will be an attractive focal point for cultural
activity.
In a wider context, however, the MuseumsQuartier has already changed
cultural activity in Vienna as it is clearly attracting cultural
initiatives to the surrounding area. Small galleries and arts
mediating institutions settle down around the MQ complementing
in this way the small creative businesses in the area behind the
MQ. While the success of the MQ itself still has to be proved
its animating effects on its surroundings can already be seen.
The reputation of the organisations can be enhanced by being
associated with the quarter and in particular the smaller organisations
stand to benefit from this clustering far more so that the large
organisations. In the case of the larger organisations benefits
are likely to accrue from increased international visitors and
an enhanced profile on the world cultural stage if the MuseumsQuartier
is marketed as a location effectively. What happens if one or
more cultural organisations fails to attract the target number
of visitors and others exceed theirs? How are these issues to
be resolved and the culture of blame avoided?
Jobs are being created in the quarter and a set of buildings have
been brought back into use along with the first glimmers of increased
creative industry activity in the immediate vicinity. There is
a potential through Quarter 21 to develop creativity and businesses,
as well as “artistic endeavour”, which may provide
a catalyst for further expansion of creative businesses in the
city if the management system is flexible enough in the future.
The MQ concept is a gamble, which can be only judged once the
project is complete and been, operating for some time; however
there is no doubting the commitment of the city and the state
to succeed.
Sources
Structured Interviews have been conducted during the period 2001-2
with the following:
Claudia Bauer, Kunsthalle Wien
Konrad Becker, Public Netbase
Thomas Hübel, Depot
Susanne Jäger, Depot
Mag. Bettina Leidl, Kunsthalle Wien
Ministerialrat Dr. Franz Loicht,Chairman of the Board of the MuseumsQuartier
Errichtungs- und Betriebsges.m.b.H
Boris Marte, Büro des Stadtrates für Kultur der Stadt
Wien
Mag. Robert Reitbauer, Museum moderner Kunst
Mag. Romana Schuler, Leopold Museum
Richard Schweitzer, TanzQuartier
Irene Strobl, Kindertheater
Dr. Wolfgang Waldner, Director and CEO of the MuseumsQuartier
Errichtungs- und Betriebsges.m.b.H.
Ministerialrat Dr.Rudolf Wran, Bundesministerium für Bildung,
Wissenschaft und Kultur
Documents:
Gesellschaftsvertrag der MuseumsQuartier-Errichtungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft
mit beschränkter Haftung. 29. März 1999
Bundesgesetz vom 7. Juni 1990 zur Errichtung einer MuseumsQuartier-Errichtungs-
und Betriebsgesellschaft
Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur Besiedlungs- und Betriebsphilosophie
des MuseumsQuartiers Wien, 1996
Vortrag der Bundesministerin für Unterricht und kulturelle
Angelegenheiten an den Ministerrat vom 26. September 1996
M. Wailand/ V. Weh, Strukturkonzept für das “Quartier
21” (Q 21) im MQ Wien, Kurzfassung (Stand 14.12.2000)
Mission Statement of the MuseumsQuartier
Bibliography
Aesthetik II, pp232- 236
Marchart, Oliver (1999), Das Ende des Josephinismus. Zur Politisierung
der österreichischen Kulturpolitik. Wien: edition selene
1999.
Parnass, the Leopold Collection,, tenth Special Edition of the
Art Magazine
Roodhouse, Simon (200), The Wheel of History – A relinquishing
of City Council Control and the Freedom to manage: Sheffield Galleries
and Museums Trust, International Journal of Arts Management volume
3 number 1, pp78- 86
Baumol, W./ Baumol H. (1994), On the Economics of Musical Composition
in
Mozart's Vienna, Chapter 4 in James M. Morris, ed., On Mozart,
New York and Cambridge,
U.K.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Press Syndicate of the University
of Cambridge
pp. 72-101.
Pleschberger, Werner (1991): Staat und Kultur. Einige Überlegungen
zur österreichischen Kulturförderung in rechtstheoretischer
und rechtspolitischer Sicht. In: Zukunfts- und Kulturwerkstätte
(Hg.): Kultur. Kunst. Staat. Aufschwünge und Abgesänge
zur Zukunft der Kulturförderung. Wien. S. 63-78.
Österreichisches Zentrum für Kulturdokumentation, -forschung
und -vermittlung (1992): Darstellung und Analyse der österreichischen
Kulturpolitik. Europaratstudie . Österreichischer Nationalbericht.
Wien.
Notes
SCR 3 March, 2004
1 Organisations involved in the MuseumsQuartier (except the organisations
of Quarter 21; see Note 2)
the Architektur Zentrum Wien (a centre for exhibitions, presentations
and debates);
the Art Cult Center – Tabakmuseum;
Basis Wien – art, information and archive;
the Kunsthalle Wien (an exhibition venue for international contemporary
and modern art);
the Leopold Museum (which includes the largest collection of works
by Egon Schiele);
the Museum of Modern Art Ludwig Foundation Vienna (which houses
one of the largest collections of modern and contemporary art);
the Tanzquartier Wien (a centre for modern dance and performance);
the Theaterhaus fur Kinder (a theatre for children aged 4 –
13 years which includes dance, musicals, puppet theatre and opera);
the Vienna Festival;
wienXtra (a children-oriented information centre);
Zoom (a creativity centre and exhibition space for children engaged
in art, culture, society and science).
2 An explanation of The Quarter 21 mechanism
This mechanism is intended to address the question of the small-underfunded
cultural organisations and how contemporary creative activity
is incorporated into the MuseumsQuartier.
The elements of the Quarter 21 are:
· the forum for cultural theory,
· studios for artists,
· platform for cross over activities,
· cultural joint office,
· digital media area (Internet café, independent
media centre, media studios , platforms for music and film)
· Arena, reading room,
· creative industries (start up offices for design, film,
photography, e-music, fashion, new media/IT, literature/book stores,
art publishers),
· commercial users (book stores, bars and cafes).
The users are expected to take responsibility for their work,
the outputs and to pay the rent for the space in the Quarter 21.
The MuseumsQuartier Co., manages the general infrastructure and
space such as the visitors centre, arena, conference rooms courtyards
and the square in front of the building. In addition it operates
the lease contracts for the users in Quarter 21 as it does for
all other parts of the site however in this case there are three
categories of lease, cultural ( heavily subsidised), semi-commercial
(subsidised), and commercial (no subsidy).
The management of the MuseumsQuartier has established an advisory
board, “Network 21” which recommends to the Chief
Executive which users should be offered a lease contract in the
Quarter 21 and in which rental category. The Chief Executive can
either accept or reject the recommendations and reports his actions
to the board. It also has a wider remit to advise on content and
programming for the common spaces.
Users once chosen rent a space of the size they can afford and
this is maintained on their behalf by the company as part of the
lease agreement. Any alterations to the space are also the responsibility
of the company and the consequent costs incorporated in the rental
charge.
General technical equipment is provided and maintained by the
company.
Users must prove they have the financial means to meet their operational
costs including all rental charges whatever the lease category.
Institutions currently included in the Quarter 21:
Electric Avenue
-> institut fünfhaus
-> MEDIENQUARTIER21
-> monochrom
-> quintessenz
-> SPOILER
transeuropa
-> A9-forum transeuropa
-> FOUND FOR YOU
-> Kiesler-Zentrum Wien
-> KulturKontakt Austria
-> polyklamott
Kulturbüros
-> AICA
-> Büro für Kulturvermittlung
-> Culture2Culture
-> DUB
-> EIKON
-> ImPulsTanz
-> Klangspuren
-> MKA
-> Schlebrügge.Editor
-> springerin
-> Galerienverband
Ovaltrakt
-> math.space
