In the art world, residencies give artists the opportunity to be hosted by a structure and to have access to financial, technical and human resources so that research or creative work may be accomplished. The residencies – an essential link in the artistic process – specialise in the light of the resources available, the missions espoused by the sites which organise them or the territorial context. What about residencies dedicated to digital creation in Wallonia and Brussels? What are the principal calls for residency application? How is the ecosystem structured? An overview.

‘In Belgium, the system of residencies is not very transparent. You really have to go looking for the information. And then, there is a tendency to select a lot of artists, usually individuals, and to provide little wherewithal. It’s not necessarily compatible with developing an ambitious artistic work,’ unequivocally declares Isjtar Vandebroeck, artist and member of the CREW collective. The upshot for this collective, for all that it is one of the artistic spearheads in Brussels: ‘we pretty much no longer apply for residence programmes in Belgium and privilege those offered in other countries.’ This testimony is an illustration of the difficulties encountered by many artists: the residency system in Wallonia-Brussels seems to lack ambition and above all appears to be scarcely legible for those primarily concerned.

A classification of residences needs defining

In fact, whilst the Wallonia-Brussels Federation indexes a proportion of the existing residencies on its website, it must be acknowledged that there is not really any cartography, nor a centralisation of information and that this info often remains impenetrable in the eyes of the artists. ‘Is there any professional support? Financial backing, and of what order? What does the organisation take responsibility for? Are the accommodation and transport costs included? Whilst they may appear to be details, for the artists they are essential conditions,’ explains Catherine Henkinet, head of exhibitions and arts residencies at the ISELP (Institut Supérieur pour l’Etude du Langage Plastique) who continues: ‘and of course, you need to identify what type of residency is offered.’ In fact, between a research and a creation residency there exist real differences in the expected outcomes. Depending on the degree of a project’s maturity, nor will the artists have the same support needs.

Catherine Henkinet also explains that there exist other types of residency: ‘there are regional residencies linked to a specific geographical context or mediation residencies geared towards a target audience, such as Impulsion, which can be offered at the ISELP.’ This particular project aims to actively involve a group of non-artist people – a school class, a house in the neighbourhood, a group of citizens – in its creation process. In a similar way, certain residencies specifically target artists whilst others are designed with commissioners and art critics in mind. Whilst it must be understood that each residency is linked to the DNA of the site which hosts it, there exists a pretty strict typology, particularly set out by Arts in residency, a national network with the goal of federating an ecosystem of residencies in France.

Research residencies

In terms of research residency, OHME offers one of the most emblematic programmes in our region. Its 5 annual calls for residency application link up artists with researchers from Belgian universities. ‘In an ultra-complex society, you have to provide nuance and transversality, and the arts can play an important role in this respect. To nourish this ecosystem, we support artists in quite diversified research, in facilitating networking with researchers both in the ‘hard’ sciences and the human sciences, and to develop their projects from a technical point of view. That can be in the domain of mechanics, chemistry or materials sciences, as is the case with our residency tailored to artists/artisans in the manufacturing of glass in the Medieval era’ explains Camilla Colombo, OHME’s artistic director. The Brussels organisation also works on sustainable robotics in partnership with the Brussels Institute for Advanced Studies – BrIAS – and FARI – Institute of Artificial Intelligence for the Common Good – and has thus recently hosted the artists Kris Verdonck and Dewi Brunet. 

OHME provides artists with support, first of all, in the form of ‘very advanced skills. We have a team of engineers with skills which are rare in the world of arts. They are more profiles which come from consulting and are relatively out of reach to artists in ordinary circumstances. And then we support each of the projects we oversee to the tune of €6,000, which enables the costs of research, materials, etc. to be absorbed.’ Finally, this research work is the subject of a restitution to the audiences. ‘First and foremost, the research aspect does not necessarily entail the concrete and completed production of a work… It is not always easy for the artists to have the time and the resources necessary to immerse themselves in long and detailed research, nor to have access to experts and academics, and we specifically try to provide this time, these resources and this access,’ concludes Camilla Colombo. With these research residencies, OHME therefore stands out from many residencies whose end goal is the concrete creation of a work.

Creation residencies

That is precisely the case of the artist residencies offered by iMAL (Art Center for Digital Cultures & Technology). This structure for example runs a programme called EMAP (European Media Art Platform), with the support of the European Union’s Creative Europe Programme and issues an annual call for residencies. As was the case for Johanna Bruckner, the 2024 winner, an artist selected receives financial support of €2,000 monthly for a period of two months, a production budget of €4,000, €2,000 for a local collaboration, as well as technical and curatorial support. ‘Whilst the artists may come from anywhere in Europe, they have an obligation to have a working partnership with a local artist. At the end of the two months, a work must be able to be shown to audiences. We very deliberately assume this producer’s role,’ explains Lucia Garcia, the iMAL’s director, who also runs iMAL Project Office, a residency exclusively designed for local artists. 

The same position is adopted by KIKK, which issues two calls for residency per year. The first, named Imagining ecological futures, is an art-science residency of one month in collaboration with the Goethe Institute and the Namur based Abattoirs Cultural Centre. Its goal is to bring together a Walloon-Brussels artist with a German artist. The second is dedicated to space exploration. Marie du Chastel, the artistic director and curator for the KIKK Festival and the Namur Pavillon explains that ‘each artist is supported to the tune of €5,000, and we accommodate them for the duration of the residency. The artists have access to the Protolab at TRAKK, to curatorial and artistic support. We hope to support them through the production and dissemination phase. We try to show the works either at the Namur Pavillon or at the KIKK Festival. For example, all the projects hosted in residency on astronomy were presented at the recent Stellar Scape exhibition.’ iMAL and KIKK are not the only structures carrying creative residencies. First of all, Gluon in Brussels, which is part of a European consortium carrying S+T+ARTS4AFRICA and S+T+ARTS4WaterII. The latter is an open call for a nine-month residency, from which for example Anne Ridler has benefited from, and which aims to address the environmental and societal challenges facing Europe’s port towns. Other organisations, such as Overtoon based in Brussels or Transcultures  located in Saint-Ghislain, also offer assistance to the digital arts and particularly for sound creation. Other residency programmes such as Belgium’s LIBITUM host and support artists from each and every discipline and are therefore eligible for digital artists.

Limited means to cover the needs

For all that, the aid available does not fully meet existing needs. Support for technical skills such as VR and artificial intelligence is difficult to implement in these residency programmes. ‘Despite clear interest on the part of artists, these are technologies which require substantial investment. At KIKK, the residency and artistic production budget, which in part derives from a Wallonia-Brussels Federation grant and additional sources, is only €24,000 per annum. We would like to develop these skills, but our means are limited. Ideally, rather than holding residencies specialised in these media, we would have a considerably larger budget to hire external experts,’ notes Marie du Chastel. An approach wholeheartedly approved of by Stéphanie Roland, a Belgian artist accustomed to working with artificial intelligence models: ‘you would need to have the artists supported by artificial intelligence specialists who understand where you want to go artistically. It’s a story involving encounters and dialogue. Personally, I pay these experts with the grants I receive, but they are significant costs.’ Meanwhile, local actors are banking on collective intelligence and collaboration. The iMAL team thus enlisted the help of the CREW collective for the artist Letta Shtohryn’s  realities in transition residency. ‘We didn’t necessarily have these XR skills, so we asked CREW to provide the artist with assistance as a mentor,’ explains Lucia Garcia. 

Other initiatives are currently being hamstrung by the lack of means. Whilst European Creation Incubators (Pépinières Européennes de Création) is working in Belgium with hybrid international residencies, they are a good deal more difficult to set up for other cultural organisations. Marie du Chastel shares her experience: ‘we have been having discussions with the CALQ (Editor’s note: Conseil des Arts et des Lettres du Québec)  for some months now, with the aim of sending artists to Quebec. But we are too limited in budgetary terms, despite having an incredible network of partners. We would also like to consider hybrid residencies with several African countries. With a budget of €50,000, these are initiatives we could get started on.’ In the same vein, the issue of safeguarding the payment of artists during residencies also arises. ‘One of the solutions would be to acquire funds from beyond the Culture domain. For example, at European level or in the research and innovation sector,’ argues Lucia Garcia. That is true of iMAL, but also of OHME, which receives funding from the Wallonia-Brussels Federation and backing from Innovris (Research and Innovation Institute) to  safeguard its activities. ‘Another lever would be to structure and professionalise the digital arts sector to have political decision-makers understand the need to support us. This support is vital so that small and medium cultural bodies, who have built up a history with a great deal of effort, may provide decisive aid for the artists, the professionals, and reach the level of professionalism of neighbouring European countries,’ continues the iMAL director.

A nascent structuring by on-the-ground actors

And that is doubtless where the priority issue lies: playing the collective game to optimise the needs and ensure that the voices of on-the-ground actors are better heard. For the moment, the project remains a vast one. ‘The ecosystem is very fragmented. In Wallonia and in Brussels, we are years behind the structuring established in Flanders or countries like France. We could work better between organisations, in particular on the pooling of resources. For example, in the case of the OHME, we don’t have fixed premises for our residencies, but we do have extraordinary technical skills. This pooling would mean we all progress. Numbers of cultural sector professionals regularly meet up informally to discuss these issues, but we are only now beginning to arrange these meetings,’ attests Camilla Colombo. Then again, an ambitious structuring is only compatible with a minimum of means into the bargain. ‘Uniting and invigorating the ecosystem is a fully-fledged project in itself. Simply arranging a meeting requires time, while the organisations themselves are all busy meeting the goals of their own projects,’ assesses Marie du Chastel, who continues: ‘an initiative coming from too high up would perhaps be completely unrelated to on-the-ground realities. It would be better if it was an operator in the field who received a grant for this very particular and vital mission.’ Let us for example note that the remarkable work carried out by the French Arts in residency network is made possible thanks to professionals entirely dedicated to the project. 

In the absence of this actor centralising the residency programmes, certain initiatives are already displaying a positive dynamic in the field. Catherine Henkinet, head of exhibitions and arts residencies at the ISELP, in particular established a working group on a charter of best practices within the ‘50° Nord, 3° Est’ network which was finalised with assistance provided by LaFAP. ‘Another charter of best practices linked specifically to residences is currently being completed and is already signalling what the ideal residency might be. This charter will be distributed to obtain the most signatory organisations possible. Artists will be able to get to grips with it, learn the questions they might ask. Then the charter will be carried to the regions to push forward the cultural policy regarding residencies. Our objective is to professionalise the sector. Previously we did not have this collective strength, yet now the ecosystem is gaining a structure. Step by step, we will be in a position to defend the interests of the artists,’ she concludes  on an optimistic note. 

Call for projects

A story, projects or an idea to share?

Suggest your content on kingkong.

send your ideas