We Need To Talk About Culture | the CULTURE VULTURE

We’ve had a bit of fun the past few days talking about the new Leeds Draft Culture Strategy and the bid for European Capital of Culture.

A lot of the debate scraps around the use of words. The council side contend that words like “culture” and “strategy” aren’t part of our everyday vocabulary, but they are necessary and point to something valuable that we all need to consider. The “chippy” side replies that most of us don’t use words like that because they are “jargon, hot air, and flimflam”. Basically bullshit.

One of the most interesting comments yesterday chided me that if we were to be thoughtful, interesting and distinctive in our talk about culture, and if we ruled out words that were stupid, inane and nondescript (my examples were “vibrant” and “iconic”) “at this rate there won’t be any words left to use.” Obviously the simple answer to this is “get a dictionary”. If we ruled out 2 dull words a day for the next millenium we could still compete in the 3023 Capital of Culture bid and still have plenty of fabulous words to spare. But I’m going to use a football analogy, just to amuse my critic.

Imagine the bid is a football final. You want to field your best team. There’s only a certain number of players you can have on the pitch. Do you select your fittest, sharpest, most loyal and skillful players? Or do you pack the bench with the oldest, most clapped out, knock-kneed wheezing hacks who’ve played undistinguished for every club that’ll have ’em? They are hanging around and don’t cost anything. And they bring their even more twerpish twin brother along. Who you make Captain. Because he brought his own boots.

Sorry, but “vibrant” and “iconic” aren’t fit to wear a Leeds shirt.

I can’t tell you how chuffed I am to invent a football metaphor. I think it’s my first ever!

But it does get me off my original point, which was about language. I’m going to suggest a Leeds lexicon. A kind of dictionary. Let’s all agree on the terms we are using. Then, when we go to the 2023 judges we can include our local dictionary to help them understand our brilliant plans?

Here’s my attempt at a beginning, in no particular order. Like I said, this idea just occurred to me this morning as I was cleaning out the cat tray. Definitely just a draft…

Please, send suggestions, improvements, clarifications.

Compact (referring to the size of Leeds city centre): Not as big as Manchester.

Vibrant: Has a coffee shop/cocktail bar where you’ll be served by a chap with a beard.

Gritty: The attitude of people in Armley who can’t get a job.

Resilient: The attitude of people in Adel who don’t need to work.

Inward Investment: You get a job in a shop. The profits go to London.

Development: Shops.

Iconic: Shop with a sky bar or casino.

Diversity: We have Polish shops over the other side of town.

South Bank: Remember Holbeck Urban Village? We’re knocking it down and starting again.

Inclusive: A place where anyone can charge their iPhone for free.

Culture: Doesn’t include writers. Who needs the negativity!

Respect: An agreement not to talk about anything we might disagree about.

Public Space: Play nicely and behave yourself.

Leeds City Region: First Bus monopoly.

Thriving: Not managed to get a job down South.

Library: … Sorry, I don’t understand?

Connectivity: Your train sets off on time at least twice a week.

Heritage: A derelict building we haven’t yet found a developer to demolish.

Ambition: A burning desire to thrash Manchester United.

Curiousity: When you ask someone why they live in Bradford.

It’s only a start.

Leeds Draft ‘Cultural Strategy’ & ECoC2023 Bid
I have a fundamental problem with the ECoC2023 Leeds Bid proposal and now also with the draft Culture Strategy, published on Twitter last week. There has been a significant triumph of presentation over content in the announcements of these programmes.
This communication is my way of avoiding the inevitable criticism of me not ‘joining-in’ with the way it is required that we respond to the draft Culture Strategy within six (now five weeks and counting) to the draft culture strategy. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily shared by the co-directors of LSDG CIC.
Regardless of my personal views I hope we can all agree that the quoted ‘Vision’, for Leeds to be nationally and internationally recognised as the ‘Best City to Live’ by 2030, (originally announced by LCC in 2011), needs to be revisited, reviewed and refreshed, in the context of the need to have a shared, inclusive dialogue in response to the draft ‘Culture Strategy’. There had been consultation leading up to the adoption of this vision but there is some doubt that this is an acknowledged and fully shared by the people of Leeds. It seems to sit on a shelf waiting to be referred to only when necessary. For the Leeds submission to ECoC2023 to succeed we need to show that there has been active, continuous and inclusive involvement of citizens beyond those interested or involved in ‘arts’ activities. This process could commence now, in time for the first submission this year, with further development throughout the period up to the final submission next year, followed by continued dialogue as part of the process over the coming years, up to 2023.
However, my immediate and fundamental problem with the proposed ECoC2023 programme is that it appears to be more an ‘Arts’ bid than a ‘Culture’ bid and the subsequently published draft ‘Culture Strategy’ is not a wholehearted strategy for ‘Culture’, it is more a strategy for the ‘Arts’ with a bit of Leeds culture added in. I can see, from a distance that to deliver the two major pieces of work more or less at the same time and effectively from a standing start may have caused some difficulty.
Our shared vision for the six year period leading up to ECoC2023 should be based on the ‘process’ being as important, if not more important, than the ‘end product’. The process, so far, has been focussed on the preparation of a wonderful programme of cultural events as an ‘end product’. Accepting it is important to enter any competition with a view to winning, in the context of this bid, Leeds should accept that, win or lose, we are, as a community, committed to continuing the process. We should also have a conversation and establish a consensus as to what we expect the potential benefits and outcomes to be in six years’ time. Perhaps there is a case here for a ‘Six Year Vision’?
The feedback from current and previous successful ECoC bids that have taken on the wider cultural remit in their process has shown that this has resulted in positive and, most importantly, tangible outcomes for the cities, not only culturally but also economically, socially and environmentally. The proposed programme should now become significantly more inclusive and focus on these other sectors that not only define the ‘culture’ of Leeds as a city but are sectors of critical importance to making Leeds a truly better city. In particular,
more attention to achieving a consensus on the definition of ‘culture’ is required. If we do not fully understand the difference between art and culture and what separates them then we are starting from the wrong place.
Leeds must also show in the submission that there has been active and inclusive involvement of Leeds people beyond those interested or involved in ‘arts’ activities.
Our bid should not just be about our ‘heritage’ and what extra ‘arts’ events we plan to promote in 2023. The bid process should be more about our broader ‘vision’ for the ‘future’ of our city and what it is we want to gain from this six year process to ensure there is a really positive legacy for all the people of Leeds. We need to look back in 2024, after the programme of events, and be able to measure our successes over the previous six years against our shared vision. In simple terms, the development of our city needs to be a part of a cultural strategy based on our shared ‘City Vision’.
This will require a wider sharing of information, more frequent presentations, appropriate engagement activities and inclusive decision making at all levels. The use of social media, such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., although helpful, will not be sufficient. The time, money and resource at the disposal of LCC and the ECoC delivery team may not be available, so perhaps more open invitations to the many active community organisations, beyond the arts, no matter how small or ‘niche’, paired with a share of the major sponsor donations currently aimed solely at the arts events would facilitate this? The much needed, truly inclusive involvement from the ‘bottom-up’ and co-creation by way of effective public/private partnership working at all levels, is needed now to ensure the successful delivery of our shared vision, apart from the winning of ECoC2023.
The dialogue throughout the PR/Media programme for the already planned activities for ECoC2023 is essentially arts based. This strategy of concentrating on the arts is clearly requiring a massive investment but precedents show that just investing in art will not change anything that really matters in the development of the city of Leeds.
Not understanding the difference between art and culture is a damaging confusion that we need to sort out without delay.
I understand that there is a great deal of misunderstanding whenever there is a conversation about the difference between culture and art, they are often regarded by many as the same thing, especially, I find, in the world of artists, of all kinds. Culture and art is not the same thing.
Leeds culture is about our society, the nature and quality of our lives in the city. It is about all aspects of our life and activities. This does of course include, for some, the arts and so it follows that investment in the arts to deliver access and involvement for all is a very significant and good thing. Culture is however everything that we encounter in the environment in which we live, what we create in our physical space including the way we communicate, the way we grow, access, provide and prepare food, the creation of buildings, spaces and places and many, many more things. Investment in all these things would also be a very significant and good thing.
The brief synopsis in the draft Cultural Strategy of the current state of the City of Leeds titled; ‘It is 2017, and now is the time to act’, rightly raises some very important cultural issues. None of which, will be solved or changed simply by investing in a series of arts events. The issues you have mentioned that are facing Leeds; housing, population growth, inadequate transport, pollution, the poverty gap and others that you have not mentioned; urban regeneration, health provision, community politics, devolution, unemployment, investment in green infrastructure and many more, all require a Cultural Strategy to deliver our shared vision of ‘Best City to Live’.
It is indeed 2017. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment that ‘now is the time to act’, but it seems to me that we need to agree a strategy that will actually address those facets of our culture that need to be changed now, so that we can then establish the tactics that will make the strategy succeed. In 2009 I made a similar observation and together with an amazing and growing collection of individuals who shared a commitment to making things happen set out to make things happen now, that contribute to our collective vision for the future of Leeds.
I acknowledge the belief that the draft strategy is designed to stimulate change and to respond to the challenges and opportunities that present themselves’. It may well do. I have re-read the draft introduction with all references to ‘culture’ replaced with reference to ‘art’ and it all starts to make sense and makes for excellent reading.
Based on a premise that we have prepared an excellent ‘Arts Strategy’ I believe we need to now prepare a distinct and significantly more important ‘Culture Strategy’. In doing this we have a great responsibility to young people in the city to deliver a relevant cultural strategy that they have shared in creating, therefore understand, relate to and believe in so that they see a future for themselves in Leeds. An encouragement for them to participate and invest in the city in whatever area of interest they may have.
David Lumb
Independent Urbanist
Leeds Sustainable Development Group
Community Interest Company

One comment

David Lumb says:

14 May 2017 at 8:54 am

Leeds Draft ‘Cultural Strategy’ & ECoC2023 Bid
I have a fundamental problem with the ECoC2023 Leeds Bid proposal and now also with the draft Culture Strategy, published on Twitter last week. There has been a significant triumph of presentation over content in the announcements of these programmes.
This communication is my way of avoiding the inevitable criticism of me not ‘joining-in’ with the way it is required that we respond to the draft Culture Strategy within six (now five weeks and counting) to the draft culture strategy. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily shared by the co-directors of LSDG CIC.
Regardless of my personal views I hope we can all agree that the quoted ‘Vision’, for Leeds to be nationally and internationally recognised as the ‘Best City to Live’ by 2030, (originally announced by LCC in 2011), needs to be revisited, reviewed and refreshed, in the context of the need to have a shared, inclusive dialogue in response to the draft ‘Culture Strategy’. There had been consultation leading up to the adoption of this vision but there is some doubt that this is an acknowledged and fully shared by the people of Leeds. It seems to sit on a shelf waiting to be referred to only when necessary. For the Leeds submission to ECoC2023 to succeed we need to show that there has been active, continuous and inclusive involvement of citizens beyond those interested or involved in ‘arts’ activities. This process could commence now, in time for the first submission this year, with further development throughout the period up to the final submission next year, followed by continued dialogue as part of the process over the coming years, up to 2023.
However, my immediate and fundamental problem with the proposed ECoC2023 programme is that it appears to be more an ‘Arts’ bid than a ‘Culture’ bid and the subsequently published draft ‘Culture Strategy’ is not a wholehearted strategy for ‘Culture’, it is more a strategy for the ‘Arts’ with a bit of Leeds culture added in. I can see, from a distance that to deliver the two major pieces of work more or less at the same time and effectively from a standing start may have caused some difficulty.
Our shared vision for the six year period leading up to ECoC2023 should be based on the ‘process’ being as important, if not more important, than the ‘end product’. The process, so far, has been focussed on the preparation of a wonderful programme of cultural events as an ‘end product’. Accepting it is important to enter any competition with a view to winning, in the context of this bid, Leeds should accept that, win or lose, we are, as a community, committed to continuing the process. We should also have a conversation and establish a consensus as to what we expect the potential benefits and outcomes to be in six years’ time. Perhaps there is a case here for a ‘Six Year Vision’?
The feedback from current and previous successful ECoC bids that have taken on the wider cultural remit in their process has shown that this has resulted in positive and, most importantly, tangible outcomes for the cities, not only culturally but also economically, socially and environmentally. The proposed programme should now become significantly more inclusive and focus on these other sectors that not only define the ‘culture’ of Leeds as a city but are sectors of critical importance to making Leeds a truly better city. In particular,
more attention to achieving a consensus on the definition of ‘culture’ is required. If we do not fully understand the difference between art and culture and what separates them then we are starting from the wrong place.
Leeds must also show in the submission that there has been active and inclusive involvement of Leeds people beyond those interested or involved in ‘arts’ activities.
Our bid should not just be about our ‘heritage’ and what extra ‘arts’ events we plan to promote in 2023. The bid process should be more about our broader ‘vision’ for the ‘future’ of our city and what it is we want to gain from this six year process to ensure there is a really positive legacy for all the people of Leeds. We need to look back in 2024, after the programme of events, and be able to measure our successes over the previous six years against our shared vision. In simple terms, the development of our city needs to be a part of a cultural strategy based on our shared ‘City Vision’.
This will require a wider sharing of information, more frequent presentations, appropriate engagement activities and inclusive decision making at all levels. The use of social media, such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., although helpful, will not be sufficient. The time, money and resource at the disposal of LCC and the ECoC delivery team may not be available, so perhaps more open invitations to the many active community organisations, beyond the arts, no matter how small or ‘niche’, paired with a share of the major sponsor donations currently aimed solely at the arts events would facilitate this? The much needed, truly inclusive involvement from the ‘bottom-up’ and co-creation by way of effective public/private partnership working at all levels, is needed now to ensure the successful delivery of our shared vision, apart from the winning of ECoC2023.
The dialogue throughout the PR/Media programme for the already planned activities for ECoC2023 is essentially arts based. This strategy of concentrating on the arts is clearly requiring a massive investment but precedents show that just investing in art will not change anything that really matters in the development of the city of Leeds.
Not understanding the difference between art and culture is a damaging confusion that we need to sort out without delay.
I understand that there is a great deal of misunderstanding whenever there is a conversation about the difference between culture and art, they are often regarded by many as the same thing, especially, I find, in the world of artists, of all kinds. Culture and art is not the same thing.
Leeds culture is about our society, the nature and quality of our lives in the city. It is about all aspects of our life and activities. This does of course include, for some, the arts and so it follows that investment in the arts to deliver access and involvement for all is a very significant and good thing. Culture is however everything that we encounter in the environment in which we live, what we create in our physical space including the way we communicate, the way we grow, access, provide and prepare food, the creation of buildings, spaces and places and many, many more things. Investment in all these things would also be a very significant and good thing.
The brief synopsis in the draft Cultural Strategy of the current state of the City of Leeds titled; ‘It is 2017, and now is the time to act’, rightly raises some very important cultural issues. None of which, will be solved or changed simply by investing in a series of arts events. The issues you have mentioned that are facing Leeds; housing, population growth, inadequate transport, pollution, the poverty gap and others that you have not mentioned; urban regeneration, health provision, community politics, devolution, unemployment, investment in green infrastructure and many more, all require a Cultural Strategy to deliver our shared vision of ‘Best City to Live’.
It is indeed 2017. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment that ‘now is the time to act’, but it seems to me that we need to agree a strategy that will actually address those facets of our culture that need to be changed now, so that we can then establish the tactics that will make the strategy succeed. In 2009 I made a similar observation and together with an amazing and growing collection of individuals who shared a commitment to making things happen set out to make things happen now, that contribute to our collective vision for the future of Leeds.
I acknowledge the belief that the draft strategy is designed to stimulate change and to respond to the challenges and opportunities that present themselves’. It may well do. I have re-read the draft introduction with all references to ‘culture’ replaced with reference to ‘art’ and it all starts to make sense and makes for excellent reading.
Based on a premise that we have prepared an excellent ‘Arts Strategy’ I believe we need to now prepare a distinct and significantly more important ‘Culture Strategy’. In doing this we have a great responsibility to young people in the city to deliver a relevant cultural strategy that they have shared in creating, therefore understand, relate to and believe in so that they see a future for themselves in Leeds. An encouragement for them to participate and invest in the city in whatever area of interest they may have.
David Lumb
Independent Urbanist
Leeds Sustainable Development Group
Community Interest Company

Comments are closed.