Last night I bailed on the Project Brutal meeting (which by all accounts went very well) and instead went to this:
Because there’s nothing I like more than a Question Time style “debate” about a nebulous and ill-defined sector of the economy.
More seriously (and here’s the liveblog if you’re interested in what was said) I had a question I wanted to ask and I got my chance to ask it. Unfortunately I made the mistake of assuming a) that I was capable of communicating a nuanced question about a complex issue, and b) that the question would actually be answered by a panel put on the spot without any preparation to deal with the complex issue I was putting to them. Which is why I have a low opinion of the Question Time format.
So with that in mind, here’s what I wanted to communicate to the panel and the room in general.
My general point was that when we talk about The Arts or The Creative Industries or whatever we are essentially talking about fostering a space in society where cultural activity can occur. I also want to take the view that cultural activity happens despite intervention from patrons be they aristocrats or government and has done since people told stories around the fire. If I could have included a link in my question I would have encouraged the panel to read Andrew Dubber’s McCluhan inspired 5 Ages Of Media as a background to this general point.
With that in mind I then wanted to question the role of cultural institutions as gatekeepers of culture. In doing so I wanted to take two examples, one negative and one positive.
I started with the positive one which contained a plug for the Created in Birmingham shop (for if I learned anything from SXSWi it’s that plugging your thing in a question is a surefire route to EPIC WIN). I told of the gang of lads that came in today generally taking the piss. This happens occasionally and it’s never a bad thing. They’re usually taking the piss because they’re intrigued but don’t really understand it. One of them, however, seemed to get it and was deep in thought. I explained to him how it worked, told him to email me some examples of his work and essentially didn’t fob him off. Immediately after the gang left one of them, who had been all mouthy and annoying, came back with a serious look on his face to ask about getting his work in the shop and I gave him the same pitch.
These lads were what I believe is referred to as chav hoodie yob scum. They may not produce anything of any worth, but they might. And we’ve given them an honest incentive to do something on terms they can understand and respect. Give me something I can sell and I’ll put it on sale. If it sells you get 75%.
Because here’s the thing. We’ve sold stuff by kids like this. One of them sold for £150. And while he was pretty articulate and savvy his mates who came into see his work on the wall were, well, ordinary kids. Not bad or good, just normal people.
Which is why the shop is such an amazing thing (and I say this as someone who seriously thought it would bomb – more on that another day) in that we’re not just bringing art to the masses who pass through the Bullring – we’re giving the masses a chance to be part of that process. Since we started this as bit of a joke and have done it with next to no financial support from any arts or culture organisations (due to us being too busy to ask for it) it makes me ask all sorts of questions about the effectiveness of cultural organisations in enabling people to take part in culture. I’m not sure what those questions are exactly but I’m determined to figure it out.
The more negative example was about how the Creative Industries, in the form that was frequently cited in the Digital Economy Bill debate, are actively stifling cultural activity in the misguided enforcement of copyright. For this I’d have recommended the panel spend a while reading Lawrence Lessig’s book Free Culture the central premise of which is:
“There has never been a time in history when more of our ‘culture’ was as ‘owned’ as it is now. And yet there has never been a time when the concentration of power to control the uses of culture has been as unquestioningly accepted as it is now.”
In fact I’d recommend anyone involved in the creation and propagation of culture read it. He may not be right about the answers but his survey of the situation is spot on.
My example was handed to me this morning by Constantin Film, the owners of Downfall, who have claimed copyright infringement by the countless Hitler Is Angry videos on YouTube which, thanks to YouTube’s somewhat submissive response to DMCA takedown notices started rapidly vanishing.Here’s the TechCrunch report on the whole sorry saga. Of course there are now countless Hitler parody videos about the takedown of the Hitler parody videos such as this awesome epic and the whole thing has been a public relations disaster for the copyright holders.
And, of course, the panel agreed with me that what Constantin Films were doing was idiotic and that copyright needed reforming since this was a textbook example of fair use and parody. They also agreed that the Created in Birmingham shop was a good thing and that this sort of activity should not be done by cultural organisations but should be supported. Which was nice to know but not really the point of my talking into the microphone.
Whether by accident or design they’d got my examples mixed up with my question. Of course I expected them to agree that the first was a good thing and the second a bad thing. That was why I gave them. But they were supposed to back up a more important, fundamental point which I think gets lost in all the discussions about Arts and Culture and Creativity and stuff.
That is that if (and it’s an big if) we’re talking about helping society do culture, the industries that has grown up to do this over the last couple of centuries are either becoming irrelevant or hindering this activity.
I’m not interested in why the Created in Birmingham shop is good at outreach so much as I’m wondering why the big cultural organisations don’t already own this sort of activity. (cf Hannah Nicklin’s critique of Such Tweet Sorrow showing the RSC is playing catchup in a major way.) And I’m not interested in the Hitler videos being taken down so much as concerned about how, in accepting this as the normal state of affairs, millions of people are, by definition, breaking the law when they “do” culture. (cf my post If people use your creations to have conversations, you win at culture.)
In essence I guess I was saying this: We’re talking about state support for the creative industries with the assumption that supporting those industries is a good thing for cultural activity in our society. Is it?
The event was hosted by the the International Dance Festival. I don’t think they’ve had much to do with Stirchley’s Folk Dancing group and I very much suspect the folk dancers have no idea a dance festival is going on.
That was my point. Sorry it didn’t quite make it through at the time.
Thanks for referencing the 5 Ages of Media post, Pete. There’s also a much simpler point that I’d like to make here and it’s this:
Culture is what people do, make and say. Not just what they consume.
Hope you get a thoughtful answer to your question. It’s a good one and it deserves proper consideration.
Pete, the CiB shop is laudable, but as you’ve pointed out to me before it’s not a sustainable model without funding. So pretty soon you may have to become one of those funded organisations you find so abhorent, which will somewhat undermine your argument that funding equals no more culture. I think your issue is with what sort of culture you approve of, which is a different thing entirely.
@Abby, I don’t find them abhorrent. I’m more interested in how as the barriers to producing and distributing culture have dropped the role of cultural organisations (funded or not – I’m more interested in the media companies to be honest) has changed.
And we’re already a funded org. We have patronage from the Bullring and we’re funded by the customers.
Agreed that the government needs to offer more help and support the creative industries, but having tried to get involved in Birmingham’s industry, I’ve found it very close-nit, with a number of people looking down their noses on the ‘newbies’ who want to learn from the experts.
Is this the impression that Birmingham’s Creative’s really want to give to the general public?
If so I think the money can be spent on more productive schemes that aren’t “set up as a joke”.
@Pete The CiB shop is actually a very traditional model for distributing culture, so I don’t think actually the barriers to producing and distributing culture have dropped- otherwise no one would be selling art in a physical shop, it would all be online.
Dear Pete, ‘yes’ and ‘sort of’ and maybe’. speak soon. Sandra.
Interesting you use the word ‘patronage’ Pete. That’s the model I think you’re putting in question, the whole parent-child relationship between cultural orgs, the artists they employ and their audiences. A more relevant model is what you’re talking about – the boundaries between produces and consumers being less formal, less patronising patronage and more not-being-able-to-see-the-join, which some of us have spent the last donkey’s years banging on about! The best, most innovative stuff will always rise up from the grassroots – which is the toughest, most unappreciated and unsupported area to work in, but also the most exciting, rewarding and satisfying in the long run. Receiving any kind of funding, whether from the public or private sector always comes with some kind of strings attached, which mediates what can be done/produced – maintaining independence within such structures is a difficult balancing act – the bigger you are the more agendas mediate what you produce. So my advice is to stay small, which gives you the independence, mobility and flexibility to do what needs to be done (as you see it), without anyone sticking their oar in. Another of the major issues around inclusion for large organisations is their ‘come to us’ approach – what you have learned with the shop is that people will often engage more easily when you go to them – i.e. in the Bull Ring, in a shop, rather than an institution, strange stuff in a familiar environment is an easier stretch for most than strange stuff in an unfamiliar (and often uncomfortable) environment. I could go on, (for days) this is what we do, and have been for 18 years now, welcome to the party ;-)
yo pete.
surely what you’re REALLY just discovering is that the real value for ‘people’ (i.e. average josephine bloggs walking down the high street – if she even exists?!) in culture/arts is something that is convenient/accessible and to a certain degree participatory?
and in turn – participatory arts exists, but is under funded compared to the bigger cultural institutions such as theatres and galleries – and it’s also deeply undervalued as anything other than a marketing tool or a way to tick boxes. larger institutions only ‘do outreach’ on the whole to increase their audiences and to tick boxes. (this will cause uproar, i’m sure ;)
these types of activities are still considered add-ons, and are never given the same kind of profile or talked about in the same arenas as ‘high art’ and that’s the problem. whilst people are still differentiating between high/low/hobbyist activities, people will still feel that ‘art is not for them’ or ‘culture is not for them’ because they’re not part of that conversation.
am i making any sense or should i shush?
re: state support – i think it’s a good thing for cultural activity in our society – when it funds good things. and it doesn’t always fund good things – often it’s all tied into political moves and other people’s agendas.
NOW i’ll shush.
:)
Pete,
I think your question was interesting if a little tricky to follow. You were unlikely to extract a well-informed or considered answer from any of the panellists at short notice; guests were invited to submit questions in advance which might have made it easier. And the question you form at the end of your post above is a very good one. (Not the bit about Stirchley Folk Dancing though. More later.)
I think had an established, subsidised art gallery offered its own space to local artists in a CiB Shop format it would mainly have appealed to its existing audience, to the city’s ‘arts community’ and to the friends/family of the exhibiting artists. Had it taken Bullring space and done what you are doing it would have “extended its own brand and appeal successfully and deepened its engagement with a new audience”.
This is part of what it is funded to do, of course. In doing so however, I don’t think they would have been as welcoming and open-minded as you about what they chose to stock/display. And, to a degree ‘tainted’ by subsidy, they may not have been as credible to new passing trade as your non-establishment efforts. I hope you continue to grow and succeed with it. I doubt any subsidised org could really do better without being burdened by some ‘artistic strategy’ and a stack of evaluation forms. Many of them still do good and valuable engagement stuff despite these strictures.
As for Stirchley amateurs and their like, the Dance Festival, DX, the Hippodrome and BRB are actually in touch with lots of amateur groups and community organisations; not all, but some. And many of the long-standing relationships in Perry Barr, in Selly Oak, in Quinton and in Coventry are thriving all year round. If the Stirchley gang don’t know about IDFB (and I hope they do) it’s nobody’s fault.
None of the BCC/ACE/AWM public money specifically for IDFB is being spent on the Hippodrome’s stage this Festival; that’s all underwritten from surplus the Hippodrome has built up as a charity from Panto/Chitty/Poppins/ice-cream/ beer/gin/ sponsorship etc. This unsubsidised arts model works well for us at the moment, especially when we partner strategically with funded bodies like BRB and Dance Consortium. So I disagree with Lee above that to stay influential you need to remain small. Big and well-connected is best.
On the Downfall issue, my experience at the Hippodrome with some commercial producers confirms that artistic properties are quite often just ‘stock’. It’s made very clear who owns which bits, who is responsible for maximising return on investment and what the penalties are for failure.
[One particularly amusing and aggresively bullish producer with a big personal investment in a popular show interpreted weekly sales reports (which gradually became daily, then hourly) in terms of the value of the kitchen he'd soon be purchasing with his share of the tour profits. So as the campaign progressed, we went from B&Q conversations and Ikea debates up to Habitat fantasies. He told me recently he'd gone for a bespoke Mark Wilkinson and done a 'wet-room' too for the Mrs. He was happier with this than with the 4-star reviews, the impressive number of first-time attenders and the positive response from the young blind group to the pre-show touch-tour...]
All I mean to say is that although the Downfall mash-ups were great free PR, I can just imagine the meeting where one investor/owner pulls the plug (quoting copyright infringement and bemoaning the lack of cash coming in from YouTube) much to the bewilderment of the film’s poor marketing goon.
Next time you should be on the panel!
Rob
It has been so interesting to watch, first the debate itself and then this conversation unfold from the other side of the Atlantic. I want to pop my thoughts on this as there’s been all sorts of things in this post and the ensuing comments that are resonating with stuff I’m trying to figure out at the moment. And some of that figuring out may not be complete yet, so I’ll strive for clarity.
Pete you mention #suchtweet in the context of “why arts organisations don’t “own” this type of activity” (my emphasis). Where do I start? First of all I don’t think that any one type of organisation SHOULD own it – part of the reason that #suchtweet appears to be working is that it has had massive investment in time and preparation from the RSC, 4ip and Mudlark etc – all very class acts. While the social internet has low costs and low barriers to entry, funded organisations often don’t have the right skill sets, knowledge or capacity to be effective in this area. And there are massess (truly) of highly effective programmes of work happening out of the public eye – I don’t even like to use the word “outreach” coz that’s pretty bloody patronising. I don’t want to be reached out too thanks, I want to stumble across (or find) something that I think is exciting, intrigiuing and accessible. Something I’m not put off from participating in. And lots of arts organisations, individuals, and creative entrepreneurs are putting stuff out there in the hope that people will find it and find it exciting/good/intriguing/upsetting/dangerous/safe – whatever.
What I think worked in the instance in the shop that you write about is that you listened to that young person like he had a chance in your shop. Not like he was a nusiance that needed moving on. People in arts organisations have instances of that all the time. But change on that micro level, while hugely important to me, doesn’t get written about or “broadcasted” more generally.
I completely agree when you say that the terms, culture/cultural industries and creative industries are used interchangably and therefore confusingly. I have noticed that MPs and other government types tend to think that culture = high art (often funded but can be high end commercial) and that creative industries = gaming/films/commercials etc – ie stuff that is big budget that has a significant impact on GDP. So when the govt talks about doing stuff for the “creative industries” they mean Harry Potter films and Lara Croft. Not the graphic design SME of one in Stirchley.
Personally I care more about making the working life for the SME of one better through policy than Elstree Studios – but I’m not a politician so that doesn’t count for much.
As to whether funded work is “good” or not – isn’t it about whether it acheives its stated objectives in an effective way for its stated audience? We can’t be all things to all people – most arts organisations I know (of whatever size and whatever state of funding) do not set out to make crap work. And yet sometimes it can be crap because the work was ill conceived (but well executed) or vice versa.
Finally: small and flexible, independent and fleet of foot like Friction – or big powerful and well connected – a heavy hitter – like the Hippodrome?
Both.
Maybe its the lawyer in me that needs to say “That depends” but Rob, I really don’t think that one model is better than the other. There’s some work that Lee and the gang at Friction could do that you couldn’t do and wouldn’t want to do. Conversely, I can’t see Lee wanting to put High School Musical 3 on for 12 shows a week (but I could be wrong!).
Your ultimate question was: “We’re talking about state support for the creative industries with the assumption that supporting those industries is a good thing for cultural activity in our society. Is it?”
I think the answer is yes. But key in your question is the need for a more nuanced interrogation of the word “support”. It could mean funding, but it might also mean space, tax incentives, training, access to knowledge and information, expertise, equipment banks, porta-potties, licensing advice, a listening ear and a big smile.
Creatives need these things because we need creativity. We need creativity because its how we, as a species, survives! (That’s for another post but think about it)
What makes a vibrant arts and cultural scene is plurality. Making the pie big enough so that we all have a slice. And making it varied and accessible enough so that everyone who wants a bit can have it. Funded/unfunded/ commercial/voluntary/professional/online/offline/digial/analoge.
Thanks for being in the pie Pete – it would not be as interesting without you.