Arts debate Open Space event report – Part II
Contents
Issue
number
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Title
How do we encourage risk taking and support new and emerging
artists
How can ACE make it a healthy choice to be an artist?
What our Arts Council will not try to do
Should local authorities deliver local arts development services
Should there be a shared strategy between ACE and arts
organisations
Who gives a s****
Us and them
How can we support the artist working in the criminal justice system
People, communities, neighbourhoods: how do they have a voice
Should the arts respond to government agendas
How to keep space for innovations
Is ACE a commissioner or a funder
How can we trust each other more/how can I convince you I’m on
your side
How can ACE support organisations to develop other than through
funding
How can the difference between national and regional agendas be
reconciled
How can we ensure creative influence into all government
developments
Who decides? Artists or public?
Climate change and socially engaged practice
Working class audiences
Should ACE have a more effective advocacy role in influencing
commerce to support the arts
Shouldn’t the Arts Council’s communications officers be promoting art
rather than the Arts Council
Structure
Distributing funding through Open Space
How can the new ACE website help
Why are we so concerned with sustainability
What dis-enables artists
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
Arms length principle
5 years time
Collective responsibility/ open protest
Should RFOs be scrapped?
Are the Olympics a showdown for the arts?
If I were a consultant, I’d be rich by now. How do we (Artist and ACE)
value our creative thinking
Should fringe theatres have more support from the Arts Council?
Do we assume artists are creative and the public aren’t?
A 10% culture tax on city bonuses would have raised 1.4 billion this
year. What would your practical solution be to raise more money?
Can we do anything about the press or be depressed?
“Fail again, fail better”- how can we help the ACE to fail better?
Theatre and Rock and Roll
Five things to do
How can we create new and mixed economies?
What could / should happen with this report beyond this weekend?
Festival Thinking … intergenerational, cross art forms, cross
boundaries … or just a band aid?
Issue number: 42
Issue: How do we encourage risk-taking and support new and emerging artists?
Convener(s): Liz Whitehouse, The Art House
Participants: Sherrill Gow, Associate Director, Kings Head Theatre, Gaby Styree,
Royal Court Theatre, Kristina Nilles, St Bride foundation, Liz O’Neil, PANDA,
Morris Corby, Manchester Camerata, Neli Hatzibrysidis, ACE National Office, Mole
Weatherill, Reckless Sleepers, Jane Wildgoose, The Wildgoose Memorial Library
(ind. Artist)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The group agreed that sustainable funding for individual artists was difficult to
combine with public accountability.
Innovation can feel very dangerous as there is the risk of ‘failure’. Innovation can
be frightening.
Gabby said that it was the mission of the Royal Court to support new work and
new and emerging writers. However, does ACE then feel that this is a ‘box
ticked’?
The group discussed the difficulty of making new and emerging artists in all
artforms aware of the support that was already available? Are there connections
with higher education? Many graduates emerge with no idea how to move forward
in their careers and no idea of support available.
e.g. Royal Court trainee schemes often not well subscribed.
Liz O’Neil explained the extensive work of PANDA in supporting new performance
and new writers in the Manchester area, inc. weekly newsletter with opportunities.
Also Green Room in Manchester has changed their remit to produce purely new
work.
There needs to be a ladder of development for people.
The North West is very ‘connected’ with good communications between these
groups.
Mole talked about one of his projects called ‘Quiet Time’ where he had worked
with artists across art forms in a city and produced a piece of work at the end of
two weeks – gave opportunity for all artists to contribute.
One role for ACE to signpost organizations who support new and emerging artists
and raise level of awareness of good practice across country.
There followed a discussion about the role of Local Authorities in making space
(disused buildings) available to artists instead of selling to developers. The
disappearance of cheap former industrial space in big cities was discussed.
The idea that “ACE is weary of putting money into buildings” was discussed.
The group talked about producing art in different spaces such as health or
education settings, although this may limit the type of work produced.
The question of whether visual artists and writers had problems in common due to
them working in isolation.
Barriers were discussed:
 Are the only artists to emerge those who are middle class and can afford to
live on little income?
 Not all emerging artists are young
Jane talked about her very positive experience of having a NESTA ‘Dreamtime’
bursary, and about how open and helpful the application process was compared to
ACE Grants for the Arts process. Fulfilling the ACE GforA criteria is very difficult
for individual artists (benefit to the community, education, young people, etc.,)
The group discussed the value of the original Lottery £5k small grants programme.
It was good in that it gave artists the opportunity to produce a piece of work and
helped their career in this way but was not good for development. The Year of the
Artist residencies had been better.
Neli felt that sometimes we were affected by the ‘tyranny of the new’, but it was
also important to take good things elsewhere.
The importance of the Enterprise Allowance Scheme in allowing many artists a
year to work and become established was discussed. However, a question was
raised about whether ACE wants professional artists to be on the dole or to be
truly professional. It may be a question of what Society values.
[Content edited: 33 words removed. Please refer to our comments policy and
website terms and conditions for further information.]
It was felt that NESTA now has a political remit. Gordon Brown has now set up
the ‘Innovation Exchange’ to provide funding for new ideas (only to improve public
services??)
The idea of “if we don’t support the new, where does the future come from?” was
discussed. With no funding or help for new and emerging artists this affects who
has the opportunity to emerge and cuts out working class, etc.
ACE could join up pockets of good practice in supporting new and emerging
artists.
The group agreed that it was unfortunate that changes at ACE has meant
that Officers have had to retreat from personal contact with artists. Their
advice and support, stemming from their experience, is hugely helpful to
new and emerging artists.
The discussion returned to the idea of risk-taking. Is risk-taking allowing the right
to fail? Should ‘failure’ always be public due to the need for ‘outputs’ for the
majority of funders?
The idea of funding development time for artists was discussed, but how do we
justify this in terms of outputs?
Liz spoke about the long-term nature of this type of support. The Art House can
now see the results of support given to artists five or ten years ago.
Jane said that NESTA requires a report on her progress every year for ten years –
understanding the long-term nature of this type of support.
How therefore should judgments be made on who to give funding to if no outputs?
This can easily be done on:
 Quality of the ideas
 Quality and promise of existing work
Should ACE devote x% of their funding to support new and emerging artists
in all artforms? They should report each year for 10 years to provide evidence of
value of funding.
Organisations should help this process by producing evidence of the effect of this
type of support in the past.
Issue number: 43
Issue: How can ACE make it a healthy (not crazy!) choice to be an artist
Convener(s): Theron Schmidt
Participants: Julie Yau, Julie Amphlett, Annie Rigby, Jane Rice-Bower, Mike
Tweddle
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:


Started with the model of the Forestry Commission, for whom a measure of
how well they are doing must surely include an understanding of the
healthiness of trees. How could ACE measure the healthiness of arts
community? How could ACE evaluate its own performance based on this
healthiness?
Observations:
o Arts increasingly sits alongside other career choices … only path for
a young artist is not just becoming a full-time artist. In fact, to be
healthy, might it in fact be necessary to have multiple focuses?
o Arts organisations worry these days about the expectations of young
participants/trainees. The first years are so hard!
o There is a perception that artists are imported to the UK, that a
‘foreign hook’ is needed to attract audiences who would not come to
see ‘local talent’.
o Artists feel a possibly unique ‘pressure to produce’/’pressure to be
creative’. But also possibly more fulfilling than other careers.
o Working conditions in arts organisations often lag behind the norm in
terms of flexibility, pensions, accommodation for childcare, etc.
o Increasingly important for students to get early contact with
professional opportunities. How could this be promoted more (e.g.
internships)?
o Arts organisations receive exceedingly poor letters from young artists
– are they getting any career advice?!!
o Popular culture is celebrating the untrained and misrepresents
creativity (e.g. X-Factor). As a result, young people mis-conflate
being an artist with being a celebrity.

o For young visual artists, opportunities to show work are more
important than being paid.
Specific recommendations for ACE:
o ACE compilation of jobs listings is not adequate! Need more flexible
ways of browsing, need to be searchable, would benefit from forums.
o ACE should make space and time available for networking
opportunities – e.g., an open night for young dance artists. Space is
a prohibitive factor in setting up networking! Just open the space,
call the meeting, and see who comes!
o ACE should invest in marketing/PR to shift the public value for art
(and make it clear it’s not about celebrity!). One suggestion would to
commission a TV documentary that traces the ‘real’ story of trying to
make it as an artist.
o ACE should lobby the government for tax breaks for artists (like
Ireland) and a living wage for artists (like France – though learn
lessons from French system).
o ACE should find ways of creating tax benefits for private
donations/sponsorship of independent artists and small
organisations. Something like umbrella charity status?
o ACE should run open training on developing business skills/forging
business partnerships
o ACE should attempt to measure the realities of working as an artist.
For example, ask 100 people over a range of career-levels to
anonymously report on time spent, income received, work produced
over a period of a few years. Or, meet regularly with 10 artists to
gather qualitative feedback on what it’s like trying to be an artist in
this country, and assess whether it’s getting harder or easier.
o ACE might want to develop an artists’ support and advocacy branch,
which might need to be separated from the grants-giving branch in
order to ensure objectivity.
o What role could ACE play in making creative skills available to other
sectors? Suggestion for a pilot project: hire one person at ACE
whose job is to find highly paid part-time/freelance commissions for
artists to use their creative skills within corporate sector. See what
happens!
o ACE should make sure that they are not prejudiced against
applications from artists who are not ‘full-time artists’ – and that
artists do not self-discriminate on this basis either.
o ACE should set up an umbrella pension scheme at favourable rates
for independent artists/small organisations.
o ACE needs to pilot more projects creating partnerships with
business. For example, see the Deutschbank Pyramid awards – a
Circus Space award recipient set up a scheme in which she charged
an extra premium for her corporate services, with the condition that
this premium would subsidise her work in public/educational sectors
– a ‘feel good’ factor for the businesses that commissioned her and
more opportunity for the artist to do what she really wanted.
Issue number: 44
Issue: What our Arts Council won’t try to do
Convener(s): Nigel Hinds
Participants (at various stages :
Sarah Richards, Paul Harman, Peter Hewitt, Vanda Hagan, David Thomas, Chris
Grady, Catherine Bunting, Eddie Upton
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion was an attempt to respond to the weight of possibilities and
expectations around what the Arts Council might do by exchanging thoughts
around what it shouldn’t do.
We started with the example of an experience of Creative Partnerships, the
introduction of which seemed to ignore what was already there, and was very
difficult for the existing practitioners to engage and work with.
We agreed the Arts Council has to give out money (one participant wondered if it
needed to take decisions in doing so?).
There was a recurring unresolved discussion around whether the Arts Council
should concentrate on being just an excellent distributor of funding, or whether it
should actively embrace a broader developmental role.
We noted that the fact the Council distributes money and takes decisions about
who gets money separates it inevitably from the recipient sector.
We noted that people’s experience of the Arts Council was very varied, and
depended hugely on the quality of their relationship with the Council’s officers.
The success of our Arts Council will depend hugely on the knowledge,
understanding and skills of staff.
Our Arts Council won’t
 overload its staff
 make promises it cannot keep















say yes all the time (this can lead to mission drift. Courage is needed to say no
to certain offers of money that might seem attractive but would require the Arts
Council to take on role/responsibility/task that is inappropriate.)
try to keep everybody happy (difficult decisions need to be taken)
attempt to access additional funds at a national level that would better be
accessed at a regional/local level (e.g. from Home Office)
divorce the setting of goals from the people delivering the programme (people
delivering the programme must be engaged with the setting of goals)
move without the sector, disengage from the sector and disempower it
separate process from practice
encourage different working practices in its officers and people working in the
sector
undertake activities that belong in the sector, e.g. self-publish, run training
programmes
duplicate what already exists
take on roles that belong elsewhere, e.g. in the market, in the sector, with the
British Council
promote English/UK arts or itself abroad
remove the open access aspect of the Grants for the Arts programme
have muddy ethics
ignore or undervalue the wealth of activities that it doesn’t fund
hang on to current models of distributing the money without fully exploring
other models
Issue number: 45
Issue: If I were the Arts Council how would I answer the Question – Should Local
Authorities Deliver Local Arts Development Services and with what relationship to
the Arts Council England?
Convener(s): Ednie Wilson
Participants: Reemer Bailey, Sue Isherwood, Ednie Wilson, 4 others + ‘2 drop ins’
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Summary of discussion –
Premise is that ‘I’ am the arts council England.
Q1 Does the arts council think arts development is important
A1 Yes
(but if we have to ask the question is that because there is some doubt in the first
place?)
Q2 Do we need Local Arts Development Officers in local government
A2 Yes – because they are the translators between the arts sector, professional
and amateur and the opportunities to work and artistically present or share with
the local communities.
Q3 Should the ACE be supporting Local Arts development officers
A3 Yes – but not necessarily with money, could be through pressure and
advocacy that local authorities need to employ the people or procure the service
locally.
Arts business and ACE needs to understand the Business of Councils to provide Service to residents
 Economic development and support
 Learning and skill development
 Stronger communities, making them safer and healthier
 Continuously Improving environments
 Corporate care of those residents who need the care of the council, approx
35% of population who are older, young, suffering deprivation and exclusion
from low income or health reasons.
Background comments – There is a perceived need to understand and face the
anxiety and fear in the country.
There is a symbiotic / historic relationship between Local Authorities and the ACE
LA Support
For Some RFO’s
50%
ACE RFO’s
support 50%
There is a fear that this Ying/Yang relationship is crumbling through squeezed
funding.
Before 1945 it was a different beast with less infrastructure.
Since 1945 we have developed a huge Infrastructure which the LA and ACE
support together to roughly the same amounts. This constitutes a lot of ACE
money but a very small percentage of LA spend.
We acknowledge that funding is creaking – less lottery money available, Less
treasury money available, Trust and commercial funds being squeezed and LA
being held accountable to delivering against their core business and priorities.
Q4 Can we conceive of it being different?
A4 Yes of course
Local government knows that Arts and Culture contribute to making our home
regions better places to live, play/visit, work, learn. They effect how we see where
we live, our sense of place and belonging. They effect who will bring their
businesses to the region and who will set up new business. In some areas they
are drivers for economy and regeneration. They may not need the Arts Council.
They will need external funds.
Arts Council England know the value of Local authority investment in the arts
infrastructure, in supporting arts and cultural business, and in promoting
participation in the arts especially for those 30% of people who need support in
participating. They need the LA’s to identify this area of work and LA’s need the
ACE to articulate the value of this area of service - in this there needs to be a
strategic understanding between ACE and LA’s. ACE might not be the funder but
they could broker more external funding and influence commercial support, trust
support. To strengthen the arguments and appeals, ACE needs to fund and
promote more of the research that states the ‘value’ of arts and culture, in social,
economic, environmental terms.
Local Government will continue to grow and procure services, ACE needs to work
at local, regional and national to ensure that some of those services are supporting
and expanding the arts and culture.
Local Government will continue to be judged against impact criteria for funding
from central government and be held accountable to through local elections, ACE
needs to ensure that the information they are giving out and the strictures they
place through grant awarding is in line with that same impact criteria.
It is ACE who can be the strong tool for local authorities to use if they produce the
material that will support the case for arts and culture funding. LA’s are not the
inarticulate, recalcitrant child, culturally undeveloped needing directives from ACE
to operate creatively and artistically.
Beyond research and advocacy, pressure and vocal support ACE needs to
concentrate on funding – projects, commissions and letting more art happen.
Concentrate on the business for supporting the arts and get out of trying to deliver
what local authorities do.
Closing recommendation –
Amidst all the uncertainty and confusion – we need Local Arts Development
Officers.
Issue number: 46
Issue: Should artists, arts organizations and Arts Council England have a shared
strategy for art forms
Convener(s): Steve Dearden
Participants: Maddy Pickard, Kwong Lee from Castlefield Gallery, Liz Whitehouse
from The Art House
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Our context was the lack of coherent art form strategies explaining what the arts
council and the arts sector were jointly trying to achieve, with whom and by when.
G4A guidelines are not a strategy, the Literature Strategy (for example) is a
collection of priorities not a strategy in the way say the Scottish Arts Council
literature strategy is.
We felt a strategy is useful in that it:
- enables ACE officers to explain and understand why/why not things are
funded
- is a driver for advocacy to national, regional govt. others (including the
public)
- aids internal advocacy for arts forms not always in the forefront of senior
management’s thinking
- enables ACE to identity expertise and delivery partners (artists/funded
organizations/non funded organizations)
- enable RFOS and especially non-RFO strategic partners to know where
they ‘fit’
- helps create a coherent organization nationally and in the regions
- enables art form specific areas, say publishing or public art to be
specifically addressed
The strategy should be created in consultation with the whole sector and the whole
of ACE, and perhaps more importantly should be sustained and grown organically
through ongoing consultation - the strategy should be a tool not a cage, regularly
updated and revised.
The underlying values underpinning the strategic process should be trust on both
sides, a commitment to the bigger picture rather than merely self interest, and
understanding of each other’s experience.
The strategy should dovetail with ACE corporate/cross arts/specific initiative (cf.
Decibel).
Issue number: 47
Issue: B.R.I.T., Eclipse Report, Decibel Showcase, Whose Theatre, Sustained
Theatre (& other ACE diversity initiatives)… WHO GIVES A S***?
Convener(s):
Jonathan Man
Participants: Ally (CP), David (elder projects), Mike (gay singing biker librarian
amongst other things), Simon (makes working class gay theatre amongst other
things)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
1) Rough background for these initiatives:
a) BRIT - Black Regional Theatre Initiative
Aim is to to create a more equitable Black and Asian Theatre in England. Initiated
many diversity activities, including:
Sustained Theatre - a consultation with B.M.E. theatre practitioners on the future
of Black and Asian theatre, including where the artists are at and what support
they'd like. Resulted it the Whose Theatre report, whose recommendations are
currently being implemented by Sustained Theatre initiative. (more info:
www.artscouncil.org.uk/sustainedtheatre)
b)Eclipse Conferences / Report / Action - looked at many strategic areas including
theatre governance, and identified institutionalised racism in British Theatre. Also
looked at developing Positive Action Plans.
c) Eclipse Project / Middle Scale Development - created African Caribbean touring
work in partnership with regional producing theatres, as well as development
around sharing good practice, audience development etc.
d) Decibel showcase - three events held couple of years that platformed Black and
Asian performing arts to UK and International promoters and producers (more info:
www.artscouncil.org.uk/decibel)
2) Multiculturalism
We talked about how the argument around racism has been won, how in the 70s it
was socially acceptable to be openly racist, how this is no longer acceptable.
(One caveat is that there is still extreme latent racism coming through in the BNP
etc.)
There was a liberal agenda created to combat racism in the 70s, evolving around
the concept of multiculturalism, and how different cultures should have the
freedom to exist side by side. The above initiatives would seem to grow out of this
thinking, separating out BME issues that ACE could address.
We have seen the benefits of this in the mainstream, particularly in television
where black and Asian writers from theatre are slowly breaking through, though
we should be even further by now.
We discussed how Trevor Phillip’s speech (CRE) on multiculturalism is now dead,
that this policy has resulted in segregation between different areas in society
which has resulted in ghettos and extremism. A new model of integration and
building national pride in being British, along the lines of the American model,
seems to be emerging.
What impact will this have on the arts and arts funding?
3) Freedom to talk
One participant was aware that the white elders he works with wanted to discuss
how African Caribbean folk seem to be prioritised in the UK. The elders want to
discuss this, but fear appearing racist. Is there a way to learn how to discuss and
debate openly these issues, without self censorship?
One participant mentioned a vague sense of resentment when he got ACE money
at having to embrace a diversity agenda. His audience and clients are all white.
But he also acknowledged his responsibility when accepting public money, and
has seen a huge benefit in bringing black and Asian artists into his group.
One participant noted how segregated the London scene can be, though he found
attending a gay black club night very enervating, himself of white background.
We thought finding out who really gives a s*** is really important. It would really
help to know who is really lukewarm towards diversity, though for many cosying up
and appearing to want to work with diversity seems more important than a true
engagement.
4) Who does give a s***?
Government appears to give a s*** – why else an ACE with a diversity agenda?
But there is worrying trends for arts initiatives being funded to counter extremism
as opposed to funding the art.
Large organisations like the RSC, making great strides in their casting and using
black actors in lead roles, are they really best placed to create black theatre for in
the arts ecology? The RSC would generally appeal to a middle class audience, be
it black or white, and would be able to give opportunities to black middle class
actors. However their integrated casting policy is providing tapping into black
leading role acting talent, using black actors in high profile roles, reinterpreting the
traditional context. But this all seems to take time, with fewer South Asian actors
coming through, and none of the hundreds of Chinese / East Asian actors
appearing even in spear carrying roles. Can organisations like the RSC push the
cultural boundaries and contexts even more?
It’s a poorly kept secret that large organisations seem not to give a s*** as far as
engaging with diversity initiatives are concerned, none of the large producing or
programming theatres or music companies attending Decibel for instance. Indeed,
no large RFO’s seemed to have bothered to come to this Arts Debate weekend!
What can ACE do about these inward looking organisations that seem to have
become a law unto themselves?
One participant said he didn’t at a deep level really give a s*** about the above
diversity initiatives either. His organisation is a small one very successful at
serving it’s clients and he has brought artists of other background to his table.
One participant expressed his concern that the different areas of diversity seem to
be placed at odds with each other – where are the high profile gay and lesbian
diversity initiatives?
There was general agreement that ACE itself is genuine in finding ways to address
this. We recognise this, but also wonder how ACE can deal with organisations
whose own agenda is closed.
5) Longer term solutions
There was recognition of the role of BME initiatives, less a sense of hostility, which
comes from seeing the area each area wanted to cover. The group felt a sense of
value in discussing openly BME initiatives without fear of feeling judged, and that
an uncensored non-BME viewpoint was being explored as well.
The above BME initiatives seem piecemeal, with flavour of the month
considerations swaying agendas. Can we move away from the culture of new
initiatives providing that there are longer term solutions being sought to address
inequalities? The group felt strongly about longer term initiatives to tackle the
many areas of diversity were needed. The combining of the various equality
commissions is a development to watch closely and ACE should take this
opportunity to engage with them now. How can the new equality commission help
us?
Channelling funding into much longer term diversity strategy with non-BME as well
as BME viewpoints is our strongest suggestion, to affect in the long term the whole
structure and strategy regarding staffing, procedures, structures etc…
Issue number: 48
Issue: ‘Us’ and ‘Them’: Helpful? Unhelpful? Inevitable? Can we get beyond that?
Convener(s): Kenneth Olumuyiwa Tharp
Participants: Kenneth Tharp, Emma Stenning, Judith Knight, Daisy, (Circus
Space) Stephen Turner, Stephen (Hybrid, Birmingham), Carol Metcalfe, Ghislaine,
Salette Gresette, Catherine Bunting, Mary Dow, Felicity Harvest, Dee Evans plus,
Christine Wilkinson, Jude Merrill, Sarah Jane Rawlings……….??
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Kenneth began by asking whether there was consensus on the question – is there
really a sense of “us and them”?
He highlighted that fact that all the while ACE’s policy framework led the
organisation’s decision making, that artists needed to be involved in the process of
policy making, otherwise they would inevitably feel like there was an “us and them”
dynamic.
He also suggested that a lack of shared language perpetuated the sense, and that
the arts community must be careful not to “whinge” to ACE.
Conversation then covered the following points:


One participant promoted a sense of partnership with ACE, and said that
she felt that this existed in the South East where she worked. She
wondered whether artists were too polite to independently approach ACE to
support their work. She suggested that we should consider each other
colleagues.
Judith Knight suggested that it was the responsibility of both ACE and the
arts community to make the relationship work. She added that the loss of
peer panels has increased the distance between Artists and ACE, since this
was a way that practicing artists got right to the heart of ACE. She also
commented that the recent cuts to GFTA had led to a really useful
partnership between ACE and Artists in joint campaigning and open
discussion.
















Someone else added that the use of Managed Funds and GFTA changed
the relationship between ACE and funded Artists. MFs are a collaborative
way to work together, GFTA is a begging bowl mentality.
Kenneth asked whether there was a dialogue beyond money. There needs
to be more space for conversation about art.
Someone commented that we shouldn’t think that MFs were necessarily all
good, and that sometimes the decision making processes behind them
appeared mysterious and that this led to tension.
Someone asked whether artists were willing to take part, would they want to
work for ACE?
It was generally thought that ACE had appealed well to the sector to
support the case for investment, and it was recognized that artists could
appeal to the government in a way that ACE couldn’t, and that therefore a
degree of “us and them” was useful.
It was asked whether ACE and artists have fundamentally different
agendas.
Phelim said that we must remember that money doesn’t necessarily equal
power, and that artists had to take responsibility to recognize the strength of
their own power.
Carol said that we need to recognize where ACE is at, and the
responsibilities that it assumes.
A SE regional council member said that the relationship was like a
dysfunctional family.
Emma talked about her experience of joining ACE on a fixed term contract
and the use of being able to undermine the accusation from the sector that
officers don’t understand and appreciate how things work.
Sarah Jane added that this also worked in leaving ACE and joining the
sector.
It was agreed that movement between the sector and ACE was a good
thing that would help breakdown the notion of us and them. Phelim said
that this would make a connection on a personal level, which made the
professional collaboration much easier.
The group wondered whether the partner with the money would always be
in the paternalistic role.
It was acknowledged that ACE has a responsibility of accountability that
needed to be respected.
Salette suggested that if we made policy jointly that we would create a
collaborative basis of understanding from which to work.
It was suggested that Us and Them could simply acknowledge that we both
bring different skills to the relationship, and that the terminology wasn’t
necessarily antagonistic.





Someone described their relationship to more commercial funders as
making them feel empowered, entrepreneurial and savvy whereas
conversations with ACE didn’t since it was more a psychology of begging.
Phelim said that this might be because with the good relationships there
was great clarity about what the artist was offering, and the reasons why
the investor said yes or no. With ACE, the complexity of rationale makes
things very blurry – there are too many competing priorities, it’s never clear
enough whey a project does or doesn’t get funded.
It was agreed that much rested on the ability of the officer, and what could
seem patronizing in one quality of conversation could be seen as helpful in
another.
We agreed that we could control the tone of the dialogue and that there was
a difference between going cap in hand begging for money, and describing
an amazing project and asking ACE to be a partner.
We agreed that we have to work out how to deal with the times when ACE
says No, and not necessarily see this as a failure of the funding system.
Sometimes saying No is ACE doing its job well.
Principle conclusions/Things we’d like to see happen
1. Rather than feel that priorities and strategy are handed down to the sector
from ACE, artists and the sector, should be directly and officially involved
with the Arts Council in developing strategy, policy and priorities in order to
create a greater sense of shared ownership. This would fundamentally
improve the quality of engagement between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
2. Improve the quality of the dialogue between the Arts Sector and the Arts
Council and enhance opportunities for dialogue that take us beyond a ‘cap
in hand’ relationship, and beyond the sole issue of funding, to and for the
relationships to be based on the meeting of equals.
3. Enhance and renew the expertise and knowledge in the Arts Council by
creating regular secondments for individuals in the sector into the Arts
Council. Secondments would allow a two way flow of knowledge and
expertise between the sector and the Arts Council and help mitigate against
the unhelpful aspects of ‘us’ and ‘them’ by building trust, understanding and
common ground.
4. Similarly, ACE officers should not be allowed to work for more than a
certain length of time without being seconded into the sector to work for an
arts organization.
5. It is up to those of us in the sector to take individual responsibility for
determining the quality of our relationship with the Arts Council.
6. There should be agreed principles of partnership and engagement between
Ace and the sector, similar to the principles of Open Space.
7. Peer review should be reinstated.
Issue number: 49
Issue: How can we support artists working in the criminal justice sector?
Convener(s):Bridget
Participants: Marie, and two others - please add your name to this bit if you've
participated in this discussion!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Recognition that artists who work in this sector are professional artists in their own
right. Some feel that there’s a whiff of the ‘those who can’t - teach’ by some in the
wider arts sector. So a promoting of the impact and value of the work that these
artists do within the arts sector would help!
Tackling the fear of working in the system by artists is necessary. Fears such as:
what does playing prisons do for my career? Who (of professional importance) will
see/review my work? I might be physically assaulted.

Better support from ACE re. signposting artists enquiring about working in
the criminal justice sector.

ACE needs to clearly communicate which of its officers are responsible for
this work.

ACE to consider sharing the evaluations/key outcomes/ lessons learnt from
projects they’ve funded in this sector with other artists/orgs working in the
sector. Utilising/supporting umbrella organizations like Anne Peaker Centre
to disseminate it would prove useful.

Artists in the sector need help making connections with the professionals
working in the prisons eg. Prison Govs, Heads of Education depts.

Advice on which HMPs that are warm to using the arts as part of their
education programme.

Advice on linking in/collaborating with arts venues local to HMPS to
produce and showcase work.
Issue number: 50
Issue: People, Communities, Neighbourhoods: How/Should do they have a voice?
Convener(s): Jan Reynolds
Participants:
Jan
Jonathan Petheridge
James Blackman (typing up)
Four more lovely people (please add your names)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

YES – they should have a voice! ‘ALL’ should have a voice.

This could be achieved through consultation and ‘responding’.

This could be delivered through artists and arts organizations engaging with
the ‘people’ (used loosely)

There need to be more ACE decision makers at more Open Space
events/debates which lead to influence.

The Arts Debate should continue and never end. Make this web-based
consultation a never ending process so people can continue to comment on
the arts and arts funding.

Find a voice for those who do not engage with the arts.

Promote the arts to encourage participation. Work with media to create arts
programming which promotes the arts.

Close the divide by working with communities/people and valuing the work
in communities and neighborhoods and the artists who work in these
spaces.
Issue number: 51
Issue: Should ACE work to government agendas
Convener(s): Jan Reynolds
Participants: whoops no idea!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Yes ACE should engage with/take account of government agendas
How?
Must have independence from government to:
be a go between
Be clear about roles between ACE and DCMS
Be clear about roles between ACE and public
Set own agendas and be clear about the agenda
Be clear about relationship with government
Support DCMS to lobby for the arts
Facilitate debate (not necessarily always spoken/art itself can be debate??)
between artists and government
Be part of the wider agenda beyond DCMS /engage with other government dept
Be transparent – share that with all
Look at the language it uses and often creates and make it people friendly
Facilitate a two way process –
Agendas – arts/public
and
Public – agendas
Influence agendas and have clout!
Respond and engage and challenge agendas where necessary
Remember that:
people are sometimes artists
people can be creative
art should not always be issue based
important to see work (and listen to the voice!) but challenge itself on how it
evaluates the work (process and product can be of equal importance)
knowledge for knowledge sake/art for arts sake – art is the focus
create greater independence for itself and ensure continuity
look at a mixed economy for ACE (but don’t pay consultants huge amount of dosh.
Use own creative talents) – (nb this may not be the right way forward at this point)
Is there another way? Homework – research!
Issue number: 52
Issue: How to keep space for innovation?
Convener(s): Ghislaine Boddington
Participants: Fiona Watt, Stephen Turner, Mike Clarke, please add you names
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The issue was clarified as being about the ability of the Arts Council to enable
innovation to exist at the base of the arts sector.
The group discussed a variety of examples of the movement of innovation into the
mainstream and into popularist culture, in particular through the growth of digital
creation and distribution processes.
It was felt that often the arts sector itself is more fearful and resistant to innovative
shifts in art creation processes and dissemination than the wider public is itself.
If the arts sector is to produce relevant and topical ‘ stuff ’ to offer to the public in
2020 it is urgent it is recognised now how imperative it is to acknowledge the value
of innovation within the creation chain.
It was recognised that in larger more established organisations it is harder to be
innovative and to take risks with your outputs. It is the smaller, more flexible
organisations or independent artist led initiatives that can more easily explore and
deliver new original forms and concepts into the sector.
Many larger organizations find and pick up on new innovators work and transfer it,
without reference, into their own work, with no acknowledgement of the years of
work that will have already take place in exploration and experimentation by
smaller organisations/artists. Often in these cases the result is traditional mutation
rather than true innovation….a watering down of topical innovation to tick certain
evaluation boxes of the day e.g participation in the arts, digital integrations.
In industry models the R&D units of big businesses and the individual innovators
that companies work with are protected by copyright and patents and are nurtured
and enabled by funds returned through profits made. NESTA has started a new
scheme through CONNECT to enable this.
This ‘grows’ innovation through to new and exciting wider access developments. It
is seen as a fertilisation which feeds into a cycle of research, development,
creation to production. Industry recognises that to stay fresh and vital it needs new
ideas in this chain…….a chain of value that acknowledges innovation as part of
the cycle of making.
If the Arts Council only chooses to support organisations and individuals with a
product that already has a market, i.e is audience facing from the start, this
disallows freedom of expression and experimentation from artists and dis-enables
new and exciting developments, topical, fresh and vital to future generations.
So if, in the forth coming cuts innovators are, as expected, the first to go, where
will the new fresh ideas be to feed into the mainstream for 10 years time? How will
the sector refresh itself?
Suggestions and ideas

To clarify within ACE and the arts sector that the new, the fresh and the
unusual explorations are imperative to a healthy creation culture and to
future audience development.

To encourage within the arts sector a more professional attitude to the
acknowledgement of the innovators in the sector, therefore disallowing
plagiarism of innovative ideas from the small to the big

To have officers and directors in every Arts Council office whose role it is to
overview the inclusion and acknowledgement of the innovators and to map
and monitor the way that innovation does pass through the chain of making.
By communicating this it would clearly show the public and the DCMS how
imperative it is to fund the innovators if we are to reach wider audiences
and future audience requirements.
e.g rather than championing orchestras as the innovators in streaming concerts on
the web, the ACE could, at the same time, show the line of experimentation,
testing and development in web streaming live events that has taken place
throughout the UK over the last 10 years, thereby displaying the ACE intelligence
in its funded and its enablement of web streaming to get work to wider audiences
and to enter mainstream environments through larger organisations such as the
orchestras
e.g getting press coverage on the innovation cycle, such as the fact that the
numerous video installations in small to mid scale galleries in the 70s and 80s
have now evolved and are collected by large scale galleries as well as displayed
for mass public use as interactive work in the public realm.

To create within the arts sector schemes to enable a more symbiotic
relationship between the small to mid scale innovator and the mid to large
scale companies

To ensure that innovators are given the marketing and communication
support to clarify their benchmarking role. To encourage the coverage by a
wider range of press and publications outside of the traditional arts review
coverage through the connection of innovators to other sectors such as
digital technologies, health sector and architecture.

Physical space for innovation is also required and there was a call in the
group for ongoing and increased support of studio and making facilities for
innovators. Could mapping smaller innovators to larger organisations
encourage a sharing of resources, and a knowledge exchange of high
quality thereby helping all to move forward in a more positive cyclical
creation culture?
The fact remains that the arts, like all sectors, needs to innovate to survive and if
the ACE does not support this it will not happen.
Issue number: 53
Issue: Is the Arts Council and commissioner or a funding agency?
Convener(s): Piers Masterson, Camden Council
Participants: Mrs Evans, Subodh
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
ACE had a history for commissioning projects and exhibitions through the 1960s
and up to 1988 when the function was supposed to have been given over to
RFOs. There is still confusion over ACE’s role.
Arts Council guidance says that officers are not allowed to solicit applications but
recent experience has been the officers solicit applications all the time. Experience
in East of England is that organizations get sent a letter inviting them to apply.
Other experience has been of a ‘nod and wink’ conversation between officers and
applicants. One application was turned down even though it met the priorities
listed in the application pack because there was no recognizable ‘name artist’ in
the application. This created confusion on the part of the applicant about what the
Arts Council stood for.
If ACE wants to act in this way it should be more honest about it. It would save the
applicants time if officers would just tell them which companies and artists where
currently on the list for commissioning.
The current situation reinforces an ‘Us and them’ mentality as we try to second
guess what officers want. All our jobs are focused to continually find the means to
make the best pieces of art to reach the most number of people it can. There is a
need to become more recognizably one body.
If the Arts Council was more honest about being a commissioning agency and not
just a cash machine this will most likely create a distance from the wider arts
community. This might also release some tension though as the arts community
would know it had to fend more for itself.
How can the tension between the autonomy of the Arts Council and the political
demands of DCMS, regional and local government be resolved?
Since the old system of the art form advisory panels was removed how does the
sector know what the knowledge base of officers is in doing assessments of
applications. ACE has had more money to play with the last decade but has
become less accountable in deciding artistic quality.
The current system is difficult for younger artists and companies to access. Apart
from the requirements of the application forms if they are not on an officers ‘radar’
they will not see money. Are there better forum and seminar programmes that
could be run to give access to officers.
Issue number: 54
Issue: How can we trust each other more? How can I convince you I’m on your
side?
Convener(s): Catherine Bunting/Emma Stenning
Participants:
Sue Scott Davison, Richard Couldrey, Chris Grady, Ally Davies, Jonathan
Petherbridge, Daisy Drury, Tina Glover, Jane Rice-Bowen, Christine Wilkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Many of the issues being suggested for discussion this weekend seem to arise
from poor communication. It should be a given that ACE is on the side of artists
and audiences, but there seems to be a lack of faith.
ACE can communicate badly. Some regions are more communicative than others
and there is a lack of consistency. But many officers and teams are more than
happy to be called up for advice or for a conversation. It’s a heavy workload but
part of the Arts Council’s responsibility. Why don’t more people know this?
Turnover of staff is an issue - people come and go from the Arts Council, and don’t
always understand the history of certain issues or relationships. But we also want
lots of movement between ACE and the sector. So the Arts Council needs a
degree of organisational memory that lives on beyond a particular individual.
Similarly sometimes the Arts Council funds organisations on the basis of an
individual’s vision for that organisation – what happens when that person moves
on and the direction of the organisation changes?
A profound tension for Arts Council officers lies in trying to act as a funder and a
development agency. Officers can spend a long time building close and often
personal relationships with arts organisations – but when it comes to allocating
funding they have to take a step back and take an objective view at what’s best for
the overall sector. The real challenge for officers is to reconcile themselves to
these tensions – some can and some can’t.
We all need to understand what it means when the Arts Council says ‘no’. How
can ACE say no better? The RFOs are particularly important here. For some
RFOs it is a positive step for the Arts Council to say no to more funding. Some
organisations opt out themselves – Cheek by Jowl is a good example. Would ACE
ever say no to the nationals?
Honesty and transparency are important. How does ACE make decisions? What’s
the process? What constitutes a good application? People could cope with the
Arts Council saying no if they knew what was going on behind closed doors.
Dialogue is key. This Open Space is fantastic - stunning - and there should be
more opportunities to get together and talk, gossip, share ideas. Informal
breakfasts and lunches – or a pint in the pub after work. Formally, artists should be
more involved in developing the strategy and agreeing the priorities in the first
place. RFOs should be more active in setting the agenda for the annual review.
We need more appropriate mechanisms for RFOs to communicate what they do
and what they’ve achieved – the annual submission is inadequate and unhelpful
for some.
Feedback is very important – the Arts Council needs to know when it does
something wrong, but also when it gets something right. It would also be possible
to share experience and best practice more across the sector – the Arts Council
could help by sharing post-project evaluation forms.
There is an important relationship between trust and responsibility. The Arts
Council needs to let go a little and not bear the burden all by itself – artists and
organisations need to collaborate in building the strength of the sector. But there
are times when the Arts Council does need to take responsibility and make
decisions.
The Arts Council needs to value itself and its own identity first. It is important to be
honest about the need to take decisions within certain parameters; to admit when
it gets things wrong; to say sorry, even when under pressure to put a positive
political spin on everything.
Issue number: 55
Issue: How can ACE support artists’ and organisations’ development other than
through funding
Convener(s): Jo Dereza, South West Arts Marketing
Participants: Lorna Plampin, Studio 3 Arts; Gaby Styles, Royal Court; Jane
Whitehead, Vincent Dance Theatre; Jo Dereza, South West Arts Marketing; Eddie
Upton, Folk South West; Richard Oyarzabal, The Junction; Rosemay Curtis,
Personnel Solutions in the Arts/Voluntary Arts England; Paul Clay, Executive
Director, Manchester Royal Exchange; Vanda Hegan, Arts Council North West;
Felicity Harvert, Arts Council England South East.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This session recognized that lots of what we talked about happens patchily or in
some form, but we talked very practically about what kinds of support other than
funding we would like from ACE national and regional offices. The list below is the
result:
If we were ACE we would:
-
collate and disseminate information about other sources of funding,
support and advice.
This already happens patchily – needs to happen across the board and
regularly. To include info about regional development agencies, Business Linktype support, other orgs funded by ACE (e.g. audience development agencies),
trusts/foundations. To be a two-way process – recipients of the info to have a
responsibility to add to it or update contacts.
There seems to be lack of entrepreneurial spirit among officers – those who
have recently worked in the sector most likely to have information and
suggestions and to pass them on.
- Be aware of what the orgs ACE funds are doing and offer. There are
funded support organizations who want to reach new clients, but ACE doesn’t
routinely tell other funded orgs and applicants about them. Incentivise
engagement with funded support orgs – help them do their job and promote
sustainability at the same time!
-
Take more of a lobbying/advocacy/partnership building role with other
sources of support/investment such as regional development
agencies.
Artists and organizations often have to make a case to be considered as
‘businesses’ when approaching sources of support, ACE could help do this
regionally or nationally.
- develop it’s role as a research body for the sector and link this to
advocacy.
-
provide and facilitate more networking opportunities among
peer/regional artists and organisations.
Participants cited networking as a massive source of support, for
artists/practitioners working alone or for small orgs, voluntary organisations or
those who feel they are working often in isolation.
-
facilitate sharing of information about skills, experience, specialisms
and services within organisations.
Who has recently written a business plan? Offered an apprenticeship? Got
European funding? Offers CRB checks? Etc etc etc. ACE officers can’t have
specialist knowledge about everything but there’s wealth of knowledge just a
phone call/email away. We’d like ACE to facilitate the sharing of this kind of
info – in a simple format e.g regularly updated Word doc, online database etc.
- regular newsletters.
In simple non-glossy format. there’s a place for glossies, but this only needs to
be a regular (quarterly?/2-monthly?) email or photocopied doc with news about
other sources of support, new projects in the region or among similar
organizations.
Make sure officers don’t have to spend 95% of their time assessing
applications.
ACE’s charter is not just about the distribution of funding but we know that
officers are overwhelmed with GfA applications and don’t have time for much
else.
-
-
Close the perceived gap between national office (seen as delivering
strategic activity nationally) and regional offices (mainly assessing
applications, not always aware of national strategy).
-
Make sure that available support is not dependent on individual
officers’ enthusiasm and lack of jadedness.
Make provision of other support and advice standard across artforms and
officers. Make it easier for officers to be up to date or to easily access
information.
Better protect ACE’s investment by offering this kind of support to
ensure that funded artists/orgs are more likely to survive and
succeed.
Offer this kind of support as a central function rather than an add-on or a niceto-have.
-
-
Champion work happening outside London in the national press.
-
Provide more training and CPD for funded orgs, e.g. advocacy training
provided by ACE,SE
See RFOs and funded artists/orgs as partners in delivering ACE’s
mission.
Some regions/officers seem to do this but not all.
-
- Be a galvanizing force for making things happen.
Help funded organizations to meet other partners by e.g. going to meetings
with 3rd parties with them. Sometimes agencies/local authorities are reluctant to
get involved – more likely to turn up if ACE is there. Use ACE’s clout.
- Set up and facilitate web/online forums to enable info sharing e.g. make
section of ACE intranet available.
This has happened in some regions but overcomplicated system meant people
didn’t take it up as much as they could.
- Incentivise networking/sharing/creation of partnerships.
Dangle a carrot to make it happen!
- Identify synergies with other funders, development and support
agencies to make accessing support easier for ACE funded
artists/practitioners/organisations.
Issue number: 56
Issue: How can the differences between national and regional agenda’s be
reconciled?
Convener(s): Jo Dereza, South West Arts Marketing
Participants: Piers Masterson, Senior Visual Arts Officer Camden Council; Steve
Dearden, literature producer / writing consultant; Kim Wan, Individual Artist;
Richard Couldrey, indep. theatre prod/practioner
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Convener – how do we negotiate the differing and sometimes opposing agendas
of ACE regionally & nationally. Personal experience of working on national
strategic objectives that have not been recognized, and therefore not funded,
regionally. Can be very difficult to work with both.
Connected to strategies – earlier session on art form strategies with buy in from
national & regional ACE. Arts officers working creatively and collaboratively.
Not a nationally imposed agenda but a national strategy that allows space for
regional variation. Shared national strategy, locally regionalized actions.
Needs to be relevant – example of visual arts review showing that sector in SE
predominantly staffed by women of certain socio-economic background (people
who can afford to support themselves through the entry stage of career). Led to
looking at workforce development (BME/other socio-economic groups), but any
work that comes out of this needs to be equitable and appropriate for regional
difference.
Communication issue – how do nat/reg actually work together/communicate?
Example of this event – how was information distributed? Did arts form officers
send to all their organizations? (certainly didn’t seem to…) Why not open space
events in all regions (single day, 100 participants per day) results collated.
Regional shake up 5 years ago, national just over – now the time to re-negotiater
the working relationship and internal communication – effective art form officer
groups
What do arts officers do? Most of time spent on funding applications – more time
needs to be spent on development and leadership of the sector. There is a lack of
skill and artform experience in Nat officers – they need to engage with and work in
the regions.
Example of no sense: Director of Literature post – asked if could work from
Yorkshire, told no but that he could be out in the regions 2 days per month.
However new Director for Dance is working from Newcastle 2 days a week.
Needs to be support and training for artform directors in managing networks since
advocacy role is strengthened by stronger networks and better use of art form
officer groups
It’s about psyche rather than geography – needs a national attitudinal shift towards
recognition of regions, and regions taking the responsibility to carry out and
support national policies.
If we want a creative dynamic arts council then art form directors/officers need to
be leaders as strong leadership creates shared ownership. Presenting arts to
government rather than government to the arts.
Good example of national leadership and national remit delivered by regional
people – Live Lit consortium delivered by people from regional venues, work taken
back to the regions and disseminated/continued (with varying degrees of success
dependent upon the engagement of regional ACE)
Danger in imposing centralized coporate plan…
Needs to be a base level ‘service agreement’ giving parity across all regions –
organizations then have same opportunity’s regardless of location, which then
leads to audiences having equal access too. Level playing field with room for
regional maneuvering on top
What if responsibility for artforms were devolved to regions? NE literature, NW
Theatre, Yorks Dance, SW Public Art etc etc… rotate and national director go with
to maintain continuity…
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reduce burden of G4A processing on arts officers giving more time for
development, advocacy and leadership
Training and professional support for arts officers
Regions to take lead on art forms
National officers to work in regions
Communication major issue – internally and externally. Ie. Nat office championing
regional work to national press
Service level agreement (to include regional buy in and support for national
strategies)
Issue number: 57
Issue: How can we ensure we have creative influence in all government
departments
Convener(s): Tina Glover
Participants: Kwong Lee. Diana Ambache…please more participants put your
names here
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
ADO’s are essential within in local government.
Many areas do not have ADO’s so no personal link with LG
Arts budgets being cut in LA’s
ACE changed relationship re funding has not helped relationships.
Not statutory service
Need a range of strategies to advocate arts in public sector
Need active link with Regional Development Agencies in each region
How do we get more shared information on links with goverment in different
regions ?
Not helped by different titles and responsibilities in different regional offices…is
this an issue for partnership work and strategic planning ?
Local/regional and national fora and networks can take a role in lobbying and
making active partnerships
Artists’ creativity essential in society, do we need to use skills of artists and orgs.
In planning and strategy….?
Case studies are really useful for raising awareness and assisting dialogue with
partners…have we segregated ourselves off ?
We need local government to make our case too at all levels
Too much short term funding and planning is bad for everyone
Can we place ‘stories’ for use in all government departments at all tiers..make sure
the same stories are not worn out ! need new all the time to reinforce how much is
happening and huge range.
Need to give government experiences of the arts and its impact , quality and
worth.
People’s own personal experience is really important… ‘LIGHT BULBS’ need to
go on for individuals at all levels of LG.
Should we develop a strategy for identifying ‘key’ people in LG ?
Don’t forget parish councils
Difficulty often where members not officers are not engaged and knowledgeable
about the arts
ACE needs clarity on advocacy agenda.
We recognise that there will be issues of art as process and art as product
The sports sector has more success in getting on government agenda WHY?
Easy to understand…not controversial? What can we learn and use ?
There are lots of models to share and celebrate in arts sector, if we keep putting
these forward we raise profile and increase understanding of our work
Word of mouth and well placed and knowledgeable individuals is essential
SOME ACTION IDEAS
 ACE need to promote/campaign for more ADO’s in local government and
campaign for continued LA funding
 ACE need to ensure it has a good working relationship with LG
 More continuously renewed case studies and ‘stories’ need to available to
government at all tiers
 Make more ‘change experiences’ opportunities for workers/members in
local government
 Place artists in residence in government departments
 Promote our own creative ways of working in other settings
 Ensure arts officer or rep in each RDA and government department
 Form more Local Cultural Fora to support joint working and local voices
 Ensure clarity on officer posts responsibility in different regions
 Learn from the sports sector ?
Issue number: 58
Issue: Who decides? Artists or Public?
Convener(s): P Hewitt
Participants: Clodagh, David, Steph, John W, Jonathan Petherbridge, Alessandra,
Louise de Winter, Julie, Julie Yau, Alex Lowe, Jude
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Discussion summery
Discussion about decision making process at Arts Council and who should feed
into this – and crucially how?
Discussion and outline of recent AC strategy of questioning all aspects of its
operation. In recent arts council debates- public voice was strongly in support of
Arts council agenda of supporting innovation and experimentation- which is
perhaps not the result that was expected?
The government are thinking more about public voices and there is an increasing
emphasis on how the public are represented in all areas of contemporary decision
making.
Some discussion also of the difference between public and artist if there is one –
and indeed the existence of a third level of Arts council, which currently is the
body making the decisions. Who makes up this level and how do they end up
there? Are they not just public too?
It was a acknowledged that the current way of policy making and working is
influenced by the type of society in which we exist and that a process of
development and gradual change and not of wiping the slate clean and structuring
suitable mechanisms was imbedded within our culture and heritage.
Recommendations
There are moments of opportunity for change in structure to the way the AC is
structured or the individual areas are structured ie theatre/ visual arts, but often
these are not exploited or radical enough to leave any lasting impression of the
thing they are meant to be affecting – such as recent review of theatre.
This change is often influenced by bodies representing the artists or sectors –
should therefore these bodies power be strengthened and assessed by the
individual sectors- as they are the main route of artist feedback, and recognised by
the artists within them as an important step. The influence of these bodies also
need to be acknowledged by AC as relevant input and necessary.
All other professions are accountable to the public – such as lawyers and doctors
– and have systems in place in order to engage with issues and problems but the
professionals within these industries are also trusted to represent their sector and
to possess a critical knowledge about their chosen area – why are artists not
offered the same respect?
It is impossible - and not wanted - to consult public over every piece of work
produced and its validity. Needs to be more public and accessible mechanisms of
feedback, which are bought into and supported by Arts council, art makers and
producers, local government and national government.
Language used to talk about art and assess success needs to change to allow an
exchange of ideas between public, artists, art producers and governing bodies so
as not to alienate, and to prevent people falling into “arts speak”.
The questions asked also need to be carefully considered and a good level of
engagement achieved – not brief questionnaires with yes and no answers which
do not engage the people being questioned and encourage knee jerk reactions
rather than considered opinion.
All groups in society need to be provided with an opportunity to feedback and feed
in to policy. On the other hand people should not be forced to have an opinion,
just easy access to a mode of feedback if wanted.
The web obviously lends itself to open feedback and debate without an editorial
voice being imposed on to it but has to be recognised that this is not the only
method and talk, debate and processes such as open space and some kind of call
to action are of equal importance in the process.
This research, debate and feedback MUST influence policy and structure and not
be seen as tokenistic. There has to be buy in from policy makers and a
commitment to creating change and reacting to feedback. Local and national
government must be publically seen to support the arts, the arts council and the
processes by which it makes its decisions. This in turn will hopefully engender
trust instead of a feeling of tokenism.
CONCLUSION
Current Arts Council process of Arts Debate has begun to set up processes of
consultation and feedback. These processes and systems need to continue and
increase – turning into a sustainable mechanism of feedback and exchange of
information and concerns for public, artists, government and anyone with a vested
interest in the way the arts sector operates. Changes from the initial debates need
to be made evident and a permanent system of feedback and consultation
established – where all people (who ever they may be – artist included) feel that
their opinion is represented and listened to.
Issue number: 59
Issue: Climate Change & social engaged practice
Convener(s): William, Steve and Samina
Participants:
William Wong, Samina Zahir, Manus Carey, Psyche Hudson (Manchester
Camerata), Lene Bang, Yvette Vaughan Jones, Judith Knight, Alek Di Capua,
Steven Mclean, Damien Cruden, Clodagh
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
1. need for ace and creative sector to lead by example may not be about new
arts product could be policy
2. As artists / creative’s we are not exempt from being responsible for our
carbon footprint
a) They are expected to provide a policy similar to equal op’ policy
matching the agenda for climate health
b) Artists to think more strategically about how then to tour and use
space – e.g. that artists touring abroad ought to make the best use of
this time by doing many things while in a particular destination.
3. So what work could we do? E.g. CFTA –
A. assess on carbon audit – green credentials
B. mandatory carbon audits for rfo’s by 2012
C. incentives for interdisciplinary / transnational work that creatively addresses
this issue – cross sector transnational dialogue
4. need to think globally – humanity
5. it’s about how can ACE lead the way in a similar manner to 2yr equal op’ &
disability a) monitor and balance work with an understanding of the needs
of the environment
6. challenges what is the real role of artists
a) Highlight the issue
b) Engage people in doing something locally and globally
c) Biggest impact on intercultural relationships in global warming
d) Solutions taking action
7. Pollutions can be the funders – we need to advocate them
8. are artists aware of the global / climate issues a)worry about content
9. How to make people aware? Religion is a quicker route than art.
10. Media focus on the doom and gloom need to profile the solutions. Debates
in your arts sector rarely move beyond the sector is need for sensationalism
– Shell / BP corporations
11. bringing issues into wider socially engaged practice
12. that artists make statements daily in their lived practice and lives across
boundaries
13. partnerships’ force the issue but not about a stick but about responsibility
14. What about other issues e.g. fair-trade – should we work in the principle of
focused change. Preparing people to change their lives more from using /
consuming to being. Live in a spiritual vacuum in the western sectors.
Artists giving voice to political notion of change e.g. giving things up
15. need to join existing structures doing – partnerships are important to work in
16. the benefits of change and not consuming
17. cannot segment – its social, environmental AND cultural
18. Artists can and need to take leadership NOW! To begin to consider how to
informs our work – we have a tiny window
19. Can arts play the role of religion? – That the east is religions is an
assumption we have no moral ground to practise
Practicalities
20. support artists who’s practice addresses this issue
21. sector us as a whole carbon footprint – corporate engagement
22. ACE / sector to source green companies
23. Create a green data bank for storage of recycled materials for artists
24. guidelines for organizations – building internationalism building risk here
25. reconciling lifestyle choices
26. Advocate / lobby public transport - air travel is exempt from VAT but train
fairs are not!
27. arts funding sector to respond to this issue
28. a good / big recycling shed for theatre sets, swap shop website similar to
‘freecycle.com’
29. the sector can lead
30. make international connections but don’t forget the local connections
Issue number: 60
Issue: Theatre for Working Class Audiences….
Convener(s): Simon Casson ( Duckie )
Participants: [Content edited: six words removed. Please refer to our comments
policy and website terms and conditions for further information.]
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Theatre for working class audiences….
… there’s not a lot of it about.
Issue number: 61
Issue: Should Ace have a more effective advocacy role in influencing commerce to
support the Arts?
Convener(s): Kwong Lee
Participants: Annie Rigby, Diana Ambache, RF Bailey, Mark Wallace, Paul
Harman, Kate Dean, Jude Merrill
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Public funding, whether from ACE or other bodies, is limited. How do we address
the issue of gaining additional support from businesses and commerce?
It is acknowledged that ACE has devolved the responsibility to Arts and Business
(A&B) to carry out this work.
There is a prevailing state that only large arts organisations can attract corporate
sponsorship because of the branding and higher profile benefits and that they can
offer.
Medium and small organisations can sometimes gain small pots of sponsorship,
often from businesses with a local interest. Concern was expressed on the amount
of resources and energy spent on chasing commercial support – basically is it
worth it for the relatively small gains and is it an efficient use of staff time?
(We also discussed that sometimes corporate branding may be restrictive or
damaging to the image of the arts project – a clash of brands as it were. This was
for the individual organisation to decide).
The fact that ACE is A&B’s largest funder means that ACE has a specific role in
ensuring that they can also deliver for the small and medium organisations, as well
as for the larger organisations who often have development officers.
The advocacy and support discussed here was aimed at enabling small and
medium sized organisations to build relationships with the commercial sector to
support their work.
Arts Organisations must be savvy to income generation by knowing what they can
offer to businesses and individuals. The ‘begging bowl’ approach is not often
successful, whereas promoting and ‘selling’ a unique experience can be. Can we
use the American models of private and corporate models of supporting the arts?
Another model may be to work in a consortium with other small organisations
towards a package that businesses can get behind. An example was given of a
theatre studio complex outside of Stockholm, involving a number of groups. There
was strength in numbers and in pulling resources. This may well work for festivals
but not for revenue or rolling programmes. A&B may be a good partner to broker
or even facilitate this kind of model.
We also discussed other models of getting resources/ funding including:
 Private giving
 Venture philanthropy
 Making use of Board directors and trustees to fundraise. A&B should be a
resource to give training?
ACE has highlighted the need to innovate and take risks but it is not easy to
convince businesses that experimental or process-led work are worth supporting.
How can ACE advocate this on behalf of the arts. Again is A&B the route that ACE
has to partnerships with business.
(ACE shouldn’t penalise arts organisations who are successful in business getting
sponsorship, i.e. grants shouldn’t be withdrawn if the project can attract moiré
money than originally expected. The project, if good and still fulfils the funder’s
agenda, can always be expanded).
We recognise that relationship building between the individuals (within the arts
organisation and the business) is key to successful corporate sponsorship. And we
can do this by selling the unique experiences and benefits that the arts
organisation or project can offer, including training for employees, branding etc.
In conclusion, corporate sponsorship is one route of resourcing the arts and
should be pursued in partnership with A&B. ACE can ensure that A&B is more
responsive to working with smaller organisations to find various models and
solutions to their resourcing needs – which may not be merely financial as
business support and mentoring are also useful for the long-term. ACE can also
advocate the benefits of the arts to the media and politicians to enable a clearer
image of the arts.
Issue number: 62
Issue: Shouldn’t the Arts Council’s communications officers spend their time
promoting art rather than the Arts Council?
Convener(s): Damian Hebron
Participants: Jane, Louise, Emma, Julie, Mole
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The group agreed that all who work in the arts would like to see more
comprehensive, more considered and simply more coverage of the arts in the
mainstream media. The group also agreed that artists should promote their work
and attempt to engage with the media. Yet many who work in the arts lack the
skills and resources to effectively manage the media.
This problem particularly affects individual artists and those working for small
organizations with one or two members of staff but no press officer.
The group also acknowledged that different arts practitioners want different things
out of their engagement with the media (for example, some want a critical dialogue
while others want increased audiences)
One very clear suggestion came out of this session. The group agreed that each
Arts Council region should appoint a media co-ordinator with the brief to promote
the work of artists working in their region. This individual would:
 Run regular workshops training individual artists and those who work for
small arts organizations in the skills involved in media relations (from how to
write a press release to how to distribute images).
 Offer tailored individual advice to all recipients of Grants for the Arts
 Maintain a limited but up to date press contact list for the region to
complement a national list maintained from national office
 Offer local press advice to organizations touring into the region

Be available to meet and advise RFOs supporting them as they devise
media strategies.
Issue number: 63
Issue: Structure
Convener(s): Jan Reynolds, Nigel Hinds
Participants: us
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Is current structure right?
Are art form divisions necessary?
Does it need to be uniform – do the structures need to be uniform across national
and regional offices?
Would a change in governance (structure, roles, remits) create a way for sector
representatives to engage on a regular basis with ACE?
There is a lack of two-way flow and communication between the sector and ACE
(organization and officers).
Remit: ACE should concentrate on funding and advocacy.
We like it being one organization, with decision-making devolved as far as
possible.
How does a practitioner access an appropriate officer if there isn’t one in their
regional office and/or the national office? Communication and information flows
within ACE need to be excellent.
How do sector representatives engage with ACE?
Possibly:
ACE levels
Vision/mission
Strategy
Programmes and activities
Sector reps
Governance monitoring panels
??
Grant deciding panels
This needs to happen at both national and regional levels.
Does lack of grant application deadlines make it harder to get good decisionmaking?
Issue number: 64
Issue: Granting money through Open Space technology. What are the issues?
Convener(s): Seth
Participants: Seth and then later Kirsty
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Development of ideas in butterfly conversation with Lee yesterday.
Harrison Owen did use Open Space Technology to disseminate millions of dollars.
Need to look at results and lessons from this.
Grants for the arts (GfA) is already similar to this in that it is an “open process” but
it is still being controlled by ACE who are making the decisions. Who are making
the decisions and the criteria and on what basis?
RFO is regulated by ACE too – how robustly?
What are the access issues around using OS to grant money?
some people would pitch better than others
there may be professional pitchers (producers?)
What happens in a Bull Market?
How would one deal with the considerable PR challenge around disseminating
money through a technology that is notoriously difficult to explain to people (until
they’ve experienced it) There would be fear around using it. Those who want to
see the structures on paper fear OS because they can’t control it from afar – they
have to engage.
OS inherently evaluates the decisions made but how do you evaluate the project?
What if there isn’t a good representation at the OS? If five live art proposals and
one craft proposal are tabled which would benefit.
Is it like having a referendum on everything?
Are there other benefits?
Creating a community of understanding about other’s needs and
understanding?
Get better at projects, structure and pitching them through seeing others
-
How would you publicize it?
If it’s a sign on an ACE door only ACE officers will come
BUT that’s how it is at the moment – decisions are made against GfA depending
on what comes in. No one controls the portfolio.
How would it actually work?
Each pitch could be presented as a separate issue and include the cost of the
project from the beginning
-
-
-
-
-
How would you decide who gets the money?
Start with an amount of money – say £300k
Could use the star system at the end to vote for projects.
The one with the most stars gets the money they asked for then the one
with the next most votes gets what they asked for until there is no
money left.
Like GfA only full requests would be granted not part of the request
It would self regulate because one would soon learnt that to ask for
£300k would mean that the project had to be extraordinary because to
fund it would mean that no other project would get funded. The chances
of it not getting funded are higher but that’s how it should be isn’t it.
If you funded the first three projects with most votes/stars and were left
with say £100k and the project with the next highest vote was £110k but
the next two projects were 50k and 45k would they get the money? OR
would you re-pitch at that point?
would you re-vote?
could decide only to fund full requests and therefore default to
funding next two projects. Therefore project with no stars but that
costs £1 is most likely to get funded but gets least money
or projects with no stars don’t get funded and money goes back into
the pot
Do you have to spend all of the allocation in the meeting?
Conclusions:
We felt that many of the issues are similar to those with the current structure.
We felt that we needed to try it out to see what would happen.
From a butterfly conversation with Jon at another time on this issue: Could the
public or artists go and look in on ACE’s current decision making process? Like a
public gallery. Not get involved but just to see the level of debate and discussion
from officers around decisions. If not what is there to hide? If we could we would
be able to report back to others on the level of this debate and feed back to
officers – this could only be a healthy way to improve the system.
Issue number: 65
Issue: How can a/the new “ACE” website Help?
Convener(s): John Kundu, Visiting Arts
Participants:
Phelim McDermott; Stephen Turner; Kristina Nilles; Sherrill Gow
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
“Advocacy, lobbying, support, training and development, funding, networking,
press & pr, case studies, interaction, forums, debate, socialising… engage,
enlighten, inform? Who will the new website be for?”
Current online presence
It’s hard to get much from it; ironically there’s too much on it.
Knowing that a certain document is online - and then actually finding - is very
difficult! Navigation is a problem and it feels like only ‘they’ know how to navigate
through it. Information is out of date and updates don’t happen on a regular basis.
Regional contact details are hidden – calling up to get an e-mail seems pointless
as support from officers is key to sector work and you need a good, reliable point
(start) of access to get discussions going… it’s no use if the contact details are
hidden from you!
Future online presence
ACE should be proactive with its news instead of hiding it on their website (such
as mailouts, more exciting and frequently updated home page)
More in-depth and honest images related to actual projects rather than ‘PR-based’
images. You can’t even listen to music or watch films on ACE website (if you can
then they’re one off and well hidden)
ACE could have its own online TV channel – how feasible and cost effective would
this be by the way?
Members/non-members area
Should there be a separate section for members to download logos, get access to
essential policy documents, should there be a private members’ forum?
Should the public area have info geared to the public, blogs, online debate, listings
etc and should these elements be under different sections like a press website?
How should the ACE moderate this public/private area and… what if you can’t sign
up – does that mean you’re being excluded and you’re not part of the gang, again
who moderates/decides this?
Media reports, press cuttings and evaluation reports should be online – people
need to know how ACE has been involved in a successful project – a logo on a
poster is sometimes not enough.
Can the ACE website be a portal/hub and link to other information and other sites
or should it be all self-contained with more intelligence/information – saves the
user from jumping in and out of websites.
Content that could be included (and easy to find)
Help Sheets, starter packs, guides on funding and alternative sources of funding,
different art form sections, networks – contact details of useful organizations keen
to engage with ACE’s sector (rather than just a link out to their website)
By including this information the amount of calls/emails could be lessened, freeing
up time for officers to focus on developing stronger relationships
Should each region have their own site? We value each regions own uniqueness;
however should a ‘main’ site shout about all the regions equally as a whole – a key
issue with regards to design, branding, unity and investment.
Conclusion
Smart and clever research is the key which should also (it was felt) involve more
than just ACE. It was felt that a more diverse group of voices should be involved:
users, all levels of the sector (directors/administrators etc), ACE itself, the public,
web and IT consultants, press and pr, DCMS, government… anyone that can
bring value to the research process!
How is info on screen consumed differently from info on print? What is cyberspace
debate like? And how is it fueled? People tend to lurk and watch, then back away
when they get bored or things heat up.
Even though sites have been around for a long time, the web ‘experience’ is still at
a relatively early stage – people’s use of blogs and facebook are only 1 or 2 years
old – how are things going to pan out in the long term? (E.g. people don’t talk
about Friends Reunited anymore!)
The interactive element can take an active part in setting the culture but some
ethnics should be in place so things don’t get out of hand.
We cannot afford to miss the boat with web technology! You only get one chance
to get it right.
Issue number: 66
Issue: Why are we so concerned with sustainability, should it be more about the
now?
Convener(s): Emma Russell
Participants: Dan, Alistair, Damien, Other
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Will an over emphasis on making the arts sustainable set us up for a very dry
creative future? Art that is right for now may not be for five or ten years time.
How can we make things sustainable?
Arts are a ‘cultural weapon’ for funding, developed on the proviso they should
make a cultural change.
All agreed that art should be set in the contemporary and about the now, creating
art with the intention that it will have to have a legacy is suffocating.
Does art need to happen with sustainability in mind? When the photographer took
the photo of the Chinese man shot in Burma was he thinking of the lasting legacy
of the piece or just about the moment it was happening? It was probably the latter.
“I believe that sustainability and work happening in the now can occur in harmony.”
Work done now can be relevant in the future, without the plan that it will be so.
There is a concern that the emphasis on sustainability will lead to a venture
capitalist paradigm for the way the Arts Council will function in the future; that the
Arts Council will expect a return on their investment.
“As an artist, it is about finding your own voice, once you have found that, that in
itself is sustainable. You can react, adapt and respond to changes in society
without changing your voice.”
Agreed that running the socially responsible programmes that are expected by the
Arts Council is not self sustainable. Funding is needed, you cannot make money
by charging people for the socially responsible initiatives. For example, as a
theatre you are not going to make money from running a youth initiative program,
so how can you incorporate the two?
Concern that you are so concerned with being sustainable that you loose sight of
the ‘now’ and end up bogged down in planning for the future.
Agreed that we should look at international models of funding to see how they
work and tackle the problem of sustainability.
Agreed that there is nothing wrong with sustainability so long as it doesn’t not
result in budget cuts.
Running the arts like a business keeps it fresh and means that it must respond to
the mode of the times.
The Arts Council would like to develop organizations that are sustainable, but what
is the definition of sustainable? They say that an organization is sustainable even
when it has Arts Council funding at the heart of it.
There was a problem with sustainability in the previous paradigm of career
building by overspend. The old paradigm saw creatives bringing in fantastic work,
spending more money than they had, off set by the buildings, to build their own
career and then jump ship. The Arts Council would then step in and rescue the
failing organization.
Organizations should be accountable for their actions, and by tasking them with
sustainability this will help it happen.
Perhaps we should look at organizations coming together to ask for funding as a
group and working together on initiatives.
Perhaps we could look at a model where organizations’ funding is slowly
withdrawn as they learn to sustain themselves.
All organizations should look at a working model where they are not reliant on Arts
Council funding.
Issue number: 67
Issue: What dis-enables artists
Convener(s): Jon Adams
Participants: Liz Whitehouse , Mary Dow, Christine Wilkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
All the people taking part have experience of disability issues relating to the arts,
We came to the conclusions:
What enables a disabled artist enables a non-disabled artist.
What dis-enables a disabled artist can dis-enable a non-disabled artist.
Intelligent and creative access is good for everyone (and we are not just talking
physical- just think outside the box)
All the following can dis-enable any “artist”
Isolation
Lack of knowledge
Other people’s attitudes
Misunderstanding- disabled artists work is therapeutic “to make them feel better”
Economics - “disabled people are too expensive”
Exclusion
Ignorance
Patronizing -“we know what’s good for them”
Lack of communication
Lack of understanding
Social status
Class
Family background -“when are you gonna get a proper job”
Fear on both sides
How to dis-enable any artist
(SO DON’T)
Ignore them or take no notice because “they always moan”
Stop asking them what they want
Stop Listening
Use people to “tick a box” then abandon them after
Treat them only as an audience not as creative people
“Experiment with them” in an abusive way
Separate them out visibly- identify them –point them out
Be inflexible
Have low expectation’s
Make it “us and them”
Issue number: 68
Issue: Is the ‘arms length principle’ still arms-length?
Convener(s): Judith Knight
Participants: Steve Dearden, Salette Gressett, Emma Stenning, Jane Whitehead
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Beginnings of Arts Council in 1945, and arms length principle that was key –
government money to go to the arts, but no conditions attached – arts would not
deliver government message, as was perceived to be happening in other
European countries and Russia.
Agreement that the arm is now shorter.
Discussion about appointment of Alan Davey as new Chief Exec, political
appointment? Will this shorten the arm even further?
Agreement that more and more the agenda is coming “top down” from government
to ACE to artists, rather than the other way round.
ACE used to represent the arts to government, now seems to be representing
government agenda to artists. Need to “meet ACE’s objectives” rather than ACE
responding to artists’ objectives. Arts projects seen to be a tool for social
engineering.
Artists will make work anyway. Artists should be trusted. Artists also have their
own social agenda, very few don’t want to be engaged in socially and politically –
but the work will be stronger if they make it on their own terms. Not ACE’s job to
adhere to social agenda policies, their job to support excellent work, and to
interpret that work to Government – eg social inclusion, therapeutic, economic
ACE’s job to : Raise money from government
Support new work
Develop audiences
It isn’t there to change society.
Other sources of funding nearly always targeted to social issues (eg education)
ACE’s funds should go to ARTS.
Politicians want to be able to demonstrate social results of the arts because they
don’t believe the arts on their own are a vote winner.
Interesting that in 1945 the population put arts on a par with education and health
as key political issues. Now the arts has dropped off that list. Lost political kudos.
However in the Arts Debate the overwhelming response was for more
experimental work. And the Sultan’s Elephant demonstrated how popular the arts
are –and how happy most taxpayers are to support such projects.
ACE in a difficult position. Money comes with conditions. How can it be tougher
and resist this trend?
Interesting comparisons with France and USA. In France much more money
spent on culture, large institutions funded directly from Government, Artistic
Directors appointed directly by Minister. Good for larger institutions but
independent sector not nearly so well served. USA very little Government money,
private patronage, work mostly much more ‘middle of the road’.
Interesting whether the funding structure dictates how the arts sector works, or the
other way round.
All agreed ACE is really important, even if arm is shorter than it was, it is at least
still there, and no-one wanted to see French or American model.
Proposals:
 ACE needs to be more robust about importance of excellent art
 ACE needs to have its own strategies, aims and talk to Government with
those firmly drawn up.
 ACE should be bolder, not ‘accept’ government targets, not negotiate, but
tell DCMS what its targets will be.
 ACE should consult more with the sector, and draw up strategies and a
core statement of its aims in its own language
 Re-look at (or draw up a new) Arts Manifesto
 Arts need to also have a relationship with Departments of Education and
Health.
Issue number: 69
Issue: What will be different in 5-10 years’ time?
Convener(s): Mike Clarke
Participants: Julie Amphlett, Tina Glover, Lorna, Vanda, Gaby (Royal Court), Ally
Davies (CP London West), Kate Dean, Kenneth Tharp, Peter Hewitt, Emma
Henning, Ednie Wilson, Yvette Vaughn Jones, William Wong, Ghislaine
Boddington, Maddy Pickard, Mary Dow, plus several others.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The group decided to change the topic slightly to the future in 5-10 years to reflect
a longer timeframe and also to make clear that this was not particularly a
discussion about the effects of the London Olympic games in 2012.
This was a wide-ranging discussion with many points raised and not all possible
avenues of discussion were pursued. It demonstrated the capacity of people from
the sector to imagine the future and think creatively about the challenges we face.
Key issues emerging:
-
impact of technological change
global changes
how can the arts influence or change the future?
need for brave decisions
Impact of technological change:
Exciting and scary.
We need:
-awareness
-training
-understanding of new art forms that will emerge
-potential gulfs between the possible and the achievable
-need for resourcing to address new opportunities
We do not know what is going to happen, so we must be confident as a sector of
our ability to identify trends and keep up.
We need to consider both the role of the artist and of ACE in a changed universe.
The new landscape will be global and self-defining, and unmediated: potentially
everyone can be a creator, publisher etc.
We are a consumer society with people expecting choice, but the new world can
be both artist as well as consumer led.
New art forms may emerge from new technological opportunities but existing
forms may also change beyond recognition – eg look at what’s already happening
in literature.
Not all opportunities will be around changing because of technology – people may
want the communal, hands on experiences offered by attending events etc (a
parallel was drawn with the fast food revolution leading to the birth of the ‘slow
food’ movement).
In an increasingly individualistic and personalized world, how do we create the art
world equivalent of ‘personal care packages’ that are the norm in health?
Young people view themselves as creative as of right – this is a real positive shift
that should be welcomed.
Will there be too much choice in the future? How do we help audiences navigate?
Global changes:
Arts are a part of a much bigger world and need to understand, reflect on and
engage with other issues.
We may have to make do with less as a society.
Will the wealth gap in the UK increase, and can the arts deal with this?
Increased likelihood of disasters – terrorist, natural – what can the arts do in
response?
An ageing population, requiring specific investment to meet needs; an increasingly
multicultural society, with challenging engagement issues.
The arts have always engaged in new issues that are important to individuals and
have helped moved them from fringe to mainstream – eg climate change.
How can the arts influence or change the future?
Artists are always early adopters of new technology and innovators so we need to
reflect this in funding. There is likely to be an increased pace of change with more
innovation in the next five years than the last 100.
Artists and arts organizations must be prepared to change the business model to
reflect the impact of technology – again the literature world was cited as an
example.
Encourage courage – better to die by doing than die by stasis. Embrace the
opportunities for change, and ACE to understand and support risk.
Remember that technology is tools for creation and dissemination, and that this
can help us to be more accessible and audience-facing. ACE should support
artists pushing the boundaries of technology.
Need for brave decisions:
Community/professional/amateur: no longer relevant distinctions?
There should be more money for the arts, and their importance to national life be
given sufficient weighting alongside health, education etc.
We need a campaign for arts to be free at point of use – like health services.
Are old models of creation and delivery being retained because we do not
effectively challenge the ‘old guard’?
We need an end to regulation, whether it’s local authority venue licensing, overrestrictive intellectual property rights, or ACE acting as an arbiter of excellence.
Artists and arts organizations must be more influential in the creation of policy and
strategy.
Some brave decisions may need to be made about resource allocations. If it’s true
that there will be 35% less in future, what 35% will not be there? We need an end
to the ‘tractors on the drive’ as one participant described it: the vested interests
that block real change and reform. Large institutions should be required to ensure
that the doors are really, truly open.
Issue number: 70
Issue: Collective Responsibility and Open Protest
Convener(s): Frances Rifkin
Participants:
Mary Turner,
John Webb,
Jane Rice-Bowen,
June Whitehead,
Mark ?,
Eddie Upton,
Samina Zahir,
Paul Harman,
William Wong,
Jo Dereza,
Clodagh Miskelly,
Peter Hewitt
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We seem to be preoccupied with reservations about making our voice heard. Why
have we fallen into a social silence?
Collective management of the arts in this country has never been very strong
(unlike the German model) This may change with the advent of Community
Interest Companies (CICs).
History of division and infighting within the sector. This diverts a great deal of
energy and is divisive. We would be better off harnessing this energy and
channeling it constructively outwards for the benefit of the sector.
We’ve lost a lot of ownership of our work. Companies have become institutions,
passion and direct connection with the work has dissipated.
Funding structures and demands have impacted on the work. Value for money
creates its own pressures.
We need to get past all of this!!!
We talked extensively about what collective responsibility means and what it is for
and what we should do going forward.
We have a collective responsibility to discuss issues.
A lot of complex issues were discussed including, value for money and cuts to arts
funding and what we can do about that. The relationship with Ace and what we
expect them to do in all of this. There is stuff that ACE can’t do that we are better
placed to do (such as engaging directly with the public and govt).
We agreed that our collective responsibility is to argue through and debate these
issues and many others to find out what might unite us.
Peter Hewitt agreed that the“ Idea of organizing yourselves to have a voice is a
good one, but if you define yourself according to ACE that will be too narrow and
self defeating. Govt will respond to the arts as a whole and funded orgs only make
up a small part of this. The powers that be are more likely to be attentive if the
group relates more widely”
We agreed that we needed to have a place where we could discuss these things
further.
We might first draft principles that we can propose to the sector as unifiers.
We might pursue the discussion on line (email group/ forum /blog)
We have exchanged email addresses so that we can pursue it further
Issue number: 71
Issue: Should RFO’s be scrapped? If we had a clean slate, what would we do?
Convener(s): Liz O’Neill
Participants: Nick Sweeting, Piers Masterson, Mark Wallace, Jon Spooner,
Catherine Bunting, Richard Couldrey, Dee Evans, Matt Burman, Vandra Hagan,
Jane Whitehead, Sarah-Jane Rawlings, Emma Stenning
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There are many differences in what RFO’s are, ranging from small community
organisations who get £15,000p/a to the Big Five with £millions; building based or
small companies. One size doesn’t fit all.
Should we devolve big regionally significant organisations to the Exec – i.e.
Scotland, Wales, Local Authorities. Or at least develop partnership structures
between ACE, Local Authorities, RDA’s, Heritage and any other significant
partners alongside the RFO to work strategically, plan their funding agreement and
monitoring.
It was noted that some LA’s perceive security in buildings being ACE RFO’s, and
co-fund accordingly. Can these be 50/50 funding partnerships that work
strategically as well as financially with mutual accountability?
What would a healthy arts environment look like? How can we achieve that? Take
a lesson from economists who care about markets, not business. ACE should
prioritise the health of the sector environment over individual institutions.
How can we be harsher in the turnover of RFO’s? Be brave. Have more
accountability guidelines where your out if you fail. Some established RFO’s are
not suited to the current climate.
Can the Big 5 survive cuts that make them rely more on the major sponsorship
and private donations that they will always get?
By being tougher on some RFO’s you can release more money – to ringfence and
go into a pot for project development.
How can the concept of Regular Funding change?
Suggested structure
First release Treasury funds by tougher accountability that leads to cutting poor
performance dinosaur RFO’s, big & small.
Then establish a 3 tier RFO structure:
1)
Long term (10-15 year) strategic rigorous partnerships for national
overview, with high expectations and accountability. These
organisations can be of any size, but with recognised national and/or
regional significance.
2)
Mid-length (2,3,or 7 year) RFO’s which support core costs of
organisations. Organisations can bid for the most appropriate length of
funding for their needs.
3)
The savings then going into a ring-fenced pot of Treasury funds,
alongside G4A money, towards projects that mid-length RFO’s and non
RFO’s can bid for. This encourages risk-taking, supports independents
and maintains a fluidity of funding. There was some discussion whether
this pot should be one general fund or split into particular funds, such as
start-up, venture capital, R&D etc. The concern here being that specific
pots could fall foul of DCMS rulings and priorities.
Issue number: 72
Issue: Are the Olympics a showdown for the arts. If so, in what sense?
Convener(s): Christine Kapteijn
Participants:
Lee Simpson
Maddy Pickard
Steph Allan
Manus
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Yes, they are in the following ways:
Increasingly, the government is siphoning off Lottery funds from the arts towards
the Olympics. With the exception of Barcelona, culture has not featured
prominently in previous Olympics in other countries. The government may be
using the Olympics to abolish ACE altogether.
The contribution of culture to the Olympics is unclear; vision and strategy are not
being communicated in a transparent way to the artistic community. There is a
high degree of cynicism in the professional sector about the Cultural Olympiad
(leading up to the event between 2008-2012). No budget appears to be available
to fund projects and it is likely that projects happening anyway will be rebranded
and subsumed instead. Application and selection procedures for the funding of
Cultural Olympiad projects are not being communicated unambiguously.
Programmers across the regions have only just been appointed. The employment
of consultants on the Cultural Olympiad appears a waste of funds since they are
already happening anyway.
There is a lack of clarity with regard to the strategic focus of the Cultural Olympiad.
The budget for potential projects does not appear to be available, it is unclear who
is in charge of this budget and how it can be accessed by the artistic community.
There is a feeling in the professional artistic community that London has used its
cultural heritage clout (Sherlock Holmes, Shakespeare) to attract the Olympics but
the government is now paying lip service to the delivery.
This London centred event exacerbates the disconnection between centre and
regions. By staging the Olympics the disparity between London centred funding
and the regions is reinforced. At the same time Local Authority funding for the arts
is being cut across the nation as a way of cutting council tax.
People’s attitudes towards the arts inside and outside the profession is intrinsic to
this question. There is a feeling that the government is able to pressurise ACE into
uncritical support for the Olympics due to the Council’s lack of active engagement
with the wider artistic community, so that a critical attitude towards the perceived
government agenda of sidelining the arts cannot be articulated effectively. Due to
a lack of dialogue and consultation, there the potential of advocacy in making a
common cause with the professional arts sector does not gain the impetus it
deserves. Moreover, the continued ‘high vs low art’ opposition does not invite
popular engagement and public support for the arts. Although the arts have been
flourishing in the last decade, they are not embedded in the larger audience. As a
result the arts are stuck in an Oliver Twist ‘asking for more’ funding loop. Following
the abolition of ACE in Scotland and Wales, this political threat has grown in
England, forcing ACE to behave like a DCMS lapdog.
No, they are not in the following ways:
Culture was an intrinsic part of the original Olympic Coubertin vision. There will be
a lasting legacy in the Olympic park being transformed into an animated public and
artistic space, benefiting the population at large. The Cultural Olympiad will pay for
a lot of arts project in the run-up to the Olympics.
Some regions are more excited than London about the prospect of the Olympics,
which are perceived as a national event.
If more funding needs to be found for the Olympics, is it not preferable for the
government to utilize cultural allocations rather than increase taxes.
Recommendations:
ACE making case for an intrinsic contribution of culture to Olympics by working
together with its professional sector to create an articulate and persuasive defense
of the importance of the arts.
The Olympics should be passed on to Paris after all, now that it has emerged that
the costs are rising inexorably. We should learn by our mistakes.
Issue number: 73
Issue: If I were a consultant, I would be rich by now. How do we (artists and ACE)
value our creative thinking?
Convener(s): Fiona
Participants: Diana, Jane, Vanda, Hugh, Phelim
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
One participant questioned who feels valued in this situation and raised the point
that the value to us of what we do has non- monetary rewards. Others questioned
being satisfied with this.
In financial terms, being valued for what we brought to the table in this context,
would make a huge difference to how as artists we are able to sustain ourselves.
It was pointed out that the first port of call has to be in valuing ourselves before
expecting others to understand what we are worth. By doing that, perhaps we set
a precedent that makes it easier for others to follow.
Looking at it as a potential easy income strand never works – we need to bring to
it the passion we have for our work – it’s that which might facilitate change.
Do we need to look at why that consultancy might be paid at a lesser rate as an
artist than as a consultant?
ACE professes to want artists at the centre of the strategic decision making
process, particularly in regeneration projects, but does not seem prepared to see
this advocacy through to a practical and financial resolution. If on the one hand
they are endorsing the importance of this creative thinking, but not brokering or
acting as advocate, where does the responsibility for that lie? Is it back to working
on yourself as an individual? How does that then affect change for the sector
collectively?
We need to start with a very clear sense of our own identity in order to understand
what it is we are asking to be valued/ quantified. Understanding what our skill set
is and how we confidently set a value on that?
Some of us felt that ACE does have a responsibility for that, others that this was
an impossible task.
Be careful about what you offer to do – someone might take you up on it. Broker
the value of that from an informed position.
The quote of the weekend : ‘ It’s not the bang, it’s knowing where to bang ‘( that is
the valued skill)
Discuss!
Issue number: 74
Issue: Should fringe theatres have more support from the Arts Council?
Convener(s): Sherrill Gow
Participants: Kristina Nilles
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
If we were the Arts Council we would offer more support to fringe theatres.
Fringe theatres offer viable opportunities for emerging theatre artists to develop
their craft and have a platform for their work. Fringe theatres are a breeding
ground for theatrical talent; working on a show at a fringe theatre is a step that so
many young directors, producers, actors, stage managers, writers, designers etc.
take. It would be brilliant if the Arts Council could offer more support to aid this
work.
Many fringe theatres including the King’s Head Theatre, The Arcola and the
Finborough have trainee schemes and internship programmes that are invaluable.
These types of programmes in particular should be supported (as opposed to
giving theatres production grants).
Rather than giving individuals and small companies funds we feel that if fringe
theatres were supported they in turn could take bigger risks and support emerging
artists even more.
Through offering support to fringe theatres they in turn could also take more risks,
again enabling the emerging artist to develop.
If financial support is not available, could the Arts Council support fringe theatres
in other ways?
Please invite all the fringe theatres (with or without funding from the Arts Council)
to these events in the future!
Issue number: 75
Issue: Do we assume that artists are creative and the public aren’t? Is there an
us?
Convener(s): ?
Participants: ?
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There is a danger that some people and agencies still make this assumption
although attitudes are changing.
Art and artists are difficult words. The concept of artist is difficult. We need to
redefine the title ‘artistic’ director
We need more honesty /authenticity in the use of descriptions. Language puts the
public off.
‘Public’ is a difficult word. There are just people.
Do we need to look at ‘audience’. At attenders? People?
Most people are creative in how they get from the beginning of one week to the
end of it in their everyday lives how does this connect to creativity in the ‘artistic’
agenda?
If we were the arts council we would think about changing some of the language.
We need to look at the latest findings of relationship of creativity to emotional
resilience, health and wellbeing etc.
Issue number: 76
Issue: We need more money! A 10% culture tax on city bonuses would have
raised £1.4 billion this year. What would your practical solution be?
Convener(s): Matt Burman
Participants: Dan, Damian
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We thought this was a good idea. If we were ACE we would advocate for this.
There was also a proposal to ask Paul McKenna to visit Gordon Brown ‘just for a
chat, like’ and to get him to do the whole ‘look into my eyes, not around my eyes,
look into my eyes…’ thing and just ‘convince’ Gordon to announce a doubling of
arts funding to cabinet the next day. Perhaps ACE could arrange this.
Issue number: 77
Issue: Can we do anything about the press or be depressed?
Convener(s): Unknown – reported by Liz Whitehouse
Participants:
Liz Whitehouse, The Art House
Jon Adams, artist
Jane Wildgoose, artist
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
It was interesting that the three participants were all from the visual arts. It was felt
that the performing arts has a review structure very much in the public domain and
companies both large and small were regularly reviewed.
Damian Hirst and Tracey Emin have become symbolic of the visual arts. Public
have little idea of visual artists. In a recent poll asking people to name a visual
artist the most popular name was Rolf Harris! This illustrates the influence of
television in the public perception of the visual arts.
Jane said that when she did a project with the wider community it was generally
very well received and those she was working with were very enthusiastic. She
had twice been featured (in a positive way) on Woman’s Hour as a result of these
projects.
Jon said that he is doing a project with the railway company in the South,
supported by ACE, and there is a need for the project to generate positive
coverage.
We discussed that other industries have ‘go and see’ visits for journalists and
specialist correspondents to help them understand the industry they report. It
helps when reporting transport issues to ‘know how the points work’ and this was
lacking in the arts – the visual arts particularly. What does a visual artist do, how
do they work?
Should one role of ACE both nationally and regionally be to help journalists
get to grips with the arts by organising ‘go and see’ visits?
We observed that getting journalists to attend open studios/private views is “giving
them a ticket for the train” rather than “explaining how the points work”.
Jane observed that we should be willing to engage with the press in a positive
way. She talked about writing a catalogue for an exhibition by a controversial
artist which helped to turn round potentially negative press coverage by explaining
the context of the work. This led to a positive news story on TV news.
The press are not experts, even the arts critics, and it has to be our job to educate
them, often ongoing due to movement in staff. However, some critics have been
around a long time and are unwilling to engage with contemporary practice.
Jon said that he had had an exhibition reviewed by an education correspondent
due to the work being informed by his dyslexia, but the journalist came openminded to look at the art.
Timing is critical when dealing with the press – not too early but ‘in time’.
Much good press coverage is down to personal contacts. These need to be
nurtured and developed.
Should a role of ACE nationally and regionally be to develop these contacts
and help artists/arts organisations to communicate with them?
Issue number: 78
Issue: “Fail again. Fail better.” How can we help ACE to fail better?
Convener(s): Annie Rigby
Participants: Jan Reynolds
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
It is accepted, by some, that artists should have the right to fail. But it feels almost
unthinkable that the Arts Council should have this right. They’re then holders of all
that public money after all. But we all need to be able to fail, to be able to succeed.
Perhaps we should begin by stopping lying. We’ve all been involved in projects,
that deep down, we know didn’t quite hit the mark. But we write them up in our
evaluations in the best possible terms, putting the statistics on the page in
whatever way looks best, and then we write a few considered, earnest lines about
the challenges that the project encountered. Then a few months down the line, the
project turns up in some glossy print, as an example of a success. Why can’t we
be more honest? Would the world really fall apart if we admitted that it wasn’t a
winner? Would we really end up on the ‘blacklist’ and never be funded again?
If we stop being scared of admitting to our mistakes, perhaps ACE can stop being
scared of admitting theirs. After all, if we don’t share our mistakes, that’s not really
good practise, is it? We should share, laugh, discuss, learn from, and try again.
Trying again, with a real shared knowledge.
Together we should move away from pre-defined outcome targets. We should
accept the fact that sometimes success happens where we didn’t expect it.
Sometimes a failure in the area we were heading for, leads us to a glorious
success somewhere else. We should free ourselves up to be true creative
problem-solvers, finding routes forwards, rather than sitting still in the place we got
stuck.
We need to celebrate risk more. We need to tell the public that we’re taking risks –
the artists and ACE together. We need to challenge the public perception of
failure. We should talk about failures as part of a bigger process, rather than an
end-point in themselves. We shouldn’t buy in to the critics’ way of speaking about
art. We should celebrate our spectacular failures alongside our spectacular
successes.
Issue number: 79
Issue: Theatre & Rock’n’Roll
Convener(s): Simon Casson (Duckie)
Participants: [Content edited: 20 words removed. Please refer to our comments
policy and website terms and conditions for further information.]
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We decided that the nearest thing to Theatre as Rock’n’Roll is Hip Hop Theatre
and the best theatre in the country is the Contact in Manchester. All the others
should be closed down because they are boring and old fashioned.
Issue number: 80
Issue: Five things to do
Convener(s): Catherine Bingham, Nigel Hinds
Participants:
Lorna, Kwong Lee, Ednie Wilson, Fiona Watt, Simon Gisson, Steph, Ghislaine,
Steve Dearden, Kenneth Tharp, Frances Rifkin, Morris Carey, Mary Turner, Diane
Ambache
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Possibilities
ACE to focus on remit of funding and advocacy, the latter especially with peer
organizations
Is ACE being strong enough in relation to DCMS and other possible stakeholders?
ACE being clear to sector about its role and its function.
Be appropriately humble.
Close all theatres, start again.
Do no work by dead writers for a year.
Brave decision-making about funding.
Develop shared advocacy structure.
Sector can represent itself when ACE cannot.
Review officer roles/responsibilities/workload.
Sector reps (and members of public?) to observe ACE decision-making meetings.
Shaking up over-dependency by some RFOs on ACE funding.
Finding different models of multiple resourcing of arts.
Lots of movement between working for ACE and in sector.
Collective responsibility for improving relationships.
Trust/transparency, eg. Full feedback from ACE to fundee/rejected
Transparency of reporting spend on artists/arts projects (cf infrastructure)
Partnership principles: ACE needs to be a good partner
Communication ACE – sector
Officers seeing work
Systems needed for mutual engagement
Recognition and acceptance of each other’s roles
Reduce tick-boxes …
Review system design for engaging representatives of sector in ACE business
Sector and ACE to work together to support increased development of the arts.
The 5 THINGS
what
1 ACE to clarify remit on:
a) being an excellent funder
b) being an excellent advocate as
appropriate
2 Regular secondments in and out of ACE
who
ACE
ACE and
sector
Group monitor of
follow-up
Arts admin
(Judith and
Steph)
Emma S @
London and
Jons @
Unlimited
3 Standardise standard of officer:sector rep
relationship. ACE designs best possible
consistent role/workload of officers (with
appropriate support)
4 ACE to redesign ways to engage sector
reps/artists/etc at different levels of its
processes – ongoing, regularly
5 ACE to give clear account to attenders and
others of the process going forward
ACE
ACE
Nigel
ACE then
attenders
Ghislaine and
Steve
Openspace
Issue: How can we create new and mixed economies?
Issue number: 81
Convener: Sydney Thornbury
Participants: Lene, Saisy, Jan, Bridget, Ghislaine, Jermy, Jan, Paul, David, Anne,
Kenny, Richard, Felicity, Paul, Vanoa, Mark
Summary
We began by discussing what we meant by a new economy and we defined it as
developing a more sustainable mix between charity/grant income and earned income. We
all agreed that developing a mixed economy rather than being dependent mostly on one
funder – namely ACE – was a more healthy approach for our organizations.
Within this framework, we also agreed that the word “investment” was a more proactive
and positive term than “subsidy”, but also carried with it greater responsibilities for both
the donor and the recipient.
With ‘investment’ we felt that the donor (in this case ACE) had more responsibility to
consider our organisations holistically and ensure that they were being developed in a way
that supports success, for example by providing practical resources, advice and training
opportunities. It also means that there should be very limited restrictions on how we use
grant money (ie; full cost recovery that is more reflective of reality – ie: 38% not unusual).
In turn we felt that the recipient had to work harder to maximise “return” on that
investment and that this carried with it an impact on staffing, resources, time and finances.
We agreed that while earned income and a mixed economy was achievable (with time and
investment) by many organisations, that there would still be some organizations that would
continue to require a more traditional form of subsidy to ensure the production of their
work. This is ok.
We felt that the arts sector is in a period of ‘growing up’ and that as a result ACE should
develop a more sophisticated approach to funding and supporting them There is a much
broader church of types of organisations and ways that you can deal with them.
Conclusions
 Developing a mixed economy is healthy for our organisations and for the sector
 ‘Investment’ carries a more positive message than ‘subsidy’ but it can’t just be a
superficial name change – it requires increased responsibility for both funder and
recipient







There is now a much broader church of types of organisations and there should be
varying ways that you deal with them
There always needs to be a space for subsidized work.
ACE needs to develop a more sophisticated approach that reflects the growing
development and changing needs of the sector
There are a variety of ways for orgs to generate income – it’s not just about opening
a café – there is tremendous potential for exploiting intellectual property, but we
need support to learn how to do that
Organizations should not be penalised for increasing their earned income (ie: not
qualify for subsequent investments, reporting requirements to ACE should be in
line with the % of the investment compared to overall budget – remember,
generating earned income requires a lot of time ), they should be encouraged and
promoted to others as best practice
ACE (and others) should consider its money as investing in the ‘R&D’ department
of the creative economy - returns on investment can be money, social capital, sector
or skill development, future learning
There needs to be more joined up thinking and action between ACE, 3rd Sector
Organisations, Local Government Agencies and Creative Economy Leaders
Recommendations
 ACE should work as a true ‘Development Agency’ to ensure that all organisations
maximise their potential for sustainable growth and developing a mixed economy:
o Focus on organisations holistically to provide support to enable success
(practical support like advice, resources, professional development,
networks, events)
o Resources should be for all orgs – not just the funded ones
o Grants should exist to support the developing of self sustainability and
programmes/events
o promote the non funded work we are doing in brochures, not just the ACE
funded work
o be more outward facing and have more specialised staff that understand
new economic models and needs
o Artists and organisations should be funded at professional levels (ie: salaries
reflective of other professions, full cost recovery). This will save money in
the long run, by stopping the ‘brain drain’ of people in their 30’s and
ensuring that the sector can develop long term leadership
 Create a public service compact – to streamline reporting to various funders
(developing a mixed income base means reporting to more funders, often for staffs
that are very limited in time and resources)
 Create partnerships with 3rd sector bodies to get the information on mixed economy
and developing sustainability to arts organisations (NCVO, Sustainability Forum,
Charity Commission)



Look at other models for organisational development, including CBI and SMEs
Acknowledge and support the development of a ‘broad church’ of different types of
organisations – it is healthy for the sector
Within this, ensure that more traditional subsidy structures still exists for the
organizations who will need them (there is much upstream potential for what they
are creating that will benefit the sector and society as a whole)
Issue number: 82
Issue : What could / should happen with this report beyond this weekend?
Conveners : Ghislaine Boddington
Participants: Ghislaine Boddington, Steve Dearden (plus participants of the group
deciding on 5 joint actions)
Summary of discussion, conclusion and/ or recommendations
AIM
- To ensure that the time, commitment, energy and passion of the participants and
organisers of this weekend, and their outputs, thoughts, ideas and comments are
not wasted but disseminated as soon as possible in a variety of forms to as wide a
constituency of people as possible.
- To enable, through the ACE web site, others to joint the debate virtually through
access to the reportage and space to comment.
There could be a wide range of niche target audiences approached with this
information to join and extend this debate. Certain press could also be approached
to report on the results.
We discussed whether, with the concepts of Open Space being prevalent, we are
to accept the fact that this report is very long and cumbersome, or whether we can
be clear that there will be a need for a summary document, a distillation of the
reportage.
It seems clear an editor or group of editors has to exist. Is this part of the Open
Space process itself? If so would it be ACE or Improbable who did this, or a joint
effort? Whose job is it to disseminate this information?
Also who owns this information? We will put forward that the use of the Open
Space process makes this an interauthored project and the information is
therefore owned by all of us who input into it . We can, we understand, all use the
material in whatever way we feel is positive towards the engagement of others in
the debate
The report in its present form needs additionally a context page and a summary
overview. It then needs to be adapted into various forms. key actions are:-
Press release .....regarding the fact that this open and joint space between ACE
and the arts sector has taken place, linking to the reportage online
Context page explaining process
Summary of key points that have emerged
Full report online - an individual page per issue with comment / debate thread
support
Links from and to the ACE public debate on its site
The release should be forwarded to all participants from the weekend and should
include a web link to the online information.
All participants should be asked to commit to forwarding the release onwards to as
many people as possible, creating a natural emergent chain of information
exchange from the weekend outwards .....enabling others to join the debate
through the online environment on the ACE website
It is very important that the officers in all of the ACE offices get to hear about the
results of the weekend. This is a way to start from the outset the much discussed
need for a clearer and dynamic exchange of information between ACE and the
arts sector. The release should be sent to all ACE staff involved in grant giving.
It was noted by several people throughtout the two days that, as Peter Hewitt is
leaving soon, it is very important that the incoming Executives and the Council
itself do receive feedback on and a summary of the weekend.
We all need to enable the dissemination of this information through talking,
presenting and informing others and sending people to the website to join in.
These actions needs too take place as soon as possible to avoid dissolving the
energy and dynamic of the event.
Issue number: 83
Issue: Festival Thinking … intergenerational, cross art forms, cross boundaries …
or just a band aid?
Convener(s): Jonathan Man
Participants: Janet & Sarah
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Summary of Discussion:
This session was convened to give a chance to discuss how festivals fit into the
arts ecology. Jan and Sarah discussed the three week festival in Doncaster,
originally set up to create work to support the eventual opening of a new arts
centre. Jonathan discussed a pilot East Asian arts festival he’d helped set up in
Slough to provide a platform for East Asian artists in the UK.
Some other festivals we admired are:
The Stockton Riverside festival, for it’s ambition and local involvement
The Edinburgh Fringe, for it’s ability to survive long term and maintain its status
The Cultural Festival in Doncaster run by voluntary arts sector
The Manchester International festival, for its vision and bravura
Hay-on-Wye for its artistic quality
LIFT festival – one of the pioneer high quality international festivals
The Young Genius festival at the Barbican, giving a unique chance to see truly
groundbreaking past theatre productions
The early Edinburgh International film festival, which platformed the best film
directors in the world before they were famous
The Take Off festival, providing a platform for professional Young People’s
Theatre in the UK
The Imaginate festival in Scotland, platforming high quality YPT theatre from
around the world
The Theatre Centrum YPT festival in Denmark, which goes to a different Danish
city every year, with hundreds of free performances of YPT shows from Danish
companies, and the way so many different cities are allowed to share pride in this
work
The Glastonbury festival, for it’s highly effective brand and media coverage
The Year of Visual Arts in the North East.
There was worry expressed over how the Cultural Olympiad festivities might affect
us.
Conclusions:
Festivals provide a unique opportunity to do things not possible in the day-to-day.
They can be a highly effective way for arts professionals or communities to
immerse themselves in a particular art form or culture.
They can be a highly effective way to develop and platform artists.
Need to ensure a festival is fully resourced with a high level of contingency built in,
for the many unexpected issues arising! Match scale, length and const with the
resources available.
Have to be careful about jumping on the festival bandwagon. Need to ask if a
festival really is the best way to address a need or issue, particularly if it has a
developmental agenda.
Need a mindset to help others do it, not to try to do it oneself.
Work best when there are good partnerships set up.
Can work well to counter social exclusion, providing communities a home ground /
safe space to explore their culture, then be able to integrate more into the
mainstream.
Need to balance being a big event with big attendance vs. the focus needed for
smaller events.
Need to be honest if a festival is really for the artists in that artform or for the
public.
Festivals can build a strong diaspora of local artists who can support each other.
Festivals can become effective creative foundries or labs.
A regular festival in the calendar can really boost local civic pride and profile for
the arts.
Sustainability and re-invention are major challenges to affect festival planning and
long term success.
Get the art right, everything else follows.
Recommendations:
Is there a way to facilitate inter-festival collaboration?
Is there a way to use festivals to facilitate a broad based, cross artform, inclusive
conversation between stakeholders such as the artists, the communities and the
Arts Council?
Is there a longer term strategic way at looking at festivals and funding, to assist a
festival in establishing a regular time to happen every year and bed into a
community?