M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em> faced fierce resistance from both the interim director and the reception staff themselves. All parties were concerned about the consequences that the revelation of inequalities at FRAC might have on their jobs. Following long and heated negotiations via email that cited various questions of security and feasibility as excuses, on the day of the opening, the reception desk was returned to the foyer, and Schwebel\u2019s letter to the future management was exhibited on a plinth in the garden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is relatively common for art projects to evolve according to the dictates of technical or political constraints in the course of their development. In the case of M\u00e9diation culturelle,<\/em> however, the work demanded a dramatic reversal of the establishment\u2019s values. The vigorous opposition from the interim director and reception staff to Schwebel\u2019s proposal underlined a certain crisis in leadership. The main concern was that the work accentuated their precarious situation, which put them in a delicate, if not untenable, position with the new management. Although the internal debate generated by M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em> may have centred on excessive workload and cumbersome administrative procedures in the absence of management, above all it affirmed that institutional consensus took precedence over artistic autonomy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Beyond the ethical contradictions of the FRAC, Schwebel\u2019s proposal and the arbitration that ensued illustrate the insensitivity of the establishment, which had fewer scruples about obstructing the work of an artist than about questioning its own authority. Even without official management in place, FRAC\u2019s personnel seemed little inclined to break up existing hierarchies or to attempt a more equitable distribution of power. On the contrary, the stability of the system was defended, even embodied, by the institution\u2019s employees, to the extent that they preferred to perpetuate rather than challenge existing inequalities. In this sense, M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em> condemns the values underpinning the art field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to Subsidy<\/em> (2015), a work developed during a residency at K\u00fcnstlerhaus Bethanien, Berlin, in which Schwebel had used his honorarium to pay the volunteers working for the organization, Amber Landgraff adopts the term \u201cself-exploitation\u201d2<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 2 <\/a> - Amber Landgraff, \u201cPaying Interns as an Act of Counterfeit, or Everyone Deserves to Get Paid,\u201d in Joshua Schwebel, Subsidy<\/em> (Berlin: K\u00fcnstlerhaus Bethanien GmbH and Archive Books, 2016), 11.<\/span> to explain a significant ethical paradox in the art field. Landgraff associates working conditions in the field with the vocational myth that justifies freedom as a pretext for not being paid. Although financial self-sacrifice is regarded as a legitimate counterpart to passionate work, volunteering\u200a\u2014\u200afundamental to the functioning of the art field\u200a\u2014\u200ais considered an obligatory right of passage toward a remunerated position. In other words, within the milieu, whereas self-exploitation is perceived as a stepping-stone to success, refusing to play the game is a guarantee for failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Landgraff is particularly interested in the system of internships and volunteering, yet the panel discussions during the Journ\u00e9e sans culture3<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 3 <\/a> - The discussions held during the Journ\u00e9e sans culture (October 21, 2015, at Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Aux \u00c9curies) were published in Journ\u00e9e sans culture:<\/em> Troubler la f\u00eate, rallumer notre joie<\/em> (Montr\u00e9al: Journ\u00e9e sans culture, 2016).<\/span> revealed several other forms of self-exploitation sustained by existing patterns of work. Underpaid and unstable, employment in the arts frequently demands incredible flexibility, without necessarily recognizing the value of the skills required.4<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 4 <\/a> - Caroline Blais, Virginie Jourdain, and Mercedes Pacho, \u201cEntre don, r\u00e9silience et \u00e9puisement: jusqu\u2019o\u00f9 et comment travailler,\u201d in Journ\u00e9e sans culture<\/em>, 18.<\/span> In this regard, Landgraff stresses the strange disparity between the politicization of the field and its poor working conditions. Referring to Jan Verwoert,5<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 5 <\/a> - Jan Verwoert, \u201cAll the Wrong Examples,\u201d in Self-Organised<\/em>, ed. Stine Hebert and Anne Szefer (London: Open Editions, 2013), 126.<\/span> she explains this discrepancy by suggesting that burnout makes workers in the art community more likely to accept an inequitable system than to invest their energies in changing it. This causal relationship is certainly plausible and convincing, but it reiterates the preconceived distinction between survival and revolution as an excuse for apathy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em> addresses the imbalances within a specific organization, it also high-lights the widespread uncertainty and abuses that characterize the art field. The culture of competition among workers and institutions favours these conditions and, over time, polarizes administrative and creative positions to the point of jeopardizing solidarity in the field.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Schwebel\u2019s art is an act of defiance that would be difficult to accept were he not a recognized artist. His privileged position affords him significant visibility, which he directs toward structures of exploitation.M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em> transforms the downfall of this privilege-based model into reality. Given that the imbalance between costs of creation and the corresponding revenue means that half of all artists struggle to make any financial gain, and that reduced subsidies often lead to fewer salaried positions in the field, it seems that only those who are already financially stable can afford an art career.6<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 6 <\/a> - Landgraff, \u201cPaying Interns,\u201d 10.<\/span> This suggests that the financial success or failure of artists is, in the end, attributable less to their art than to the nature of their remunerated activities on the fringes of their practice.7<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 7 <\/a> - Christine Routhier, Les artistes en arts visuels: Portrait statistique des conditions de pratique au Qu\u00e9bec, 2010<\/em> (Qu\u00e9bec City: Institut de la statistique du Qu\u00e9bec, Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Qu\u00e9bec, 2013), 85, stat.gouv.qc.ca\/statistiques\/culture\/arts-visuels\/mono-arts-visuels.pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n As Michelle Lacombe and Yves Sheriff also underline, it\u2019s important to neither idealize nor oppose the existing conditions between art and administration.8<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 8 <\/a> - Mich\u00e8le Lacombe and Yves Sheriff, \u201cPenser de nouveaux mod\u00e8les d\u2019organisation,\u201d in Journ\u00e9e sans culture<\/em>, 107.<\/span> However, the strategies used by Schwebel suggest that the status quo can be overturned. In fact, in March 2018, several months after the Ressources humaines<\/em> exhibition, the new director of the FRAC wrote to Schwebel confirming the change in status of their reception workers. Her email specified the strictly symbolic nature of the mediator title, while acknowledging the role of Schwebel\u2019s work in this exceptional context and the overall quality of the dialogue it generated. Nevertheless, M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em> discoursed less on this particular art institution, art, or the artist than it did on the necessity to invest the art field with solidarity-based ethics. In other words, the artist\u2019s goal is to instil the values of fairness at the very core of institutional operations. The feigned na\u00efvet\u00e9 of this approach evokes the less formal, more humane structures pursued by Lacombe and Sheriff,9<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 9 <\/a> - Ibid., 108.<\/span> with one important difference: the extension of responsibility for it to everyone working in the arts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By taking on the guise of a symbolic strike, the Journ\u00e9e sans culture set in motion the monitoring of working conditions and interpersonal policies in the local arts milieu. The various grievances and demands expressed revealed the brutal force of the system of self-exploitation that cultural workers are subjected to. The implicit acceptance of this model as a testimony to a candidate\u2019s dedication suggests that the only way to break this ethical deadlock would be to bring the debate into the open and place it at the forefront of art practice, as Schwebel did. The powerful radicalism of M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em> rests on its public expression, which ensures accountability among decision makers in the field. The redistribution of the privileges and spheres of power10<\/sup><\/a><\/span> 10 <\/a> - Ibid., 111.<\/span> demanded at the end of the Journ\u00e9e sans culture begins with shifting the duty to report abuses from the individual to the community. As long as accepting unfair conditions in the short term is perceived as a potential source of long-term success, no single individual can carry the -weight of the revolution alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Schwebel\u2019s proposal in this regard suggests the powerful potential of transparency and solidarity, factors that also motivated the organization of the Journ\u00e9e sans culture. The participants put forward numerous possible solutions, including reviewing standards of productivity, efficiency, and flexibility by mutualizing and harmonizing contractual terms and conditions. Although these collaborative efforts and the identification of local issues appear to be advancing, steps still need to be taken to facilitate the exposure and elimination of abuses. Establishing an equitable system is incumbent upon everyone engaged in the arts, especially those in positions of power. It\u2019s time to overturn the unconscionable valorization of sacrifice by according concrete and financial recognition to cultural workers for their education, work, and careers. Colossal as this task may seem, it is only through collective action that change can be achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Translated from the French by Louise Ashcroft<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Gmail](\"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/94_DO04_Sirois-Rouleau_Schwebel_Meditation-culturelle3-scaled.jpg\")
M\u00e9diation culturel<\/em>, correspondence with the director of FRAC Lorraine, 2018.
Photo : courtesy of the artist<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Schwebel_M\u00e9ditation](\"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/94_DO04_Sirois-Rouleau_Schwebel_Meditation-culturelle-scaled.jpg\")
M\u00e9diation culturelle<\/em>, installation views before and after, Fonds r\u00e9gional d\u2019art contemporain de Lorraine, Metz, 2017.
Photos : Valentin Wattier<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n