AiRViNe

Interim research report

Artist-in-Residence Ecosystems in Japan
Nguyễn Tú Hằng & Trần Thảo Miên
Japan Research Period: December 2025 – February 2026

Introduction

From December 2025 to February 2026, AiRViNe (Nguyễn Tú Hằng and Trần Thảo Miên) conducted field research on Artist-in-Residence (AIR) programs across Japan, visiting more than 40 organizations, including government-affiliated programs, nonprofit initiatives, artist-run spaces, and independent residencies. Through interviews with coordinators, directors, artists, and cultural administrators, this research sought to understand how the AIR ecosystem in Japan currently operates and how it is transforming.

Japan presents a particularly significant case within Asia. It established one of the earliest nationwide AIR support systems through the Agency for Cultural Affairs in 1997. Yet today, the field is undergoing a structural transition. The present moment can be described as paradoxical: while public support has significantly decreased, the number and diversity of AIR initiatives continue to expand.

A Structural Gap: Government Vision vs. AIR Practice

One of the most significant findings of this research is the existence of a gap in the understanding of AIR programs between governmental bodies and AIR organizers.

From the perspective of ministries and local governments, AIR programs function primarily as instruments of regional policy. Their objectives commonly include countering depopulation and aging communities, promoting local revitalization, strengthening community engagement, raising awareness of regional issues, and developing cultural tourism. Within this framework, AIR is positioned largely as a tool for regional development.

For organizers and coordinators, however, AIR fulfills a different role. It supports artists and their practices, facilitates artistic research, enables mobility and international exchange, creates encounters between artists and society, and expands contemporary art discourse. Several curators emphasized a crucial distinction: museum curators work with objects, whereas AIR curators or coordinators work with people. From this standpoint, AIR is not primarily a regional policy instrument but an artistic infrastructure.

This gap suggests the need for a reframing. In practice, Japanese AIR programs operate simultaneously as social platforms, artistic laboratories, mobility infrastructures, and tools of cultural diplomacy. However, current policy frameworks tend to recognize primarily the first function—local development—while overlooking the others.

Shift in Orientation: From International Exchange to Local Revitalization

Historically, AIR programs in Japan placed strong emphasis on international exchange. In recent years, however, many coordinators have observed a shift toward local revitalization as a dominant framework.

Programs such as BEPPU PROJECT and HAIOKU Group illustrate how residency activities are increasingly integrated into community engagement strategies and regional policy agendas. This shift also blurs distinctions between commissioned projects, residency-based research, and publicly funded regional initiatives. AIR is gradually moving from a model centered on cultural exchange toward one embedded in community-oriented cultural service.

The Funding Crisis and Changing Support Structures

In 2023, the Agency for Cultural Affairs abruptly reduced its AIR budget by 60 percent without prior notice. Since then, annual funding has remained at approximately 28 million yen—roughly one-sixth of its peak level. This dramatic reduction placed significant pressure on many long-standing organizations.

Figure 1: The Agency for Cultural Affairs’ budget for Artist in Residence programs (the second round of AIR assistance/2011–25). Graph updated by Hisashi Shibata based on data presented by Kanno Sachiko at the 1st Air Network Meeting, Tohoku. Source: Hisashi Shibata, AiR & Me, ICA Kyoto.

Yet despite this funding crisis, the number of AIR programs continues to grow. This apparent contradiction can be explained by three major developments. First, there has been a diversification of operators. AIR programs are no longer limited to executive committees or public cultural institutions; they now include NPOs, private companies, artist collectives, and individual initiatives. Second, public support has shifted to other ministries and policy frameworks, including regional development schemes such as the Local Revitalization Cooperator program and initiatives led by the Ministry of Economy. Third, a growing number of residencies operate under a self-funded model in which artists pay participation fees. This represents a structural shift—from programs that pay artists to come, to programs that receive payment to host artists.

While this change aligns with national policies promoting “profitable culture,” it also raises concerns about accessibility and the potential exclusion of less economically privileged artists.

The Rise of Independent Residencies

Another notable trend is the emergence of independent, organically developed residencies such as PARADISE AIR, 6okken, Hoshifune, AIR motomoto, Nazukari Warehouse, and KAB Library and Residency. These initiatives are typically collective-based rather than institution-centered, often involve practitioners beyond the visual arts, develop slowly but steadily, and are embedded in daily life rather than operating solely through short-term project cycles.

Some organizations, including Studio Kura, ThinkSchool, a-tom, and GASBON METABOLISM, have developed hybrid and sustainable business models. These cases suggest that AIR in Japan is increasingly functioning not as a temporary program but as a form of long-term cultural infrastructure.

The Precarious Role of the Coordinator

Across nearly all cases, one crucial actor consistently emerges: the coordinator. Coordinators mediate between artists and communities, translate cultural contexts, design programs, manage funding applications and reporting, and provide care as well as crisis management.

Despite their centrality, the role remains structurally vulnerable. There is no professional certification system, no standard salary framework, no formal training pathway, and no clearly defined career trajectory. In many cases, coordinators eventually become program directors or institutional leaders, yet this transition is informal and largely unrecognized. The sustainability of AIR programs may depend less on financial resources alone and more on the human infrastructure embodied by coordinators.

Rethinking Archive and Legacy

Organizations such as Youkobo Art Space and the ARCUS Project reveal another shared concern: documentation and archiving. Questions arise regarding what should be preserved—artworks, creative processes, or the relationships formed during residencies. There is also the issue of what disappears once a residency concludes, and how knowledge can be transmitted across generations.

These concerns lead to a broader question: what constitutes the legacy of AIR? Is it a collection of artworks, a network of relationships, or a cumulative body of cultural exchange?

Future Questions: The Next Generation of AIR

The research indicates that Japanese AIR programs are entering a transitional phase. This moment invites reflection on what should be inherited from earlier models and whether AIR should expand into more interdisciplinary practices. It also raises the question of whether AIR can assume greater social responsibilities and how capacity-building initiatives might better support AIR managers and coordinators.

Fundamentally, the field faces a defining question: Is AIR primarily a regional policy tool, or is it a cultural infrastructure that safeguards artistic freedom and enables mobility?

Networks and Regional Connections

There is growing recognition of the need for trans-regional collaboration. Platforms such as AIR Network Japan, TRA-TRAVEL Osaka, and A-I-T demonstrate efforts to connect organizations beyond local contexts. Rather than relying solely on a traditional West–East exchange model, a North–South relationship between Japan and Southeast Asia may become increasingly significant.

Proposed Contributions

Based on this research, we propose several potential collaborative initiatives. These include developing a Southeast Asia AIR database linked with AIR_J, establishing case-study exchanges between Japan and Southeast Asia, creating a regional map of AIR coordinators, designing programs specifically involving Southeast Asian artists, and initiating mobility and knowledge exchange programs for AIR managers.

Conclusion

AIR programs in Japan began as state-supported cultural initiatives but are now evolving into a decentralized and diverse ecosystem. While direct public funding decreases, independent activity and structural diversity continue to expand. The field is no longer defined solely by institutions, but increasingly by networks, coordinators, and mobility.

Ultimately, AIR may be understood not only as a tool for regional revitalization, but as a cultural system that sustains artistic freedom, fosters exchange, and cultivates long-term human relationships across regions.