Some collaborators are more equal than others : models of collaboration in contemporary Australian art

![CDATA[I compare three models of collaboration that operate in contemporary Australian visual art practice. I map diverse approaches; speculate on the current relevance of questions of authorship in postconceptual discourses; and consider whether certain models of collaboration are more institutionally acceptable than others, and why. The three models are the artist as director, the artist as coauthor, and the artist as collective. Despite some forebears, the artist as director emerges as such in the 1990s, coinciding with the increasing professionalization of artists at this time in Australia. The artist as coauthor is a more familiar figure historically, although genuine examples remain rare. Each coauthor plays an integral role in developing ideas and executing the work, and their individual contributions are not acknowledged, as a mle. Perhaps the least documented and institutionally acknowledged model is that of the artist as collective. Many Aboriginal communities have a tradition of collective ownership of iconography, along with collective execution. There are also historical precedents in Australian western art practice, in particular in the community-based initiatives of the 1970s. However, in Australia the artist as collective is an unusual model.]]