The artistic director is responsible for setting the artistic vision of the festival. They take upon selecting and programming the artistic productions participating in the festival in accordance with the ethos, strategy, and traditions of the festival. The power in this model, for better or worse, usually lies with the individual and decisions are made using a top-down approach.

PROS

An internationally recognised and historically successful model, a singular vision creates a uniform and cohesive programme with a very solid artistic approach and quality.

CONS

The model is sometimes regarded as elitist, targeting very specific audiences and not open to wider classes and groups in society. Highly dependent on the individual.

Similar to the artistic director model, the artistic committee model consists of a group of artistic programmers, whose mission is to choose and set the activities and programme of the festival. Decisions might be made collectively using a top-down approach or with a programming rubric. Festivals might have both an artistic director and an artistic committee. In recent years, there has been a growing presence of a collective Artistic Direction, in which a duo or team share the role and curatorial responsibilities equally (for example, the new artistic directors of Festival TransAmériques in Montreal, in its 2022 edition).

PROS

A cohesive and quality driven artistic programme with the benefit of having multiple voices and programming experts who share the responsibility of curating. A more horizontal, collaborative and less authoritarian artistic direction, which allows for more dialogue and feedback regarding curatorial decisions. Curatorial teams also allows for more people to be in charge of the decisions, covering more work to be considered in the final program. 

CONS

Questions around leadership and difficulty making decisions or presenting a clear festival identity and mission. May still be elitist or exclusionary.

There is more than one approach to open call programming. Open calls could be completely open, such as a fringe festival, where artists might pay a fee to participate but there is no selection process; or open calls could be followed by a curatorial process, where an artistic director and/or committee select works from the open call to be included in the festival programme.

PROS

A more inclusive approach, providing equal opportunity to artists to participate in the festival programme. Often leads to programmes that are broad, diverse, experimental, and unexpected.

CONS

Might create the illusion of greater access, equality, and inclusion without addressing other barriers to participation (e.g., socio-economic, geographic, racial, professional training of the artists). It’s not always clear “how open” is the Open Call: how it is distributed, in which language(s) is written, or who is not receiving it. Artistic quality or ethics may be compromised. 

Programming is a mixture of the previous models. The main festival is programmed by an artistic director and/or an artistic committee and the fringe festival is programmed through an open call. Usually, the main festival happens in theaters and official venues, while the fringe festival may take place in the streets or in alternative spaces. The festivals happen concurrently.

PROS

The “best of both worlds” this model is traditional and popular in many western countries and societies. Creating a vibrant and joyful atmosphere and taking advantage of the momentum created by a festival, successful business model and fertile space for generating networks and cooperation. It also allows for a cross between more established or well-known artists, and younger artists who are not part of the establishment yet.

CONS

Creates a hierarchical relationship between “high art” (the main festival) and “low brow” (the fringe festival), privileging certain art forms and artists over others. This division risks excluding artists and audiences from different backgrounds from different components of the festival.  It’s important to reflect how to communicate and advertise the program of the fringe festival in relation to the main festival, so it doesn’t lose its “fringe” quality.

A bottom-up or grass roots approach to programming, these models place decision-making with the audience or community and programming is decided through democratic vote or community engagement. These models are often used in tandem with other models, for example, audience selection might be used to programme a “best of the fest” showcase towards the end of a festival.

PROS

A highly democratic and interactive model that directly engages with audiences and society. Programming is likely to be representative of the community and foster strong engagement.

CONS

Could present (and encourage) biases and stereotypes present in society, preventing marginalised artistic voices from being represented and audiences from engaging with people and ideas new or different to themselves.

Similar to the artistic director or committee model, however, the artistic vision and programming responsibilities are fulfilled by (or in collaboration with) a visiting artist or curator. This model can also be used to transition between artistic directors (as is seen in the “rEvolver” festival case study).

PROS

Vibrant and refreshing artistic programming that can manage to balance the traditions of the festival with new and outside-the-box thinking. Access to artists the festival might not previously have had.

CONS

Inconsistent programming and less opportunity for curators and festivals to grow or develop over time. Lack of stability and increased time spent going over operational procedures.

Ghost Curating is a way of including artists who are not part of the “official system” (or who don’t want to be) in a festival, especially for large institutions who have a big budget and want to include alternative or marginalized voices, less established artists, and/or self-trained creators. It allows for 'establishments' to make selections of artists not through official channels (open calls, commissions) but through informal selections. The way of including them may not be necessarily as part of the official program, but in parallel activities or supporting them with other kind of resources (budget, space). The word “Ghost” refers to the dynamic of the curators removing themselves from the equation. In this model the curator functions as a facilitator between artists and festivals, supporting with organizational aspects and trying to keep their hands off as much as possible, so the artists are (and remain) in complete artistic control. Sometimes it is not known or even advertised that these artists are participating in a specific festival, allowing for an element of surprise (as opposed to perfectly scripted festivals).

PROS: 

This structure is less formal, more flexible. The festival opens itself to new artists, or voices that are marginalized, underrepresented, or lack visibility.

CONS: 

Is not very well known yet, so it may be confusing for curators, artists and audiences, as they may not consider it part of the official structure. There can also be an illusion of inclusivity and representation.