I went along to the Clean Canvas meeting last night expecting a pantomime. What we got instead was a bit of a puppet show.
That’s not intended to be mean. Hell, if I wanted to be mean I could do a heck of a lot better than that. No, I like a good panto. The hero is pure of heart and chaste of soul, and generally has nobody on his side save the odd farmyard animal – a cat or a goose or a dancing pig, nothing reliable in the event of serious bother – but always wins out in the end because in panto-land goodness and truth always triumph over power and money. And the panto villain is a proper baddy. Top hat, fat cigar, strutting around beating children with a riding crop and watering the workers’ beer. Boo. Hiss.
You know where you are with a panto. Right and wrong stick out like a comprehensive kid in the Cabinet.
I was looking forward to a moustache-twirling malevolent figure turning up to Trinity Church with a cape and cane in a flash of brimstone so I could indulge in some morally uplifting purgative bellowing. I love to vent my pent up rage in a socially sanctioned safe setting.
The evening began rather disappointingly. Entering the church I got handed a sheet of paper containing several paragraphs of text in a font so cramped and severe that I wondered if we’d slipped back into the eighties and were about to attend an SWP splinter meeting. It wouldn’t have surprised me to have been confronted by a bobble-hatted Trotskyite, shouting “traitor” and jabbing me with a rolled up copy of Workers Vanguard. These were not happy associations.
Things did not really improve much as the meeting got under way. Before we could start the discussion we were informed about the way the host organisation, On The Edge, conduct their own meetings. Apparently the days of sticking up your hand when you have something to say are long past. There is in these enlightened times a complicated set of gestures, signals, and hand routines to learn – raise one finger for sorrow, two for joy, roll both hands in a tumbling motion if you have lost the plot, squeeze both legs together and cross your eyes if you need the little boys room … or something like that.
Half way through the homily I genuinely thought we were going to launch into a group bonding chorus of “Wind the Bobbin In.” All I do remember is that we were encouraged to do Jazz Hands if we felt a warm and fuzzy moment coming on. Now the SWP made me do a lot of silly stuff in the name of the revolution, but they never asked me to do Jazz Hands. I remain, and intend to remain, a Jazz Hands virgin. What the hell is wrong with clapping, whistling, and loosing several rounds of automatic gunfire at the ceiling? If it was good enough for Che, it’s good enough for me.
Still, there was hope yet for the meeting to liven up. We hadn’t been introduced to the chair yet. Harvi.
I have to hold my hand up here and declare an interest. Harvi is a good friend. Hell, we are often a double act touring the bars and boozers of West Yorkshire, being – in our own heads at least – thoroughly entertaining. Whoever chose Harvi as chair of this meeting I’d like to slap on the back and buy the first round – inspired choice! There’s nobody in Leeds whose mind is less encumbered by facts, less laden with information or cluttered with a general understanding of the arts debate than Harvi, he’s a genuine blank canvas. Karl Pilkington in a paisley shirt.
Now we had us a pantomime.
Though I’d just like to point out that for once Harvi wrote his own words. I can take credit for nothing last night, it was all his own work. If it had been up to me I would have worked in more gags.
Unfortunately, not even Harvi could inject life into this meeting. I don’t want to knock anybody who was there (let’s face it, there were just a couple of dozen which doesn’t amount to a half decent lynch mob, so even if I do piss somebody off, pfft!) but I’ve been to livelier stamp collectors conventions. There are get togethers of train spotters with more spark. Like I said, a puppet show – one where the puppeteers didn’t get the funding so snapped all the strings, stomped the stuffing out of everything, and buggered off in a huff.
I am left with a lingering question though. Not about the technicalities of arts funding or the legal minutiae – I’m about as competent to comment on that as I am on the niceties of decommissioning a Polaris Missile. Given that there’s meant to be a whole horde of artists out there, simmering with resentment, boiling with rage, apoplectic with righteous wrath at the perceived misdemeanors of the arts council, why didn’t more than a couple show up and have their say?
It was a bit chilly, I’ll give you that. I was forced to wear a cardi. And no doubt there was something good on telly. Emmerdale, I’m told. But still. Really?
Climate of fear? or simply climate of meh?
I’m doing that rolling forward thing with my hands and heading towards the door.
Just to clarify that “On the Edge” were the host organisation, not Urban Sprawl. And to say that, in the vitriolic build up to the meeting, our emphasis was on keeping the meeting civilized, and more importantly non heirarchical. And that some interesting details and contexts did arise during the meeting, and that these have helped provide a basis for continued public scrutiny of a self evidently dysfunctional arts provision mechanism in Leeds, Yorkshire, and some quieter voices were enabled to be heard than would have been the case amidst clashing of sabres and stamping of feet, but otherwise – yup, love the article.
You know what they say, Damian; any publicity and all that. I left Iain to write the serious report.
By the way, I’m surprised the guy from Equity didn’t snap up Harvi … he’s the talent!
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?
Thank you for your reasoned account – one suspects that some people were expecting fireworks, but of course you need a taper to light the fireworks in the first place.
My opinion is that a second meeting needs to take place. The proposals which have been put in my direction are that the meeting should review the coming Internal Review, and also the Investigation itself. By focussing in this way should make it possible for those participating to address the overriding problems by using both Leeds Canvas and the following dialogues as extremely good models on which to build understanding and accessibility to the issues.
I would suggest that, in keeping with efforts to build a consensus (without which action and dialogue is going to prove futile) that perhaps several (none establishment) organisations, including Culture Vultures and On the Edge, opt to co-host a second meeting, and that by being ourselves inclusive in literally the way we do things, we plant future prospects of cooperation and communication in much more fertile ground?
Hi Damian
Thanks for your comments. And thanks to you guys for hosting the meeting
If truth be told I’d personally prefer to put my energies behind a broader conversation about ‘Who is it for?’ As in the art we create. How there are benefits and advantages to being agile, of the community, fleet of foot, as much as there are benefits to receiving public funding. And also there are issues with trying to do great things whether you have a venue, or not.
My interest has always been about the wider context of the creative arts. And whilst this particular issue is one that needs bottoming out for some members of the arts community, and we’d happily lend a hand with talking about it online, helping to publicise it and give space for conversation, I’m aware that to a lot of our readers this is seen as a minor ‘arts talking to itself’ scenario.
That’s not to dismiss the inquiry or the questions raised, but to say that I’d like to look at bringing together a wider community of people who may be interested in ‘what makes a place vibrant and truly inclusive’ to build better bridges between the grass roots, the community activists, artists, institutions, designers, architects, marketeers, social enterprises, civic trusts, the business sector, the council, the property sector, education and the people who live and visit a place.
We can support you in your next stage, and hopefully you’ll want to either attend or support us in our next event. I think the wider frustrations I sensed at/around the Clean Canvas events are the ones I’d like to invest time in unpicking, less so the specific issue of ATTL.
I hope this makes sense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement_hand_signals
Well this made me chuckle more than any article I have read in a while.
I can’t really disagree with anything you say, but at least someone bothered to set this and I think we should all thank On The Edge for getting the ball rolling.
I agree that us artists should have made a better effort to boost the turn out, next time I will certainly be trying twice as hard to get more attendance. Providing there is a next time that is, a rather interesting conversation had arisen towards the end about ‘What do we do now?’ and that should certainly have a follow up discussion.