Rant 44: The myth of radical recession culture

While I take your point that we don't want to unwittingly provide those who seek to axe arts funding with further ammunition - I also see a Catch 22 situation emerging here. If we can't see any positive outcomes then we have nothing to do but lie back and take what's coming our way in an immobilised, whimpering state. This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the arts - it's always healthier to fight surely - even if that ends up turning artists and curators into canon fodder in the short term? If fighting involves harnessing a new and more radical creativity then so be it - that's a positive outcome of sorts and I can't easily be persuaded that it isn't? The fact that the Abstract Expressionists came storming through the Fifties American depression is relevant and if that supports those who have it in for the arts then that's a big downside - but cuts are inevitable. This may sound harsh but are many wealthy land owners in the Highlands who could well afford to support their local museum and might be persuaded to put their hands in their pockets. The legacy of the Duke of Sutherland and the clearances still live on in this region so what's new. Local Authority and Arts Council funded arts centres in remote and impoverished places will simply have to work harder on being more inclusive and fostering genuine community projects - and their curators and trustees will just have to start looking under their very noses for existing talent instead of assuming that imported artists and shows, often from distant cities, are the only real kind worth supporting?

We are always more than happy to be taken issue with! Perhaps this assertion was too much in keeping with media mantra - but I think it's quite hard to be overly concerned about cutbacks to the arts if you feel, as we sometimes do, that subsidies have led to a degree of complacency within certain institutions that depend on receiving their funding from the public purse for their continued existence. So keeping arts organisations and institutions on their toes - pushing them to view themselves through the eyes of the tax payer - is not always such a bad thing perhaps?

Thanks ranting back at me! My main point is that while ACE are by no means perfect, but they do a much better job of selecting projects to fund than market democracy will. Somewhere like the Lowry has the kind of commercial business model that alot of arts centres will be moving towards. Just take a look at their website. They represent a massive step backwards in terms of the quality of contemporary programs that we have seen over the last ten years or so. Francis Alys at the Tate is a wonderful example of high quality subsidized programming, amazingly people are willing to pay to see a show by an artist they haven’t heard of. Programs should be challenging, rather than populist and money-making.

As a curator I’m not excited by the prospect of a great artistic movement akin to Abstract Expressionism rising out of the ashes of depression. It is of course important to place artists and movements within their socio-economic context but there will be important artists in any time. My concern is that good art is visible to the many rather than the few. It is also important that organisations can afford to take risks and provide opportunities for emerging artist, rather than simply opt for safe established options because they need the ticket or commercial sales.

Regarding Tumim & Prendergast’s argument that institutions should see themselves through the eyes of the tax payer, I’m not quite sure what this means but if it means programming heavily scrutinized by the tax payers I’m not sure I’m in favour. I would much rather the government amassed a board of international museum and gallery experts to advise them (although these would have to be chosen carefully as expert culture and corporate cultures are often in bed with one another).

Well in part I'm playing devil's advocate (as is our collaborative wont!) here. I do understand and probably agree with most of what you are saying really. Generally the LOL culture depresses us and yes we too can see the Lowry and it's context i.e. the empty and arid Salford Docks as representing the private sector at it's naffest, dumbed down worst. But bear in mind please that you are approaching this as a curator who lives and works in London, whereas we are artists - ex-Londoners of many years - who regularly trawl up and down from the Islands to the Highlands and so on until finally after 2 full days we reach our urban destination - usually heaving with the best of the arts. On route, prior to hitting the motorways, we sometimes stop off for coffee at arts centres that are publicly funded but seem only to pay lip service to the places they claim to represent. There is rarely a wealth of local colour on display, no attempt at celebrating local pastimes, industries or unique traditions - but often just a rather dreary video, or a half baked visually unsatisfying installation, or some second rate, ridiculously enlarged photos of some sheep or a moorland or a dark street or a camera shaken person wandering backwards and forwards perhaps - very sub sub sub Bill Viola. And there will often be a mindlessly depressing/screaming/ irritating sound track playing away in the background too as we munch our stale cheese scones  - an attempt at showing the locals yokels just how it can and should be done? I'm afraid this is what springs to my mind when I think about regional Arts Council funded venues - and I'm not convinced that this is an improvement on dumbing down at the Lowry really? 

Oh and not to forget the bling mermaids with four arms each that have been plonked at the tax payer's expense on several roundabouts on route from Stirling to Fife. These public artworks so utterly depressed a Glaswegian friend recently that he almost headed straight back down to England never to return. He has handed in his notice now privately citing these "totally naff, appallingly made" mermaids as his reason for losing the will to live and work in Scotland?!

Having not seen those mermaids in particular, but other attrocious municipal works, I can fully understand your Glaswegian friend. But not every artwork can be a hit! If all municipal art works are subject to the whim of the Tax Payer (a mythical right-wing everybloke) then the Tax Payer has a right to sell off the munipal collections. Southampton County Council tried to do this, and there was outrage - but that was before the mantra of "cuts are inevitable" caught on.

Of course any cuts will hurt the smaller artists, but now would be a great time to take stock and ask for a number of concessions to replace what we are losing. How about the recognition of artists under similar taxation laws as actors, gardeners, and seasonal workers? Or would that be expecting too much from the Arts Council, an organisation that has continually given the OK to widening out arts organisations office jobs, whilst making it harder for the jobbing artist to tap into veins of funding.

In effect, the ACE has been backing a trickledown theory of economics, hoping that big galleries either commission artists or employ them in the admin section. It's movements such as the contemporary Arts and Crafts people (urban knitting?) and the Empty Shops movement who are reaching out and bringing art into peoples lives. If there is a move towards an "American" model (which, honestly, should be refered to as a neoliberal model) then it'll be those movements that survive, along with the cack-handed artists commissioned by fiat at your local council offices.

Pete I agree with you on almost every front - although I don't think the smaller artists will necessarily be as adversely affected as you suggest since many receive little or no support from the Arts Council anyway. But it's true to say that artists may well be hit indirectly by cuts in public sector jobs and pay generally. I think the recognition of artists regarding taxation laws would be an excellent idea. Re all forms of extreme knitting - roll it on - as the Metaphysical poet John Donne said:

"Because such fingers need to knit

        That subtle knot which makes us man... "

Sadly, artists will be affected because their employers will be affected. I already know of people who are working in low-level jobs at galleries and arts cinemas, which are heavily reliant upon arts funding, losing hours from their job and therefore being placed in precarious situations.

One of the reasons that the cuts will place the arts in a pickle is because of the Arts Councils focus on monocultural institutions over enhancing grass-roots organisations. It seemed that the idea was for arts groups to grow to become mid-sized organisations with an admin department or never receive ongoing funding - ignoring the capabilities of smaller organisations and independent artists, or of groups that were based away from the more cultured areas.

Added to this was the recent report that found that the Arts Council was one of the least effective government organisations in terms of money spent. While I approve of the mission of the Arts Council, what we've really had over the past few years is a group dedicated to increasing the amount of management in the arts, but not lobbying for the tax breaks, individual working practices, and cultural acceptance that the arts need.

I can only assume that working for a large cultural organisation makes you more attuned to the needs of other large cultural organisations... either that, or you need somewhere to go work after the ACE contract runs out.

Many good points made. I would go as far as to say that 90% of public art is really lazy and bad, especially from the perspective of us keen eyed artists and critics who use Axisweb. Those mermaids sound pretty special, I shall keep my eyes peeled next time I’m in the area! Even though these things look at first glance like a complete waste of money, don’t you agree that it’s better that SOMETHING is there, even if it is really naff. Okay, it’s not conceptually stimulating or well fabricated but it breaks up the landscape and made you crack a smile. My friend always makes a really good point about art; on a bookshelf of random books, how many books do you expect to like enough to read till the end? People don’t tend to do this with individual art works or museums, they tend to pick the examples they dislike and say what a waste of money the arts are.

Although I grew up in London and now study here, I also studied in Leeds for four years and have spent a lot of time in Manchester, having done curatorial placement there for six months last year. I came across a couple of really interesting small museum/ library collections. Some such as The Working Class Movement Library in Salford (http://www.wcml.org.uk/ ) suffer from underfunding and are almost entirely run on the good will of volunteers (Cameron’s good old Big Society!) where as others such as the Rochdale Pioneers Museum have received financial opportunities (http://www.co-op.ac.uk/our-heritage/heritage-lottery-fund-awards-1-5million-to-rochdale-pioneers-museum/).

contin...

I’m very familiar with the syndrome of third rate contemporary commissions, but again, I think it’s a matter of concentrating on the good examples. There is really brilliant looking Lindsay Seers commission opening soon at Warwick Arts Centre (http://www.warwickartscentre.co.uk/events/visual-arts/lindsay-seers-it-has-to-be-this-way2 ) , Milton Keynes has had a very high reputation for many years despite it’s location (sorry anyone who lives in MK!) and then there are less established galleries such as Outpost in Norwich (http://www.norwichoutpost.org/ ) that show great work and wouldn’t exist as they do without ACE money. Some suggestions which will hopefully brighten jouney between north and south.

In terms of the trickledown affect- no, it doesn’t work because there’s not a level playing field. Also artists will always be resourceful about making their work visible, through empty shops etc, but they will either give up a few years after graduating to get a ‘proper’ job or move home with their poor old parents till they’re 35 doing internships...and knitting!

Well I defer to your superior knowledge and experiences of funding and how it works and on whom it impacts most. Interestingly I heard similar ideas being expressed yesterday on Radio 4's media programme - where commercial radio stations were talking about the role of the BBC as they saw it - for programmes such as Radio 1. It was said that the publicly funded Beeb should focusing far more on fulfilling its role in supporting the cutting edge and less established, less commercial bands and composers etc rather than trying to pander to the mass market  in an attempt to raise it's listener/ viewer numbers constantly.

But regarding those mermaids - no sorry I don't agree with you that looking at something is better than looking at nothing at all. We T&Ps often feel depressed by public artworks and think to ourselves that we would prefer to look up at roof tops or architecture generally, whether good, bad or indifferent - or at nature however forlorn - or at bleak industrial wastelands - rather than have to peer around some indifferent sculpture that has been imposed on us by the we-know-what's-best-for-you culture mafia at the tax payer's expense. It's quite different if art has arisen spontaneously, free of subsidy - or is an experience one enters into by passing through a doorway into a known space housing artwork. In fact I feel quite strongly about this - good or great design and architecture should be the public art (with the exception of one of Jeff Koons Puppies - which would undoubtedly lift my spirits on any roundabout!). And in lots of ways I'm more horrified about cuts being made to the Design Council than I am to the Arts Council - they seem to have achieved far more with far less fuss and a less patronising agenda? Rarely have I driven round a roundabout and thought "wow that's cheering and so much better than seeing just a roundabout?!" but my spirits have soared on viewing certain buildings with integral/ site specific artworks on many occasions. 

I would only add a very practical point - that artists in a recession economy might look at joining or establishing collectives. Over here in Devon, and in Carrara in Italy (where I sculpt) the collective is a thriving concept, and can result in quite inexpensive exhibition spaces and even studio space.

Indeed. Collectivism is the number one tool in artists toolboxes for the foreseeable future. I'd like to see the subject covered more in arts publications.

Also, I have to agree with T&P - I'd rather see no art than shit art. It's like how the majority of new houses are the architecturally foresaken "Barrett Homes" style box-with-windows. They're awful, and everybody knows it. Thankfully, I live in rural Bedfordshire now, so I'm rarely troubled by godawful municipal art.

Finally, I'd like to ask Helen what areas do have a level playing field. This isn't a dig, but I think that nearly all careers involve an unlevel playing field, and that includes being an artist. Merely producing good artwork doesn't mean you'll be a success - one only has to look at the rates paid for country council art comissions to see that. The art world is not a meritocracy.

There's no such thing as a level playing field I agree. But those who continue to work as artists long after graduating from art college, and despite all other diversions life throws at us - will continue because it's the thing that keeps us sane and connects us with the world and with society at large. Without art we would cost the tax payer far, far more than it would cost Society to keep funding the arts, because without it we are rendered limb-less and dysfunctional. 

But the perhaps the most effective argument for continuing to fund the arts is  for the sake of the unemployed and those suffering from mental or physical ill health - and also for the healthy and wealthy to continue to find a point of contact with us ordinary mortals - who are going to rapidly become the majority. So the arts can be and should be the multi-level playing field - ticking more boxes re economic recovery and well-being of the Nation than Education, Health and Social Services can ever hope to as public sectors working alone. But publicly funded arts organisations will have to become more accountable and to do their best to make the arts enrich everyone's lives. Those mermaids and the other municipal crap we see daily are only ever going to undermine the case for publicly funding the arts. They are as much the enemy of the arts as those Barrett Homes Pete mentions have become the enemy of good architecture and design.

But the real fault doesn't lie with the mermaid artist - the fault lies with the very accountability we, the tax payers, demand. We know from personal experience that accountability makes art dull and so egalitarian that it usually loses it's focus in the process of being created. The art gets diluted by the demands and constraints put upon it by multi stake-holders etc and the artist usually ends up feeling disimpowered and cheated both financially and creatively. So it's the funders and "enablers" (arts admin) that need to be forced to be more inclusive from the very outset by letting go of their own biased agendas and giving communities the respect they deserve to make their own minds up first hand. Let's scrap municipal art and divisions between arts and design councils - let genuine passion and talent have the full reign in arts designated places and spaces of which we need many more. Encourage collectivism and let publicly funded galleries become the playing fields (not level of course!). There will be winners and losers but the decision about whether to include or exclude might be at least based on genuine talent this way. At the moment I suspect that arts council funded bodies make their selections based almost entirely on CVs, art forms or who the committee know or are seeking to impress... terrible criteria that invariably shows and is designed to piss the less arts orientated tax-payer right off!?

"The fact that the Abstract Expressionists came storming through the Fifties American depression is relevant"

The Abstract Expressionist's success were down to a mixture of political backing and a speculative and cliquey art market in 50's America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism#Abstract_expressionism_and_the_Cold_War

Art is supported by governments because it is seen as useful. The previous government funded art because they believed it helped regenerate socially (or, more correctly, economically) deprived areas of the country. They also believed that art was a useful and cheap educational tool.

Luckily for me, my art has no social or educational value.

Can anyone remember what’s it like to be radical after the glut of mainstream funding and consequent diet of policy in the arts? How will I know what radical work looks like if it does emerge from a double dip recession?