How Might Aesthetic Experience Help us Diversify Cultural Value?

Here's a response to the Cultural Value workshop by our other guest blogger, Ana Baeza Ruiz. Thanks to Ana for her feedback from the day. 

As a collaborative doctoral student with the National Gallery (NG), I am often hit by a sense of stubborn resilience whenever I step into its cavernous galleries, still installed in pre-WIFI days (soon to be over!) and evocative of an unchanging display ethos. Perhaps for that reason one of the things that struck me the most in our workshop was the malleability of the Museum of Liverpool, as explained by its director David Fleming. However fascinating (and I have no doubt blogs by other colleagues will treat these subjects), I will not delve into questions about its advocacy for social justice or the thematic complexities that underscore recent projects such as House of Memories, the Unstraight Museum conference or the David Hockney show in the Walker Art Gallery. Rather, I admit to having been troubled when I caught the glimmer of a problem that was only too briefly discussed, namely that art galleries (and particularly national collections) have fewer prerogatives to accommodate transgressive curatorial gestures such as Fleming’s. This was partly attributed to the fact that they must meet the demands of an infinitely wider, indeed global audience, and are thus unable to appeal to and exploit local sensitivities.

In this way and by comparison to social history museums, the arts are perceived to be insufficient in their own right and must be displaced to justify their existence. To avoid rehearsing the well-trodden argument of instrumentalism as a proxy for cultural value, I am more interested in asking how might it be possible, in the context of art galleries and especially those like the NG, to articulate cultural values that engage with the aesthetic without falling into either a utilitarian agenda or a universalist and monolithic form of aesthetic consumption.

This has called to mind the awake and defiant mind of one community officer in a gallery in Leeds, Jude Woods, whose relentless endeavours to re-define art appreciation (a very contested term no doubt) is accruing enormous support from local organisations. Her greatest merit, and from which all of us can learn starting with the NG, passes through a grassroots and socially embedded programme to diversify aesthetic experience and in the process prompt debate and exchange across various communities. By inviting participants usually under-represented in the context of the art gallery to become tour guides and directly feed into initiatives in the gallery, the project is breaking the shackles that have kept art history fastened to its usual suspects. As art’s cultural value becomes split its provisional nature is highlighted: rather than instrumentalization of art, what we have is a reorganization of aesthetic experience based on the recognition that all of us can, in our individual ways, engage with an artwork in our own right, and not for art’s sake.

Overview: Impact Workshop 09-07-2014

The afternoon's workshop was led by Dr Charlotte Mathieson, with an introduction by Dr Eleonora Belfiore. This introduction, called 'Cultural Value to Cultural Values: Workshop Value for the Humanities', outlined the image problem and sense of crisis that has come to characterise discussions about humanities research in recent years. It also highlighted the linguistic shift in humanities discourse from funding/subsidy to investment in humanities research (i.e. the encroachment of market values). The issue of value and measuring value in this sphere is central, and the Impact Agenda (see http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/ke/impacts/) represents one approach to demonstrating the contribution that research makes to academic advances.

Ele framed her presentation around the question, 'does a reliance on impact solve the problem of value for the humanities?' - does it respond to charges of uselessness, and address the humanities' perceived confidence issue? The suggestion is that the emphasis on socio-economic impact is a legitimising strategy in documents such as the AHRC's 'Leading the World' (defensive instrumentalism) and that the language of economics is the only language that will secure funding (see Steven Smith). Ele concluded that impact is about big questions but asked, what comes after critique, suggesting that there might be strategies for making some form of impact (as a measure of value) workable. 

Charlotte then delivered the practice-based element of the workshop on 'Communicating your Research Outside Academia', opening with the questions:

* Who is the ‘public’ with which you’re engaging?
* Why would they want to listen to me?
* What is the format?

Through a combination of group activities and discussion, she proposed different methods for research-sharing, primarily through media channels (e.g. radio, blogging, broadcasting). Participants were given pointers about how to communicate succinctly and effectively to non-academic audiences.

For radio, these included: front-loading (i.e. getting to the point quickly), avoiding jargon, visualising/conceptualising, using an example and having an interesting and little-known research fact.

For online writing, the focus was on: style and tone; language; structure and length.

She also gave examples of types of impact, including: informing policy-making, providing evidence, resources for use in campaigns, challenging existing policy, new attitudes and beliefs, challenging conventional wisdom, teacher training, new teaching resources, changing practice, training, creation of databases, providing consultancy to improve efficiency.

For further resources see:

Arts Faculty Impact Webpage: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/rss/impact/

RCUK Web Page: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/Pages/home.aspx

REF 2014 Web Page: http://www.ref.ac.uk/

NCCPE: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/

Vitae: http://www.vitae.ac.uk/

Heritage Exchange 2014

This year's Heritage Exchange took place LSO St Luke's, London, on the 14 and 15 July. Staged by the Heritage Lottery Fund, in partnership with the RSA, this event provided a forum for sharing ideas about heritage – its role in civil society and place, and how best to ensure its resilience in the future.

A call was issued on this blog in April to invite 10 Postgraduate/Early Career Researchers to take part in the event, allowing for the opportunity to contribute fresh perspectives, and be part of discussions that could influence future directions for heritage. One of our April workshop participants, Niki Black, was selected to attend, and has written a blog post about her research on the Heritage Exchange site.

Panel Overview 09-07-2014

The panel session took place on the morning of the workshop, comprising Eleonora Belfiore (Associate Professor of Cultural Policy, University of Warwick, Director of Studies Warwick Commission for the Future of Cultural Value), Andrew Mowlah (Senior Manager, Policy & Research, Arts Council England), David Fleming, OBE (Director of National Museums Liverpool). The chair was Chris Bilton (Director of the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick).

The discussion focused on four main themes: the need for evidence for funding organisations, how to measure impact, how to define cultural value and whether cultural organisations can be politically neutral. The participants engaged in an informal and stimulating discussion with the panellists, trying to give an answer to some complex questions and devise new ways to think about the value of the arts and the humanities.

Andrew Mowlah, as senior manager for Policy and Research at Arts Council England, advocated the need for evidence of social impact made by cultural organisations for funding bodies. Impact measurements do not only provide necessary data to inform the decisions of funding bodies, but are also useful resources for cultural organisations themselves: by conducting research on their own work, they obtain useful information to improve their services and stimulate a debate with their users and the local community. The Arts Council wants to stimulate both the production of high quality art and the implementation of artistic projects that have impact at the heart of their agendas.

Eleonora Belfiore explained that when one tries to give a definition of “cultural value” some problems arise. Cultural value can be articulated in many ways: one can try to define it in social, economic, aesthetic and even psychological terms. The case study selected to explain how cultural value can be a controversial issue was the Channel 4 TV program “My Big Fat Gipsy Wedding”: it is a successful show that has a strong economic revenue and is appreciated by a large audience. These two facts might seem sufficient to determine that it is a culturally valuable product, but it is also true that “My Big Fat Gipsy Wedding” is humiliating and offensive towards the community it is supposed to portray. Its cultural value, therefore, is highly questionable.

David Fleming shared his experience in directing museums and promoting social justice. Measuring impact is hard and cultural organisations feel the need to stop measuring and monetize everything; the different kinds of impact – economic, social and cultural – are at times difficult to measure in a coherent and consistent way. His work in directing National Museums Liverpool is focused on the people who attend exhibitions and their personal stories, their needs and the impact that cultural activities have on their life. The users are not a measurable collective entity, but rather a large and heterogeneous group of individuals, where each person adds value to the experience that takes places in galleries and museums. Moreover, museums have been considered neutral for a long time, but now it seems that they are more willing to bring about the social change they promote in their work.

The difficulties in measuring and defining cultural value seem to suggest that the arts need to find an independent method to affirm their own value and cease to be an “attachment” to wider policies in the public sector. Nevertheless, the importance of impact and its social and political significance need to be acknowledged not only as a rhetorical device, but as an important part of the work of cultural practitioners.

‘Cultural Value’ and the Economic and Social Impact of the Arts

Here's a response to the Cultural Value workshop by our guest blogger, Stephen Pritchard. Thanks to Stephen for his feedback from the day.

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’!

Morning Presentations 09-07-2014

Presentation 1: Susan Jones

The morning session was opened by the presentation of Susan Jones, director of the a-n Artist information company. She explained her work in advocating the rights and the value of the artists through the “Paying the Artists” campaign This is a project led by the a-n The Artist Information Company and AIR, which aims to “create the need for and confidence to deliver long-term change in the status and recognition of visual artists within exhibition practice and the wider arts ecology through access to persuasive evidence, advocacy and the consolidation of visual arts peer networks.”

a-n The artist information Company commissioned a research to DHA Communications about to find out about artists remuneration in the UK. 1000 artists filled a questionnaire about their income and the results were quite surprising. First, 72% of artists earn up to £10K year from art practice, while only 12% earn £20K or more. Moreover out of the 62% of artists who exhibited in publicly-subsidised gallery in last 3 years, 71% of them had not received any fee for exhibiting; one third of the artists who received fees were given £200 or less. This data clearly depicts a life marked by economic concerns for most artists, but also implies problems in the organisations and provision of artistic exhibitions: nearly half of all artists reported that exhibiting their work is prohibitively expensive and 63% have turned down an offer to exhibit for reasons including unsuitability of venue, lack of fees, or non payment of expenses. The average artist – usually female, often at the beginning of her career, and valuing sharing her work with the public as the main motivation for exhibiting her work – cannot afford to exhibit her artworks. Visual artists, galleries and audiences miss important opportunities: nevertheless, the report states that improving artists’ fees for exhibitions is not a priority for venues. This picture is disheartening not only to artists, but also to those who value artistic experiences. Therefore, a-n The Artist Information Company has launched the “The Paying Artists” campaign, which aims to obtain transparency on artists’ pay, a national policy on paying artists and pay policy to be written into funding agreements; moreover, this campaign promotes the value and role of visual artists and seeks to empower them to make the case for payment for their work (for further information see www.payingartists.org.uk).

During the Q&A session, the participants shared their own experiences, some as artists, some as other collaborators in art galleries. The practicalities of “The Paying Artists” campaign were discussed, and so were the ideals and the values behind this project that embraces cultural value, economic value, policy and artistic practice. Her presentation was not only the ideal start for a debate around the value of the arts, but also provided advice about presenting quantitative data in a new, engaging and creative way.

Presentation 2: David Fleming

In the following session, David Fleming, OBE, presented his work about museums and social justice. First, he addressed the very notion of “social justice”, a term that has different meanings according to different people; in the particular case of his work, social justice is a term that embraces the promotion of mutual respect between ethnically and socially diverse parts of the society, focusing on the encounter between different generations and fostering a dialogue on human rights. Moreover, when it comes to the Museums of Liverpool, social justice is practiced also through policy: the museums are free and aim to be a place of exchange for the whole local community. The value of museums, according to Fleming, can be not only economic, but also cultural, as it is a centre for research and collection; in his vision, nevertheless, the value of the museum is mainly social. In order to fulfil its role in a society, a museum must be audience focused, educational, community orientated, democratic, open to debate, diverse and socially responsible. The attention to the audience – its needs, its composition, its preferences -  is crucial aspect of museum management.

In Liverpool, a town with a rich cultural and historic heritage, but also one of the most deprived cities in England, offers a particular context for museums, but also endless occasions for debate around social justice. National Museums Liverpool is composed of six different spaces (the International Slavery Museum, the Museum of Liverpool, Sudley House, Seized!, the World Museum, Walker Art Gallery, Merseyside Maritime Museum and Lady Lever Art Gallery), each addressing the theme of social justice in a different way. The portfolio of National Museums Liverpool’s events and activities dedicated to democracy, social inclusion and justice is immense and includes national and international causes. All the exhibitions, nevertheless, aim to provoke an emotional response in the spectator, in order to establish a deep connection between the museum, the individual and society.

The value of museums, therefore, lies not only in the objects they contain, but in the people who attend exhibitions and events. The promotion of social impact in museums is not limited to Liverpool’s experience but expands to the whole nation: the Museums Association, of which Fleming is a past president, is promoting a new vision for the value of museums called “Museums Change Lives”: Museums Change Lives aims to enthuse people in museums to increase their impact, encourage funders to support museums in becoming more relevant to their audiences and communities, and show organisations the potential partnerships they could have with museums, to change people’s lives (for further information see http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-change-lives).

9 July Workshop Photos

This was the second and final workshop in the Co-producing Cultural Policy series. Thanks to our speakers, participants and to everyone that helped to make the project possible.

Panel with David Fleming (National Museums Liverpool)

Panel Discussion

Afternoon Impact Workshop with Dr Eleonora Belfiore