Guest Post by Iain Bloomfield of Theatre in The Mill, Bradford, who is one of six instigators of What Next Yorkshire (along with Marcus Romer, Alan Dix Adrian Friedli, Shanaz Gulzar & Steve Manthorp)
There has been a fair bit of discussion on The Culture Vulture about arts of late, in terms of funding, impact, significance. Both Tim Wheeler and Anarchic Ali have written on this subject over the last couple of weeks, if you haven’t read those pieces I think you should, they (and indeed the comments on both pieces) cover a good deal of ground in the on-going debate.
I spent the first ten years of my working life, post Poly, in a workers co-operative; a theatre company who in large part made our work from the stories of those around us and then shared it back again. We made a lot of theatre in homes and day centres, outdoors, in schools and community centres – work both with and for people and really wide range of people who mostly didn’t go to the theatre; we thought, made and argued a lot amongst ourselves; we collaborated and thought and made with other Huddersfield companies to develop our local arts scene; we worked with politicians, care home staff, teachers, countryside wardens to get our work out there.
The experience was a formative one, one that I feel blessed by however difficult it was at the time (and boy was it difficult at times), it left me with some very powerful ideas about the mechanics of inclusion, about challenging the status quo, about the power of co-authorship. Perhaps most pertinently for the times in which we live, it left me with the mantra that “we shouldn’t fight to defend our slice of the cake but to argue for the cake being bigger”.
In hard times that is a very tough line to walk.
It is, however, exactly why I have helped to organise a Yorkshire meeting (on 24th July, 3.30-6.30pm at West Yorkshire Playhouse) to explore What Next? – This website copy and rsvp page reads thusly:
“What Next? is a movement bringing together arts and cultural organisations from across the UK, to articulate and strengthen the role of culture in our society. We want to engage the public in new and different conversations about how and why the arts are important, and become a catalyst for fresh thinking and new policy ideas.
Our main purpose is to find new ways of engaging with, the public, our audience and visitors, and our potential audience and visitors: the ever-expanding millions who value and take part in the work made with, for and by them.
Our main task is to encourage these people, as individuals and as communities, to make connections between the many different ways art and culture affect and enhance their lives. We want to urge them to register their endorsement of, and pleasure in their art and culture. We want them to become active participants in this debate and in the work that we do.
What Next? is an experiment. We want to try different ways of approaching engagement and advocacy. This requires feeling our way and being responsive to the changing climate and the ideas of our growing membership.
We are aware that there are significant regional differences across the country in terms of practice, engagement and interaction. This Yorkshire meeting will be an opportunity to extend the discussions, to meet new people and organisations who want to share their thoughts and ideas for this movement and to develop a distinctive Yorkshire voice within the broader discussions about the importance of arts and culture.
There will be speakers, and a chance to find out more about What Next? and a chance to share ideas using the open space format
Tickets are free – but you will have to book here to be assured of a place:
More info about the What Next? movement can be found here:
I for one will be using this as a chance to listen and in the hope that we arts and cultural organisations take this as an opportunity not to see ourselves in isolation arguing hard for our slice of the cake (and seeking allies in that argument) but to explore the greater meaning of our inter relation with the wider world, to also ask of ourselves:
How we can become advocates for our audiences, visitors?
How can engaging with people enhance our art?
How can we better value individuals and communities?
I would be very grateful for anyone who wants to help me think about those questions to come along.
I’ve signed up for this, mainly because it was on the site (probably wouldn’t have bothered otherwise, I’m not really a conference type of guy). Some of the language troubles me though.
I’m not sure if I’m one of those “public” you are wanting to “engage”. And if I am it seems that all you want me and “these people” to do is cheer on what a wonderful job you guys in the “cultural organisations” are doing. I can’t really see what else the first four or five paragraphs of that quoted web copy means.
And it does feel a bit weird going along to Playhouse to talk about how you guys in the cultural and arts orgs want to improve how you talk to the “ever expanding millions” who value what you do. (I really hope you cringed when you read that Stalinesque phrase; I did).
I’m totally happy to “register my endorsement” and talk about art and culture “enhances our lives”, but have to admit I’ve probably got a very different version of what art and culture means to me personally.
I was part of an event over the weekend. 1200 plus people shelled out £30 a ticket to be chased around Leeds by zombies, arriving exhausted and occasionally injured at the gates of an old building in the less salubrious part of LS11, then spend hours sitting in a bare car park drinking vastly over-priced beer, telling each other their personal tale of the chase. I’ve never seen a more animated, involved and engaged bunch of people. They stayed well after the license lapsed (I help run the venue where the zombie Asylum party was hosted, and trying to make them go home was hell!) I managed to speak to 50 or so players, asking them how they found out about the event, why they did it, and what other cultural/arty stuff they did. Most knew about it from word of mouth. Most bought tickets because they thought it would be fun. And I only found 5 or six people who did anything resembling anything this conference is about, though most did go to live music and festivals.
The zombie game organisers don’t get public money. They don’t seem to need to spend time at conferences worrying how to engage the public (if they don’t engage, they don’t eat). And “the public” seem more than happy to join in, talk it up, and spread the word … maybe next year we get out of the Playhouse and you chaps come and play zombies on the streets of Leeds with me? We might learn more than sitting in a room talking amongst ourselves.
Hi Phil,
Not sure I completely disagree with you. And why, personally, I welcome that kind of view at the event.
We have public funding, what is it for? Where does it get spent? On what?
I think those questions (and meaningful answers to them) are part of the discussion about articulating why culture matters. And why it should continue to be funded.
Bear in mind I’m a bit of a sobersides with what follows, but….
The fact is that tens of thousands people pretty much every single night/day of the year take part in/watch funded arts programme. Stuff that probably couldn’t be made otherwise, stuff that works beyond the easily taken in. That, to my mind, is as important as funding education in some really important ways. At its best it works in pretty much the same way (and that is not about finding gainful employment) in allowing us to explore the world, ideas, emotions in a safe space, alongside other people, mostly, and that helps us understand both ourselves and others more.
Very much a personal view here: If we are to articulate a political will behind those things mattering, Which What Next? aims to do, there has to be an attendant discussion about the what’s, where’s etc. but that, kinda, has to follow from agreement (or not) with state funding of the arts.
I’ve never argued against public funding for the arts (I have said we should treble it several times) but I do think it can make the established arts and cultural orgs insular, self-referential and completely out of tune with the rest of us – the ones you guys call “these people”.
The interesting argument isn’t about funding – we all agree more cake is best – it’s about what arts and culture are for. And I think there’s a gaping chasm between what the providing organisations and the receiving public think is going on … but that’s a separate post perhaps.
Phil, I hope that the irony of claiming to speak for the ‘rest of us’ whilst critiquing something that refers to ‘these people’ isn’t lost on you. 🙂
I am perfectly happy to be Pollyanna about this. I hope that this meeting (not a conference btw) begins to ask the those very questions about what arts organisations are for, finds ways of broadening that discussion out beyond that room and then starts linking any consensus around that in Yorkshire to influence policy about what is funded – cos what is funded is a ruddy great influencer on what is done.
I have great difficulties with the London iterations of this and that is one of my motivations in getting involved with it. I’d rather get my hands dirty and get involved in a discussion than carp from the outside. And I know you are going so you do too. Said Pollyanna.
Ha, but that was my point. I don’t think it’s an entirely helpful way to divide up the world. I was employing language that I don’t normally use and doesn’t come naturally.
Yes, I’m coming along, but just for a nosey. I don’t really like meetings either – any more than two people in a room and my brain seizes up. But I’ll be taking notes and will write something up after.
There’s nowt wrong with being a Pollyanna sometimes. Pollyanna’s do stuff. In fact, I’m a hell of a lot more Pollyanna’ish than you – most of the stuff I do, see, or am involved in somehow isn’t funded, it’s just fun.
And, of course, I agree with you about London.
Pollyanna off it is, then. 🙂
Ha! A bit twisted Mr Kirby but I agree a bit with you both.
Arts and culture isn’t just what gets public funding to be arty. Some of it – as Phil says – is commercially viable. Hurray!
However some ventures just aren’t commercial but need to be done anyway.
If you look at television, X Factor, The Voice, Britain’s Got Talent and all that other stuff pays for itself. But I think we would all still want great dramas, Attenborough style documentaries, Panorama-style (except better) investigative journalism. These are expensive and need subsidy.
So we have to consider in these apparently austere days, how we use our taxes.
But I would say from the outside that arts organisations use language that is a bit weird to me. And I do feel the words above suggest art is being done ‘at me’ not ‘with me’. Anyway that’s why I’ve signed up for this – to talk about these things some more and see if we have a consensus, cos then we can have a plan that we can all sign up to and get on with doing it.
Naive? Possibly. Optimistic? Always!
Agreed.
Just an aside really, but in the US at least, Kickstarter generated more funding for the arts in 2012 than public funding via the National Endowment for the Arts:
For 2012, the NEA had a total federal appropriation of $146 million, of which 80 percent went toward grants. Kickstarter funded roughly $323.6 million of art-related projects if you include all design and video-related projects, which make up $200 million of the total.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/07/yes-kickstarter-raises-more-money-for-artists-than-the-nea-heres-why-thats-not-really-surprising/
I have one question. Who do you really really *want* to come to this event? This isn’t just addressed to Iain, but to the cohort generally.
I suppose one of the key factors is how impact is assessed – and in particular, impact on (and with) audiences. Community based arts work, and participative work in funded spaces, is increasingly judged using metrics from the fields of, for example, health and social care,happiness and wellbeing, for example. This can allow for interesting debate and practice in evaluation. I did a bit of research on this in terms of participative performance work with people with dementia. Debates about impact and significance of the arts can’t be clearly differentiated, of course, if you believe that the arts have ‘intrinsic value’. Interestingly, I heard an interview with ballet dancer Sergei Polunin (the youngest dancer ever to be made a principal with the Royal Ballet) on BBC Radio 4’s Front Row today. He described the relationship between the dancer and the audience as a ‘power exchange’. Which I think may be relevant to Phil Kirby’s points above. So perhaps an interesting question is ‘how do you measure power exchange between performers and audience’ in participative performance arts? Or something?
Emma, the wobbly answer to your question is the open space dictum, the people who are there are the right people. Essentially, if this meeting is an end, or seen as an end, in itself then it will be an almighty failure.
But, on a purely personal level, I’d like people who can challenge my thinking, want to create broader partnerships/collaborations that tie in ‘arts’ activities and broader cultural (and probably political) stuff, people who see the benefit of both a social state and unified thinking/doing that articulates that, argues against the current direction of travel. But as I said, that is personal.
I’m going to continue what I do at Theatre in the Mill for as long as I can, I believe in supporting artists to make and think within a ‘conversational’ or outward looking framework, in collaboration with the people who watch. believe a lot less (although I have to be realistic/don’t currently have a choice) in ‘selling tickets’ to people. I’ll go to my grave believing that art matters, but only matters if genuinely social.
I’d like people who want to question what we as a ‘sector’ do and how we do it. Those that want to point out what works or doesn’t and why. But I’m happy that those who come are the right people and that other conversations will spring out of this. Conversations here, in small rooms, over beer, over food.
I might be a bit late ‘cos I have
to take my kids to the dentist! Happy to stay a bit later if people are in the bar. Happy to use want ever language works for whoever.
*whatever!