Between a Butcher Shop and an Experimental Project Space, by: Aura Baltrušaitytė

Between a Butcher Shop and an Experimental Project Space, by: Aura Baltrušaitytė

On the edge of the inner city, near the canal, building number 10 on Winschoterkade Street looks like any building. At first glance, its architecture is typical, and the light-colored entrance does not indicate anything out of the ordinary. However, once opened, its doors lead to a space called SIGN. This project space, rather than a traditional gallery, brings art and the public together showcasing new contemporary artworks of young artists. Sign’s artistic manager Marie-Jeanne Ameln and business manager Ron Ritzerfeld shared SIGN’S beginnings, philosophy, place in Groningen’s art landscape, and activity.

SIGN has been active for more than 35 years. Could you reflect on how the project space was born and how the artistic direction has evolved?

M-J: I started SIGN with a friend of mine back in December of 1988. We started SIGN in the same building where it is now because my friend was the owner of it. It was a former butchery, and some of the original interior is still visible, for example, office tiles and metal floors are from butchery days. My friend wanted to show artistic publications and I already aimed to have exhibitions for young artists on a national level. Back then, I just graduated from Minerva Art Academy and also wanted to give silkscreen lessons in the backspace. I thought that was a nice combination together with the exhibitions.

R: Since the beginning, it was a stage for young artists, mainly those who just graduated.

M-J: In the 1980s and 1990s I already traveled across the country to see different graduation shows of the artists. Based on their exhibitions, I chose people who I found interesting to show in SIGN. It was not only autonomous art since I was also interested in design and fashion. I went to Arnhem to the fashion department where I saw interesting shoe designs or quircky fashion combined with sculptures. From the start, art that had an experimental point of view was an interest of mine, especially in the context of hardcore autonomous art of the 80s and its emphasis on minimalism works, lyrical abstraction, or very traditional paintings. I was interested in interdisciplinary art that was starting to gain momentum.

R: Yes, the scene in the 80s was changing, between design and autonomous art, the intersection of interdisciplinary art was starting to come along.

How and when did you meet Ron?
R: I exhibited my artwork here in SIGN in 1993. One day, I just walked into SIGN and asked if I could exhibit my art there.
M-J: There is more to it [laughing]. This was a super nice story. I had a somewhat wild exhibition of design with super funny furniture made from red velvet. Ron came to see the exhibition and we struck up a conversation about this furniture. I even remember what Ron was wearing—he had a knitted tennis jumper with a big collar. This was our first encounter and later on, he came by and asked to have an exhibition, first proposing to visit him in his studio here, in Groningen. Back then I usually did a studio visit, where I could meet the artists and see their work. So I visited Ron, we talked and made plans for his exhibition.
R: Later on I kept coming back to SIGN, and started to help with the administration and financial part of managing a project space. I was not there every day, but I helped when I could. Eventually, I helped with more and more things until I permanently became a part of SIGN in 1995.

The space is primarily sustained by subsidies rather than private funding or paid entry. What led to this choice of funding model?

M-J: The friend of mine, with whom I started SIGN, had a more commercial point of view. He wanted to sell artworks and I wanted to sustain SIGN depending on subsidies because I found it rather difficult to sell experimental stuff and make it commercial. Because of this disagreement, my friend soon wanted to be in the background as a landlord, giving me all the management responsibilities. So the idea of a non-profit space was there initially.

How have you maintained SIGN for all these years?

M-J: In the ’80s and ’90s in the Netherlands, there was not a lot of work for people who graduated in the art direction from the Minerva Art Academy or the University of Groningen, so they could get social benefits and start working on their projects—such as running a project space.

R: There was a lot of unemployment, so the government used to give out financial assistance and social benefits to unemployed individuals. You, as an artist, or curator, could work securely without worrying about the money. The government assured you that you had something to do.

M-J: Also, people responsible for giving out social benefits could see the input of SIGN and that it was a nice space for individuals to develop and pursue their artistry so we kept having support from the city of Groningen. We could also get incidental subsidies back in the day, for example, 6 thousand guilders per year.

R: Which was nothing, honestly [laughing].

M-J: I also asked the artists for a small amount of 100 guilders as a participation fee to exhibit in the space, while I took care of the publicity and space itself. And since 2004 we have applied for various subsidies from the city of Groningen or public organizations such as the Mondriaan Fund. For this reason, we had to be precise in the direction we wanted to pursue—in our case, a non-commercial or Stichting space.

Since your funding model allows for full creative freedom, how does SIGN decide which artists to collaborate with? What is the overall process for selecting and scouting artists, and why does SIGN handle this internally rather than using open calls?

M-J: At SIGN, we prioritize actively scouting artists instead of using open calls. It’s important to pursue our ideas and decide what to present in the space, rather than waiting for artists to come to us. When you visit graduation shows and see art in person, you get a real sense of what’s happening now and the people behind the work. This direct approach allows us to understand both the art and the artist’s intentions, giving us a deeper context to build on.

R: The selection ‘on paper’ is not that interesting; it’s much more engaging to see artists and their artworks in real life and to observe how seriously the artists take their work. You can already start to combine it in your head with different themes and think about the context you can create around these artists. Also, with open calls, you have to disappoint a lot of people, and I don’t like that [laughing].

How do the themes that artists explore align with your curatorial vision, and how do you balance offering artistic freedom with providing guidance within a chosen context? What key factors influence your choice of a specific exhibition context?

R: We have a rough idea, a general context since we have to write plans for various funds. While we have a general direction, the exhibitions become clearer as we engage with artists and their work. When we find an artist that aligns with our vision, we refine our ideas further and better reflect on the context and the art we want to present. We are particularly interested in artists examining their relationships with their surroundings, the world, and society, which is a central focus for us. This societal connection should be evident in their work, especially on a social level. Visiting graduation shows reveals the interests of artists and the themes they are exploring. We encounter many artists and aim to group them within a similar context while preserving their unique ideas and fostering dialogue among them. It’s a two-way process: we observe the art to create context, and we also have a context that informs the selection of artists. There is always an emphasis on contemporary ideas and expressions among young artists.

M-J: We are interested in young artists’ perspectives, particularly regarding how they navigate identity. Personal stories about their experiences with the world and their identity—such as queerness and national identity—are what make art compelling. Our recent exhibitions often draw on themes from previous shows, creating continuity that reflects the ongoing relevance of these subjects.

Why is it important for SIGN to encourage artists to create new work instead of just exhibiting existing art? Could you elaborate on the general working periods for artists and the typical residency timeline?

M-J: We want to avoid artists repeating the same work after graduation, as that can be quite boring. Our goal is to encourage young artists to step out of their comfort zones and create new artwork in a fresh context, producing art on the spot. It’s more of a practical do-it-yourself attitude that we encourage artists to adopt. During the working period, which is usually a month, we provide all the necessary financial and practical facilities. Of course, before that, they need to submit a proposal outlining their general idea for what they want to create and exhibit, along with an estimation of the costs and resources.

R.: We are curious about the artistic development of young artists, their new ideas, and how they will evolve after graduation.

What attracts artists to collaborate with and exhibit their work at SIGN?

R.: Well, the fact that we encourage artists to make new work is important. We allow freedom of expression while helping to realize their ideas and artworks in a practical sense. We also support artists financially, following a fair practice code.

M-J: We have a natural playfulness in our program and approach. Once an artist is chosen, there’s a laid-back vibe here; we trust the artists and the process, encouraging them to create freely, contributing to our unique atmosphere.

R: Over the years, we have become known for this kind of attitude and trust in artists. We don’t chase the most famous or promising artists. Instead, we focus on the context of the works we want to show and the art being produced. Even if an individual piece doesn’t end up in a museum, the exhibition can still be impactful.

M-J: We don’t look at how other places select artists, we make our own choices based on our curatorial vision. We don’t engage in cherry-picking, instead, we bring artists into specific contexts where meaningful connections can occur.

R.: I think we are successful in making these combinations, creating exhibitions with multiple artists that deal with similar themes while allowing for enough variation.

What are the main values of SIGN, and how are they reflected in your activities and approach to art mediation?

M-J: Giving a podium to the artists.
R: The art has to be open-ended and inviting, interesting and related to other works, also relatable to the audience. We are interested in what artists have to say. It has to be mostly new work, or just realized, without a fixed spot in the art landscape, dynamic, and still searching for its place.
M-J: Art should not be overly curated or developed. New artists already sort of have a direction, but it is not fixed or over-developed it has roughness and playfulness that we want to present.

Beyond exhibitions at SIGN, you also bring art into public spaces. What inspired this decision, and was there a pivotal project that marked this shift? Could you share an example that shows the impact of taking art outside?

R: We like to experiment with different atmospheres and contexts where artwork can be presented, as this changes the meaning of the work. It’s interesting to play with that. That’s why we do things outside—it’s not typically an art atmosphere, which shifts the context of the art. The public’s reactions are also quite different compared to traditional settings.

M-J: No one asks for art in public spaces, and that’s why it’s important and exciting to do a project outside. We want to get out of this art bubble. People often have fixed ideas about what art can be, even inside SIGN, and we try to show it to those who don’t know anything about art.

R: By doing interventions in public space, you can change not only the meaning of the artwork but also the meaning of the space itself. For example, in 2017, we did a project called Parrhesia, where we framed certain spots in the city by putting construction fences around various places in Groningen to protect them. One of those places was a new construction site. We placed a fence there, and it stayed for two years, unnoticed.

M-J: Inside the fence, the most beautiful flowers grew, as it was protected. The construction workers probably assumed the fences were part of their plan, so they didn’t question it and left them there. Eventually, when the construction site gained momentum, the workers removed it. But you don’t have to be afraid to do that—to provoke people a little.

R: A simple act of fencing something off changed the entire meaning of that place. That’s how you can play with interventions in public spaces.

M-J: A project that could be considered the first step into public space was presented in 2004, called Segment XI or Passage. In this installation, SIGN’s interior was transformed into a passage that could be accessed publicly, day and night. It was designed so that the tunnel formed a corridor between Winschoterkade and Radebinnensingel streets. The floor of the pathway remained as it was, but the artists built white walls that narrowed towards the middle. The narrowest point was barely walkable. This marked the beginning of SIGN’s outreach to the outside world, as the passage was installed directly within SIGN’s space, creating a liminal space between inside and outside. Technically, the corridor was a public outdoor space, but it was created within the perimeter of SIGN. With this project, SIGN sought to explore the boundaries and functions of the exhibition space.

R: I remember the Alderman for Spatial Planning was there at the opening, cutting the ribbon to mark the existence of this new passage. However, shortly after, the fire department questioned whether the tunnel was safe to use and whether we needed additional approvals from the municipality of Groningen. This created a bit of confusion—while the Alderman had ceremonially opened it, his colleagues were now questioning whether it was allowed. Despite this, over time, people—and even dogs—became accustomed to the tunnel being there. They wanted to use the tunnel, but all of a sudden, there was no tunnel connecting the streets anymore. After it was disassembled, many passers-by were confused. This shows how art in public spaces can challenge expectations and have a lasting impact, not only on humans but also on animals.

How does SIGN choose its co-curators, and what criteria, beyond previous exhibitions at SIGN, are considered?

R: Of course, we know the co-curators beforehand from the projects they did at SIGN before. One of the requirements is that people should still be active in their art practices and that they have contact with other artists or even work together with other artists. And of course, there needs to be natural chemistry between us and the co-curators.

M-J: For instance, as a co-curator for the next 4 years, we have an artist, Maarten Bel. He made an educational project with children. Together with him, we want to form an educational project for children aged 16-18. Kids will do it here, at SIGN.

R: His personality was a key factor in the creation of this project and his role as co-curator.

M-J: It is really important for us that there are more voices and opinions besides ours. Co-curators bring a really specific point of view towards art that can be explored in their presentations.

In your funding applications, you emphasized the role of the PR team. How does their feedback benefit the artists, and why is it important to help them develop their careers beyond just showcasing their work?

M-J: PR is one of the most important things to spread to the public. Exhibitions are temporary, but the afterthought—a reaction about it—is long-lasting. Currently, we have two people on our PR team: Arlo, who is responsible for regular PR, especially social media, and Michiel, who deals with more reflective and artistic texts, with more personal inputs. For example, he interviews the artists. Both their observations and reflections on exhibitions can be vital tools for artists to grow and improve, and interviews can help sharpen their ideas.

R: PR can be a tool, helping to mediate art further, to communicate it outside the walls of this space and leave a permanent mark. It’s also nice that it’s not only us and our approach, but a reflection from more voices.

How does SIGN differentiate itself from other spaces funded by the Mondriaan Fund, particularly in the context of Noordenaars? What makes SIGN unique compared to similar organizations like het resort, especially considering both focus on residencies and collaborations outside traditional institutions and their emphasis on talent development and contemporary art?

M-J: het resort is a traveling art space; they don’t have a fixed project space and are more focused on talent development through open calls.

R: While many spaces engage with young artists, we specifically work with emerging talents who are not yet widely recognized or established.

M-J: I believe our relaxed and approachable atmosphere truly sets us apart from other art spaces. We prioritize creating a supportive working environment where artists feel trusted and guided on their artistic journeys. Since our office is right in the space, there’s no real separation between the artists and us. We aim to foster a sense of community, always ready to assist artists with their work, and accommodations, or even recommend great places to eat in Groningen.

R: Our goal is to challenge artists while helping them realize their ideas and bring them to life through art. We emphasize a DIY attitude and learning by doing. We pay close attention to their needs and are eager to share our knowledge and expertise.

Some art spaces focus on education. Why has SIGN chosen not to pursue this trajectory?

M-J: To activate exhibitions, we organize workshops that deal with the presented subjects. We also collaborate with, for example, Minerva Art Academy or other institutions where we familiarize our visitors with SIGN and its purpose in the art world of the Netherlands.

R: Workshops are always a part of our exhibitions where they fit the content and are possible to do, although we are not doing traditional education in the sense of looking at art and then discussing it. That is not our goal since we are not a museum.

M-J: We aim to give an extra layer with these workshops and presentations, but it is never done separately, outside the context of exhibitions.

In funding applications, one of SIGN’s visions is sustainability. In what ways does the organization aim to be sustainable, and how does this align with the idea of artists continually creating new work?

M-J: We have storage space in Veendam, which is 25 km from Groningen. There we keep different materials, for example, wood that can be used in art production. Amongst things, we also keep old electronic equipment, which is handy since artists sometimes need old televisions for their installations. Since SIGN has been going for more than 35 years, we have a range of different things that can be used and reused by the artists. We try to use as much second-hand materials as possible.

R: This is an open-ended question since the sustainability of an artist is based on making new art, so in a way, it defeats the purpose. However, some artists directly deal with sustainability in their artistic practice.

M-J: We also have our transport that we always combine. So if we pick up materials for one artist, we always combine it with other artists picking it up at the same time. We always try to be as mindful about it as possible, meaning planning our trips.

 

text by: Aura Baltrušaitytė