A morning of valuing artists, museums as co-producers of
‘social justice’ and cultural value as power,
followed with an afternoon workshop about value and impact. The long trip to The University of Warwick
was certainly action packed. A day of
two halves. A room full of interested
and actively probing researchers (and a Director of a National Portfolio
Organisation). The day was all about
policy: cultural value in the morning; humanities research after lunch. So what happened?
First up was Susan Jones, Director of a-n The Artists Information Company. Susan was, as usual, forthright and focused,
delivering the hard facts about the #payingartists campaign; about
‘positive’ mission ‘delivery’; campaigning for fair pay for artists. She pointed out that ‘sometimes artists
aren’t even mentioned in cultural policy’ anymore; pay had been reduced
significantly in real terms since 1997; and nowadays ‘exhibition budgets
exclude the notion of paying artists’. Why? Susan was clear to place
responsibility on an increasing ‘shift in focus towards infrastructure’ – in
cultural buildings and top-heavy management and administration teams. All great stuff! I firmly believe in this perspective
too. But Susan’s emphasis was on
exhibitions and galleries ‘because that’s where public funding is going in
visual arts’. a-n’s new #payingartists video
advertisement reinforced what, for me, seemed a rather narrow way of
conceiving artistic practice today. Susan explained, however, that a-n are beginning to ‘look outside
galleries – beyond exhibitions’, so, perhaps, there’s some hope of an expanded
future scope for this undoubtedly ‘must address’ issue. I have a nagging concern about
institutionalising artists’ rights and pay, but that’s for another day…
Director of National
Museums Liverpool, David Fleming was incredibly passionate in advocating a
more radical approach to museum programming than is often, perhaps, the
case. He’s a firm supporter of national
infrastructure buildings, ‘so long as the public get something out of it’. His approach is all about people, emotions, inter-generational
activities, variety, and, ‘fighting for social justice’ – all with an authentic
Liverpool voice (although he was quick to explain he’s from Leeds)! His show reel of ‘social justice’ programming
left virtually no stone unturned: gender reconfiguration; queer; children’s
cancer; dementia; well-being; Hillsborough; gun crime; slavery – all examples
of successful ‘collusion with other bodies’ (NGOs, charities, etc.) because,
apparently, ‘activists like working with the establishment’. David was blunt in his dislike of policy directed
at numbers in the building, citing London museums as a prime example of
government policy and funding decisions based upon ‘how many high spending
tourists you can attract’. Nevertheless,
his advocacy of the Museum Association’s Museums Change Lives agenda and
tick-all-boxes social justice narrative left me feeling a little
unsettled. Was this really radicalism or
soft reinforcing of a form of, undoubtedly left-of-centre, neoliberal state
instrumentalism?
Arts Council England’s
Senior Policy and Research Manager, Andrew Mowlah, always had an unenviable
task. The mood was set. He rehearsed many of the Arts Council’s new
‘tablets of stone’: the need to ‘reflect instrumental and intrinsic values’;
fitting ‘the aesthetic… into cultural policy’; ‘making the best possible case
for investment in arts and culture’; ‘metrics’; the ‘economic benefits of the
UK culture industry’; ‘the wider benefits of the arts’ (beyond economics and tourism,
perhaps?); etc., etc. He was steadfast
in his defence of the need to ‘evidence’ culture to persuade government to
continue to fund arts and culture, concluding that we shouldn’t ‘discount the
value of data and evidence’. Many in the
audience wondered whether anyone in government really valued the evidence
anyway, no matter what its form. For me,
any mention of ‘culture industry’ makes me go all Adorno…
Eleonora Belfiore was last in the morning session. Critical antithesis of Arts Council England’s
cultural policy, she breezed through a cutting overview of current cultural
value policy. Her assertion that the
many who see cultural value as a way of determining ‘real value’ are being
‘over simplistic’ was an antidote to the positivist reductionism abounding in
much of social sciences and cultural policy right now. Cultural
value, like all things, is socially constructed, political, transient, and never neutral – power is always
orchestrating. Ele’s example of Big Fat Gypsy Wedding… clearly demonstrated how
economics and ‘fun’ programming has very dark undertones: it humiliates an
already oppressed ethnic group, redoubling stereotypes whilst making a great
deal of money for the media. It is, as
Ele explained, the role of academia and research (and, perhaps, the arts and
others) to ‘probe the underbelly of cultural value policy’.
I’m over my word count already, so let’s just summarise an
excellent afternoon’s research workshop as follows: ‘Impact is not evil’ but
‘how do you engage someone like James Dyson?’ Solid ‘REF Gold’!
No comments:
Post a Comment