It’s not often I get an urge to read a council report let alone review one. To me the language of local democracy is as unfamiliar and mysterious as Aramaic or a car maintenance manual, but this document about Leeds’ possible bid for European Capital of Culture is a bit different.
It talks about encouraging a city conversation over what the bid would mean for Leeds – the issues, the opportunities, the potential risks – which I think is a great idea. Let’s get people talking – actually, they already are. And it makes the very sensible point that Bringing the city together to bid is almost as important as winning. I couldn’t agree more, let’s have more of this civic enterprise stuff. There’s even the odd joke, like this absolute howler: Leeds is arguably not currently even the best city for culture in Yorkshire! … I know, that one had me roaring into my whisky all evening. Great gag, which I’ve used a couple of times since and it hasn’t failed to raise a laugh.
I’d even go so far as to say I agreed with the economic/tourist/investment argument that A bid could help us build an international image of a 21st century Leeds in Europe and beyond, a vital creative ‘can-do’ city for future generations with an associated increase in jobs, skills, technological and business capacity; and accelerate improvements to the environment and public realm. Fantastic. And I’ve got some great ideas about public realm too, so can’t wait to get cracking.
Altogether it’s a great report and you all should read it and support the bid. As someone in the audience at the Town Hall meeting said, it’s a no brainer.
But there are a couple of things in the report that did cause my brain to light up and go, “whoa, wait a minute!” A couple of things that may need our collective brain power to sort. So in the spirit of “city conversation” here’s my two penn’oth.
First the minor quibble. The report says,
A bid also offers an opportunity to develop a clear narrative and cultural identity for the city, clearly and consistently articulating the offer to residents, businesses, investors and visitors and raising the profile of the city internationally.
Leeds itself does not really have an identifiable cultural profile outside of retail. It is notable that hardly any of our major arts institutions have a titular Leeds identity. Think of Opera North, Northern Ballet, West Yorkshire Playhouse, Yorkshire Dance, Northern School of Contemporary Dance. Currently, is Leeds much less than the sum of its remarkable parts?
This makes us sound like a cultural Frankenstein’s monster – lots of “remarkable parts” and loads of energy, but uncoordinated, unlovable and unable to make a good impression. The City of Culture bid will be just a monster makeover. We’ll get Leeds to learn a couple of chat up lines (a “clear narrative”) to help the city pick up investment, business and tourists, then kit it out in some fetching clobber (a titular rebrand for all those cultural institutions to make sure they are all going in One Direction?) … but at heart won’t we be just the same old place, no matter what new “cultural identity” we try to don? What if we simply don’t suit the cultural identity that is developed for us? What if, beneath the shiny, happy new cultural identity we are still the same lumbering monster we always were? Can we as a city change that much, and would we still be “Leeds”?
The second point is much more important. Read this remarkable paragraph:
A major consideration is the question of how would achieving this award make any difference to those living in poverty in the city? How could bidding for the title make a difference to a 10 year old living in poverty now who will be an adult in 2023, or to a young woman of 20 not in education, employment or training now and who will be 30 in 2023? We know that in general, and despite excellent programmes of education and engagement, our cultural riches do not always serve everyone equally, or make a difference to their lives. If our proposal for European Capital of Culture did not directly address this question and involve every community in the city, we should perhaps not bid.
Perhaps the best thing you could do for that ten year old kid would be to make sure he never got interested in the arts and culture, else by 2023 he’d still likely be living in poverty.
Joking aside there’s so much wrong with this it’s hard to know where to begin. Putting it bluntly, if that last sentence is meant seriously then, no, we shouldn’t bid. If the sole priority is to eliminate poverty and involve every community (whatever that means) then there are more effective and efficient ways than bidding for the European City of Culture. We are kidding ourselves if we think the bid would “directly” address that sort of question. I’m willing to spend a day or two anytime with the authors of the report in any community of their choice knocking on doors asking people what they thought of the idea that cultural stuff has the slightest impact on their levels of poverty, let’s find out what they say (and let’s not ask arts/cultural organisations this question because of course they will say it does – they are getting the grants though, not the communities.) If we did put all our resources into tackling poverty, however, that ten year old kid would reach 2023 and bugger off to Manchester, where there’s bound to be something going on. There has to be a reason to stay in a place beyond economic equality.
Why should “our cultural riches … serve everyone equally” anyway? Out of the five “major arts institutions” mentioned in the report I personally attend one regularly. I find dance a bore, opera a chore, and I’ll thump the next know nothing young poet in Nike trainers who wants to assault my ears with a foolish rant about American imperialism … I couldn’t give a hoot about those things. I do give a damn that Leeds only has one bookshop (that’s where my cultural identity comes from) and that the magnificent lion sculptures on our Town Hall have deteriorated almost beyond recognition (a strong indication of the level of genuine civic pride in the place.) We’re all different and need different things from the city. I do want opera and dance and poetry … but I want them for other people. In a civilised city I think that everyone could have their cultural needs catered for – but that doesn’t mean you’ll ever get me along to a poetry slam. Glad it’s there but I don’t want to go. The only difference it would make to my life would be to add homicidal rage. Most cultural stuff is minority taste. There’s a set point for interest and involvement, and it’s not “for all” no matter what the Arts Council ideology would like us to believe.
So, let’s bid for European City of Culture, but let’s do it honestly, fully facing the facts. One thing I do know about the “cultural identity” of Leeds is that we can take it and we don’t do bullshit. Especially arty farty bullshit. It’s just not us.
Hmm not sure I feel as cynical as you.
I really don’t know whether I would know an identifiable cultural profile if it hit me in the face but your comment about Manchester made me think. Much of the Manc profile in recent decades has been about music and drugs, which seem to have a wider reach than opera.
I’m not suggesting we build a bid on the back of drug trafficking, but that we need, as you’ve said, a wider definition of what we mean. When I think about arts and culture (actually I rarely think about arts and culture, I think about going out to do stuff and see stuff) I don’t assume it need be via any of those five institutions.
And also to be fair, they said cultural riches, they haven’t promised to feed people. This is probably as good a time as any to quote your mate, Penalosa, from Bogota:
A premise of the new city is that we want a society to be as egalitarian as possible. For this purpose, quality-of-life distribution is more important than income distribution.
I don’t think that was cynical in the slightest. If that’s a serious question – what’s the best way to tackle poverty and inequality in Leeds? – and it’s the criterion for whether we bid for Capital of Culture or not then it’s settled … let’s spend the money more effectively.
If we want to bid because we think we could do a brilliant job and it’ll be great for the civic pride of the city then bring it on. No reason we can’t tackle poverty at the same time, just by better means.
Good piece Phil! I should have really turned my own comments on CV and Leeds Citizen into a more substantial article, particularly around the instrumentalist use of culture to heal all society’s ills – and through that both undermine the value of culture in-and-of-itself and fail, and worse avoid, tackling social ills in-and-of-themselves.
And for Leeds’ cultural riches “serv[ing] everyone equally”, as you say any specific culture (i.e. art, craft, entertainment) is for a minority – i.e. those that do and enjoy it. Even popular TV shows only appeal to large minorities of. So, like you, dance will never “serve” me “equally”, unless I develop an interest in it equal to those who enjoy it. But that’s fine! To try and make it “serve” those it currently doesn’t reach would require changing it or engineering it in some way, generally to the satisfaction of neither audience. So it’s best not to make it “serve” any purpose, but to just try and produce good stuff.
You should write that piece. I thought your comments on Leeds Citizen were bang on. The main worry I have about this bid is that the big cultural orgs will think it’s about them getting more of us bums on their seats … it’s about the city though, and not just its performance spaces.
Agree with just about everything you say, Phil, especially the nonsense about a Leeds narrative.
I’ve been having a friendly exchange with Paul Thomas about whether the offending paragraph says that they aim to eliminate poverty with the bid. They may well say so in the future, but I don’t think they’ve said so yet.
The exchange is in the comments here: http://theleedscitizen.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/council-leaders-to-discuss-possible-leeds-bid-for-european-capital-of-culture-next-week/
Mercifully, the cultural life of the city does not reside within the walls of the Big Five that dare not speak Leeds’ name. Nor does it reside in the workshops and outreach sessions of well-meaning public arts orgs who hassle the poor and infirm to validate their ideas of what radical practice looks like.
A city of culture, is one that gives permission to its citizens – all its citizens – to express themselves artistically, wherever they choose, and then basks in their reflected glory.
This doesn’t necessarily require money. It means allowing and encouraging the chaotic and the ramshackle and the not-quite-thought-through; and not trying to dragoon us into May Day Parades, where we’re expected to salute our expensive Weapons of Niche Distraction.
In my experience, we’re not good at celebrating the talent which doesn’t fit the bill of the Big Five, or which kisses its teeth at community arts projects and those who would curate the city on their behalf.
Which brings us to the huge irony of this whole ECC endeavour.
The irony is that time and again, for anything in Leeds to be accepted as any good, it first needs to be recognised and praised by people outside Leeds. We measure our success by getting Springsteen and One Direction to anoint our openings, dammit.
Whilst we continue to crave external approval for the things we think fit the bill, ECC recognition will never come.
When every kid in Leeds knows someone who knows someone who headlined one of our Venues or switched on our Christmas lights, that’s the time to put the bid in.
I agree with Jon, except for his conclusion.
I believe the body of what Jon says is the reason why we should have a go.
There is core failure in Jon’s piece and also in most commentaries I’ve read on the subject so far. And that is: equating the Arts to culture. They are related but are far from being the same thing.
If the authors of the Council’s report understood that they would never have made this comment:
*ahem*
I agree with Jon, except for his conclusion.
I believe the body of what Jon says is the reason why we should have a go.
There is core failure in Jon’s piece and also in most commentaries I’ve read on the subject so far. And that is: equating the Arts to culture. They are related but are far from being the same thing.
If the authors of the Council’s report understood that they would never have made this comment:
I don’t get this stuff about telling stories – unless it’s about history. Is that what you mean? That you’d like to see more local history recorded and shared?
All forms of art tell a story. Was just trying to say we have a lot of culture to play the muse – a lot of which hasn’t been explored.
Still don’t get it. Don’t suppose it matters …
bollocks
“City” as urbs or civitas?
Culture is a tricky word. Is it civilisation in fustian or just a monochrome monism meaning the “arts” (and probably the high arts at that)?
Concentrate on the root “civis” and embrace the diverse, not just the arts but the sports, the work, the education, the leisure time, the physical landscape, the history and, particularly, the Leodensian folk and what Michel de Certeau terms ‘the practice of everyday life’. Elevate it. Not just a poor imitation of Edinburgh Festival but something that redefines the very concept of “city of culture” and has people remembering for decades and justifies the designation ‘European capital’.
(En passant, the lack of a titular identity for the major arts institutions is probably not particular only to Leeds. I’m sure there are similar arts institutions in Manchester, Newcastle, Cardiff and so on which receive regional and national rather than civic funding and don’t reference their city of domicile in their title.
Conversely there is no shortage of the word ‘Leeds’ in the city’s higher and further education institutions, its museum, art gallery and library, its professional rugby league, rugby union and association football teams, its transport hubs, and in the identification “I’m from ….”.
Compared to, say, Hull or Bradford or Middlesborough, Leeds is hardly in need of a leg-up. It is the most popular student destination in the country for example. But, of course, this is a fairly circumscribed Leeds. Also I’m not convinced by the extraneous reasons for applying
And incidentally I’m not convinced by arguments that the money would be better spent tackling poverty and inequalities (address poverty by increasing significantly the taxes on those of us – and there are plenty – who are better off, not by denying spending on “culture”.)
Good to see that the conversation is alive and well. I think anything that supports the arts and culture as being a positive thing. In times of austerity I would not want to get into the conversation of arts funding that has already been covered elsewhere but the debate of poverty is a wider one. There are many things that money is being spent on today that it could be argued would be best used to tackle poverty in the sense of economic poverty but what about educational and cultural poverty that not having an arts culture brings on the national and global stage. How prepared are we to compete on the stage, to attract business to the region that brings growth, jobs and economic benefit. Lets keep the debate alive. I think this new movie helps address the importance of art and culture when even your very life and existence are at stake: http://www.monumentsmen.com
Is there some calamitous impact which community arts organisations have had on the Leeds cultural landscape which singles them out for particular discrimination? Have they in some way squandered vast sums of money on unrepresentative white elephants? Is there any evidence to back up the criticism this unsung and underfunded sector seems to be receiving in this thread?
My understanding of Local Councils is that they represent the people, not just the arts sector. My understanding of European funding, esp. ECoC, is that it objectifies social cohesion and development. It is surely noble of LCC to attempt to conceive of ALL those residing in and around Leeds as needing to be considered within the scope of this project. Equally I share the concern that this will be yet another big five roadshow and would, if needs be, add my voice to the debate as I’ve done in the past.
Art is owned by everybody.
I don’t think that was the implication of the thread at all Damian. It was talking about the big, well-funded “beacon” arts orgs who tend to see inclusion and engagement as simply getting more of us bums on their seats. I’d suggest we can’t tackle poverty by encouraging a few more people in Holbeck to appreciate Wagner.
Where we do agree is that the bid shouldn’t be just “yet another big five roadshow”. Exactly! But again, reading the report there were some worrying bits about getting us lot in donut of despair to appreciate the cultural richness of the centre, where the artistic expertise resides. Look at what the report says when it mentions art. It’s the big five, naturally.
No, art is not owned by everybody. Try walking out of Leeds Art Gallery with an Epstein under your anorak and it’ll soon be made clear to you who owns what.
I was referencing the ensuing threadline/conversation more than your actual article, Phil, which I am broadly in agreement with.
I do think that now (as before) a clear and sincere analysis of Leeds’ many cultural faults (recognising the cultural fault lines as maintained and certainly not challenged or contested by its big five feudal proprietors) is fundamentally necessary before Leeds can even attempt the standards of cultural inclusivity practiced in most other British Cities (inc. other cities and towns in Yorkshire.)
And maybe the idea to raise ECoC as an option is really an attempt to shame Leeds into seeing itself for what it is and doing something about it – that Leeds is substandard and is not on par with most other British Cities, that its cultural institutions have failed it and let it down and that no amount of window dressing is going to disguise that fact, and that Leeds subsequently has no realistic chance of attaining ECoC status or anything like it.
Yet in recognising the glaring deficiences (like the Emperor’s New Clothes) they can be addressed and the strangle hold of Leeds’ feudal empires on Leeds’ cultural evolution can be loosened and the city allowed to thrive.
And as you know I make a direct connection between culture and social well being, and believe this is absolutely an issue of ownership where something which IS the common ownership has been yet again appropriated and bastardised by them as can and do.
Leeds needs a cultural revolution, whereas at present it can hardly muster the energy to fart in a bag.
I wan’t to be a devil’s advocate here, It does seem that the ‘Big 5’ cultural institutions get quite a bashing, Are they a nice simplistic proxy for stone throwing, when actually the issue is so much deeper than them being better at resourcing funding.
One would expect huge institutions with full-time employees dedicated towards sourcing funding on their behalf to be superior at resourcing funding than small, home grown companies who have to rely on their own drive and initiative in order simply to survive. They would also, one presumes, be in a superior position both to promote them-selves and defend themselves against the mere pebbles of public opprobrium (where it dares surface). Equally, given their relative hegemonic stranglehold on cultural development in the city, one would expect them to be in an ideal position from which to exploit any and all opportunities which might present themselves regardless of the merit of that superiority or of the damage done to smaller arts organisations that do not wield the same muscle.
As you say, the issue is deeper, though I don’t see how “issue depth” exonerates the “Big 5” from their collective responsibility for what is a contrived failure of cultural policy (reflecting as it does the failure in social and economic policy in Leeds) to recognise or benefit the whole city rather than the leafy suburbs, satellite towns, and their own bank balances. These are publicly funded organisations which are failing to fulfil their public remit, either to the public of Leeds, to the public of Yorkshire, or to the cultural well being of anyone but themselves.
Not only that but they steadfastly evade their responsibility for creating the “Wasteland” in which we find ourselves and, in so doing, destroy the opportunity for a sincere dialogue within the city on how to evolve beyond this. Instead they, like the businesses and banks, continue to visit a relentless neoliberal agenda upon an almost entirely defenceless populace who presumably gave up all hope during Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society therefore I will make it so” rampages of the eighties.
Of course to be accused of throwing stones is no new invention – there are even those who feel that bankers have come in for a rough ride – those poor little sausages with their luxury yachts, etc, etc, and all they did was destroy the well being and security of millions upon millions of people. There is a moral equivalence here which is exacerbated by the total lack of ingenuity by said organisations to acknowledge either their responsibility for getting us into this desert or for getting us out of it. Power buys indifference apparently (and literally, according to recent studies).
So, are the Big 5 a simplistic proxy who, like politicians, are responsible only for their gleaming shiny successes whilst we all must carry the burden of failure of which they are entirely innocent? How could the five most powerful arts organisations share any responsibility for the failure of Leeds to cement any kind of cultural identity, after all? Perhaps, those of us without the funds to hire legal or media rattlesnakes to do our talking for us, and who have therefore to fall back on the broader brush strokes of supposition, will continue to tentatively lob metaphorical bricks in the direction of the Cultural Goliaths because we believe that Leeds is more important than they are, and it’s about time they learned that.