Minutes of the Administrative Council Meeting ... - AICA international

Minutes of the Administrative Council Meeting
Paris, 15 March 2008
Members Present (32)
Bureau : (3)
President: Henry Meyric Hughes; Secretary-General: Ramon Tio Bellido; Treasurer: Angelica Bäumer
Presidents or Representatives of Sections: (23)
Austria: Maribel Königer (P)
Belgium: Marie-Pascale Gildemyn (VP)
Brazil: Lisbeth Rebollo Gonçalves (VP)
Catalonia: Pilar Parcerisas (P)
Croatia: Darko Glavan (P)
Croatia: Goran Blagus (R)
Dominican Republic: Amable Lopez (P)
Dominican Republic: Marianne Tolentino (R)
Finland: Lars Saari (P)
France: Christophe Domino (P)
France: Jean-Marc Poinsot (President of the Archives
de la critique d’art)
Germany: Marie-Luise Syring (R)
Greece: Efi Strousa (P)
Hungary: Franciska Zolyom (R)
Ireland: Ciaran Bennett (P)
Netherlands: Tineke Reijnders (VP)
Poland: Dorota Monkiewicz (P)
Slovenia: Brane Kovic (P)
Spain: Maria Teresa Beguiristain (VP)
Sweden: Christian Chambert (P)
Switzerland: Samuel Herzog (P)
United Kingdom: Angus Stewart (P)
USA: Phyllis Braff (P)
Elected members: (6)
Sophie Allgårdh (Sweden), Myrna Guerrero (Dominican Rep.), Liam Kelly (Ireland), Laimute Kreivyte (Lithuania),
Angelica Sachini (Greece), Biljana Tomic Denegri (Serbia)
Apologies (7)
Ken Carpenter (Canada), Argelia Castillo (Mexico), Fabienne Dumont (Belgium), Haydee Venegas (Puerto Rico),
Malene Vest Hansen (Denmark), Walter Vitt (Germany), Janneke Wesseling (Netherlands).
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 1/11

Agenda
1. Minutes of the last Board Meeting and Matters arising
2. Reports of the Executive Bureau
3. Any Other Business
4. Reports of the Commissions
5. Congresses
6. News from the Sections
7. Date of next Meeting
The President, HMH, opened the session at 9.30 am
He thanked Henri-Claude Cousseau and his staff for providing the Administrative Council a room and
facilities for holding the meeting at the École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts. Christophe Domino
reported that Cousseau had recently been elected to the membership of AICA France, at the Section’s last
General Assembly.
HMH announced that space would be found on the morning’s agenda for a short address by Jean-Marc
Poinsot, Director of the Archive de la critique d’art.
He further drew the Committee’s attention to the letter of 11 February that the Bureau had received from
René Berger, one of the Association’s Honorary Presidents, proposing a theme for the next Congress. It
was agreed that meeting should continue for a couple of hours after lunch (for those who were free to
attend) with an informal discussion of some of the issues raised in this letter.
HMH also reported on the imminent creation of two new Sections, in Southern Africa and Bolivia. Ramon
Tio Bellido added that Nigerian Section had now resumed its activities, at the instigation of Azeez Ademola.
1. Minutes of the Board Meeting of 30 September 2007
HMH went through the draft minutes, page by page, and invited comments and amendments.
He noted that there was an error in the place and date which had been ascribed to the Board Meeting at the
head of the minutes, which should be 30 September 2007, in São Paulo, not ‘Moscow 3 March 2007’.
He reported that Catherine Paviot, a former Elected Member, had described as inaccurate the statement on
page 2 that she accepted as fact, that AICA’s Statutes were subject to French legislation. It was agreed that
the minutes should be changed to reflect this.
Subject to these corrections being made, the draft minutes were unanimously approved.
The amended text may be found at the following address: http://aica-int.org/spip.phparticle704
2. Reports of the Executive Bureau
The three reports are available, in full, on the AICA website, as follows http://www.aicaint.org/spip.phprubrique341
President’s Report
HMH went through his own report, point by point, focusing, in particular, on the following issues:
- Congress in Brazil:
He once more thanked Lisbeth Rebollo-Gonçalvez and her team for organising the last Congress in Brazil
and circulated the most recent issue of ABCA’s journal, which contained detailed reports on this (cf.
http://www.aica-int.org/spip.phparticle707)
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 2/11

- Membership & Fellowship Commission:
Time permitting, HMH proposed discussing this item at greater length, at a later point in the agenda.
- Elections:
HMH reminded colleagues that there would be elections for a new President and Treasurer, and for three
new Vice-Presidents, at the next General Assembly. All paid-up members were eligible to present their
candidature for any of these posts, but they would have to do this on the basis of a written programme,
submitted to the Secretary-General three months in advance. He emphasised the importance of these
elections, as an occasion for the Association to take stock of itself and bring in fresh blood and new ideas.
He emphasised that the post of President was far from merely honorific, and that anyone considering
applying for this would have to be fully aware of the considerable responsibilities and workload the job
entailed.
Secretary-General’s Report
RTB said that his report was relatively brief, given the short time that had elapsed between the last
Congress and the current, interim Board meeting.
- Cape Town Seminar
RTB underlined the value and quality of this seminar, one of whose outcomes had been the successful
creation of a new section of AICA Southern Africa (to be formalised at the next General Assembly), bringing
together colleagues from Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique, in addition to South Africa itself. Zimbabwe,
which had previously had a National Section of its own, had decided not to merge with the new Southern
African Section, but the matter would be kept under active review and had, indeed, be a topic for discussion
at the Cape Town seminar.
- EEYA
RTB confirmed that this had been a thoroughly worthwhile and successful project. He predicted a deficit of
5,000 euros on the current budget for this, but that he firmly intended to find ways of filling this gap, so that it
would not upset AICA’s general balance of accounts. There were reasonable grounds for optimism on this
score, since it would now be going on to Thessaloniki, thanks to Efi Strousa’s assistance, and then to
Valencia, thanks to the support of Maria Teresa Beguiristain. The exhibition would thus be shown at a
minimum of three venues.
RTB recalled that quite a number of members had criticised this project at the outset and expressed
reservations about the specific role that art criticism might have to play, in relation to curatorial practice, but
he had concluded nevertheless that this exhibition had contributed significantly to raising AICA’s profile and
enhancing its activities, through the media. HMH congratulated RTB on the outcome and on seeing this
project through, in the teeth of considerable odds.
- Macedonia/ FYROM
RTB reported that the Bureau had received an official protest from the Greek Section (Efi Strousa) about
the erroneous references that had been made to the state of ‘Macedonia’ on the AICA website and in AICA
documents. On behalf of the Bureau, he expressed his unreserved apologies and confirmed that the Bureau
would henceforth adhere strictly to UNESCO’s policy for (as proved to be the case) designating this country
the ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)’. In order to save time, HMH proposed to Efi
Strousa that, if she were in agreement with this decision (which she was), it might be preferable to circulate
separately the document signed by members of AICA-Hellas, that she had brought with her, rather than
read it out, in full. This was agreed.
RTB went on to say that he had recently received a visit from the Ambassador of FYROM, who had invited
AICA to collaborate with him, in developing some form of joint project in situ. RTB had proposed combining
this with a seminar in Skopje and Yerevan, such as had already been under consideration by the Bureau
and had formed the basis for a recent bid for funds to UNESCO’s Participation Programmed for the new
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 3/11

Biennium, 2008-9. This would also fit in with the existing plans for a publication on Twentieth Century Art in
the Balkans, by the end of the current year. He mentioned, in this connection, that he had planned to visit
Macedonia at the end of the month to take discussions a stage further, but that he had unfortunately been
compelled to postpone this trip, for reasons beyond his control. He also mentioned, in passing, that the
recent deterioration of the situation in Armenia posed a threat to Yerevan’s ability to take part in the project.
Publications
RTB reminded colleagues that it was imperative for AICA to produce a French publication of selected
papers from the three African seminars, in the course of the current calendar year – otherwise, it would
have to return the Centre National du Livre’s grant towards the cost of translations, and this would be
stupid! As had been already agreed, only a selection of the papers delivered at these seminars would be
published in hard copy, though all the papers would be made freely available on the website.
Funds permitting, RTB reaffirmed the Bureau’s resolve to produce an updated and modified version of
AICA’s 50 th anniversary publication in English, before the elections at the end of the calendar year. He
estimated the total cost at 6000 euros.
- Congress
Both AICA Australia and the members of the Bureau much regretted the forced cancellation of plans for the
Annual Congress to be held in July 2008, owing to the lack of response from the two principal government
funders, in time to be of any use. However, HMH reported that he had seen Tony Bond, the Secretary of
AICA Australia, only a few days previously, and the latter had held out some prospect of reinstating this
proposal for a Congress in Australia for the year 2012 – the more especially, since the Federal government
had just taken steps to set up a new fund that would support international events of this kind, in future.
RTB thanked Pilar Parcerisas and Maria Teresa Beguiristain warmly for offering to organise the Congress in
Barcelona and Valencia, respectively, at a later period in the year and said he would leave it to them to give
fuller details of this, under the relevant point on the agenda.
- Elections
RTB once more emphasised the importance of taking into account the full implications of the phenomenon
of globalisation and the advantages of considering the possibility of electing a new President who did not
come from the ‘West’.
- Activities of the Bureau
RTB stressed that the Bureau had to shoulder an ever-increasing burden of work. Anne-Claude Morice was
due back from maternity leave at the beginning of May. It would then be necessary to take decisions, not
only about her own future, but about that of Alexandra Gillet and Akiko Issaverdens. He hoped that
Alexandra could stay on until the end of the year, to see through the EEYA project. It would be necessary to
increase the amount of time that Akiko spent in the office, if the Bureau were to be confident of meeting all
its existing commitments.
RTB said that it was vital, in this context, for Board members to understand the importance of identifying
new sources of funding. HMH thanked RTB for his report and congratulated him on his hard work over the
past six months. He also agreed that the EEYA project had been of considerable value to AICA.
Discussion
Marianne de Tolentino said she was very interested in the EEYA project and asked whether it might be
possible to consider presenting this exhibition in the Caribbean, with the help of European funding. Lisbeth
Rebollo Gonçalves said that, if the exhibition went to the Caribbean, she would also be interested in taking it
on to Brazil. She pointed out that the Museum of Contemporary Art in São Paulo was due to move into a
new building in 2009-10, and that it would, therefore, be in a better position to take over the exhibition at
that point.
Tineke Reijnders congratulated the team for organising the exhibition, but asked why all the sponsors of the
exhibition had been mentioned in RTB’s report, but not his account of the seminar in Cape Town.
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 4/11

RTB replied that, as far as the exhibition was concerned, he did not know whether it would be possible to
keep it together for such a long period, as several works would have to be returned to their owners. As for
European funding, AICA had already been unsuccessful in its earlier application to the EU. Thessaloniki
envisaged the possibility of creating some kind of ‘No Borders’ Biennale, though he could not say what
chances there were that this might succeed, in view of the costs involved. At all events, he could well
imagine building in some stopovers in the Americas, if these plans ever came to fruition.
Maribel Königer asked what criteria were used, to fix the annual tariffs applicable to the various Sections.
RTB replied that the tariffs applied, in accordance with UNESCO’s recommendations, were those used by
the World Bank.
Treasurer’s Report
Angelica Bäumer explained that her report was set out in such a way as to enable Board members to make
comparisons between the figures for 2006 and those for 2007.
Point by point, she went through the different sources of income for the two successive years.
The prospective out-turn for 2007 was not particularly good, since it looked as if there would be a final
deficit in the region of 5000 euros.
The budget predicated for 2008 was 189,000 euros.
AB highlighted the routine nature of most of the Bureau’s work and the fact that everything it did cost
money. Hence the importance of ensuring that Sections paid over their dues on a regular basis, if AICA was
to operate effectively.
The most expensive items for the year just ended had been the publications and the EEYA exhibition.
HMH thanked AB for her report. He added that Haydee Venegas, the President ot the Finance Commission
had sent her regrets at being prevented from attending the meeting, as she had had to go into hospital at
short notice. However, Haydee had agreed to allow him to mention that she would be a firm candidate for
the post of Treasurer at the elections in the autumn.
Phyllis Braff asked whether the Bureau had received a grant towards the translation costs of the
proceedings of the seminars in Africa. AB replied that it had, and RTB specified that the main financial
support had come from the CNL (Centre National du Livre). AB stressed that it would still make a huge
difference, if additional funds could be raised from alternative sources.
RTB added, à propos of this, that all documents issued by the Bureau that had to be translated were dealt
with by HMH, Maria Teresa Beguiristain and himself, in a rough and ready way.
Dorota Monkiewicz commented that the number of members of the Polish Section indicated in Angelica’s
report did not correspond to the number of subscriptions paid over by the Section and asked for the
document that had been circulated to be updated, to reflect this.
Christian Chambert, likewise, said that there were only 253 members in the Swedish Section, whereas the
figure given in the document had been 263.
Marianne de Tolentino added that she had paid over the Dominican Republic’s subscriptions for 2007 and
2008, but that these did not feature in the paper.
RTB explained that the figures that had been circulated corresponded to the calendar year, and that the
reason for the apparent discrepancies was that these payments fell outside the period covered by the endof-year
reconciliation. He assured Board members that, so far as was possible, the membership lists were
updated on a regular basis, to incorporate the most recent information received from the different Sections.
Finally, he pointed out that, in analysing the documents that had been circulated, members should
remember to make a distinction between the numbers of members in a Section at any given time and the
number of fees that were due. The latter figure was directly related to the number of stamps sent out in the
course of the year. HMH reminded Board members yet again that they were obliged to account in detail for
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 5/11

all stamps they had been sent in a given financial year and were liable to pay for all each and every one,
that had not been returned unused, or otherwise accounted for. The Bureau had drafted a new simplified
version of the annual return that was required from Sections and would shortly be posting this on the
website and sending it out to all Sections to complete, in relation to the financial year just ended.
Liam Kelly returned to the issue of the small anticipated deficit for 2007. He agreed that the publication of
the proceedings of the three seminars in Africa would have to go ahead, so that the Association would not
have to reimburse the grant for translations, that had already been spent. However, he suggested that
preparing a new edition of the 50 th anniversary publication should not be regarded as such a high priority, in
the circumstances.
As far as the payment of subscriptions was concerned, Phyllis Braff suggested that it should be easier for
countries paying in euros to settle their dues first, as this was likely to be easier for them than for others.
HMH reminded her, however, that the USA was now the only Section to continue to use the Association’s
dollars account for the settlement of their dues.
Efi Strousa sought clarification of an issue relating to the return of unused stamps at the end of the financial
year. She thanked AB for all the work she had done to sort things out, in the course of her mandate.
AB replied that this had not always been easy, as she could not be in Paris often enough, to be able to keep
a regular check on the financial aspects of the Association’s daily business.
3. Any other Business
- Proxy votes
HMH drew the Board’s attention to the letter of that had been circulated with the Board papers and the two
issues (one major and the other minor) on which the Board’s guidance was sought, namely:
A. Proxy voting
B. The exercise by the President and one or two other Board members of a second vote, in certain
specific circumstances.
A. Liam Kelly mentioned that, quite apart from the fact that a relatively small percentage of Board
members were able on any occasion to attend a Board meeting in person, it was necessary to take into
account the likelihood that a number of those who could were likely not to be able to stay on to the very
end. For this reason, he suggested bringing the General Assembly forward to a point, say, two days before
the end of the Congress. Christian Chambert suggested increased use of the website for sounding out
members’ opinions on issues that had to be submitted to a vote and the introduction of a procedure that
would facilitate Board members’ task, in presenting to their members issues that had been discussed by the
Board. He added that he could not see there was anything about proxy voting in the Statutes.
Maribel Königer agreed that there was nothing in the International Statutes about proxy voting, but she said
that the Austrian Section used it to help overcome the problems connected with the federalised structure of
the membership. In the Austrian case, however, no individual was allowed to cast more than three proxy
votes, and candidates in elections were prohibited from casting proxy votes. The Austrian Section already
made use of the website for constituting groups, and for communicating with members in the run-up to
elections.
Efi Strousa concluded that, if the Board did not wish to propose changing the Statutes, it would have to
accept the principle of proxy voting, with a ceiling on the number of proxy votes that any single person
would be allowed to cast. Certainly, a greater degree of flexibility was called for, in her view.
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 6/11

Lars Saari was sceptical about the whole issue of proxy voting, since this, for him, posed a question of
ethics and democratic accountability, to the extent that members of the Bureau were in a position to
accumulate a disproportionate amount of votes.
RTB explained once more that AICA’s Statutes were based on French law, and on the 1901 Law on nonprofit-making
Associations, in particular. The problem lay in the size of the Association’s membership, which
meant that nothing could be decided without recourse to proxy voting. It was perfectly normal, to expect that
not all Board members could be present at every meeting, and casting doubt on the efficacy of proxy voting
was likely to impair the Association’s ability to discharge its duties effectively.
In summing up, HMH said that he and his fellow Bureau members were convinced that there could be no
suggestion of impropriety, in the way the issue of proxy opting had been handled in the past – not least,
because no decisions of substance had been taken at Board meetings that had not also been subsequently
referred to the General Assembly for formal approval, and because the proxy votes that had been sought,
and obtained, in the past, a means of reinforcing a sense of representativity, had never, in fact been
invoked. Moreover, there was nothing to say that proxy votes, if allowable, had to be vested in members of
the Bureau rather than in other individual Board members, though experience suggested that this was,
indeed, more likely than not to be the case.
1. HMH accepted the helpful recommendation, that Board meetings should open with a public
statement of the number and names of members deemed eligible to vote that day.
2. He asserted that it was quite clear that AICA’s Statutes were governed by French law and not,
somehow, ‘free-standing’, as had been suggested.
3. Given that there was a lack of clarity about proxy voting (and even the use of the term), owing to a
conflict about what was said (or not said) about it in the Statutes and the current Regulations and
uncertainty about the interpretation of the Statutes under French law, there was a need for the Bureau to
formulate a clear view and circulate Board members about this, well in advance of the next Board meeting
and General Assembly
4. There then remained the options for the Board of proposing to the General Assembly a continuation
of the status quo, with or without the supposed benefits of proxy voting or, if needs be, of changing the
Statutes (e.g. to permit proxy voting, if necessary, or to reduce the threshold for quoracy).
B. One or two Board members spoke out against anyone exercising more than one vote on the Board. RTB
suggested that HMH, in any event, possessed two votes, in his dual capacity of International President and
President of the Open Section.
N.B. HMH himself considers that this might be a complication, given also that others may also legitimately
have a claim to a second vote, if they combine the functions of President of a Section and Chair of a
Commission, for example, or that of President of a Section with that of Vice-President of the Association.
The Bureau have subsequently decided, on reflection that they wish to propose that the only form of ‘double
voting’ that should be allowed should take the form of a second, casting vote by the President, in the case
of a tied vote by members of the Board on any individual issue. In the absence of comments to the contrary
or alternative suggestions by Board members before the end of May 2008, the Bureau will set about drafting
a proposal for the minimal change to the Statues that this would require, for circulation to the membership
at least two months in advance of the next General Assembly).
At the end of the debate, Angus Stewart formally proposed that the correct way forward would now, indeed,
be for the Bureau to seek a legal ruling on the field of jurisdiction that covered the AICA Statutes and to
prepare suitable options for exercising (or continuing to exercise) a quorum, that could be debated and
voted upon at the General Assembly. This was agreed.
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 7/11

- Archives de la Critique d’Art
HMH thanked Jean-Marc Poinsot for attending the meeting, in his capacity as ex officio member of the
Board, on a reciprocal basis with representatives of the AICA Bureau and gave him the floor.
Jean-Marc Poinsot reported that the principal news he could give was that a decision had been taken to
construct a new building that would be completed in 2012. The challenge was not merely to raise funds for
constructing a new building that would provide a permanent home for the Archive, but to promote activities
in the fields of criticism and research.
Two years ago, the Archives had organised a joint seminar on Pierre Restany with AICA. The Proceedings
were due to be published in autumn 2008 and would be particularly rich in new material. Activities such as
this provided a good opportunity for taking a critical look at the Archive.
The Archive also had connections with the Getty. Its resources were of sufficient quality to act as a spur to
international collaboration. It was currently developing new residency programmes and themes for a range
of international seminars.
Jena-Marc Poinsot distributed copies of a briefing document to everyone present and invited comments and
suggestions.
Dorota Monkiewicz asked where the Archive was located. JMP gave a brief account of its history and
current location near Rennes, in Brittany, on premises which it shared with the regional collections (FRAC),
which planned to move to a building directly opposite. The Archive’s new building would benefit from
financial support from the City of Rennes, the Ministry of Culture and modest contributions from private
sources, earmarked for specific activities.
Marie-Luise Syring asked how members of AICA could participate in the Archive’s activities, and what role
they might be able to play. JMP explained that the Archive and AICA had always maintained close links at
an individual level, and that everyone was free to choose whether or not to participate in specific
programmes.
Among other things, the Archive also edited a French language quarterly review, that was dedicated to new
publications about art in French and provided a synthesis of what was going on elsewhere, by country and
region. However, this publication needed additional funding if it was to grow and develop. Members of AICA
could be of assistance, in providing information about other archives and publications.
HMH thanked JMP and stressed the importance of the work that the Archives had undertaken in the field of
art criticism over the past 20 years.
4. Reports of the Commissions
HMH introduced the subject, by thanking Commission members for their valuable work. At the same time,
he recorded his disappointment that it had still proved impossible to persuade any single Commission to
draft clear terms of reference and confirm its membership and their terms of office, for publication on the
website, despite repeated request for this to be done, over a period of from two to three years. He
considered that the status, purpose and functions of the Commissions needed to be looked at in some
detail, at a later date. In the meantime, he himself would now attempt to prepare outline descriptions of
them, and of their current role and membership, for presentation on the website.
- Electoral and Membership Commission
AB reported that she and Angus Stewart had examined the dossiers of individual applicants to join AICA
over the previous six months. Practically, according to the new statutes, everyone elected to one of the
national Sections had been accepted. Though, the commission emphasized there had been one or two
cases where the applicants appeared not to have had three full years of solid experience.
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 8/11

HMH drew attention to the fact that certain Sections still had not submitted draft new Statutes or had not
made the recommended changes to their Statutes more than three years after new International Statutes
had been approved. He warned the Presidents of those Sections that they were now disqualified from
voting at Board meetings, proposing new members of the Association and participating in the elections at
the end of the year, until and unless they took urgent steps to rectify the matter.
Christian Chambert asked the Bureau, specifically to confirm that Sections might now propose new
members at the time of the interim Board meeting, as well as at the time of the second Board meeting of the
year, which customarily preceded the General Assembly. This was agreed, though HMH pointed out that
the General Assembly still provided the only occasion in the year when the status of new members could be
formally endorsed.
- Fellowship Commission
Tineke Reijnders reported on the work of her Commission, as follows:
Criteria for membership via AICA’s Fellowship Fund
1. Professional critics/curators from countries economically not well off, in general from Band 2 countries, and
therefore cut off from the regular possibility of being/becoming an AICA-member, may apply or may be invited by
AICA for membership via AICA’s Fellowship Fund.
2. Invited candidate members are compelled to pass the standard regulations for membership and to provide an
indication of their financial urgency.
3. Candidate members join their national section if possible, otherwise they join the free section. The president of
these sections will countersign the application.
4. The Fellowship membership will be valid for three years.
5. AICA’s International Fellowship Commission is responsible for actively searching and inviting candidates. It is also
responsible for the evaluation of the applications. This responsibility is controlled by the Executive Committee and the
Financial Oversight Commission.
Ad 1. In exceptional cases it might be fair to consider also candidates from Band A countries (Band A means for
AICA-membership a regular subscription of 50 euros, Band B: 30 euros). Situations are subject to change; evaluation
should be left at the discretion of the International Fellowship Commission, that will seek advice from financial experts
of NGO’s like Prince Clausfund.
Ad 2. Individual financial urgency must be considered in the national context. Expertise should be sought as above.
Ad 3. Beneficiaries might normally be guaranteed three years’ free membership, on the strict understanding that there
would be no extensions. After that period alternative funding must be sought. In exceptional cases the International
Fellowship Commission might propose a new term if the funding permits such an exception.
Ad 4. Members of AICA in Band B sections or Funds with expertise are invited to provide names of talented critics
who merit a membership. So far several key experts have been consulted. The lists of selected candidates should be
ready before the Board Meeting that preceeds the annual congress. The selected candidates than will get their written
invitation form the Bureau in Paris.
As far as discharge of the fee concerns critics who are already member of AICA, discreteness must be guaranteed.
Essential to the Fellowship Fund is the condition that individual AICA-members voluntarily participate in this Fund.
Members (of national sections and of the Open Section) are requested to pay twice their international fee, which
means 100 euros (plus the national fee), or 60 euros (plus the national fee) per annum. The presidents of all the
sections are invited to make a serious and competitive effort of at least a 25% result.
Members of the Executive Committee together with the members of the Fellowship Commission do actively
encourage the national boards. The results of the national percentage will be published regularly on the AICA-site, in
order to stimulate and to enhance the loyalty of the old members with the new members.
Donating members receive a declaration that states their participation.
Fellowship Fund Commission
15-03-08
Tineke Reijnders, Marie-Pascale Gildemyn, Irini Savvani
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 9/11

HMH thanked TR and her fellow Commissioners for their sensitive proposals and expressed the hoped that
the fund could now be officially launched, without further delay. He pointed out that it was now agreed that
all proposals for distributing funds should be channeled through the Commission, but that the options
remained, of donating three-year (or longer) Fellowships either anonymously, or to an individual specifically
named by the donor. He suggested that priority should be given, initially, to subventing new members of the
Association, and certain individuals and members from less well-off countries, rather than whole Sections.
Other Commissions
Christian Chambert again raised the possibility of establishing a Commission for the website. There seemed
to be general support for this.
5. Future congresses
- 2008: Spain
Pilar Parcerisas and Maria Teresa Beguiristain outlined their proposals for holding the next Congress in
Spain, as a replacement for Sydney.
PP pointed out that the lead time for planning this was very short. In Barcelona, the Congress could take
place in the auditorium of the Museum of Contemporary art (MACBA), during the first or second week of
November. It would be organised in partnership with the University. One possible theme might be ‘memory,
though this was still quite open to discussion. It would still be necessary to raise funds for the project.
The second part of the Congress might then take place in Valencia, at the same time as the exhibition, ‘No
Borders’. Another suggestion might be to go on to Sevilla, at the time of the Biennale there.
Thus, the General Assembly might take place in Barcelona and the General Assembly in Valencia.
MTB, for her part, considered that the theme suggested by René Berger might be appropriate, and that this
could provide the basis for one session in Valencia. It would not be a problem, to find suitable spaces in
Valencia.
All practical details will be sent out to Board members as soon as possible.
Brane Kovic congratulated the Spanish and Catalan Sections for offering to take over the responsibility for
organising the Congress at such short notice. The theme of ‘Art in the Age of Globalisation’ seemed rather
trite to him, and he suggested, instead, addressing a range of issues relating to art and money. He also
considered that the exhibition, ‘No Borders’, would not provide a sufficiently strong point of attraction to
justify going to Valencia, since he, for one, would rather go to Sevilla. Finally, he suggested that the theme
proposed by René Berger should provide the subject for a seminar rather than provide the subject of the
entire Congress.
RTB replied that he considered the theme suggested by René Berger, in relation to the art economy, would
be well worth rounding out and developing further. Further work would have to be done on developing the
practical aspects. However, he assured colleagues that there were plenty of sites to visit in both Valencia
and Sevilla.
Dorota Monkiewicz considered that the subject of Art and Money was entirely relevant and would shortly be
the subject of investigation by the US and Polish Sections, as well.
Liam Kelly said that he, too, was preoccupied with this subject and considered that the Congress would
provide a good opportunity for further reflecting on some or the issues involved.
Marianne de Tolentino also mentioned the financial pressures on the exercise of art criticism in the
Caribbean and said she intended to write a paper on this subject.
Pilar Parecisias proposed that a date in June should be set, as the deadline for the customary call for
papers.
Lisbeth Rebollo Gonçalvez considered that the two themes that had been proposed were, in fact, intimately
linked.
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 10/11

- 2009: Ireland
Ciaran Bennett reminded Board members that the theme of this Congress would be ‘Art into Science’. He
was aware that this combination might look problematic to some people, but considered it was most
necessary nowadays to think across certain boundaries. He mentioned that AICA Ireland would be able to
benefit from Gulbenkian Foundation support, when it came to funding the publication of the Proceedings.
The papers would comprise contributions from three ‘keynote speakers’ each day. The dates proposed
were 26-31 October 2009 and would coincide with the centenary of the birth of Francis Bacon. The
Congress would be held in Dublin and Cork.
Phyllis Braff suggested voting in favour by a show of hands for or against holding the next Congress in
Spain. The great majority of those present voted in favour.
HMH warmly thanked those colleagues who had presented plans for future Congresses and asked also to
record his thanks to Anthony Bond and his colleagues in Australia for all the hard work they had expended,
in good faith, on the abortive plans for holding the Congress there in 2008.
6. News from the sections
HMH reported his pleasure at receiving an invitation at short notice to represent the Association at the
annual meeting of the Chinese Association of Art Critics, organised by Professor LaoZhu. He had greatly
regretted that neither he nor the Secretary-General had been able to accept this invitation, because the
dates coincided exactly with the long-planned seminar in Cape Town. However, he remained optimistic
about the prospects for establishing a (mainland) Chinese Section of AICA, in due course.
7. Date of the next meeting
The meeting continued in the afternoon with a 90-minute discussion of the themes raised in René Berger’s
letter, at the Galerie Eof. The next formal meeting of the Board will be in Barcelona, at the time of the
Annual Congress in Spain, in November 2008.
The President closed the meeting at 1.00 p.m.
Minutes of the Administrative Council – Paris – 15 March 2008 11/11