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.