DR. ISMAIL MAHOMED CULTURAL CORNER: Functions of Artistic Advisory Committee

Day 90 of 100 of the Siphindile Nuh Chelsea Hlongwa challenge that I should write down my thoughts / experiences about how I survived four decades in cultural leadership positions. In this post I write about why an advisory committee must do just what its name suggests — ADVISE — and have absolutely no executive authority whatsoever. 

Illustrated Portrait of Dr. Ismail Mahomed. Photo Courtesy of Facebook 

Artistic Advisory / Curatorial Committees are often constituted with individuals who are experts in their genre and whose professional profiles are highly respected. They are not fulltime members involved with the day to day operations of an organisation. They are often appointed jointly by the board and the Artistic Director/ Chief Curator / Head of Programming. They receive honorariums / stipends for the meetings that they attend. 

The role of an Advisory Committee is to be a sounding board for the Director / Chief Curator / Head of Programming. The committees can be vitally important forums that can contribute to an organisation’s success or its eventual failure. 

Unfortunately, too often in arts organisations real tensions can exist between Artistic / Curatorial Advisory committees and an Artistic Director / Chief Curator / Head of Programming when there is a lack of clarity over who is ultimately responsible for accountability. This problem can be eliminated when there are clear terms of reference for the committees. 

Accountability for success or failure must always be vested with the person who earns a full-time salary, has a job description, a performance agreement and written delegated authority to do whatever is necessary to succeed in the job and to let the organisation prosper; and this is the Artistic Director/ Chief Curator / Head of Programming. 

The latter must be able to take the input, guidance, information and expertise that a committee offers; and to then make sense of it by assessing it against various criteria which includes long term vision, infrastructure, Human Resources capacity, funder obligations, audience development strategies and ultimately budgets. Artistic advisory committee members don’t necessarily have this overall understanding. Their expertise rests only in the artform or genre in which they have grown their reputations. As non-executive members they can never be held liable when an organisation / project fails. It is the head of the Director / Chief Curator / Head of Programming who must take accountability. 

When I was appointed as the Artistic Director of the National Arts Festival I had several excellent artists who served on the festival’s Artistic Advisory Committee. (some that I inherited and others that I brought on board). We had robust and often-times heated discussions. It was inevitable. Art by its nature is both an emotional and an intellectual form of expression. For me disagreements were never personal even though sometimes they were hugely irritable and an absolute pain in the butt because whilst some were brilliant artists they were hopeless at organisational strategy. 

I had the capacity to draw on the advice of those who shared my headspace and to acknowledge and learn to simply dismiss the advice of others if it did not resonate with my headspace. I defined the committee’s relationship with my role and the organisation by a clearly scripted Terms of Reference which gave the committee absolutely no executive authority. 

By me being able to hold final decision-making authority based on my job description and delegated authority I had the licence to think long term, effect immediate programmatic changes that would be necessary to achieve the long term vision, meet with artists, funders and other stakeholders; and most importantly to be able to make decisions in that very instant rather than to say to invest stakeholders, “I’ll revert to you after I’ve consulted with the committee”. There is nothing more demoralising for invested stakeholders than to engage with a director/ chief curator or head of programming who has no delegated authority to make decisions. 

As the director of the Centre for Creative Arts I run five festivals — the Time of the Writer, Poetry Africa, Durban International Film Festival, Poetry Africa and Artfluence. I engage and offer inputs to the curators of the various festivals but the authority to design the final programme is vested with the curators of the festival on the proviso that it is within the framework of organisational mission, budgets, funder and other stakeholder imperatives. 

One of the more successful advisory committees is the JOMBA! committee. The experts in the committee are identified by the festival curator, Lliane Loots. They share her vision, passion and headspace. There isn’t any egotistic power fight for who controls the programme. There is a clear understanding that the Chief Curator who manages budgets, infrastructure, resources and stakeholder relationships is ultimately the person who holds the final authority reporting to me. By enabling Lliane to independently constitute her committee with individuals who share her artistic vision I stand on the shoulders of giants with every festival that succeeds. 

Similarly, with the Durban International Film Festival I vest curatorial authority with the Programming Head, Andrea Voges, who operates within the prescripts that we agree upon. My role as director is to entrust her vision, to support it and to create enabling opportunities and partnerships that can support her artistic vision. I give her the latitude to consult with advisors whom she trusts and who share her vision. 

Artistic vision is fluid. It changes with every new artistic director. It takes on new meaning and interpretations. It brings new strategies to programming. It brokers new partnerships and relationships. It is supported best when it has an advisory committee that supports the vision of the director / Chief Curator / Head of Programming. 

Our role as cultural leaders is to guard and advance the MISSION of the organisation. We have a responsibility to give artistic directors / chief curators / programming heads the freedom to envision possibilities. They must be accountable to deliver excellence and prosperity to the organisation’s mission based on their delegated authorities. In the event of failure we have no right to hold them to account if non-executive advisory committees are making decisions on their behalf. 

Advisory Committees work for the Artistic Director / Curator / Head Programmer; and never the other way round. Artistic Advisory Committee are very different to Jury Committees where the latter is vested and entrusted with making a collective decision and taking accountability for its choices.

Dr Ismail Mahomed is the Director for the Centre for Creative Arts at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. He is a multi-award winning and multi-published arts management strategist and playwright with more than 35 years’ experience in cultural leadership positions.