Clean Canvas, One Opinion

image

Clean Canvas … Iain Bloomfield, Artistic Director at Bradford’s Theatre in the Mill, has his say …

In truth this is going to be, can only be a personal response to the Clean Canvas meeting held last night in Holy Trinity Church on Boar Lane in Leeds.  I’m not going to go into any great detail about everything that went on just give my twopenneth.

As a meeting it felt flat, hived around with too many rules, little depth of discussion and some fairly extensive departures into semantics. And yet….  Maybe it had to at this stage.

Maybe the heightened rhetoric and inflammatory language that has surrounded the discussion on social media (does anyone really need their feet holding to a fire?  I mean REALLY??) demanded that we took some time out to structure and physicalize respect. Took time out to acknowledge there is an issue regarding the funding of artistic activity in this country, that people are agitated by that, and that there are strong perceptions of elitism in the arts.  Not necessarily agree as to causes, symptoms, outcomes or even actualities but at least to listen with respect to others as they articulated their position.

And then see where that leads us.

So what follows is, in some senses, a provocation, made with love and care to all concerned.

There was much talk last night about transparency but personally, currently, I am less concerned with transparency than clarity – What do we want to do with central (and local) government arts spending? Why do we want to do that? How are we going to do what we want to?

I am old enough to be very tired of the discussion around the ‘value’ of art, it’s impact, constantly going back to the economic (even though I’ve trotted them out myself) because the tax-take is not, in the end the point.  As ’ eny fule kno’, to quote Nigel Molesworth briefly, even economics is strongly influenced by what people think, how they feel and the effect of those on how they behave. We have art because it is a human need; a spiritual, emotional and societal must have and any society that doesn’t invest in those basic needs is poisoning itself.

So, if one accepts the above, do we have equal access to that investment?  Note I use the word access, the current discussion in the arts world is around engagement – but in the same way  I believe that transparency has to follow clarity I believe that engagement follows access. I’m afraid that I’d have to conclude that the current balance of funding nationally does not deliver on equality of access.

The weighting of funding towards London means that Arts Council England’s mantra of ‘Great Art for Everyone’ is pretty flawed – it comes as precious little surprise to me that we were (as a nation) able to get behind opposition to the Government’s agenda on forests but not to the arts.

People have at least a theoretical equality of access to those (even if they don’t use it) and that makes a difference to how they feel in regard to preservation. This metropolitan thinking is captured very nicely by reference to ‘the regions’, isn’t London a region too or have I missed something?

We also need to ask ourselves really challenging questions around whose stories get told, whose experiences shared, who gets to make art and whether what we have now is in any way equal? Do we have a funding structure that is delivering on that?

We also have an Arts Council that is being cut back in a draconian manner, where local, on the ground knowledge is being reduced and that offers as least the possibility that those who have the’ language’ of application succeed and those that don’t, don’t. I am also aware that the Arts Council are in the position of having to second guess what the Coalition are thinking going forward.

I am not aware, as yet, of any big (or inclusive) thinking happening yet. I’d like to be. This is not a jibe; it’s flipping hard to be delivering big institutional change and big thinking at the same time. By the same token unless we see that we really are ‘all in this together’ and we, therefore, have a responsibility to see the challenges facing each other and resist finger pointing, them/us rhetoric whilst continuing to ask  questions.

I am very aware that there is a whole heap of history involved in all of the above and change, if it comes, is not going to be anything but slow.  But could we please start developing a, shared, clarity about what we are trying to do here and start to put in place the mechanisms to deliver on that?

8 comments

      1. Your piece could be used as a template of frustrations around many topics. Simply change a few words and organisational names and it could be about transport, mental health, employment, opportunity, city development etc.

        The outcome would always be the same: We need to effect some change.

        The problem is there is no vehicle to make it happen. We have a democratic system that enables it but we have political parties without a vision for now or the future.

        In this gloop we have a council strangled by investment and central government. Swimming in this mess we have a council chief exec with a simple philosophy: Let’s be the best city. Great mantra but that still needs a vehicle.

        To add to the mix we have a burgeoning cottage industry of local organisations and opinion formers constantly talking and critiquing.

        So what was the question again? What action? Well I want something to form politically out of this gruel that promises me a cat. But instead of a cat it delivers a fucking lion!

        1. Nice one!

          Promising a cat and delivering a lion is a beautiful way of putting it.

          I’m going to try that out.
          🙂

  1. Very well said! A shared clarity about what we are trying to dd, thenput into action is right on the money!

  2. (I’ve posted this in response to Damien from Urban Sprawl/On the Edge the host of the event on Phil Kirby’s post but it was meant for this post!) https://theculturevulture.co.uk/speakerscorner/clean-canvas-too/comment-page-1/#comment-753066)

    I too think the event was needed, and agree that the lead up cannot be divorced from the actual event, as that is why we were all there, even if we were not entirely clear as to what might be expected of us and what the focus of the meeting might actually be.

    Was it to specifically address the concerns raised by Carol Lee (which seemed to be the intention given the hand out at the door) or to have a broader conversation about how we as an arts community could work better together to have a better understanding of the challenges we face, to understand how we can effectively lobby for better, fairer, clearer relationships with those who have the job of distributing public money, and to work out how we can support each other, no matter where we stand on our individual or group careers, where we do our work and what we stand for.

    One thing that is clear to me is that social media has been instrumental in bringing about this need for more mutual understanding. And that is that it can easily polarise people as much as it can bring them together. We have every right to ask good questions, but we also have the responsibility to think about the impact we have upon others as we do so. Can we all say we thought about how our actions online may have escalated the situation to this point of distrust and camps?

    My feeling of the meeting beyond the fact it was needed was that ofcourse it demonstrates there’s a feeling of ‘them and us’ That those that are able to resource teams of ‘PR’ ‘Development’ ‘Fundraisers’ with connected boards of advocates will continue to be the trusted recipients of whatever reduced public funding is distributed. More so with the funds the Arts Council are creating which create environments where ‘collaboration’ with the National Portfolio Organisation is required by the individual or small collective. This is all well and good, but not so much if you a) don’t speak the language required to work with those NPO’s b) Don’t see the world the same way as the NPO c) Feel you are in competition with the NPO.

    So who bears the responsibility to move beyond this? What do we do next? Do you think that the meeting will have helped aid mutual understading? Was it a means to an end? A lancing of a festering boil?

    We’ve hosted 6 cultural conversations which are open space events over the last 3 years and would happily develop another, looking at how we can find better ways to communicate our value and vision to each other, to share best practice, to support each other, to be aware of each other’s endeavours, to find ways to develop ourselves where we identify skill gaps. WE’d be happy to host a meeting to start a wider conversation (where we bring third sector, public agencies, businesses, leaders, individuals, flaneurs, as well as the cultural community together) about how we improve our collective voice to influence policy makers, marketeers, funders, and ofcourse the general public who stand to be the biggest losers if we don’t get our act together.

    What say you all? Shall we get a date in the diary?

Comments are closed.