Arts debate Open Space event report – Part I
Contents
Issue
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Title
Can we better value those who ‘enable’ artists to show their work?
Should we redefine ‘arts’ or have a new word?
Art for Art’s Sake?
Black and ethnic arts need better funding
What should we keep in the Arts Council?
Well being
How do we provide more sustainable funding for individual artists
85% funding, is that right?
LGBT arts
What is the point of the Arts Council and why did Keynes invent it?
Advocacy – how do we advocate to the government the case for the
arts?
Participation in the arts – how do we all join in?
What does the Olympics have in common with the war on iraq and
should artists resist involvement or put forward and alternative
vision?
Why don’t we respect, consider and give profile to young people as
artists and as audience?
Should the arts council be cut?
The line between popular and creative success
If I was the arts council I would engage and learn from the global arts
agenda
Butterfly conversation – money through open space
Introduce an arts tax
Opening spaces for refugees
Devolving some pots of funding decisions closer to the coalface
Offer more support to running an organisation
How can we ensure movement of staff and expertise between ACE
and the industry
What is excellence and why does it matter?
Majority of people aren’t engaged in the arts - are we wrong or are
they funding the wrong thing?
Investing in the artist and artist led activities for longer term
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
development of the arts
Where do audiences fit?
How should applications be assessed and who is best placed to
asses them, officers or peers?
How can we reconcile access and quality?
What would happen if we took over?
How do we include young people’s voices in the future of the arts?
Do we need an arts council?
What we are we not seeing?
Arts Council/Local government partnerships?
How do we support new and exciting work in rural areas?
The arts council as venture capitalist – invest and return
Art and Social Inclusion
Why can’t the Arts Council sit at other people’s tables more that they
sit at their own?
Can we scrap the forms and find an alternative?
Chinese heart and soul – social inclusion in the Arts
F*** this – angry and passionate artists and managers
Issue number: 1
Issue: Can we value better those who “enable” artists to show their work?
Convener(s):Anne Morrison
Participants: Barbara, Michelle and one other
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I, Anne, brought my own experience to this question – I am a visual artist and a
freelance Project Coordinator/Curator working independently of any organization.
In 2006-07 a colleague and I had funding from ACESW to programme and curate
a series of contemporary visual art exhibitions in Bath. As we put together our
funding proposal we were advised (by colleagues in the same field) to write
ourselves out of the budget or we wouldn’t have a hope of getting any money.
We did this – got £13,000 for our exhibition programme (to pay artists fees,
marketing costs etc) and have put in a year’s work for no remuneration at all. We
did this because we both believe in the importance of contemporary visual art
being available and integral to daily life. Our exhibitions were based in
empty/disused shop spaces so our audiences were not your average gallery goer.
Coordinators/administrators/managers do the donkey work – they are often
individuals who do it simply because they believe in the value it. Again and again
you hear about huge investments of time and energy with no £’s. Volunteer
fatigue is common – leading to resentment, loss of interest or energy to sustain
projects.
Question: Why is the “coordinator” role not valued monetarily by ACE? Often those
doing the coordinating/managing are involved in a very creative, imaginative
process – designing and enabling the artistic endeavours to happen.
A shift in thinking by ACE is needed to recognize the value of those creating and
implementing the framework/structures that allow artists to show their work. Yes
or course value the creative output of the artists themselves but stop ignoring the
need to value those who make that output possible.
Issue number: 2
Issue: Should we redefine the word ‘arts’ or use a new word?
Convener(s): Adrienne Pye
Participants: Vanessa Rawlings-Jackson, Phelim (Improbable)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Is the word ‘arts’ off-putting to the public? Infers ‘high’art too clearly?
Is it inclusive enough
 Of cultural activity?
 Of types or groups of people?
What other terms can we use?
In terms of cultural activity, we would like to include eg
 The creative industries
 The cultural industries
 Creative and cultural organisations
This would help make people less inclined to say ‘this is not for me’?
In terms of types of people, we need to test whether applying the ‘not
for the likes of you’ process and principles throughout our
organizations is sufficient to engage those who don’t now participate in
the arts – to open their eyes to the benefits? Or do we need something
more persuasive/in your face?
Regionally, the word ‘culture’ tends to cover:
 Sport
 Media
 Heritage
 Art
 Tourism
BUT
DCMS separates out media and sport, and doesn’t refer at all to
tourism and arts- reducing synergy between national and regional
contexts/support.
There is a potentially confusing changing definition of the arts
throughout our educational lives:
 Early school years tend to define ‘the arts’ as music, painting and
craft, plus a visit to the pantomime or a gallery.
 This doesn’t change much for secondary level unless you have
special arts status?
 Higher/tertiary education: the MA/Arts faculty is a very broad
church, including humanities, languages, philosophy etc
Doesn’t help inform people/make them feel arts is for them?
Do we need a new word?
The main word we discussed to replace ‘arts’ was ‘culture/cultural’.
Would ‘the Cultural Council’ simply make people confuse the Arts
Council with the regional Cultural Consortia? (shouldn’t these two
regional bodies be merged, anyway, to strengthen the advocacy role?)
Other thoughts:
The Council for Taking Part
Participate!
The Creative Council
Creativity!
The Creative and Cultural Council
But then we said ‘some people run a mile from the word ‘culture’’ –
and we were almost back where we started – no solution to the
terminology.
We also digressed into the question of the relative implications of
words for people giving the arts funding . . .. what is conveyed
specifically by
Funding
Subsidising
Investment
Grant aiding
and discussed which were least indicative of the ‘cap-in-hand’
mentality – and that the USA’s no subsidy model at least encourages a
more businesslike approach from the arts organization.
Issue number: 3
Issue: Art for Art’s Sake?
Convener(s): Caroline Thibeaud
Participants: Jon Ashford-Smith, Ian Woods, Paul Harman
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
All participants agreed that in an ideal world the value of Art for Art’s sake for a
nation’s culture, etc, would be funded. However that is not the case and arts
organizations are asked more and more to be self sustainable and business-like.
Most participants accepted this state of affairs as the reality rather than challenge
it: it is a fact that arts funding is distributed along the line of government’s agenda.
However Paul and Caroline agreed that ACE was too concerned with social issues
and should let other areas of government and local government deal with these
issues instead of imposing them on the Arts.
Most participants recognized that the notion of art for art’s sake is only valued by
artists and arts practitioners but looked down on by the general population. This
perception may be due to the media’s highlighting some prominent national arts
organizations and what is viewed as their excessive or wasteful spending.
However Ian thinks that on the whole most people quietly enjoys and takes part in
art activities.
Jon added that the general public is not aware of how much financial investment is
involved in putting up performances or art events but are not necessarily prepared
to contribute by subsidizing the arts via their taxes. According to Jon the general
public expects the arts to function as a business.
Paul suggested that ACE funds all arts’ forms development as opposed to funding
certain institutions as it has in the past: decisions about funding could then be of a
different nature and have different outcomes.
Caroline asked: should there be more investment in arts education in order to
foster a younger generation sensitive to the arts who would therefore be more
likely as future citizen to elect a government that invest in arts for art’s sake
because they believe in its value?
Caroline also recognises the difficulty to advocate for the arts when ACE is
competing with other government departments such as the Education or
Transports Dept: how can the Arts make a case for themselves?
Issue number: 4
Issue: BLACK & ETHNIC FUNDING
Convener(s): Sonny Blacks
Participants:
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The session was attended by eight persons,including,Sonny,Emmanuel, Banji,
Paulina, Julie. and the consensus is that Black & Ethnic funding is not properly
funded.
1. Black & Ethnic organizations need ACE to better understand the urgent
needs of Black Led organizations.
2. We believe that the policy should be changed so that instead of giving 2
groups over £1000.000 every year ACE should positively target 20 Black
led organizations and give each £50.000,as this would ensure that BEM
groups have a better chance of developing their own Arts & Cultural events.
3. It is a strongly held perception, within the BEM community that the Arts
Council is an elitist organization and does know or understand Black Arts &
Culture.
4. Most Black groups are not getting a proper share of funding that is
available to main stream groups.
5. It is important that the senior officers of ACE meet with a delegation of
BEM groups so that they can understand our disappointment and
frustration of our dealings with ACE.
6. The time for this to happen is NOW.
7. We need to get a delegation of BEM groups to meet with the senior
officers of the Arts Council to address these important issues.
6.We believe that the officers of the Arts Council do not fully understand our
requirements.
Decibel? Who?
There is more info the Decibel Showcase initiative here:
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/decibel
Additional thought from Jonathan Man (not present at this session)
The idea to take money from one organisation and give to another would seem to
be an example of competition between different BME organisations. If it is
best felt that funding 20 organisations (with different scope and scale to the
two referred to above), then surely then the case is to be made to find
additional funding, for these 20 grass roots organisations to work in
partnership with larger organisations.
There is also a 'Sustained Theatre' consultation group of theatre practitioners from
the BME field working on the recommendations from the Whose Theatre
report in 2006 on the needs of BME artists. I would suggest somehow
involving the ST group with any delegation wishing to meet senior ACE
officers, to minimise overlap, indeed hopefully finding a way to effectively
work together. It would be great to identify possible wins for the above
group, the Sustained Theatre group and the Arts Council, and to find a way
forward together to support Black and Ethnic artists and arts more
effectively.
There is more info the Sustained Theatre initiative here:
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sustainedtheatre J
Issue number: 5
Issue: What should be kept in ACE
Convener(s):Nathalie Teitler, Refugee Action, Exiled Writers
Participants: 25
Including many from ACE, Cardboard Citizens, Studio 3, Refugee Action
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
1 Keep good officers who are supportive and do outreach and have wide range of
experience in the field and huge body of knowledge. offering a unique and
necessary service. Offer more training in inter-personal communication to officers
who are not comfortable with development role.
2 Keep good conferences and role as developer of good practice and quality
assurance.
3 Keep authority of ACE to act as advocate when needed, and keep as a unified
body which can be a positive force.
4) Keep Arts Council facilitating role in the arts and increase its ability to support
areas of greatest need.
5) Keep secondments but more external ones would be useful.
6)Keep national office with role of national overview, research and investiagation
and advocacy but do not allow any regional interference from national office and
make sure its role is transparent both within and outside of organization.
7) Keep and recruit more good officers through more targeted professional
development and more regional foci e.g. Have more training course in
interpersonal communication#
8) Keep ACE role as not just funder but unique body that has role of networking ,
research, consultancy, body of knowledge, advocate
9) Keep consultations but allow them to impact on policy in a transparent and
meaningful way but more debate and participation.
10) keep ability to acknowledge mistakes
Issue number: 6
Issue: IS THE ISSUE OF WELLBING A PASSING FAD ?
Convener(s): Jonathan Petherbridge
Participants: Alisatair (Bluecoats) Peter Hewitt (ACE) Shipra Ogra (London
Bubble) Avril (A dance company working with people with disabilities), Sue Scot
Davis, ?? Charlotte (ITC) and lots of other people whose name I didn’t get.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Almost a consensus that how the Arts engenders wellbeing in audiences and
participants is a central issue – “the way forward”.
(Scientists are now mapping the brain and revealing in scientific, and measurable
terms, how art opens up and develops areas of the brain.
Further research links the development of personal resilience to the issue of
connection, Artists want to connect with audience – we should perhaps measure
how the quality of connection made between art and audience/participant
experience.)
This overlaps with many other agendas including the valuing of creativity in
government intitiatives.
It’s also include, but is much more than, the “Happiness” agenda – this is health,
self worth, making meaning of life, community cohesion.
Some statements “We innately believe art is good for you – exercising of empathy, encouraging coexistence – but we are poor at arguing this” Especially in plain language.
“Do people/children need to be prepared for art ?” “No children must be at the
centre of arts practice and learn through doing.”
“Can we measure how art affects young people ? – yes by number of kids who
engage after a school trip perhaps”. “But we should be looking at the ones who
were not engaged”
“We are all doing work that engenders wellbeing – it’s how we talk about it”
“Children/young people have many initiatives, there are far less for elders or
refugee groups – these people could experience wellbeing/connection through
arts.”
“But if we widen the pool of arts practice who will pay for it ?”
“What makes a creative and fulfilled citizen – if we answer that, then money flows”
A general feeling that the arts work. That 70% of people take part but we talk as
though they don’t. Force larger institutions into different kinds of engagement. And
change the language.
“I’m sceptical about “arts for arts sake” – the concept of wellbeing addresses
connection and empowerment”
“The concept of engendering wellbeing through art is less oppositional, more
holistic way of evaluating arts practise”
“It breaks down the audience, artist, barrier”.
“Sport is seen as being good for you, Arts less so”.
“ACE study on taking part evidences that people participating in arts profess
healthier and happier lives”
“It’s so b***** obvious !”
CURRENT INTITIATIVES
There is a report on Arts and Health coming out of ACE soon. It talks a lot about
those who are not in the health system yet, but at risk.
ITC have commissioned a study from the New Economic Foundation looking into
Theatre and Wellbeing. The aim is to create a toolkit for measurement. They are
involving TMA and SWET (I think) both of who are looking to other – non numeric ways of measuring impact
Sports Council have targets such as walking to work etc. What can ACE count as
activities ?
OUR NEW ARTS COUNCIL NEEDS TO:
Place wellbeing at the centre of the agenda
Publicly articulate that, like sport, art is “good for you”
Complete ITC study and use it
Develop the language and means to evidence this
THE CURRENT ARTS COUNCIL SHOULD:
Liberate funds for intiatives to disseminate practise.
Issue number: How do we provide more sustainable funding for individual artists?
Issue: 7
Convener(s): Jane Wildgoose
Participants:
Sinead
Jon
Kate
Salette
Ian
Stephen T
Caroline
Theron
Tamarin
Fiona
Nigel
Felicity
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Artists practicing as individuals, according to research papers published by a-n
The Artists Information Company, are generally lower paid than other freelances
with similar levels of training [one participant cited figures published 4 years ago:
which found that £5,000 was the average income from professional arts practice in
the UK]; Debra Savage’s paper, ‘Making a living as an artist’ [2006] revealed that a
majority of artists supplemented their practice with other, paid work; that they
could not charge for the actual amount of time their work cost to produce; they did
not have increased pay rates as their careers progressed as other professionals
do, and many do not have pension provision as they tend to live in a hand to
mouth way, ploughing what money they do have back into their work.
How might the Arts Council address this situation? It was generally agreed by the
artists participating in discussion that the provision of £5,000 per one off project
provided by the old Grants for the Arts - particularly for mature artists - was
unrealistic and did not encourage a sustainable approach to the economics of arts
practice.
Experience of a NESTA Fellowship was cited as an excellent model for funding
that allowed creative freedom while paying the individual artist a professional rate
over a sustained period – leading to considerable professional and creative
development for the artist, plus a portfolio of highly developed work that led to new
opportunities. It was also noted that the NESTA Fellowships [no longer running]
were funded by an endowment – ie interest rather than capital was spent, which
perhaps made the funding of open-ended, more ‘risky’ practice, more justifiable?
An arts council officer explained that the amount of funding available for individual
artists, was volatile - as it is related to sales of Lottery tickets, which fluctuate. The
officer wondered whether Treasury funding should be allocated for individual
artists.
Other participants considered the relationship that artists are able to build with arts
officers: there was a perception that the role of officers has changed to become
more administrative; there was some nostalgia for the past: when officers were
seen to be ‘experts in their field [of the arts] and passionate about it’. It was felt
that the opportunity for individual artists to build a long term relationship with ‘their’
officer[s] at the Arts Council would be the preferable model. Especially it was felt
that this relationship should offer the opportunity for the development and career
path of the artist to be factored in and supported - with the Arts Council taking an
advisory role, and a brokering role [eg providing information re: opportunities for
patronage/commissions elsewhere], and in funding decisions. It was felt that this
system could and should have potential to lead to a situation where individual
artists become eligible for sustainable funding in the same way as organizations.
The question of ‘modern day’ patronage, eg from commercial organizations and
public sector partnerships was raised, eg residencies – although how would these
impact on the freedom of expression of the artist?
An Arts Council officer explained that this question is currently being addressed;
Also mentioned partnerships with academic institutions [though questions were
raised about whether academic institutions understand research in the same way
that artists do, and whether this can raise problems of implementation – a point for
consideration].
There was discussion about potential for salaries for individual artists – an Irish
model was cited, in which a Fellowship of artists elect those who will receive this
kind of award. It was observed that systems of this kind can lend themselves to
cronyism/cliques, etc.
Central to many of the points discussed was a recurring question about how much
the Arts Council is perceived to value, prioritise and trust actual artists. It couldn’t
exist without them, but…are they mentioned in current policy? Why can’t they
have a paid, consultative role at the forefront of decision making and policy? It was
pointed out that there is a very real difference between the experience of a fulltime arts administrator who has been to art school and someone who has chosen
to prioritise the activity of being a practicing artist. Shouldn’t the latter have more
say in the way funding is administered? Could the balance of input from
administrators and practicing artists be reconsidered? [it was acknowledged that
this event and recent consultation clearly do address this point, but the concensus
was that the input of practicing artists in a more sustained way, throughout the
organization, would help to implement an approach that is responsive to artists’
actual needs, and, especially, their values].
Overall, it was felt that if there was more regular consultation with the arts
community as part of the Arts Council’s process then questions of sustainability,
etc. could be responded to more realistically. It was also suggested that there
should be a process of review for artists to act as moderators to feedback on
funding decisions [a Canadian system of peer review for funding applications was
cited – Canadian Artists’ Representation Federation, with the same proviso as
above re: cliques/cronyism].
Finally, a big question was raised about how individual artists may be funded in
ways that respect and accommodate their need for freedom of expression and
individuality – the very factors which drive their work and give it ‘value’, but which
may in many ways seem incompatible with bureaucratic systems that are
ultimately answerable to imperatives of financial accountability.
Issue number: 8
Issue: Is it right that some arts organizations are funded to the tune of 85% when
the can only generate 15% additional funding of their own.
Convener(s): Rick Ferguson
Participants: Maggie McEwan; Liz Whitehouse; Steph Allen; Katrina Duncan;
Richard Couldray; Vanessa R.; Jeremy Smeeth; Julia Mirkin; Steve Dearden;
Barbra von Heel.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Should we consider reducing funding for Arts organizations that are being given
backing purely because they have become ‘institutions’? “Are the glorious old
chestnuts becoming the jewels in the crown”?
Should we introduce a ‘sliding scale’ of reducing funding over a number of years to
encourage organizations to actively seek and create additional funding streams,
rather than encouraging them to rest on their laurels?
Does there need to be more people within the Arts Council with genuine business
experience, who can provide detailed and specialist help to organizations, with a
view to developing their business knowledge and entrepreneurial activity, resulting
in them becoming more self-sufficient and creating a ‘mind-shift’ in attitude?
What’s the real cost of keeping something going rather than funding new stuff
instead?
One size does not fit all.
Issue number:9
Issue: LGBT ARTS?
Convener(s): Subodh Rathod – WiseThoughts - gaywise festival
Participants: Sue, Mike, Mike C, Jonathan, 2x Contact ,Ken, Fellum
+1
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Do we need to fund LGBT arts?
The session’s primary focus was to see if LGBT arts need to be:
a) recognized in its own right akin to BAME arts / community arts?
b) Is there a need for specific /targeted support for LGBT arts?
Definition and Difference of LGBT culture.
What is LGBT, is there a general understanding of what LGBT means?
Is there a need to specifically fund LGBT arts?
-There is little widespread recognition of the term, including from within the
delegates that were attending this particular consultation.
- There is a need to recognize the fact that the LGBT community is as culturally
diverse as the wider society and there is a need to recognize that.
-Whilst there is recognition and equality under law it is only related to the UK.
Equality under law does not necessarily mean a wider cultural acceptance among
culturally diverse populations. There is a need to understand that discrimination
still exists and internationally there is also limited acceptance under law. This is
important as we live within a culturally diverse society and have people from many
nationalities and cultures.
Who are the audiences – are LGBT arts ‘community arts’?
- The quality of the art should not be negated just because it comes from a specific
community and/or illustrates and expresses the needs and concerns of members
from specific section of the community. Art and artists is part of all communities.
– There is an issue with limitation on levels or access to funding for LGBT arts.
Being branded as ‘community arts’ can often have a detrimental effect on the
levels of funding received and hence can have an impact on the quality of the art
work. There is a need to recognize that arts can be both community based and
steam from the community and still have artistic merit.
By targeting funding – is there a risk of further ghettoizing LGBT arts?
– LGBT artist may choose to work with and explore LGBT themes however no
limitations should be placed i.e. artists who identify themselves as LGBT should
only create art exploring LGBT issues or only LGBT artists create LGBT arts.
- There is a need to recognize the work done by smaller organizations that have
consistently developed arts that explore LGBT themes.
-Statistics indicate that there is a disproportionately low amount of funding
allocated to LGBT initiatives by funders as compared to the % of the population.
(approx 0.5% of funding given to LGBT initiatives as compared to the national
average of LGBT population, which is around 6% of the population)
What are key needs?
- Education –anti-bullying, promotion of positive role models, providing
opportunities to inform people, preserve LGBT history in its diversity.
- Using arts to combat social isolation and stigmatisation.
-There is a lack of LGBT content, particularly within music and there is also the
issue promotion of homophobia through some music. It seems that at times the
failure by statutory authorities to tackle this can be interpreted as support for
homophobic artists.
Possible Interventions
-Working more broadly in collaboration with other agencies developing initiatives
for LGBT, especially those reflecting the diversity with the community people.
- Ring-fencing funding for LGBT arts
a)ring-fencing funding is there a risk that we may loose out if financially we
have reached a limit.
-Positive action is needed to address a significant lack of funding of LGBT arts
ensuring greater equality.
-More work needs to be done on staffing to reflect the wider diversity within the
community within the Art Council. Having officers who have an understanding of
LGBT arts/culture can help inform decisions.
- Recognising the work done to date by LGBT artists and organisations and
providing support to develop further.
- Financial support for LGBT arts organisations.
Duty to promote diversity.
-Regulations require all funded organisations to recognise/ accept and promote
diversity within their programme of work. There is a risk that this can lead to a
tokenistic approach with larger companies engaging with specific communities
without proper consultation and/ or the removal of expertise from a community
level to help meet the needs of larger organisations.
- The LGBT community is as culturally diverse as the wider community and work
needs to be done with all communities.
Should we be grateful for all that we have?
- No as more work needs to be done.
Issue number: 10
Issue: Why did Keynes invent the arts Council and what is the point of it?
Convener(s):Simon Casson
Participants: Mark Wallace, Judith Knight, Simon Casson, Jon Spooner, Tamarin,
Helen, Paul Smith, Dee and others …
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Simon asked what ACE is for and why was it started?
Set up by Keynes, one of Bloomsbury Group, in 1946 to help London based
companies tour – development from CIMA (Committee for Entertainment and
Appreciation of the Arts? – please correct if you know) –
Post war economic situation, more liberal attitude, operated Arms Length Policy as
opposed to what was being seen to happen in USSR for example where arts were
used as a propaganda tool. Originally London based and mainstream\ - later
Vaughan Williams brought in policy of encouraging participation, –
WHY
Arts not sustainable
Showcase of the nation (Festival of Britain )
Spirit of the nation post-war
Jenny Lee first Arts Minister, under her spread to regions, building regional
theatres in the sixties, local authorities - Regional Arts Associations –
Simon – all so recent – and what’s the point?
- Response – because arts can’t pay for themselves
Simon – why give taxpayers money to ‘lardy a***d artists’ so much of the work
boring.
In the beginning, very paternalistic view of arts – now ACE has a more difficult job
- political and artistic agenda
Going through DCMS – statistics more important than quality
What is ACE’s job – to get as much money as it can from Government? Give it
directly to artists?
Art does have a social role, but government shouldn’t lay down rules for that.
Suggestions
- cut out the DCMS, Treasury give money directly to ACE.
-
So much of grant is spent on evaluation, marketing, etc. If ACE could help
in kind, less direct funding would be required
Never enough money so the process has to be discriminatory
ACE has invited politicians in on the decision making process
No longer just artists and cultural leaders making the argument
Ask Government what happens to £1.1billion that is returned to Govt by theatre
practitioners
Does USA model (ie no state funding) work – no!
More philanthropy, but very middle of the road/commercial work on the whole
What is important – social results (less money needed to be spent on
surveillance!) or quality – if artists are left alone they can offer an incredible
experience, can change lives, can be extraordinary
Agreed arms length is getting shorter. Money aimed at audiences more than
artists.
Should be able to judge success of ACE by health of the collective community of
artists – if it is healthy, ACE doing a good job.
Anything that waters down the quality is dangerous.
ACE should not just connect with DCMS, but also with Education and the National
Health
Argument petered out then …
When it’s over it’s over
Issue number: 11
Issue: How do we make the case for the Arts to Government?
Convener(s): Bridget (Anne Peaker Centre
Participants: Julie (Arts Council), Adrienne, Dan (York Theatre Royal), Michelle
(Salisbury Playhouse), Liz (PANDA), Diana, Sydney, Jane (Dance Theatre),
Bridget (Anne Peaker Centre), Ledy (Creative Exchange).
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

The responsibility for communication is with the communicator. We need to
improve the image of the sector (branding is important) and market the
sector in better ways through:
-
internal communication
external communication (PR)
Internal communication:
- Arts Council England (national office) needs to better share
information with Arts Councils in the regions, so that information is
consistent.
- Sharing information and learning from each other
- The arts sector itself needs to be proud and confident of the value it
brings to society (Arts Council England has a key role in this).
External communication:
- Be clear of what it want governments to do
- Consistency of message
- Engaging the public to lobby on our behalf
- Branding
- Sharing the stories with red top media
- Getting MPs and local gov representatives to attend arts events
helping them to see that being associated with the arts does carry
weight with their constituencies (it could win them votes!)
- The arts sector needs to have a less “us and them” attitude

Arts to be seen as R&D of creative industries and broader society /
industries.

Investing in the arts fosters the creativity of the country

Arts sector needs to be more realistic regarding the responsibilities that
MPs have for broader society.

Arts sector needs to make an economic argument to the government. If we
are given public money we need to justify why

The arts sector needs to improve the way it communicates its value to
different sectors (including the government). We need to know their
language and use it.

There is a need to set up a standard for gathering, analyzing and
interpreting data related to the impact of the arts and culture within society.
There is a necessity for evidence of the impact / outcomes of art and culture
activities, specifically for those who don’t have an understanding of the
value of the arts and culture.

We need to include stories as case studies that support the case for the
arts sector, It was noted that MPs do like “stories”, they remember them
and repeat them.

Round table of umbrella organizations to come up with a collective
approach to advocacy, inviting ACE and A&B.

Professional development for arts sector around advocacy / lobbying,
political networking.
Issue number: 12
Issue: Participation in the arts – how do we all join in?
Convener(s): Sue Isherwood (National Association of Local Government Arts
Officers), Louise de Winter (National Campaign for the Arts), Reemer Bailey
(Voluntary Arts England).
Participants: Neil Beddow, Eddie Upton, Teresa Gleadowe, Lorna Plampin, Ellen
Robotham, Sherrill Gow, Christine Wilkinson, Jonathan Petherbridge, Psyche
Hudson, Frances Rifkin, Jo Dereza and others – please add in your name, if we’ve
missed you.
If any participant thinks we’ve missed a key point from our discussion, please
amend, alter, add in accordingly.
Issues / points raised:
1. What is meant by ‘participation’?
Got to be active, got to engage creativity, got to have social impact. Participants
have to get something out of the process for themselves. BUT, can’t audiences
also be participants? (A view - audiences are active ‘readers’ rather than
actors/creators).
DCMS definition of participation is actively creating or practising.
Participatory arts has become a specialist sector, and is an important one,
although not highly funded. But this session took a wider view of participation to
include voluntary arts, amateur engagement and adult and community education,
individual engagement (eg playing the piano) for pleasure
2. Excellence versus access?
Quality versus participation? Must not be hijacked by these arguments, they can
be divisive.
There are lots of qualities: Quality of experience, quality of process, quality of
product, quality of engagement.
Still a strong feeling that there is an assumption made by Arts Council of what
constitutes art and what quality art is? “ACE expect us to like what they like”.
Issue about the quality of participation programmes and the people who deliver
them. Enabling participation is a considerable skill in itself. There needs to be
investment in modelling participation and developing participatory skills - need
training programmes, capacity building.
There is a danger that ACE structures and networks mean that they automatically
go to their client bodies, without those bodies necessarily being the right people or
having the knowledge and skills to provide a genuine participatory experience.
(This underlines the importance of having a clear definition of what is meant by
participation.) Should the ACE ask all its clients to cover ‘everything’?
3. What is needed – manifesto or guidelines?
We certainly need something (a campaign?) to get participation up the agenda for
government (central and local), for the Arts Council, for arts organizations and for
people. This is an entitlement agenda?
Important to establish principles. ‘Manifestos’ might lead to political ghettoisation
of subject. Need to mainstream arts participation, like participation in sport is.
Principles need to be really clear, don’t let them be watered down “don’t wash the
grit out of it”.
Networks are crucial for building a quality infrastructure – cannot be done top
down alone, need input from bottom up.
4. How will people know (or care) about their opportunities to join in?
Digitisation provides potential; develop a rich resource, a web portal to signpost
opportunities of where, how and what people can do. Collect and share
information for groups and practitioners, bring together existing research and
resources and share good practice, provide a directory for the public to search,
etc.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
A consensus that participation is an agenda that should be actively pursued;
participants in the discussion wanted to be involved and to help create and
develop a way forward.
This is not for the Arts Council to do on its own; needs to be owned and driven by
the sector and for the sector. About effecting a culture change across both the
public and arts workers. Arts for Everyone!!!!!
Issue number: 13
Issue: what do the Olympics have in common with the war on iraq? Should artists
(and ACE) resist involvement or develop an alternative vision?
Convener(s): Lisa Goldman
Participants: lene; julian;pete; richard; charlotte; lucy foster; mark wallace
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Similarities between the war on Iraq and the Olympics:
Market place
Spectacular demonstration of power
Ritual display of strength
Decided without public consultation
Expensive
Nationalistic – attempt to engender sense of national unity/pride
Led by politicians/govt, political and financial interests
Displacing people in the name of an ideal
Paid for by our taxes
Technological development
Big carbon footprint
Changes the economy
Security checkpoints – people controlled/excluded
City destroyed – ghost town left behind
Built on abstract dream/myth false values
In interests of an elite
Competition
No real role for creativity except in dissent
Walled city
Discussion
Discussed the above similarities and how the values of the arts (e.g. co-operation,
friendly internationalism, creativity, thinking outside the box) ran counter to this
ideologically. Artists need to question everything, not chase funding and “fit in” to
the system handed down.
Some interesting points of discussion:
Extraordinary spectacle of opening ceremony – artists with “alternative”
perspectives have been excluded or would/should exclude selves – many
examples given from Melbourne and UK.
GFA cut of 35m + ACE giving 5m same figure as 40m legacy fund. Madness of
project e.g. Basketball court will be destroyed after 2012 cos not commercially
viable. What legacy?
People being displaced in east London; security checkpoints stopping people;
community centre knocked down to build hotel; sports facilities being closed down
locally and money not filtering through to young athletes regionally.
Be good to see a map of countries seeing where financial interests lie.
Long term support of artists lost. David Lammy said money will come back after
but by then infrastructure of many companies and the potential creativity of many
artists will be destroyed. Short termism.
Should ACE have any involvement at all? Should it be lobbying more loudly?
Where is the opportunity for debate about nationalism/internationalism?
Creativity/destruction? Where is the alternative vision to the Olympics? Historical
models – alternative Olympics pre WW2 an internationalist workers Olympics that
was bigger than the precursor to our Olympics (which was set up by aristocrats
and now run by financiers and property developers).
We spend a large amount of time defending why we need to go to work – what
other job is like that? Its more like being on benefit.
Should artists boycott the Olympics or present alternative visions? A few ideas for
this but none fully formed (as yet!)
Issue number: 14
Issue:
Convener(s): Jill Adamson (NAYT)
Participants: Julie Amphlett, Kerry Furneaux, Amy Lumsden, Jude Merrih, Sue
Scott Davieson, Damian Cruden, Anne Gallacher
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There is a link to\ be made between yp who want to participate in and make
theatre of their own and encouraging young people to see theatre. YP don’t
necessarily always want to see theatre even when they are committed to their
youth theatre.
Theatres need to involve yp in programming and link their YT programme to prof
productions to make theatre going more meaningful.
The above doesn’t help those youth theatres that are not connected directly to
orgs/theatres.
There needs to be a staged/staggered approach to making theatre going a habit
for children and young people. \There are ways of doing this Ref. York Theatre
Royal has a successful model.
Ref. document ‘Crossing the Line’ says teenagers don’t want to attend theatre. Dip
in their attendance.
Marketing and programming can begin to address this. Theatres need to
understand that they need to behave like ‘good parents’ and continue to give give
give expecting little return for a long time.
Teenage years are about rebellion and not being seen to court authority or
hanging out in theatre’s which are often stuffy, posh and adult.
How can the sector work outside of theatre buildings in order to engage young
people and make work that is relevant to them ? How do we enter into their virtual
and digital \world and is it appropriate ? If adults get involved will \they just find
something else because they don’t want us there ?
Facebook/Myspace etc…..tread with caution re Child Protection as they are social
network sites.
We need to balance communicating with YP via the web but make sure that we
don’t further isolate the already isolated groups. Theatre and the arts brings
people together. That is its strength therefore we don’t wish to encourage the
opposite.
Check out various Young Ambassador schemes.
YP from the youth circus sector are as keen to see work as they are to participate
in it. They don’t get to see a lot so that might be why.
Attending festivals is a great way for yp to self assess their work and motivates
them to make demands upon their own orgs to do better.
There are examples of aspirational work being SO good that it de-motivates young
people.
What can we learn from other countries in terms of young people ? We have a fear
of YP in this country.
We need to celebrate and profile the fantastic achievements of many yp
particularly in the arts. Media gives yp bad press more often than good.
Arts Award is great new dev for yp. Some think not. Orgs are only motivated to do
it because they feel they will lose/gain ACE funding. Some orgs are finding it hard
to roll\out in terms of staff capacity.
Funding forms demand proof of participation at all \levels. How do you balance
that with the skill and expertise of the artist/practitioner ? Do we really want to
have young people led orgs. If so what do we do ? Be careful not to set yp up\to
fail.
If its led by yp, they need to have the skills as well as the voice.
Are we leading them or being responsive to them as leaders ?
All Arts Orgs who receive funding should be told what is expected of them in terms
of working with young people. They should be told in a dictatorial way and it
should be tied into their SLA’s.
Who are they then accountable to and who monitors them? If its just via annual
review they can and do lie and its usually senior staff that report not those working
directly with the young people.
At the end of the day it comes down to how the cake is divided and who gets what
size etc
Who ate all the pies and can they now give some back ?
The bigger orgs who get huge funding and have very high profile and better
resources are better placed now to raise funding from the commercial sector. Now
is the time to re distribute the wealth.
Ref. YTR/Pilot young peoples productions in both theatre spaces. Both filled with
yp audiences. YP are bringing their parents to the theatre rather than other way
round. That has `happened over a period of time. York’s YT and the theatre as a
whole cannot attract any development money because they are doing so well and
because they don’t tick boxes of cultural diversity and poverty…but its all relative.
Why do we penalize those who do well ?
There is a need to develop actors/artists too. There is a stigma in the industry
around performing childrens theatre or YP theatre. There is an association to TIE
in the 70’s and 80’s when you were paid little, toured to schools, worked harder.
Get high profile directors and actors to produce children and yp’s theatre.
Will they (yp) make it their profession. As many won’t and don’t intend to its
assumed they are just playing at it and its devalued. There is insufficient evidence
that yp engaged in perf. Arts are more likely to gain employment and be more
successful at whatever their chosen career. Involvement makes you into better
people !
Value the transferable skills.
Theatres need to\ make theatre that appeals across a wide age range. Who has
right to censor and say what is and isn’t suitable ?
Need for leadership and guidance whilst supporting yp to msake their own choices
and journeys through theatre going.
How/Why do we dictate to yp HOW they participate in arts. We segregate into art
forms and narrative links all art forms. Can young people express and respond
acoss a range of art forms ?
Issue number: 15
Issue: If ACE didn’t think it was working then would it apply the law of two feet.
Convener(s): Mole Wetherell
Participants: Seth from Harford, Mole from Blackpool, Richard from Liverpool,
Paul, Peter Hewitt, Hugh and then far too many people for me to write down,
Someone from Colchester,
Started with a statement that there was no answer to this question?
Hearing rumours that ACE was going, and what does that mean.
Talked about other European models of Supporting work financially.
A Belgian model, which has a commission of experts who send their
recommendations to the Flemish Government.
Worries about Lobbying individuals.
Who are the custodians of quality? It isn’t visible. It used to be more visible.
How do we assess ACE? Need a two way process
Is ACE just a funder or does it do other things? Advocacy?
Why cant ace draw other money from elsewhere like Europe? As a broker.
Advocate for ART
Why is it that money is the central premise at ACE?
More flexibility…
A more fluid approach to how to work together.
Feeling of a two tiered structure, the word monolith cropped up a few times
throughout the debate.
Then we were joined by Paul who came in at the end of a discussion, and as the
sign on the floor suggested to cut ACE.
I think Paul from Darlington came in when we talked about how we had worked
together with ACE in the past, say 10 or 15 years ago .
Mole from Blackpool talked about a relationship with officers, and how we seemed
to be more together with a common vision.
Paul suggested that our lot ( I think my generation) had walked away from Politics,
which was perhaps easier in the 60’s and 70’s but it was so very different in the
80’s.
Paul suggested that all young peoples theaters got together in Denmak and asked
directly to the culture minister to supply them with long wheel based vans.
A collective more powerful voice of course.
Peter Hewit then joined the group.
Following fom the Denmark example we talked about how the Theatre Review had
made an impact on the Theatre Industry (and maybe not as much as it could have
in places) this was a direct lobby to Gov for additional funds for an art form, which
resulted in extra money being granted.
Mole talked about being involved in the Theatre review Process and that felt really
good.
Seth then talked about the legacy in Bristol of that money. That Theatre Bristol set
up with this extra money occupied a neutral ground. It is a partnership between
everyone who does anything to do with theatre in Bristol, Ace and Bristol CC. It
brokers between all of the partners.
Paul asked if the institutions were barriers to that way of working.
Yes initially there was reticence from Bristol Old Vic but it participates fully now.
Could ACE exist in this same neutral place encouraging an ecology?
Ace has money to distribute and this stops them being neutral.
Biggest cities would suck energy from regional networks though their dominance.
A lot more people entered the room
The model that’s used for the Dance agencies are concentrate around the urban
centres and not the regions they serve.
What would/will be the last thing you do at Ace would it be changing someone’s
mind? Close it down? Etc?
Has it survived the passage of time? Does it have a future. He accepted that the
DNA of the organization can’t change. It has a strong history and has done some
great things. If he was culture secretary he would ask it to stay
He said there was a need for greater flexibility.
Seth: Is the DNA of the current structure flexible enough to change to maintain
those good bits and improve the bad bits?
Peter: the government by its nature is quite conservative … to be more flexible is
part of the challenge
Someone suggested that an alternative model of funding through local authority
Shudder throughout the group. Quite a bit of opposition to this idea.
Dee talked about the importance of financial support from more than one place
and how this gave stability.
Peter said that a fact was that 40% of ACE’s regional councils are made up of
local gov representatives.
Is this fair representation?
Health authorities are statutory. Why should we always have to justifying our
existence. If the Arts are statutory ACE don’t have to be justifying its existence.
Why haven’t we won the argument to be statutory? Its an agenda ACE can’t meet
as long as ACE is in a precarious situation.
?? replied that an organization who asks this question is a healthy organization.
The money shouldn’t be the imperative.
Policy is made at the top – it cascades down through ACE and hits the artist where
there is friction and a barrier for all sorts of reasons – quality assessment, money.
The policy doesn’t fit the environment of the artist – we have to redress the
balance and free up this point of friction. Be more flexible.
We didn’t formally vote but there was general agreement that we shouldn’t cut
ACE
BUT… Flexibility fluidity, involvement, dialogue were attributions that ACE should
aspire to attain.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Should arts council be cut, starting point No, as we didn’t have an answer to
replace it.
Issue number: 16
Issue: Where should the line between popular and creative success be drawn?
Convener(s):
Sid Higgins
Participants:
Felicity Harvest
Ben Sandbrook
Janice McLaren
Kenneth Tharp
Manus Carey
Christine Kapteija
ACE
ABRSM
Music
Photographer’s Gallery Visual Arts
The Place
Dance
Manchester Camerata
Music
University College for the Creative Arts
Visual Arts
Royal Exchange Theatre Theatre
Paul Clay
Richard Couldsley
Jude Merrill
Travelling Light
Daisy Drury
Circus Space
Maddy Pulard
ACE
Akua Obeng-Frimpong Kazzum
Theatre
Circus
Theatre
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The question was asked in the context of what was driving organizations to build
and retain audiences whilst pushing their creative agendas, and how they felt this
might impact on their ACE funding or fulfilling the criteria of the ACE agenda. Also,
was it felt that there was a “programming pressure” on organizations who rely on
significant commercial income to balance the shortfall on subsidy.
There was a range of views on this, primarily asking how “popularity” and
“creativity” were being defined and how quality was being measured in this
context.
It was clear from the outset that no such “line” exists in a particular place across
the board, but that all organizations felt that a balance between generating access
and art which is more challenging always needed to be considered.
Within many organizations, this creates a tension as different agendas come into
play. The line is constantly moving from one organization to another as well as
within organizations. There is an inherent risk of continually producing work which
is considered universally popular, which can lead to a stagnant and predictable
programming, although it was generally felt that without an element of this,
audiences would not be drawn into more challenging works and performances.
There was a feeling amongst some in the discussion that the ACE agenda was
being imposed on the natural creative path of that organisation, and thereby
leading the creativity of an organization from the back seat, and this was creating
some anxiety about whether funding would be maintained in future. There was a
feeling that the ACE objectives and how they were being used to assess and
monitor organizations were not transparent enough, and “who sets this criteria
anyway?” was a question which came up more than once. There were a few
comments which indicated that there were “cliques” within the Arts Council in
certain fields (particularly in Visual Arts) which could be more progressive. Other
organizations felt that they did feel supported by ACE and that they didn’t feel
dictated to, so there was a range of views on this. It felt perhaps that there are
some discrepancies of practice within ACE between art form disciplines.
It was felt that, in addition to the very positive investment in children and young
people, this should now be built on by supporting the development of more
established, experienced artists and it was agreed that this was the case across
many art forms.
There was considerable discussion on what popularity vs creativity meant, and of
course there is no one definition for these terms. It was generally agreed that it is
the responsibility of an organisation to make its work accessible to a wide public,
and to attract a broad audience, whilst acknowledging that not everyone will have
a positive response to each work or performance. It was also generally agreed that
“elite” was not a dirty work and that it was part of the excellence spectrum, so long
as it was accessible. Everyone in the discussion agreed that being “exclusive” was
not a good thing. It was also important to understand why certain things appeal to
many people and that this form of popular approach did not necessarily mean that
there was a lack of quality or invention. It is important to ask “what is the quality of
the visit for a member of the audience”.
Broadly, the group made the following conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
It is our responsibility as organisations to expose as many people to the
arts as possible
It is the responsibility of all arts organisations to encourage participation
Every arts organisation should balance Excellence with Access
Use “popular” or “commercially safer” work to encourage audiences in to
discover and explore more challenging art forms by creating a
connection between the two
5.
6.
ACE should encourage organisations to understand why less successful
projects are so, learning from those and developing solutions
ACE should incentivise organisations to make best use of its resources
for audience development
Issue number: 17
Issue: If I was the Arts Council I would…
Engage and Learn from the Global Arts Agenda
Convener(s):Yvette Vaughan Jones
Participants:
Fiona, Mary, Matt, Annie, Kim Wan, Sinead,Mark, Maddy, Samina, Chris,
Hassan, Kwong
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The group outlined the desire to look at global issues – not international issues.
We discussed how international was a nineteenth or twentieth century paradigm
that parades nation in front of nation and asks impossible questions about cultural
representation and selection of “official artists”.
In the twenty first century, there is an interconnectedness amongst people and
artists that allows for global exploration of issues such as migration of people, the
impacts on culture of climate change, security and faith and that artists are well
placed to work together, to listen and engage.
The question was how do we create interactive platforms for global/international
issues that address the interests and desires of artists and audiences?
Examples of projects embracing this included the one square mile project where
communities working with an artist and environmentalist explore the bio diversity,
cultural diversity the cultural infrastructure and civil society of their locality and are
linked with communities doing the same thing across the Word.
In this way, local and global is combined. Through this work, different cultural
filters are explored whilst sharing common approaches and concerns.
The emphasis should be on exchange and learning rather than parading the “best
of” in front of each other. The UK is not the centre of the Universe and there is
much to learn from practice across the globe (self evident statement we know).
The discussion looked at the present structures which were found wanting. British
Council Arts Division is not and never can be a successful arts funding structure. It
is not its function and yet it remains one of the most important sources of money
for intercultural exchange.
A new structure is needed. One that allows:
Encouragement of artists links for their mutual enrichment and inspiration –
devolving decision making and supporting artists networks
Randomness and risk are a part of this approach as is empowering grass roots
development.
The role of the new structure will not be to create a new institution but to combine
funding and create a “virtual organisation” that has a number of functions:









Funding of artist led initiatives
Funding for research, development and follow up
Creating sustained regional/country links that engage a wide cross sectoral
agenda – to include business, diplomacy etc and can work on issues such
as climate change
Harness the learning from the past, from individuals and help to ease the
passage of newcomers into working
Quality control and sensitivity – the potential for intercultural working to be
in effective or destructive is great and can rein force stereotypes and
destroy relationship if done badly
Evaluation and sharing learning from group to group
Capacity building and strengthening of practice mentoring and signposting
Disseminating the intercultural expertise
Looking at economic links and investment in those relationships, with e.g.
China, Brazil. This has its place as long as it is a part of a whole
There is a role for agenda led initiatives – it can create new and unexpected work
but there needs to be space for both approaches.
At present structures engender false hope and there is no follow through. Good
relationships TAKE TIME and concerted informed and mediated approaches not
ad hoc visits – e.g the experience of taking a group of young people to Beijing
which was enjoyable but achieved little in terms of intercultural understanding.
The discussion about audiences, the public and changing attitudes focused on two
different approaches:
The “readiness and willingness” of audiences to accept foreign work – discussions
looked at how this is presented and that if it is a genuine “exchange or
collaboration it is the artistic integrity and excitement that will come across rather
than the exoticism. Another example was of rural communities working with
“partners overseas rather than considering this as international work
The second element was about the power of art to change perceptions,
stereotypes and prejudice. Artists need not shy away from this and can embrace
the approach that “uses” the arts for cultural diplomacy – (
though there was also scepticism and one organisation said they were sometimes
worried that they were “chosen” to do this and it made them think about what
messages they were giving out through their work).
Certainly the role of arts in regeneration, advocacy and raising the debate on
human rights, health issues etc were felt to be important international roles too.
A good deal of this discussion looked at getting art outside of traditional venues,
engaging people in a variety of ways and ensuring the quality of engagement is
strong.
Advocacy should also be a part of the new structure. Devolution of this agenda to
arts and international specialists rather than ACE is important.
UK doesn’t think of itself as European and yet the rest of Europe sees the UK as a
part of the family. It is useful to work with other European countries on projects
with other parts of the World- e.g how does the Netherlands work with its
Moroccan diaspora?
There was the view that there is a shared passion and a desire for more of this
work to take place. That this open space is sparking a great debate and a start of
something new a way of making more things happen through a new approach
that is not institutional that has a light touch that learns from good practice around
– e.g the North East initiative in South Africa or Wales Arts International. That
works with partners rather than creating an organisation that “does it itself”.
That acknowledges the importance of the artists links and ability to create
innovative solutions and stimulate debate and that also acknowledges the role of
other stakeholders such as government, policy makers,educationalists, scientists,
business but does not confuse the two.
A virtual organisation could bring the varying and various approaches and
agendas together. New technolgies can help (and reduce international flights and
carbon footprints).
The group re-iterated the words learning and engagement as being fundamental
to this issue.
Issue number: 18
Issue: Butterfly conversation on Open Space
Convener(s):
Participants: Seth and Lee
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The Arts Council should distribute funding using Open Space Technology.
Dare you!
Issue number: 19
Issue: Introduction of an “Arts & Culture” economic policy.
Convener(s): Kim Wan
Participants: 0
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
i.
Arts & Culture (def. as suits and responds to this report)/:The pursuit
and production of the “Arts” and their economic impact and creation of
cultural identity.
ii.
Economic policy (def. as suits and responds to this report)/: The
analysis of economic systems, including taxation, demographics of
income, political and fiscal thinking and attribution.
“I would like to introduce an “Art Tax” to subsidise organisations like the Arts
Council.”
Working on a statement such as above requires a definition of its terms. Initially,
the idea behind the statement came from the need to bolster the lost funds that
are being depleted from the Arts in the run up to the Olympic games, being held in
London U.K. in 2012.
In order for organisations and individual artists to flourish or even just survive, they
need a certain amount of money. This money is given to the Arts to enhance the
lives and infrastructures of many different levels of engagement. The benefits can
be seen in the faces of people in hospitals, families at carnival time and wonder at
major exhibitions.
This money given to the Arts inspires civic pride, a sense of identity and social
inclusion to vulnerable groups. The facilitators of many of these projects work in
organisations holding workshops and events whilst many individual artists are “onthe-ground” working for an ethical and principal led belief that there is a tangible
benefit to what they are doing for the sake of others.
It is important to remember the above.
The argument for taxation and who it is directed at.
I would like to suggest that the main form of taxation which would be similar to
income tax would apply to the highest income sector of the economy. The
rationale would be that as the most influential and powerful economic forces in the
country, individuals and businesses that qualify for the highest band of income
taxation should pay a percentage(%) towards the Arts. This would qualify under
terms of Corporate Social Responsibilty (CSR). The following rates may apply:
i.
1% or 1 pence in the £. The liberal democrats have been campaigning
for this for education in recent years.
ii.
Tax deductable benefits and disposable income. (percentage %)
iii.
Other financial sources.
The demographics of art consumption.
Traditionally, in the West, the high-end of the art market has always been within
the view and control of a small but powerful circle of consumers. Art consumption
at this level, in its dissemination through society, spreads through different strata
and exists within a capitalist motivated economic system. This system which
promotes and ensures the survival of the pricing and investment of artistic
commodities, needs a buoyant and open market. Cultivation of brands and up and
coming artists and art-forms, is integral to the survival of this system.
It is therefore logical to assume that an early career nurturing and fertile condition
for artists to grow and flourish is essential for the high-end art market to survive.
Arts Council England, amongst others can provide and generate these conditions.
In conclusion:
i.
The direct link between the Arts and taxation to me is a solution to a
problem, i.e. the provision of money.
ii.
iii.
For the government to take this seriously and to draft a bill, may or may
not happen.
There are many tangential arguments that relate to this topic.
Issue number: 20
Issue: Opening spaces for refugees (through and within the arts)
Convener(s): Almir Koldzic
Participants: Nathalie Teitler, Lydia, Paul
Consortium
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
 Strategic development - support / development officers in each region
 National strategy consortium for advocacy (e.g. in the Ac and the Home
Office) networking, research etc
 Identify and support refugee artists at an early stage and encourage their
growth (and presence) in high profile institutions
 Support platforms that promote relevant issues (e.g. Refugee Week) and
encourage main stream orgs and RFOs to promote and include “refugee”
artists in their programs
 Work with partner organizations in voluntary sector, health, education, arts
etc
 Provide info in other languages
 Provide interpreters
 Train AC officers in development skills
 Diversify the AC board of trustees / senior management boards
 Encourage a greater understanding of refugee experiences and skills
amongst arts practitioners and institutions
 Work toward redefining the term ”arts” of that it becomes more inclusive or
marginal practices and better reflect the diversity and cultures
 Refugee Community audience development through outreach initiatives etc
 Encourage partnership work between refugee communities and art orgs
 Support development of education projects and awareness raising
 Set up mentoring scheme
 Link up artists with professional networks based on art forms
 Support projects and platforms that exhibit / bring together “refugee” and
“host community” artists
 Explore possibilities of commissioning a different RFO every Refugee Week
to develop projects highlighting relevant experiences / topics / ideas
/perceptions etc
Issue number: 21
Issue: Devolving some pots or funding decision closer to the coalface
Convener(s): Sinead Mac Manus
Participants: Caroline, Paul, one other?
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Some questions:
Is this already happening?
Who would these organizations be?
Why bother?
Would this create another level of bureaucracy?
Discussion:
1. Other models of funding for example in France and Belgium the funds are devolved to the
venues and they fund the companies through fees.
2. ACE is doing this to an extent depending on the region – e.g. through Local Authority
partnerships and arts centres with micro grant schemes
3. Also done to an extent through development agencies e.g. AN Artists Company and New
Writing North
4. Would be useful for mainly early stage work
5. Any such institution would have additional obligations
6. Is this a London centric idea – other regions can be closer to the coalface as there are less
artists/companies to be aware of
7. Active peer review is important
8. This could be done through a range of well funded institutions e.g. music development
through SAGE but there is the danger of just creating another level
9. The model that ACE uses to fund (from the horse’s mouth!) is the analogy of a roulette
table – they fund in two ways (a) concentrated areas with large amounts of money and (b)
spread betting to spread the risks on a larger range of work with smaller amounts of money
10. ACE would like the ability of ‘take more punts’ and gamble smaller amounts of a wider
range of ideas
11. There was an example of the Regional Screen Agency in the north that has a small grants
scheme that is very light touch. Money is from the Lottery but because it has been
devolved it can be distributed (under £3,000) through a 150 word email and a panel
presentation.
12. Each region has the power is change their funding model for their particular region – the
power is there and should be used more so that each region can have a funding model
particular and appropriate for their region
13. ACE funding even if a small amount can free up other money – important to have it flowing
through
14. The devolved organizations would have to be informed, capable, aware of what is
happening – they would have to share the same values as ACE
15. The model would result in less work for ACE in dealing with small applications
16. Other organizations e.g. New Writing North can be fleeter of foot and respond to
issues/new ideas quicker than ACE can due to less public scrutiny – would be a benefit
17. Would this be too much responsibility for organizations?
18. Idea of A&R people out in the industry on behalf of ACE/these devolved organizations –
looking for new talent
19. There was a cautionary example of what happening when Camden Council looked at
devolved some of its funding to the Roundhouse – issues with trust and competition with
other local organizations
20. Would the model limit responses?
Issue number: 22
Issue: HOW CAN ACE OFFER MORE SUPPORT TO THOSE RUNNING AN
ORGANISATION – IF WE ARE SATARTING AGAIN,\ KNOWING WHAT IT
ENTAILS – WOULD WE DO IT!
Convener(s): DAN BATES – YORK THEATRE ROYAL
Participants: LIZ O, SUE SCOTT DAVIDSON, JULIA MURKIN, BARBARA
(ACTION SPACE) AND MARY TURNER (ACTION SPACE MOBILE)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Discussion was connected around the facts that people running organisations
have to be experts at large numbers of jobs – Hr, finance, contracts, politicians
etc. Many staff at a middle management levels are now specialists in their areas
(such as marketing etc) and maybe don’t have enough broad skills/overview to run
a building/company.
Maybe this is not such a big issue for those running small scale companies, where
they have to have a broad range of experiences.
The Role of the developing producer was discussed and that some training is
available ( via TMA/SOLT) but more internships, regular connections with
professionals/mentors is required – maybe one day a week.
There is also an issue with roles such as building based Artistic Directors – how
does this role develop – are there people starting out their careers with the
skills/abilities and desires to run a building. Is it acceptable that AD’s jobs seem to
be reducing?
People at early stages of their careers \ or those on the CLORE programme are
covered with existing training opportunities.
Is there a role for ACE to look at a training for ‘middle mgt’ – developing a set of
core skills that are required for a manager, defining placement opportunities for
learning a development (funding these) and brokering training and development
needs for the sector.
Regionally there is inconsistency in arts training – PANDA works well in the North
West, Yorkshire has had some funding for this in the past (Creative Factory).
Young people entering the business need to find their way and a reason to
connect with ACE – at the moment appears to be online or with a form – not a
personal approach from ACE – is their a role to make ACE more public facing,\ out
there and accessible ( but face to face). SUMMARY
ACE to support the career development of emerging managers
ACE to ensure a more public facing support in the first instance ( ie not just an on
line form)
ACE to ensure training networks are widely available, and offer a brokerage
service for internships/opportunities/bursaries
Remove some stress from organizations by funding them at more realistic level –
allowing them to THRIVE.
Issue number: 23
Issue: How can we ensure movement of staff and expertise between
ACE and the industry?
Convener(s): Jessica Hepburn, Lyric Hammersmith
Participants: Sorry I didn’t take them down!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Key comments and suggestions were:
You shouldn’t be able to work for a funder/ace unless you’ve worked in the
industry.
There is too much division between ace and the industry. There’s too much ‘them
and us’. We are all working in the ‘industry’.
ACE officers should be on three to five year contracts. There are problems with
this because it will inevitably lead to high staff turnover but, at the same time,
people shouldn’t stay in ACE for ten, fifteen, twenty years. They lose touch with
practice.
Placements and secondments between ACE and the industry should be actively
encouraged. There are issues of conflict of interest but these must be surmounted.
Job shares should also be encouraged.
The benefits of movement between ACE and the industry are that you get to
understand both sides of the story.
What will ACE do with the findings of today? There are practical and philosophical
suggestions being made that need to be acted on.
We need to ensure that senior ACE officers have up to date expertise of their art
form specialism.
ACE has as ‘civil service mentality’
There is a danger that the explosion of leadership courses like Clore are leading to
unrealistic expectations. Young people, with limited experience, are being
catapulted to positions of leadership. Age and experience is becoming less valued.
There used to be a notion that you worked in the industry for many years and then
you worked for ACE and brought your experience to the position.
We need to make sure artists earn the same as ACE officers and that benefits are
comparable. Whilst there was a feeling that the pay gap is closing, there are still
vast differences between things like pensions and maternity pay. Perhaps there
could be a pot of money to support arts organizations to offer better conditions.
We should provide opportunities for artists to work for one or two years within ACE
and then go back to practice.
We need to get better input from the industry into decision making.
There are no clear career paths, particularly for young people.
Issue number: 24
Issue: What is excellence and why does it matter?
Convener(s):
Participants:
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The DCMS has commissioned an investigation into ‘excellence’ in the arts. Some
of us are concerned about this for a number of reasons. What is ‘excellence’? Why
has Brian McMaster been chosen to lead the review? Who will be involved?
There was a lot of uneasiness about the idea of a national, governmentdetermined definition of ‘excellence’ that will result in new criteria and boxes to tick
and reports to write. McMaster can’t set a framework for benchmarking excellence.
Excellence might be like happiness – if you look at it too hard it will go away.
Excellence has many potential definitions. There was broad agreement that
context is important – time, place, people, background, experience, expectations.
Can we define excellence in a way that encompasses non-professionals
participating in and producing work for the first time? Excellence is about product
AND process. And ‘what is excellence’ is a continuing question – what is
‘excellent’ changes all the time.
Excellence is in the eye of the beholder. But then it can also be a comparative or
competitive term. Is the Arts Council failing in its quest for excellence if work
happening overseas is leaps ahead of British practice? Do we need international
comparisons to judge excellence?
Does excellence = elitism? Maybe – and we don’t all have a problem with that.
Does excellence = success? Can excellence be measured? Does being excellent
mean creating the best possible experience for the audience? What’s the impact
of an excellent experience on an individual/community?
What’s the relationship between excellence and risk? Artists sometimes need to
fail in order to go on to be excellent. Progression and the journey are important –
being a little bit better than the last time. Learning, improving, developing.
Perhaps ‘what is excellence’ is the wrong question. If artists aren’t excellent, how
can they carry on? If you continue to produce s*** work, wouldn’t you just give up?
But excellence matters. Excellence matters if you’re spending public money. Need
to be sophisticated not simplistic in our approach to understanding excellence.
Need rigour and real intellectual engagement in debating and analysing
excellence. Also need joined-up thinking within government and the Arts Council –
we shouldn’t consider excellence in isolation, as one of a number of reviews,
commissions, agendas. Need to understand the relationships, dependencies,
trade-offs. Also need to involve a wide range of people in the debate about
excellence.
If we were conducting a review into excellence in science, we’d go out and ask the
leading scientists, professors, cutting-edge institutions. Is that what’s happening in
this review? Has anyone in the arts community actively tried to engage and invite
Brian McMaster to tea? We need to take responsibility for the outcomes of these
debates – got to participate.
Is it a better question to ask how we can create the conditions necessary for
practitioners to be the best they can be; for excellent things to happen? The Arts
Council in its quest for excellence should seek to put the conditions in place and
have greater clarity about what this means. We’re uncomfortable about the idea of
the Arts Council ‘judging’ excellence – ‘fostering’ would be better. But how would
we all know what success looks like?
Excellence is often accidental – happens in the most unlikely places. Funding can
sometimes stifle excellence. For example, the drive to be inclusive can water down
excellence. Perhaps ACE should be single-minded about art, and the
development of the art form.
Some suggestions for the funding process: think beyond three years; more peer
review; awards and prizes (e.g. the Mercury Music prize); open and rigorous
assessment processes; include more artists in the funding process – let them see
how decision-making works. Broadcast assessment panels via webcam! Take
minutes and publish them on the website. (Ps: what about the excellence of
people who work at ACE?)
If we were the Arts Council we would define excellence as:
 continuous improvement
 passion
 inspiration




communication
inspiration
integrity
effectiveness
And actually we’re not that keen on the word ‘excellence’ – we’d probably drop it
completely. Perhaps we need to invent an entirely new word?
Issue number: 25
Issue: the majority of people aren’t engaged in the arts…. Are they wrong, or are
we providing/funding the wrong thing
Convener(s): Neil Beddow
Participants: 17
Summary: If we take a wide definition of the arts, then actually many people are
engaged.. including film, TV etc
But!
There is a general move to increase participation and audiences from DCMS – it is
felt that there are needs to involve more people
Distinction between ‘the arts’ in general sense, and that funded/defined by arts
council
How can we do this?
People don’t know how much they will enjoy arts.. they have no experience
Art has the power to move people at an emotional level.. like football
We have to be careful not to be evangelical about the arts, we can turn people off!
Is it okay for the arts to be just for a small group of people who enjoy it, why should
we worry what the ‘tax-payer’ thinks –do we have a responsibility to provide what
they want?
Education is a work that can put people off, but if we approach it carefully by
encouraging participation we can involve people – by asking for their ideas and
valuing their contribution.
Majority of people do not feel connected to ‘high’ art, and there are barriers of
intellectual framework and traditional view of what this is which prevents people
accessing it.
It is the fault of the way we package the arts, should we try to find better
ways of engaging people
participants can get a great deal of positive achievement from getting involved.
Which is comparable to the thrill of anti-socail behaviour
People not engaging in the arts are from excluded communities, hard to reach ..
we can find ways of encouraging them to engage by..
Looking at programming times
Providing disability access
Outreach
Providing appropriate activities
‘greeting and meeting’ people at venues.. ‘have you been to a Harvester before?’
Asking audiences what they thought of the show, encouraging discussion
(dangers of this are getting a bad time!!)
Importance of finding appropriate ways of evaluating how people enjoy the piece..
giving people the Power to influence what they see/is provided
Feedback is important, however you get it, get it
Giving the arts a more friendly identity, so that people don’t feel afraid of it, or
doing the wrong thing
Issue number: 26
Issue: Investing in the artist and artist-led activities for the longer term
development of the arts.
Convener(s): Kwong Lee
Participants: Kwong Lee, Liz Whitehouse, Jane Wildgoose, Huw Champion,
Felicity Harvest, Jan Sissons, Theresa Beattie, Ledy Leyssen.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
First discussion on meaning of term ‘artist-led’. Understood by visual artists as
collective activity to create opportunities to develop/show work or to pass on
knowledge and experience.
Huw – not really understood outside visual arts. Worried about “doing art to
people”
Discussed different working methods of visual artists and performing artists.
Visual artists tend to work individually and can be isolated.
Huw discussed idea of ‘going to class’ for dancers. Suggested that a similar
opportunity could be created for singers/actors/script writers in new performance
venue in Doncaster. The idea of the group was to keep participants going, to
stimulate ideas.
Kwong said that we needed to invest in the vision of artist whose art
communicates with people. It was important to give artists the opportunity to get
together and make the agenda rather than this being solely the role of curators.
Curators/directors cannot be experts in everything and it is important to use artists’
knowledge and understanding when making selections/decisions.
Why are artists not used this way when ACE makes decisions?
It felt that individual artists were not empowered and needed to be brought more
into the process. Huw observed that artists were often used very successfully in
public art consultation in this role.
Jane made the point that artists’ values are not the same as funders or
commercial values. Artists are widely viewed as a risk – the public perception of
artists in the mold of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin. As a counterpoint to this
view, Jane gave an example of working with older people in the community where
the work created profound connections and experiences for those taking part.
Liz gave example of artist who had left sculptures in a village for people to
discover. Local person frightened to be put in touch with artist (What is his state of
mind?)
Kwong made the point that artists no longer worked exclusively with products and
the point of much work was now to stimulate change in different ways.
There followed a discussion about the relationship of ACE Lead Officers with
individuals and whether or not this was a positive thing or lead to ‘crony-ism’.
Liz observed that she had received huge support from working with her Lead
Officer over many years. Perhaps the role of the ACE officer was to work with the
organizations who worked with the artists?
Both Liz and Jane felt that the small lottery grants that allowed artists to make
work had been immensely effective. Also Year of the Artist residencies.
Returning to the topic, Kwong observed that artist-led initiatives can be very
effective in passing on information and experience to new and emerging artists. A
good example of this is the AN’s NAN bursaries which allow artists to travel to
network and pass on knowledge and good practice.
Kwong also observed that ‘investing’ is not necessarily about funding, but could be
bringing in business skills or other resources (e.g. use of a building). An example
could be ACE attempting to stimulate an art market in the North West as very little
exists outside of London.
Problems with business sponsorship were discussed. Business necessarily has
different objectives and will not take risk. Sponsorship is therefore limited in its
potential particularly for new and challenging work.
Kwong asked that if ACE did not support the development of artists, how should
artists develop? Jan felt that the role of ACE was to support “art” not artists.
Felicity felt that we were being too polarized and that the role of AVE was to
produce a rich arts ecology and therefore needed to fund many things. She felt
that some of the best work produced by artists was as a result of residencies, and
gave an example of an artist working within a business which had far-reaching
results.
Kwong felt that there were good examples of artist-led initiatives gaining funding,
but many foundered in the funding system.
One way of funding artists suggested by Huw was to give all museums a £20,000
commissioning budget annually to be spent with artists locally or regionally. This
would inject money into the local arts economy.
Felicity gave an example of an artist-led studio group in Margate who emerged as
a catalyst for discussion about change within the town.
It was felt that investing in the “arts ecology”, which included investing in artists,
was important to allow the arts to thrive.
Issue number: 27
Issue: How do audiences fit?
Convener(s): Jo Dereza (SWAM)
Participants: Jonathon Man, Jane (Vincent dance) Peter Hewitt, Vanessa
(Cultivate), Arts Dev. Officer Doncaster LA, Dee (?), + others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Convener made statement of her belief of Arts as a fundamental part of quality of
life – how do we make sure all who want to have opportunity to engage and
secondly what role should audiences have in informing policy?
Importance of education – educating the educators, in developing arts attendance
as the norm, part of life style
e.g. Enjoy and achieve (Doncaster Children’s trust) themes set by children.
Measuring enjoyment - realisation that what people enjoy they achieve in, and are
more likely to engage in and become part of their lives.
Are audiences a measure of success?
If in the commercial sector audiences = money, then what do they mean for the
subsided sector?
Example – Chinese/east asian festival using audiences to demonstrate to
promoters the accessibility of product – conversely Decibel preaching to the
converted.
Historically ACE has funded the production of product, the ‘supply’ rather than
developing the ‘demand’ – is there a case to be made for this to change?
Mac. Int Fest, promotor’s (supply) vision – yet worked for audiences – lesson’s?
ACE may be responsible for ‘product’, but without an audience for it what’s the
point? Poet may still write poems, artists may still create, but without an audience
what is the justification for spending public money? None.
{heated debate around the suggestion that if ACE is primarily responsible for the
‘supply’ (product) then Local Authorities should be responsible for ‘demand’
(audiences)} Resolved –
Local authorities have a responsibility for residents quality of life. ACE should work
to lobby local authorities to embed culture as part of the measure of quality of life,
and provide funding to further audience development.
Is supply/demand really the only model? Commercial sector –
participation/engagement in interactive way (TV voting) questions about how we
engage with audiences in both trad and new media.
Audiences DO participate by attending, and invest time and money – people don’t
buy a ticket to a show, they chose to engage in an experience - how we
communitcate, how we welcome, what the foyers like, how comfy the chairs are
etc all contribute – that experience is something that may move, excite, sadden,
anger… this is the value of the live art experience – new media / technology
v.rarely life changing or as emotional connection.
Has been tendency in sector to be narrow minded and elitist (‘opera not for the
likes of them, only for us’) – must broaden horizons in recognition that far from
dumbing down, audiences are wising up. They are more informed, intelligent,
articulate and hungry – we have a duty to respond and we must not underestimate
capacity for risk taking by audiences who trust their venue to present good work.
It’s the sector’s job not to just do what they know will work, but to push and
challenge them.
Recognition also that people engage differently at different life stages – economic
time, social, family pressures – however needs to be acknowledged that people’s
tastes don’t necessarily change with age.
There is an issue of aging audiences for certain types of work (“just because I’m
60 doesn’t means I’m suddenly going to like Stoppard when I’ve always been into
Goat Island”)
Back to question - If in the commercial sector audiences = money, then what do
they mean for the subsided sector? As publicly funded organsations have remit to
be in public interest then Commercial: audiences = money
Subsided: audiences = responsibility. For what? Quality of product, opportunity of
access, appropriateness of communication
V bad in uk at creating long term relationships – American model – sending
birthday cards etc. (Not just marketing tactic to re-engage lapsed attenders.)
Subscription model that allows audience experience to grow with work.
Audience feedback – can it really influence policy?
It closes the loop,
Audiences
Policy /
Programmers
product /
creators
Must be 2 way process
Qualitive and quantative measuring to feed into process – marketing, business
development, creative planning
Audience data / feedback must be used to inform planning – programming &
business – all to often ignored. (“if it sells a it’s a programming triumph, if not it’s
marketing’s fault”) – this is arrogance.
Huge growth in venues lead to increased audiences – this now leveled out – does
this mean less people interested? No – just no new venues so no additional
attendance.
Nonsense of PSA - “we will increase… by… %” regionality affects ability to
achieve – should not be penalized - appropriateness
Funding model set up so that RFO’s are the only ones in a secure enough to work
‘riskily’ with audiences – be reflective and responsive – but are not charged to do
so in funding agreements.
IS EVERYONE IN AGREEMENT THAT “THE AUDIENCE IS AT THE HEART OF
EVERYTHING WE DO?”
NEEDS TO BE RECOGNITION THAT AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT TAKES
TIME. LOTS OF IT. AND INVESTMENT.
Issue number: 28
Issue: How should ACE applications be assessed and who is best qualified to
assess them, officers or peers?
Convener(s):Judith Knight
Participants:
Matt Burman
Nigel Hinds
Richard Kingdom
Amy Lumsden
Emma Russell
Sonny Blacks
Eddie Upton
Theron Schmidt
Fiona Watt
William Wong
Caroline Thibeaud
David Jubb
Charlotte Jones
Peter Hewitt
And others …
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Concern over the scrapping of peer groups. ACE officers don’t always have
relevant knowledge or experience about the artist or company, or background
information. Some applications may be very well written, but the work might be
weak. Others may be poorly written but the work is strong. How can these
applications be properly assessed? Are they assessed on quality of application or
quality of project?
What might new models be?
Application process long and can be frustrating and a waste of time. Underresourced organizations often struggle to allocate the time needed. Not paid to
write applications. ‘We are not application makers, we are artists’. Often futile.
Lack of genuine consultation. How to improve continuity.
Difficulty in representing visual or aural work in a written form-based application.
Some excellent officers working very hard on successfully evaluating applications.
But some not, and this is where peer review could help. Some officers themselves
very frustrated with situation, as funds get tighter.
Final decisions taken weekly by heads of department – rolling timetable may mean
relevant art form officer not present. Applications may be turned down simply
because they happen to be on the table with other good applications. Another
week they might have succeeded. Random / lottery.
More specific deadlines might help process and facilitate the convening of groups
of peers and assessors.
Enormous volume of applications.
Example given of New Work Network’s ‘Networked Bodies’ as an interesting
model, a process where artists made decisions - 100% peer review.
Sometimes application excellent, simply no money at that round. How can that be
dealt with?
Peer groups in the past could be a bit cliquey? Most people’s examples of them
were that they were very rigorous and took responsibility very seriously.
GFA structure works if enough funds and if all officers knowledgeable enough to
assess properly – breaks down when money short and if officers don’t know
enough.
Perception that some RFO’s waste funds – lack of rigour in reviewing
funding/quality and effectiveness of programmes.
Recommendations:





A range of pilot schemes with different models for different areas of work.
Definite need for projects to be assessed by art form specific groups.
What would a hybrid system look like which allowed some peer review?
Need for ACE officers to have commitment and knowledge of their field.
ACE officers should be encouraged to see as much work as possible and
given ticket allowance.





















Could devolve some funding to producers or organizations – would certainly
reduce amount of time spent on funding applications. But would reduce the
‘pot’ for others who might not fit into any producers/venue’s artistic remit.
What about peer assessment, in an advisory capacity – advice from panel
incorporated into an assessment. References attached to applications?
Peer advocate for application.
Properly funded venues or festivals could facilitate a more effective
distribution of resources.
Retrospective peer review not only involved in initial assessment.
More flexibility in process. Advice, proposing next steps following an
application, alternative sources of funding.
More personal rejection letters and reasons why an application was not
successful.
More importance put on show reporting and feedback.
More peer input would reduce pressure on officers.
Successful applicants to GFA could assess others as a condition of grant.
Wider range of support material available to officers. Build up a file of
information .
See groups of applications as a strategic collection.
No exit strategies only progression plans.
If an application is turned down ONLY due to lack of funds in one round,
applicants should not have to wait another 3 months to have it re-assessed,
should be a quicker route through.
Use Open Space technology to assess projects.
Greater feedback would make unsuccessful applications a more rewarding
and useful process. Also feedback on successful applications.
Publish successful applications on web.
Have pilot scheme of using Open Space, geographically specific, to
distribute funds.
Have pilot scheme to give producers/umbrella organizations responsibility
to distribute funds.
High cost of panel system a risk.
In-kind grants of officers’ time given.
Greater funding for venues and festivals to enable more genuine cultural
ecology and economy.
Issue number: 29
Issue: How can we reconcile access and quality?
Convener(s): Damian Hebron
Participants: Damian, Damian, Annie, Psyche, Kate, Dee, Theresa, Jane and
others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The simple answer to this session’s question is for more money to be made
available to improve quality AND access - spend more money. As ever – funding
is at the heart of the debate around access and quality.
The group agreed that most people in the arts (and, indeed in the Arts Council) are
motivated by quality. We all want to do the best work we can. However, quality is
only one of the criteria applied to funding decisions. And often, regularly funded
organizations (particularly the larger ones) do not appear to consistently produce
quality work in order to maintain their funding. Some organizations (and
individuals) are allowed to rest on past achievements. In a world of limited
resources, the Arts Council must be more transparent about why it funds what it
funds and about what it considers to be quality work.
The group felt that rather than forcing all arts organizations to do a statutory
amount of “grassroots/community” work, organizations should be forced to partner
with those organizations with expertise in this area. Some regional theatres, for
example, partner with smaller community-based organizations sharing expertise in
marketing and production. These partnerships benefit all and improve skills.
Crucially, though, they broaden audiences and reward those organizations with
access at their heart. These partnerships should be actively brokered and
encouraged. Quality and access in tandem.
However, the big beasts that receive arts funding often don’t appear to be bound
by the same rules as the smaller clients. If the Arts Council were to start from
scratch with just those two words – quality and access as its brief – where would
money go? The Arts Council is cowed by the RSC, the Royal Opera House and
the rest and these big organizations are not held adequately accountable for their
lack of work in developing audiences. This issue is linked to regional and
demographic inequalities – money is concentrated in London and consequently
access to quality work can be limited to those with the means (economic and
geographical) to attend big London based art. Large, national organizations should
be more truly embedded in a national arts ecology. The Arts Council needs to be
more transparent about the access targets it sets those organisations which
receive the bulk of arts money.
Partnerships could also be explored between large organizations – could staff
from big national organizations be periodically seconded to mid-scale or smaller
organizations?
Arts organizations can sometimes succumb to the tick-box culture – where
numbers outweigh quality. Often the emphasis seems to be on how many people
have been touched (in however peripheral a way) than on the quality or impact of
that experience. Wouldn’t it be good if there was the flexibility to encourage arts
organizations to do fewer, higher impact projects with target groups (like young
people) rather than for arts organizations to try to count the number of young
people who come for a drink in their bar?
The group also looked at the issue of access to careers in the arts. Big companies
were again criticized for not being more proactive in employing staff and artists
who are currently under-represented in the sector. The Arts Council was praised
for its own internal approach to this issue but it needs to be tougher on all
organizations in the sector about these issues - not just making them have equal
opps policies but forcing them to act on them.
Access to careers in the arts are constrained by pay (again the funding issue rears
its head!) and while the group acknowledged that bursary schemes can help –
they can also be divisive and can sometimes create self-defeating ghettoes.
As a community, arts practitioners need to police themselves on quality and
access and the Arts Council must be more robust – insisting on excellence.
Issue number: 30
Issue: What would happen if we took over?
Convener(s): Annie Rigby
Participants: Piers and Fiona
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What would happen if artists took over the Arts Council? Would it really all
fall apart? Would it become a free for all? Would it be a chaotic paradise?!
With our utopian hat on we thought:
- We would become more mutually supportive
- The culture of elders nurturing youngers, and sharing their experiences
would re-emerge
- We would decide on the hoops we wanted to jump through, and ignore
those that got in the way of our visions
- We would stop being ‘children’ to the ‘grown-up’ ACE
- The absence of a badge of authority would make us question our validity
less
- We would be more honest. There would be less gossip – “who’s in, who’s
out and what’s the story there?”
- We would have ownership of the work we made, and our audiences would
own it too – we would be the ones with the stake in it
- We would become much less self-absorbed
- There would be no more trumpeting of projects as grand successes based
on their statistics, when really… it was a bit of a failure for their
participants/audiences
- We’d get our spontaneity back
With our dystopian hat on we thought:
- It would fall apart
- We’d be disorganized and terrible administrators
- We would fund ourselves and become increasingly indulgent
- We would try to take on their structures and certainly collapse under the
weight of the bureaucracy
- It would be unfair and exclusive
-
Everyone would hate us
We concluded:
If we took over, it might take a dystopia before we got to the utopia. Is it always
bad for things to fall apart? Sometimes it’s the way to find something new.
And we wrote these stories:
Arts Council → we destruct → we panic → we become chaotic → we shout, we
rant, we rave → WHO SAYS WHAT WE CAN AND CAN NOT DO! → we start
deciding for ourselves → we start discovering what we really need → who will help
us? → maybe we can help one another → maybe we now know what we want it to
be and WE CREATE WHAT WE WANT WHEN WE WANT/NEED IT.
If the Arts Council went away… Once upon a time there was an evil prince who
lived far away from his poor suffering serf who toiled away with little funding and
less recognition. One day the evil prince was struck down by the DCMS giant. At
first there was much wailing from the prince’s servants and the artists he had been
a special patron of. However in a short time the serf realised that the galleries
were still open and the theatres were still making plays. Apart from a few places
that had relied on the evil prince’s patronage that went out of business and were
burnt to the ground everything else continued as before. Most importantly
everyone felt equal as all the artists who had never had the prince’s patronage
were the same as all the others.
We arrived one day on a Friday, on horses and waving flags – we took over! We
gave some money out straight away that day, to a few people we knew would
never expect it, and they were very happy and made some great work. Then we
came back on Monday to start our new jobs as the new ACE. We talked a lot and
were very democratic, and we did away with forms. And it all got very slow – even
slower than before. We planned great projects, but forgot to tell anyone, and to
think about Health and Safety. We got in lots of trouble and the government and
the public got very angry with us. We realised it had all gone wrong.
But then we realised we would have to sort out this mess, and that no one was
coming to look after us. So we sat down with a big bit of paper and came up with a
plan. It wasn’t perfect but it had shaken off a lot of the dust that everyone had
hated so much before. Everyone was excited about it, and we gave it a go. Deep
down we knew that one day a new group of upstarts would come along on horses
with flags, but we decided that maybe that would be the best thing for everyone,
so we decided not to defend ourselves against it.
Issue number: 31
Issue: How do we include young people’s voices in the future of the arts?
Convener(s):
Participants:
The Place, St. Bride Foundation, The King’s Head Theatre, Studio 3 Arts, and
others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
 More leadership schemes needed
 Steering groups involving young people (both within organizations and at
arts council level)
 Training programmes that encourage young people to be involved in all
aspects of the arts
 Sustainability seems to be a problem – often programmes are project based
– we need to have continuing programming/support in order to help
participants continue to learn within the arts.
 Were any young people invited to this Open Space – we think organizations
should be encouraged to bring young people. Maybe not to this event but
one similar in the future
 Arts organization websites need to be less dry – use technology to engage
young people. If they are unable to easily access information on courses
and should be presented in a contemporary way they are less likely to
engage.
 Value the life skills and transferable skills young people learn from being in
the arts
 Young people need to be involved in planning agendas within
organizations, regionally and nationally – events, consultation groups,
advisory panels etc.
Issue number: 32
Issue: Do we need an Arts Council?
Convener(s):Vanessa
Participants: Lorna, Sue, Supodh, Louise,Nigel, Teresa and various others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The answer was
YES BUT A DIFFERENT ARTS COUNCIL
What do we want?
WE WANT THEM TO FUND THE ARTS – EXPERTLY, STRATEGICALLY AND
TRANSPARENTLY
BE GOOD AT ONE THING – WISE, TRANSPARENT AND WELL-INFORMED
DECISION MAKING
If they did this then it would\follow that they would be:
ADVOCATES
ENABLERS
COMMUNCIATORS
This would create trust and organizations would be more willing to provide the
evidence for the arts
We want coherent thinking – NO MORE LIES
At the moment there is alack of trust and a strong feeling that they cannot be both
a developer and a funder.
Officers should have artform expertise, go and see what is out there, not stay
within the arts council too long but come and go within the arts sector.
Issue number: 33
Issue: What are we not seeing
Convener(s): Dee Evans
Participants: Theron Schmidt, Julie Yau
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What are we not seeing?
 We are not seeing that the arts council and artists are still in
different
worlds from each other.

We are not seeing that ACE doesn’t deal with


We are not seeing that the category of ‘artist’ may be exclusive, elitist, and
may not make sense – especially when used to make a distinction between
‘artist’ and ‘public’
We are not seeing enough art in everyday life. It should not be possible to
go the whole day without seeing a variety of art. It is.
We don’t see enough partnerships between ACE and artists moving
forward.
We don’t see spaces being used for multiple purposes, by artists
of different practices and at different stages in their career.
We don’t see recognition for what ACE has supported (e.g. in national papers
– articles about ACE supported projects don’t always mention ACE)
We don’t see that there is a stealth tax on the arts in the form of booking
fees. (Unlike transport, etc.)
We don’t see enough continuity in staff in the ACE. Flexibility is not the same
as constant change.
We don’t see real risk – undertakings in which it is accepted that something
won’t work or might not even happen.
A ‘vibrant arts culture’ is taken for granted, without seeing what’s holding
it in place (e.g. lots of people working for free).
We don’t see vast areas where demand for arts outstrips supply
(e.g. schools).
We don’t see literature as an equal art-form to performance and visual art.

Higher education has a lot of arts, performances, and talks which are not









film.
known by the wider community, making them an under-utilised resource.


We don’t see leadership in the arts which inspires and excites. Or
leadership in the arts that is potentially controversial.
We don’t see that the value of art is beyond the alternatives of ‘art for art’s
sake’ or utility in achieving social goals. Art is an opening for something
unknown to emerge. It asks questions, without necessarily answering them.
Wherever there is art there is enquiry.
Issue number: 34
Issue: Local government and Arts Council partnerships
Convener(s): Sue Isherwood
Participants: Ednie Wilson, Sarah Richards, Eddie Upton, Paul Harman, Julia
Mirkin, Mike Clarke – other participants please add your names
IF WE’VE MISSED ANYTHING PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD IT IN!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Context:
Local government is a bigger funder of the arts than ACE but it is an ‘uneven
partnership’. However, 100% of Arts Council money goes to the arts, whereas
around 2% of LA expenditure goes on arts.
Key questions:
 Can they work together?
 Should they work together?
Relationship is complex and there are different views of the so-called virtuous
triangle of artists, local authority arts officers and ACE officers working together.
ACE has an arts perspective and is product-led.
LA s have a community perspective and are outcome-driven.
Complex and interconnected roles. Large range of other partners eg LSP
members, other local authorities in region, health authorities, police, CLOA,
NALGAO etc.
LGA relationship needs attention.
Relationships with elected Members at local level are critical, as is capacity
building for these Members.
LA structures and silos.

What do we want ‘our’ Arts Council to do?
Level up the standard of partnership: more equality, respect differing roles, multiimpact, not tied to particular ways of working, acknowledgement of particular areas
of expertise.
Need to raise skills in partnership working.
Understand different agendas and priorities. Arts Council needs to talk to LA at
appropriate level and negotiate its priorities at senior strategic AND arts
operational levels.
ACE should partner in a strategic, high level way. But it’s not either/or in terms of
partnership agreements but a both…and – the high level is important but the detail
needs to be worked up too.
Shared reviews of client organizations – how far do we go? (we agreed that it
should be further than we go at present).
Need to discuss key strategic decisions (eg disinvestment) on an equable basis.
There is not a consensus that ACE is sufficiently strategic. How far should LA
officers take the lead in partnership making when local authorities have to be the
lead in LSPs?
LA s have to grow their thinking beyond the parochial, supported by regional
agencies like ACE, MLA and Sport England.
How far is ACE up with the new agendas, particularly LAAs, CAAs? Have they the
knowledge and capacity to adopt the role given them in recent legislation?
Issue number: 35
Issue: How should we support new and exciting work in rural areas?
Convener(s): Mark Wallace, Beaford Arts
Participants: Forgot to take details! Please add names …
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Rural-proofing was/is a good idea, and if we were the Arts Council we’d make it
more prevalent today
We recognised the strengths of what exists. The National Rural Touring Network is
well-established, and already supports new work in performing arts (e.g. work
made by the Pride of Place companies).
ACE is receptive to supporting visual arts projects in rural areas. We just weren’t
sure there is:
- enough of it
- the infrastructure to build it further
Key points we raised:
1) Sustainability is the key. If we were the Arts Council, we’d put the structures
in place to avoid “Hit and Run” projects with artists coming in briefly to rural
areas.
2) We’d look to support more repeating seasonally-located events
3) We’d look to support more local commissions from national/international
artists, working with local artists so that new ideas are seeded
4) We’d look to the longer term. Investing in life-changing events for a small
audience can seed major events in the future
5) We’d support breadth of imagination and scale. Rural can (and does) do
small-scale well, but is ideal for large-scale site-specific events
6) Creative Partnerships could achieve more in rural areas. Did it fully engage
with issues of rural deprivation? More generally, could we account more for
the inevitably higher costs of bringing artists in to work with young people in
sparsely-populated rural areas?
Above all – we recognised that some of this is going on, but it could be much more
if it were to be joined up. So:



Do we need a hub and spoke approach to rural visual arts, so that we can
find more easily work which can be supported and replicated in a different
way?
How do we fully utilise new technology? How do we support digital
distribution in a rural context? How can we build more functional networks
to develop a critical mass across a widely dispersed group?
(Alternatively, if some/all of this is there already and we don’t know about it
– how can we improve communication?!)
Some good examples of practice we discussed (with apologies for spelling):








Angus Farquhar’s site-specific pieces (which could have been more widely
publicised)
Worksworth, a former quarry town in Derbyshire which regenerated itself
after artists moved into the cheap property and is now an artistic centre
The Arts in Churches trail in Romney Marsh, in which the journey between
the churches became a part of the experience
The Appledore Festival in North Devon, which mixes international
residencies (eg Richard Long) with local/national artists (eg Sandy Brown)
and uses local resources (naturally occurring clay deposits)
www.seafort.org, an online project from a rural area which attracted over
36,000 visitors to the site
Internationally – UNESCO-funded projects in Poland which culminated in
artists from surrounding villages coming into the town which turned its lights
off and lit a fire
A strong rural arts network sharing practice in the East Midlands
Increasing presence of rural organisations at leading-edge groupings such
as IETM
Issue number: 36
Issue: ACE as venture capitalist: invest and return
Convener(s): Sinead Mac Manus
Participants: Salette, Catherine, Kate, Sydney, Ben, Fiona, Sid, Steven, Richard,
Mike, William, Samina, Felicity, John, Richard, Sarah-Jane
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
1. More investment needed – example of JK Rowling getting £10,000 from
SAC – should some money come back to them?
2. Example of Les Miserable – the RSC have got an income stream from this
work
3. Danger that this would work in the successful years and not in the fallow
years
4. Trap of the non profit v the profit sector
5. Culture of subsidy
6. Create an endowment for the money
7. Danger of ACE only looking for the big projects to fund
8. Example of the Creative Advantage Fund – West Midlands ACE with RDA
money
9. Investing is not a bad thing
10. Creative accounting can hide money so maybe not much would come back
to ACE
11. How to maximize the investment
12. Ways to make money through art – new markets, new models
13. Is there a conflict between art and business
14. With this model funding might decrease from Government
15. Is this a bad thing? Should ACE be so dependent on funding from the
Government or have a mixed economy
16. Would each funded project have a contract with ACE?
17. This could be a slippery slope – too commercial a model for ACE. Smaller
artists might not benefit
18. We do not need this model – if a project is successful the profit and income
goes back to the company – the Les Mis model
19. ACE is not a VC – it is a distribution body of the Government
20. Danger of art as a commodity
21. Return does not have to be financial
22. This would be the exception not the rule
23. The pot of return money could be reinvested in more risky commercial
work/have a specific purpose
24. Pot would not be used for core funding so this money would always be
available
25. Model of the PRS Foundation – profits are reinvested and given as grants
26. Investment in the arts already have a huge economic impact – can the arts
get back some of that investment.
27. The VC model is a model only!
28. Injection of investments can have different types of returns – economic and
social.
29. The divide between commercial and the no profit sector should not be so
wide – we could learn from each other
30. Social capital returns
31. Investment should be no strings attached same as VC but the difference is
that the business plan should be solid for the project
32. We can adapt the VC model to fit the arts world
33. NESTA have used the VC model but they made a mistake by only investing
in the really big projects only
34. Value is what the customer gets out of the project – who are we really
serving?
35. Everyone is aiming for IPO
36. Culpability for the artist
37. How do we make a valuable organisation?
This is what the VC model does
Eg Charities Aid Foundation – investment but to be paid back, they
support you to do this
38. Performitivity is the enemy of aesthetic
39. To market driven a model
40. No entitlement to the arts – finite amount of money
41. Should use finite money that there is to leverage more money
42. The VC target is three times return back
43. Legal structures need to facilitate this – possible CIC structure
44. Example of Triodos Bank – clear vision, VC department invests, looks for
social as well as economic return
45. Can be used as one funding mechanism by ACE
46. Other arguments have brought up lack of support for growth
47. ACE should help us help ourselves build a solid base gear / leverage the
money over the long run
48. Creative industries paying taxes (more money into government pot)
49. Should it become one of the criteria for judgement – danger!
50. Change of mindset from subsidy / entitlement to investment and returns
(economic + social) stewards of public money – more dynamic and
motivating for artists.
51. Need skill set along with the money?
52. Are we moving towards an expectation of profit?
53. The sector as a whole must find the R&D – new work to regenerate the
sector.
54. Investors in art – invite the public to be part of it.
55. ‘An Artist in every home!’ Microsoft model
Issue number: 37
Issue: Arts, culture and social inclusion: Does ACE recognize the value of the arts
in social inclusion and social issues? Thoughts, issues and recommendations…
(Original title was: Does the Arts Council recognize the value of the arts in social
inclusion? How can we make the case to ACE to better engage in this area?)
Convener(s): Ledy Leyssen (Creative Exchange)
Participants: 8 participants, among them: Bridget Edwards (Anne Peaker Centre),
Chinese theatre practitioner, 2 representatives from Contact, and Peter Hewitt
(ACE).
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

ACE and government organizations do believe and recognize the value of
the arts in social inclusion and development but they need evidence to
better support these activities.
Issues:
 Changing roles / positions, people and organization structure of ACE makes
it difficult for arts organizations to engage and develop a long term
relationship.
 Maybe there is a ‘perception’ issue of how ACE supports socially inclusive
arts activities. How ACE’s work is perceived by artists and the community?
 Issue of ACE role(s) as: a funding agency / an advocate / network /
research agency / information and communication agency?
 ACE has resource restraints, and needs to choose what to support.
 There is a need for rigorous evidence of the value of the arts sector within
society.
Recommendations:
 Need of positive role models from minority groups to support advocacy
work of arts sector within social inclusion issues.

Art work through inter-culturalism rather than multiculturalism

Support for networks / umbrella bodies in a more consistent way, to help
make the sector more sustainable.

Information gathering and analysis is being produced by ACE, but is
dissemination not being targeted to audiences in the best way?

There is value in inter sector dialogue and joint discussions – dialogue
between different organizations from the arts, culture, social sectors and
local authorities to disseminate information, partnerships, professional
development, advocacy issues, etc.

Try to find gaps in arts and cultural policies for advocacy and funding etc,
and develop research in these areas.

Need to decide what is the role(s) of ACE. We think ACE should not only
have a funding role, but a supporter of the sector, helping it through the
development of networks, and umbrella bodies, supporting inter sector
dialogue, supporting research to give evidence of impact / benefits of the
sector.
Issue number: 38
Issue: Why can’t the Arts Council sit at other people’s table more than they sit at
their own ?
Convener(s):
Tina Glover
Participants:
Steve Turner. Christine Wilkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations
ACE SHOULD GET OUT MORE THAN IT DOES NOW !
ACE needs to avoid ‘siloing’ and keeping to own sector
ACE needs to be representing the sector not just at arts tables and needs a strong
voice outside it’s own constituency
Need to embed thinking about culture/the arts and not allow other sectors see it as
an ‘add on’
Recognise that ACE and parts of the arts constituency are doing a great deal
already
ACE needs to foster relationships and understand different sectors ‘languages’
ACE are selling themselves short
Sitting at the table is not just about getting funding…the arts sector needs to sit as
a contributor to a range of other issues and demonstrate how culture/the arts can
contribute.
ACE needs not just to meet with sectors when there is money to spend/allocate
We all need to change people’s perceptions of what the arts are and what they
can do
Culture/the arts need to be embedded in other sectors
We recognise that the arts are not the only story, but need to be clear what is the
place of culture/the arts in the bigger picture and demonstrate this
There needs to be a trust of the arts among other sectors
We recognise that this is not just responsibility of ACE but all arts organisations
Need to focus resources on key players….is this replicated across the regions ?
Some regions have specific officers for key sectors and policy of secondments but
without parity across ACE we are not maximising our resources
How does ACE decide its priority links ie Arts and Health (a good move)
We recognise that ACE does have linkages but does the sector know about these
and how does this impact regionally and locally ?
Is ACE worried about being ‘attacked’ when it works with other sectors..re
assumption that it is only there when money is available…and other sectors views
that the arts are elitist and/or expensive
Are there seats at tables we are not welcome at ?
The press does not help ! How can we change this in any way
There are huge benefits about sitting at tables as genuine participants and
contributors….arts advocacy, creating shared goals and sharing achievements,
more joined up work and strategy, building trust, additional £ and resources, more
people to work with, better and longer lasting partnerships, raise the profile of the
arts and expectations….not just ours !
We need to accept that money alone does not make a partnership
The arts needs to be embedded in society not an add on
We need to be seen as innovative, brave, risky but without loosing our quality of
intention and purpose.
We need to be looking for bigger roots..like a tree, to sustain and nourish creative
work
Do we want the arts to be like weeds and commonplace but also extraordinary,
hardy, resilient, accessible and coming up in lots of surprising and familiar places
THEREFORE…..we need to spread wide
Lets see ACE finding tables, laying them and dancing on them.
Issue number: 39
Issue: Can we scrap the forms and find an alternative?
Convener(s): Liz O’Neill (PANDA)
Participants: Jane Whitehead (Vincent Dance Theatre), Jon Adams, Ian Woody
(Norwich Puppet Theatre), Vanda Hagan, Ally Davies (CP London West),
Ghislaine Boddington (bodydataspace), Jane Wildgoose, Lene Bans Henningson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:




Could it be at least partly based on previous performance?
How about a ‘pitch’ introduction – recorded for transparency – helps provide
equal opportunities to artists, many of whom are dyslexic.
Could there be a choice according to artform?
Storyboard applications?
What currently works?
 Forms do provide transparency/rigidity, but not necessarily the right way
for an artist to express themselves. The luck of the draw.
 Forms can help an artist clarify their idea for themselves
 Anytime applications do work, but there is still invisibility of weekly
meetings making it
Summary of suggestions
 Scope for a 2-stage process: an early 2 page form summarizing
expression of interest. Those through to second round get invited to
seminar, meet officer, advice how to move forward. Models to look at
include: Architecture, Round 2 of Capital programme, UnLtd, NESTA
fellowship.
 Time Space Money model for experienced artists/ companies “Here’s
£x, what would you do with it?”
 More thorough feedback on failed `applications, including data on ticking
boxes etc.
 A yearly update form for all artists/companies (similar to Companies
House Annual Return) with basic company details – so any applications
can be related to projects, rather than repeating the same information.



This has a duel effect of also being useful tool for ACE advocacy as a
Register of artists.
If an application is turned down at a weekly meeting just because there
was a lot at the table, can be ‘rolled over’ to the next meeting instead of
having to wait another 6/12 weeks?
Can guidelines be tailored to suit scale or type of project?
Can Officers be trusted to award smaller amounts themselves, rather
than going to panel (see also Issue – How to access applications)
Another issue got discussed re ACE/artist Trust & Understanding
 Trust building needs to be done both ways.
 How about secondments – artists & ACE Officers swapping roles?
 Artists in residence in ACE?
 ACE fficers in residence at Arts organizations?
Would these ideas, even if only for 1-3 month, help us understand each other? No
Officer should work within ACE for more than 3 years without having to take a year
off in the real world before returning to post.
Issue number: 40
Issue: Chinese Heart and Soul: Why are the Chinese not visible in UK arts? What
can we do about it?
Convener(s): Jonathan Man
Participants: 8 people, including 2 reps from Contact Theatre and Peter from ACE
Summary of discussion:
From an initial discussion with the Social Inclusion convener, it quickly became
apparent that the lack of involvement of UK Chinese in British Society had many
parallels with Social Inclusion.
This discussion was combined with the Social Inclusion group, using the UK
Chinese as a case study.
1) The scoop
The Chinese have been a significant diaspora in the UK for at least a century, and
is the third largest B.M.E. group in the UK. The last census in 2001 put the
population at around 250,000, but recent estimates put this to around 600,000,
taking into account recent immigration. (I think this estimate is from the Chinese
Embassy.) There are broadly two groups of UK Chinese, the Cantonese speakers
from Hong Kong and Southern China, and the Mandarin speakers from Northern
China. Mandarin is the official language in China, though Cantonese is more
widely spoken by diaspora communities around the world.
There are significant Chinatowns in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool
and Newcastle. There will be a Chinese food outlet from every high street to
almost every village throughout the UK.
The UK Chinese are perhaps more retiring and less willing to come forward. But
would that be much different if one approached the average accountant or
housewife in the UK?
Regarding arts and media, there are currently hundreds (at least 400) professional
Chinese actors in the UK, yet we very rarely see any on stage or on tv. (Note that
black and South Asian actors on professional registers such as Spotlight number
in the hundreds as well.) I’d say when mentioning Chinese in the UK most people
would think of the Morcambe Bay cockle-pickers, and not of the hundreds of
thousands of Chinese on the UK and their stories. There are many Chinese artists,
musicians, theatre makers, dancers (indeed journalists, presenters etc). Their
inability to penetrate UK arts and media most likely follows that of African
Caribbean and South Asian artists i.e. historically a function of institutionalised
racism and glass ceilings. `
2) International
One way to counter this is the Connections through Culture scheme, I believe run
by DCMS, FCO and the Home Office. ACE is the DCMS partner, the British
Council the FCO partner. As David Lammy announced last year in a speech to
the British Chinese All parliamentary group, this scheme looked at connecting
China and the UK through business and arts, and to local UK Chinese in this
exchange.
Of course the British Chinese can play a valuable role as cultural navigators
between the Eastern and Western cultures. However, how well has this scheme
filtered down to the grassroots level? I am not aware of any significant result or
win for the British Chinese and this initiative.
There has been an explosion in interest in China due to the 2008 Olympics and
with economic growth. This has resulted in more interest in China in the UK.
However, the element missing from the above is a feeling of social inclusion for
the Chinese in the UK.
3) Domestic
With the many diversity initiatives, the UK Chinese have often fallen through the
gaps. There is one argument about the UK Chinese being taxpayers, so should
be served by arts organisations as well. There is also compelling argument
around social inclusion.
From the grassroots end, UK Chinese arts practitioners often have to deal with a
lack of support from their families and a lack of understanding from their own
communities. Coupled with this is suddenly being faced with institutionalised
racism when entering the arts, often dressed up as a lack of understanding of
Chinese culture, not really masking a lack of interest and willingness to engage
from organizations. Often for British Chinese, statistically higher achievers in
general, this is incredibly bewildering, the inability to move forward in a chosen
field. One’s cultural identity is intrinsically linked to our identity as artists. So this
lack of interest translates to a lack of opportunities and employment.
There is a depth in a different British Chinese cultural identity that can enrich the
UK arts scene as well, with a fresh aesthetic and stories. How can we bridge the
gap?
4) Mind the gap
In this discussion, we looked at this question structurally. ACE has many voices
clamouring to be heard. Strategically, of course it must use its judgment to set
priorities. But the people setting the ACE agenda should also ask, what are the
gaps? What areas are not being attended to? And to find a sophisticated
response to these gaps as well as the other areas.
There is an urgent need to address the social and artistic inclusion for the British
Chinese community and artists. Due to the disperse nature of this community and
the huge recent changes its make up, this would be a complicated challenge.
ACE is in a strong position to commission this research across the many regions
and Chinese communities to map out the scale of the problem and to offer
solutions.
Using this to create a longer term agenda coupled with the external China focus
would really help to remove the barriers to UK Chinese visibility.
Many Local Authorities and local agencies are crying out for this kind of research
coupled with resources to help them serve their local Chinese communities. We
think the British Chinese could provide a valuable case study to bring together
elements of artistic growth, internationalism and social inclusion. This research
would need to be interdepartmental and possible inter-agency, and ACE would be
well placed to create this way of working.
I would ask the staff setting the next ACE agenda to capitalise on its unique
nationwide expertise in this area to benefit local Chinese, and in turn local
society’s understanding and engagement with both local and international Chinese
arts and society.
This could also be a case study to find ways to effectively disseminate expertise
and information, results of this intervention visible and evident by seeing British
Chinese representation in the arts, British Chinese engagement in audiences, and
a growing British Chinese potential feeding our creative cultural landscape.
Issue number: 41
Issue: F*** this! Where have all the passionate and angry artists and managers
gone?
Convener(s): Matt Burman
Participants: June Rice-Baven, Christine Wilkinson, Daisy Drury, Mole Wetherall,
Frances Rifkin, Amy Lumsden, Jude Merrill, Jon Spooner, Julian Crouch, others
came and went.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The session was a provocation to discuss the crisis in funding for the arts –
specifically the cut to the GFA fund and the government’s unhelpful response to
the recent petition.
People were angry about the fact that there will be no new buildings and
infrastructure developed, that 35% fewer projects will be financially viable, that
there will be fewer grass roots and community initiatives and that government
appears to believe that the Olympics should take precedence over all these things
for at least 10 years.
People are angry that jobs are already being lost because of the cut to the GFSA
fund.
People were angry and disappointed that it appeared that ACE hadn’t done
enough to stand up to government, argue our case and have the decision
reversed.
People were angry that decisions had been made on the cultural Olympiad without
consultation with a wider range of interest groups and have been presented to us
as a fait accompli.
People were angry about the them & us attitude of ACE.
If we were ACE we would have consulted more, been more focal, mobilised more
politically connected advocates and partners to influence decision makers. If we
were ACE we would have engaged more with artists, companies, community and
voluntary organizations in developing plans for the olympiad. It was felt that ACE’s
chair should have been much more politically active as his predecessor would
have been.
Questions were asked.
What is the press doing? There have been occasional and largely ignored pieces
in the broadsheets but not a significant volume or enough noise made. If we were
ACE we would feed more stories to the press in order to give this issue a much
higher public profile.
Why is the arts constituency being so quiet? Is it because we don’t care enough,
are generally apathetic as a society or is there a general feeling of
powerlessness? Do we believe that protest would be ignored as other recent mass
demonstrations have been blatantly ignored by government (against the war,
against the hunting ban, and further back against the miners strike)? Are we just
confused about what the issues really are?
If we were ACE we would work with the arts constituency and the public to help us
feel more empowered to protest and make a difference. We would distribute more
information and help foster greater understanding of the issues.
Do we really need more bankers and business men telling us how we should do
things? What can they really offer us?
As artists we can underestimate the intelligence of our audience. We should not
be scared of telling our audiences about the risk to our work and the wider arts
ecology and the often complex issues that surround this. If we were ACE we would
also work more to communicate to the public the seriousness of this issue.
Where are the passionate and angry political advocates? Why don’t politicians
publically endorse the arts? Blair and Brown both attend arts events, but don’t
make this public for fear of the public’s reaction. Sarah Brown used to work for a
PR company that worked with small to middle scale arts organizations and could
be just the political advocate the arts needs at this moment.
If we were ACE we would be working more to develop relationships and a critical
mass of people who could influence decision makers.
As artists and companies we shouldn’t attack ACE, we should attack government.
What we need is an organisation/group, independent of ACE and made up of
artists and arts organisation, that could (amongst other things) focus and organise
persistent and committed protest. It is becoming more and more difficult to express
dissent and in order to get our voices heard we need to speak with one, loud
voice. The artistic community could vote for one central council of artists that
would truly represent our views. If we were ACE we would fully support and
facilitate the development of such an organisation.
We should exploit the power of direct, passionate, unmediated and powerful
language. We can go beyond political rhetoric, speak in a way which truly
expresses our anger and disappointment and government might sit up and listen.
Perhaps politicians just don’t realise how angry we can be, think our bark is worse
than our bite? There is a clear need for a consistent and persistent argument to be
made and for ways to be found to articulate our anger and direct it at the right
people.
We need support from our audience, the public and the unions. We need to
motivate and empower politically connected friends, members of our audience,
and supporters of our organisations to protest and argue on our behalf. However
we as artists and those passionate about the arts are best placed to argue our
case, and we should also tape the skills of those who know how to influence
decision makers. If we were ACE we would do more to bring together artists and
those with political connections.
It was agreed that discussion of these issues should continue after this weekend
and that more people should be involved. Can we create an e-list to create a
virtual open space in order to do this?