Lisa Liebetrau’s article, ‘Trust me, this is not a neutral space: risk and disclosure in the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts Archive', (Art + Australia 59.2) was written in response to her 2021 residency at the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts (PICA). The article, based on materials found in PICA’s archive, seeks to construct a narrative about PICA and the Artists Regional Exchange (ARX), the latter, an artist run initiative that took place in Perth 1987–1999. As a previous director of PICA (1994–2006) and a member of the management committee for ARX in its final few years, I read Liebetrau’s article with keen interest.

ARX was a unique and even radical project for its time being one of the very earliest exchange programs between Asia and Australia. With its emphasis on artists, collaboration and process, it was a compelling, if imperfect project, albeit unimaginable in today’s climate. Its impact over five editions: 1987, 1989, 1992, 1995 and a three-part program in Singapore, Perth and Hong Kong across 1998/1999, was wide ranging, not just across Australia but throughout the Asia Pacific region. I was aware of and fascinated by ARX from its inception in the mid-eighties, and in 1992, thanks to Adrian Jones, the inaugural project manager, was enabled to present a forum with artists from Malaysia and Thailand as well as the wonderful Filipino curator and thinker Marian Pastor Roces at Sydney’s Performance Space. There were similar spin-off events in art spaces across the country.

ARX was generative in its influence, although organisationally speaking, as Liebetrau highlights, things could be unwieldy given its uncertain status and precarious financial situation. Most notably perhaps, ARX was an important precursor to the Queensland Art Gallery’s Asia Pacific Triennial (APT), the first iteration of which took place in 1993. Curators at APT routinely acknowledged the importance of ARX, at least over its first three editions, in preparing the connections and networks that has made APT such an essential part of Australia’s visual arts ecology and built such an incredible collection for QAGOMA. ARX also generated a multiplicity of connections between artists, curators and thinkers that led to a range of smaller exhibition projects, symposia and exchange programs that continue to the present day. I would suggest, and many would concur, that the loss of ARX with its emphasis on artist exchange represented a significant missed opportunity for Western Australia in particular, and Australia more broadly. 

Liebetrau tells readers that she undertook her residency ‘to investigate’ whether PICA ‘held a collection or archive.’¹ During her two-month residency, she ascertained that PICA ‘did in fact house an organisational archive.’² She felt that her investigation found sufficient documents to help her ‘draw out histories and identify latent truths that would otherwise remain missing or forgotten’ because, as Liebetrau tells us, she ‘believe{s} in context and truth telling.’³ The scope of Liebetrau’s research project sharpened when she came across the archive (or at least part thereof) of ARX, by then a project concluded 22 years ago.

It's interesting to consider what counts as an archive. In historical accounts held by arts organisations, we might hope to find records that capture the zeitgeist of the past and which reveal, however incompletely, ways to make sense of artists, art projects and arts organisations, along with the contexts and environments in which they worked or were created. The reality is of course, that most arts organisations—particularly artist run and contemporary art spaces like PICA—are working with limited resources, and their ability to store, conserve and manage archives is limited not only financially, but also in terms of staff expertise and capacity. 

While both the inaugural project manager, Adrian Jones, and the inaugural chairperson, artist David Watt, have sadly passed away, there are still many artists and curators with lived experience of ARX who would be happy to engage in a considered discussion around ARX and its legacy. Liebetrau’s ambition for her research project at PICA is admirable, but her focus on limited archival materials held by PICA and emphasis on a couple of ‘gotcha moments’ has led her to make several assumptions about both PICA and ARX that do not stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, she has missed an opportunity to deeply explore one of Australia’s earliest and most innovative contemporary art projects. In my own case, given my uncertain memories, I emailed, messaged and called several people including well-known curators, John Barrett-Lennard, Margaret Moore and Marco Marcon, as well as significant artists, Matthew Ngui, Michele Elliot and Pat Hoffie to redress some of Liebetrau’s assumptions. 

The inaugural ARX was conceived when John Barrett-Lennard, then director of Praxis, an artist run space in Fremantle,⁴ broached the idea to the Western Australian state funding body Arts WA between 1985 to 1986 and lobbied politicians directly, which led to the first tranche of funding. While John did not continue his immediate involvement with ARX, the project was made possible in part through the substantial in-kind support provided by Praxis,⁵ which hosted its steering committee from 1986. Further, Michael O’Ferrall, the then curator of Asian and Aboriginal art at the Art Gallery of Western Australia (AGWA), lent his considerable expertise to initiating connections with artists and writers across Southeast Asia. Adrian Jones was only employed as the first project coordinator in early 1987, leaving only a few months—according to then chairman David Watt’s 1987 interim report—to realise the first exhibition program and associated forums.⁶

ARX incorporated as an association in 1988 with its own management committee.⁷ It was chaired at different times by artists, David Watt and Matthew Ngui, as well as curator Margaret Moore.

PICA’s necessarily later involvement with ARX was only as an occasional exhibition space. Founding PICA director, Noel Sheridan, was sceptical of ARX for reasons which remain mysterious, but it is also true that ARX wished to remain an independent entity. For my part during my directorship, it was great to support the exhibition that emerged from the ARX 4 (Torque) residency program, and the symposium, both held at PICA in 1995.

I particularly want to respond to Liebetrau’s account of ‘a recurring thread, where were the Aboriginal artists?’ and further, that ‘… every iteration of ARX seemed marred by a repeat lack of Aboriginal consultation and inclusion.’⁸ This is a far more complex discussion than I can do justice to in this article, but it is important to note that Aboriginal engagement was a preoccupation for the ARX management committee from the outset, and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists were included in ARX from the beginning. As Adrian Jones wrote in his 1987 report:

Aboriginal involvement came through meeting with the WA Aboriginal Artists Advisory Committee, and while Harold Thomas’s exhibition was already planned for the Birrukmarri Gallery, a special exhibition was prepared of local aboriginal {sic} artists’ work with financial assistance from ARX.⁹

I would concur, however, that there was a tension at the time between Indigenous artists and art from communities, often perceived as ‘traditional’ rather than as ‘contemporary’. It was not only the non-Indigenous art world that was more comfortable with those First Nations artists who’d been to art school. For some practitioners, it was more important to be known as artists, rather than as ‘Aboriginal’ artists. Tracey Moffat famously comes to mind. There could also be tension around the idea of ‘real’ Aboriginals living in communities with a continuous connection to language and culture, and Aboriginal artists living in cities, very often members of the Stolen Generations and frequently perceived as inauthentic by broader Australian society. The criticism archived at PICA and ‘lack of Aboriginal representation’ cited by Liebetrau in her article should be read in this light.¹⁰ It’s a complex and ever-evolving space, but successive ARX management committees were alert to the complexities if not always as sophisticated in their handling of them as we might like.

In 1992, Pamela Croft, an urban Murri from Queensland, collaborated with Jill Barker at ARX 3 (exhibition held 1-15 April 1992; conference held 10-15 April 1992. PICA and Lawrence Wilson Art Gallery, University of Western Australia). Their work, The Story Bridge, is explicitly intended to ‘build a cultural bridge between the two Australias.’¹¹ Pat Hoffie (Queensland), FX Harsono (Indonesia) and Patrick Flores (Philippines) co-curated ARX 4 (Torque) in 1995 and that edition included participation by Jerry Morrison, a Noongar (Bibbulmun) artist, rea (they/them), from the Gamilaraay/Wailwan and Biripi peoples, as well as Wiradjuri artist, Harry Wedge (1957 – 2012). In 1997/98 there were five Australian participants, including renowned photomedia artist, Destiny Deacon (1957–2024) of the Kuku Yalanji people of Far North Queensland, and the Erub Mer peoples of Torres Strait.¹² 

It is true that there was no First Nations representation on the voluntary ARX committee. Having said that, the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists certainly evolved over the decade. I’d note that even in 1995, visiting Aboriginal artists had to be reminded that Aboriginal artists in Western Australia could under no circumstance be referred to as Kooris. First Nations artists made an essential contribution not only to ARX but went on to generate future projects and connections. Pat Hoffie’s meeting with rea, for instance, led to her taking ten non-Indigenous and ten Indigenous artists—including Tony Albert on his first trip overseas—to the Festival of Pacific Arts.¹³

Whatever the condition of an archive, inevitably it represents a conundrum. An archive is not just about what’s included but what’s excluded, what’s remembered and what has been forgotten. Lisa Liebetrau clearly comprehends this but has perhaps lost sight of the fact it is not just the documents at hand, but also the personal accounts and lived experiences of artists, curators and arts workers that taken collectively may provide sufficient foundation for thinking not only through the past but into the future. Sometimes it’s about getting out of the archive and asking the questions. 

In closing, I’d like to add my voice to Liebetrau’s discussion of Adam Boyd’s Trust Me on the roof of PICA. I learned a lot about crumbling heritage buildings during my time at PICA. The roof was leaking; the wattle and daub ceilings were crumbling, and the library which then held the archive flooded. After battling for close to a decade, the election of the Labor government in 2001 meant that PICA was finally able to undertake a long overdue program of capital works including disability access (a lift and new toilets) and a new roof. Sadly, the new roof did not come with a budget to commission Adam Boyd to remake his iconic work. PICA’s archive may reveal part of the story but it does not capture the dynamics and complexity of a program as integral as ARX. These details can only be known by those who have been involved.