It's the day after the full election result. Saturday. The radio and papers are full of bemused reflection - how did the opinion polls get it so wrong, where has liberalism gone, what direction should the Labour Party now take, whither proportional representation ? Friends, family and colleagues are slowly emerging from shocked despair and bracing themselves for five more years.
But what's to do ?
Partly inspired by Stella Duffy's listing of her practical response and partly provoked by the fallout from Participation on Trial, I am wondering if the electoral outcome actually offers a challenge to the arts sector.
My fear is that the result of the election showed middle England's default position. People might flirt with Lib Dems but when the chips are down the tick goes to Conservatives - or possibly UKIP. I am trying to put myself in the position of a young first time voter not living in London or one of the cities like Leicester or Bristol that shunned the Tories. The serious conversations going on around this young me are about jobs and mortgages. My parents and teachers talk about interest rates and eradicating the national debt. I turn on the TV and any debate is framed almost entirely in the language of numbers and the context of money. In my area schools are becoming academies and seem to reinforce this default thinking. In the state schools too, arts subjects are becoming marginalised. And in the current climate my mates sort of think this is rational. Arts aren't going to get you a job - well not a proper job.
Is this the dominant thinking that young people are growing up receiving and believing ? Is it therefore becoming normal - even cool - to vote for a party that puts the individual before the society ? The shareholder before the customer. The self before others.
I think we should assume that these are now the default values of middle England. Beyond London apart from a few northern outposts and a scattering of island-cities surrounded by a sea of blue voters, for the majority the dominant values are the values of the market.
So what's to do ?
A coherent political response is going to take some time to formulate and I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better. But while we're waiting for the party wheels to grind I think the arts, especially participatory arts, can offer a surprisingly different way of looking at things.
Arts activities offer young (and old) people a space where things are valued differently. In the best cases they offer a space where we value ourselves and each other differently. Countless arts projects involve people in playing, making, writing and performing, and these operate through a different set of values. Most encourage co-operation, accessibility, listening, respect. Many build work from individual personal narratives, but artfully amplify these with the contributions of many. A recent piece at the Young Vic was woven from the testimonies of female carers over several months*. I was fortunate to catch one of the performances given by a cast of about 30 female carers. The sense of solidarity was tangible. The exploration and celebration of an abstract concept ('care') had the audience doing that smiling/glowing thing. And the dancing was fantastic. The values on show, and I suspect throughout the process offered an alternative argument of what is important in life, and - and this is key - that argument was registered emotionally and physically.
In many instances art is increasingly regarded as a commodity rather than a means of self and/or group expression. Even in participatory arts there seems to be a greater emphasis on the product rather than the process and I am seeing a growing tendency to think about the market and the wrapping of the goods for sale, right from the off ? Sometimes our responses themselves are monetised - if a viewer or participant values art for what it does to their mood or mind, spirit or soul, then that response may well appear on the billboard or in the funding bid for the next endeavour.
I think many of us are falling into this money and numbers game - it's not surprising. The number one coffee break conversation at any conference is going to be funding. The number one piece of work will be a spreadsheet. The first demand from a funder will be outputs - or outcomes measured numerically. And artists continue to talk about how they are paid (or aren't paid) - publicly.
But we must hold our nerve. The default political position described above leaves a vacuum. I like to think (and this may be very old fashioned) that people require other things. Friendship, connection, love, humour - soft and squidgy sort of spiritual things that make it worth getting up in the morning. Things that some link to the concept of Wellbeing. The arts - especially participatory arts - offers space where people can experience this - other places do too, faith groups and sports clubs, the WI and the allotment. But participatory arts spaces have less of an agenda and are more explicit about stating the rules of engagement - the ethos. Skilled facilitators - be they a conductor or youth theatre leader will mediate a space where teamwork is all, they will foster and monitor a atmosphere of connection and creativity. And the dancing will be fantastic (and it will include seated dancing too).
While society sorts out how it wants to be represented politically, I think it is important that the arts offers opportunities for people to meet and work positively together. Non-religious, non-institutional, open and accessible spaces where an alternative set of values can be experienced. I challenge the Arts sector - the Arts Council and the 'institutions' to consider how they can present art not as a product, but as a process, to be experienced - not consumed.
* https://youngviclondon.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/turning-a-little-further-two-boroughs-at-the-young-vic/
Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Thursday, 7 May 2015
David Jubb gave an impassioned, and I think quite disrespectful, speech at the Participation on Trial event last Friday. His full speech can be read here
https://batterseaartscentre.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/participation-on-trial-statement-for-the-defence
His argument in a nutshell was that 'Anyone who engages with the arts is a participant and is participating' - and this is patently true.
His reasoning - 'if you are someone who enjoys experiencing art, creating art, producing art, sharing art, talking about art, selling art, then you are a participant in the arts' - this is flawless logic.
His conclusion - 'The idea of having a category of arts practice that is called “participation” – as opposed to another area of the arts – that is somehow not about “participation” is an absurd and destructive idea.'.... this does not necessarily follow.
While it is far from a perfect term the label 'Participatory Arts' connotes participating in the process of making. It is a term and a movement that believes: making art can be as enjoyable as consuming it; art can be made by anyone; art can be a dialogue not a commodity; and that art making should be something anyone can get involved with. I believe David would agree with these points.
The sloppily named Participatory Arts movement has developed in reaction to a funded system which represents the opposite. While there is tinkering around the edges the vast majority of resources go towards the notion of excellence. Nurturing the most talented to make great 'art'. While we love great art. This sort of Art becomes a thing. Not art that is a process. Art practised by an elite, not art that can be made by anyone.
Thus while those 'experiencing art, creating art, producing art, sharing art, talking about art, or selling art might all be participants' - some participants are more equal than others. Some start the process. Some make the product. Some get paid for it. Others buy the ticket. Some even attend the after show Q&A. And I know, David, that technically they are Participants, but they are not co-creating, or originating - this is not Participatory Arts.
David spent a moment comparing the situation to Football.
'Almost twice as many people go to the theatre in London every year than go to premier (league ?) football matches. So should we be wringing our hands and asking the same kinds of questions about “participation” or “engagement” in football ? No. People play it. People watch it. People discuss it. People are happy moving between these ways of enjoying football. We don’t need to spend lots of time creating weird classifications that divide and confuse everyone who loves football.'
Setting aside the notable differences between the arts and football and focussing on what I think he is driving at - which is I think, that people both play and watch football I'd like him to take it a bit further further and ask whether people have access to going down the park and having an artistic kick around. And is the Arts Council line on grassroots and local art, consistent with the Sports Council ? Do they value and invest in artistic five-a-side pitches ? The reason we like watching football is because of the joy of kicking a ball. We empathise. The equivalent artistic action is writing, acting, singing etc - making art as well as doing it.
But as David told us there is nothing to worry about... 'Robin Simpson, Chief Executive of Voluntary Arts will tell you that around 10 million people regularly participate in what he would describe as amateur arts activity every year – orchestras, choirs, performances and so on'. And he asked us ...'Are these 10 million people artists? Or are these 10 million people participants?'
Flawless argument except that the vast majority of these amateur artists will be participating in a performance of an extant work. A play or composition created by one of those elite artists. I am not arguing against this - but the inadequately titled Participatory Arts, values something else. Creating your own art. Not re-creating someone else's.
One of the defendants on trial on Friday were 'the institutions' - those such as David's essential and vibrant BAC. I suppose it is natural that rather than getting the BAC sent down his argument would ridicule the linguistic logic of the charge. But I am worried that the institutions in their desperation to defend their status as NPO's and arbiters of taste, want to argue that they are already doing participation.
In a brilliant piece of double speak David argued 'By putting “participation” on trial you are actually doing your best to recreate hierarchical and corrosive structures in the arts at the very moment when they are beginning to break down and fade away. That there is something that is authentically called “the arts” and then there is an attempt to get people to “participate” in “the arts”.
It is 2015'.
I would love to think that he is right - and I am sure he will point me to many reassuring examples. But currently I find the way mainstream art in 2015 is critiqued, curated and funded is inherently based on the assumption that the art is the object not the process. Thus 'Great Art' is called Great in comparison to what has come before. The judgement is made by an elite in a language and process that is opaque. Thus, with some occasional exceptions or shall we call it window dressing, the sector is perceived by many as somewhat exclusive.
The notion of Participatory Arts, does not seek to categorise for the sake of pedantry. It stands for a set of values, a belief in the feeling of making art - and that everyone's art making is equal.
Great footballers understand the joy that a fat git like me gets from kicking a ball. Would it were that great artists empathised with amateurs getting joy from making original art.
https://batterseaartscentre.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/participation-on-trial-statement-for-the-defence
His argument in a nutshell was that 'Anyone who engages with the arts is a participant and is participating' - and this is patently true.
His reasoning - 'if you are someone who enjoys experiencing art, creating art, producing art, sharing art, talking about art, selling art, then you are a participant in the arts' - this is flawless logic.
His conclusion - 'The idea of having a category of arts practice that is called “participation” – as opposed to another area of the arts – that is somehow not about “participation” is an absurd and destructive idea.'.... this does not necessarily follow.
While it is far from a perfect term the label 'Participatory Arts' connotes participating in the process of making. It is a term and a movement that believes: making art can be as enjoyable as consuming it; art can be made by anyone; art can be a dialogue not a commodity; and that art making should be something anyone can get involved with. I believe David would agree with these points.
The sloppily named Participatory Arts movement has developed in reaction to a funded system which represents the opposite. While there is tinkering around the edges the vast majority of resources go towards the notion of excellence. Nurturing the most talented to make great 'art'. While we love great art. This sort of Art becomes a thing. Not art that is a process. Art practised by an elite, not art that can be made by anyone.
Thus while those 'experiencing art, creating art, producing art, sharing art, talking about art, or selling art might all be participants' - some participants are more equal than others. Some start the process. Some make the product. Some get paid for it. Others buy the ticket. Some even attend the after show Q&A. And I know, David, that technically they are Participants, but they are not co-creating, or originating - this is not Participatory Arts.
David spent a moment comparing the situation to Football.
'Almost twice as many people go to the theatre in London every year than go to premier (league ?) football matches. So should we be wringing our hands and asking the same kinds of questions about “participation” or “engagement” in football ? No. People play it. People watch it. People discuss it. People are happy moving between these ways of enjoying football. We don’t need to spend lots of time creating weird classifications that divide and confuse everyone who loves football.'
Setting aside the notable differences between the arts and football and focussing on what I think he is driving at - which is I think, that people both play and watch football I'd like him to take it a bit further further and ask whether people have access to going down the park and having an artistic kick around. And is the Arts Council line on grassroots and local art, consistent with the Sports Council ? Do they value and invest in artistic five-a-side pitches ? The reason we like watching football is because of the joy of kicking a ball. We empathise. The equivalent artistic action is writing, acting, singing etc - making art as well as doing it.
But as David told us there is nothing to worry about... 'Robin Simpson, Chief Executive of Voluntary Arts will tell you that around 10 million people regularly participate in what he would describe as amateur arts activity every year – orchestras, choirs, performances and so on'. And he asked us ...'Are these 10 million people artists? Or are these 10 million people participants?'
Flawless argument except that the vast majority of these amateur artists will be participating in a performance of an extant work. A play or composition created by one of those elite artists. I am not arguing against this - but the inadequately titled Participatory Arts, values something else. Creating your own art. Not re-creating someone else's.
One of the defendants on trial on Friday were 'the institutions' - those such as David's essential and vibrant BAC. I suppose it is natural that rather than getting the BAC sent down his argument would ridicule the linguistic logic of the charge. But I am worried that the institutions in their desperation to defend their status as NPO's and arbiters of taste, want to argue that they are already doing participation.
In a brilliant piece of double speak David argued 'By putting “participation” on trial you are actually doing your best to recreate hierarchical and corrosive structures in the arts at the very moment when they are beginning to break down and fade away. That there is something that is authentically called “the arts” and then there is an attempt to get people to “participate” in “the arts”.
It is 2015'.
I would love to think that he is right - and I am sure he will point me to many reassuring examples. But currently I find the way mainstream art in 2015 is critiqued, curated and funded is inherently based on the assumption that the art is the object not the process. Thus 'Great Art' is called Great in comparison to what has come before. The judgement is made by an elite in a language and process that is opaque. Thus, with some occasional exceptions or shall we call it window dressing, the sector is perceived by many as somewhat exclusive.
The notion of Participatory Arts, does not seek to categorise for the sake of pedantry. It stands for a set of values, a belief in the feeling of making art - and that everyone's art making is equal.
Great footballers understand the joy that a fat git like me gets from kicking a ball. Would it were that great artists empathised with amateurs getting joy from making original art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)