A few weeks ago Andrew Taylor wrote about ‘a different kind of cultural infrastructure’ – 30 pianos in public places across London. You can read more about the project here . It sounds really exciting and democratising of both music and public space.
But I was talking recently to some friends of mine who live very close to one of the pianos in central London and they had a slightly different take, which also says something about ‘excellence’ I think. Although they really liked the pianos, and the way they were used, mainly by people with some talent or skill, as well as those just playing around, the locks which close the pianos at 11pm, so local residents can get some sleep, had been broken off, leading to late night and early renditions – not so welcome.
What was interesting was that they found the people bashing out great renditions of Beethoven at 4am more disturbing than the passing drunks just making noise. This leads me to think that the power to capture our attention, be un-ignorable and to unsettle is a really important element of artistic excellence. Which may be one reason it’s not always welcome or appropriate for some people, at certain times and places. Suggesting great art may be for everyone but not all the time.
(When I walked past their local piano later it was locked up, so I can't vouch for the sound, but it was certainly beautiful to look at.)
Showing posts with label McMaster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McMaster. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Friday, 23 May 2008
The beginning of the peer show?
Last week we held two sessions at the National Glass Centre in Sunderland, discussing emerging priorities for Arts Council England with arts organisations and partners. This follows what I believe is technically known as a shedload of work we’ve been doing on this, drawing together influences including the Arts Debate, the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, the McMaster Review, the ‘cultural offer’, 2012, and the need to save 15% on our current admin budget within the next three years. I’m not going to run through it all here right now. We had lots of interesting, challenging but overall positive discussion and I got some really good insights into how the Arts Council can better collaborate with others to achieve what I think is the mutual goal of people engaging with fantastic art.
There was a lot of talk about peer review, involvement and learning, but also a lot of disagreement about what it might be, and how best to organise it. One flip chart contained the immortal phrase ‘*ollo**s to peer review (local authorities)’, so you can tell it was a frank discussion! There was clearly a lot of nervousness that peers would be ‘the usual suspects’. (Though equal nervousness when I suggested including members of the public in peer reviews.)
Which made me think of a couple of pieces in The Guardian last week. One the somewhat premature announcement of the ACE inspectorate (Ofarts?) – we’re far from sorted on that yet. The other was Mark Ravenhill’s typically pithy suggestion for a parliament of artists. An interesting idea, (though not as interesting as artists getting involved in actual politics, as I’ve said before.) Only difficulty being that the names mentioned were very much the House of Lords end of the peer market – though yes, I would like to see Thom Yorke, Lesley Garret and Tracy Emin debating. But perhaps what we really need are more contrary ‘commoners’ whose names might not be recognised in the national papers, or dare I say it, London Village’s Bustling West End, but play key roles in the arts across Britain. Mix them up and who knows what insights and ideas we’d get? It's only a real diversity of voices that will help the Arts Council and the sector.
There was a lot of talk about peer review, involvement and learning, but also a lot of disagreement about what it might be, and how best to organise it. One flip chart contained the immortal phrase ‘*ollo**s to peer review (local authorities)’, so you can tell it was a frank discussion! There was clearly a lot of nervousness that peers would be ‘the usual suspects’. (Though equal nervousness when I suggested including members of the public in peer reviews.)
Which made me think of a couple of pieces in The Guardian last week. One the somewhat premature announcement of the ACE inspectorate (Ofarts?) – we’re far from sorted on that yet. The other was Mark Ravenhill’s typically pithy suggestion for a parliament of artists. An interesting idea, (though not as interesting as artists getting involved in actual politics, as I’ve said before.) Only difficulty being that the names mentioned were very much the House of Lords end of the peer market – though yes, I would like to see Thom Yorke, Lesley Garret and Tracy Emin debating. But perhaps what we really need are more contrary ‘commoners’ whose names might not be recognised in the national papers, or dare I say it, London Village’s Bustling West End, but play key roles in the arts across Britain. Mix them up and who knows what insights and ideas we’d get? It's only a real diversity of voices that will help the Arts Council and the sector.
Monday, 7 April 2008
What do people want from the arts?
The Arts Debate was a major public value enquiry, carried out by Arts Council England last year. It has published a number of reports and summaries of the findings, which you can access here. A new summary report has just been published, ‘What people want from the arts’. I draw a few conclusions relating to these findings, by drawing it to your attention:
People of all kinds value the arts but many feel there are barriers to them getting involved personally. These are mainly psychological, and relate (or so it seems to me) to confidence to act independently. As such they may be rooted in class, feelings of distance from power, or education systems and so on as much as specifically arts-related issues.
People get different things from the arts. The areas of value are described as relating to capacity for understanding and navigating the world, enriching our experience of life and applications to achieve wider outcomes such as learning or community cohesion. Although we might all choose different words, I think this is a useful way of looking at public value. From this flows the need to focus on quality and innovation, especially quality of experience, product and project.
This then has implications for all funders – not just the Arts Council, though particularly us – in terms of how we support people to create work that meets these aspirations in a fair and transparent way.
Some people will say this tells us what we already knew, and to a certain extent they might be right. But it tells us it in a different way, and it is a real endorsement from the public – including those not currently ‘engaged’ with the arts – of what artists and promoters and the Arts Council have been arguing for decades. As such it is powerful ammunition for use with, say, local councillors who think their constituents ‘don’t care’ about cultural provision.
One can look at these findings from a number of perspectives – which is what I hope to do over the next few posts, so this doesn’t turn into an essay (just now.) What might this mean for the sector’s response to a greater emphasis on ‘excellence’ in the arts? What does this mean for ‘participation’ – do we need better, subtler ways of defining it? Do we need to revisit our thinking on diversity and how we nurture new talent in the sector? Might there be implications for some of our basic models – of business, arts education, arts development, arts marketing?
(I’m also really keen to hear if there are examples of these issues being dealt with elsewhere in the world, where the influence of class in cultural experience might be different from Britain.)
People of all kinds value the arts but many feel there are barriers to them getting involved personally. These are mainly psychological, and relate (or so it seems to me) to confidence to act independently. As such they may be rooted in class, feelings of distance from power, or education systems and so on as much as specifically arts-related issues.
People get different things from the arts. The areas of value are described as relating to capacity for understanding and navigating the world, enriching our experience of life and applications to achieve wider outcomes such as learning or community cohesion. Although we might all choose different words, I think this is a useful way of looking at public value. From this flows the need to focus on quality and innovation, especially quality of experience, product and project.
This then has implications for all funders – not just the Arts Council, though particularly us – in terms of how we support people to create work that meets these aspirations in a fair and transparent way.
Some people will say this tells us what we already knew, and to a certain extent they might be right. But it tells us it in a different way, and it is a real endorsement from the public – including those not currently ‘engaged’ with the arts – of what artists and promoters and the Arts Council have been arguing for decades. As such it is powerful ammunition for use with, say, local councillors who think their constituents ‘don’t care’ about cultural provision.
One can look at these findings from a number of perspectives – which is what I hope to do over the next few posts, so this doesn’t turn into an essay (just now.) What might this mean for the sector’s response to a greater emphasis on ‘excellence’ in the arts? What does this mean for ‘participation’ – do we need better, subtler ways of defining it? Do we need to revisit our thinking on diversity and how we nurture new talent in the sector? Might there be implications for some of our basic models – of business, arts education, arts development, arts marketing?
(I’m also really keen to hear if there are examples of these issues being dealt with elsewhere in the world, where the influence of class in cultural experience might be different from Britain.)
Friday, 29 February 2008
Do you believe in 'free love'?
Short thought for a Friday. The latest briefing from the trend-spotters at Trend Watching is all about the rise of free stuff, why people want it, its potential place in new business models and so on. Given that one of the most attention-grabbing recommendations of The McMaster Review was for a 'Free Art Week', it's something for us all to think about. And if you follow all their links you'll also find some free stuff for yourself....
My own favourite 'free' thing at the moment is the radio function on last.fm. (One of my earlier blogs revealed a surprisingly high interest in my superficial experiences, to which I'll return, but that can do for now.)
My own favourite 'free' thing at the moment is the radio function on last.fm. (One of my earlier blogs revealed a surprisingly high interest in my superficial experiences, to which I'll return, but that can do for now.)
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Are superficial experiences really so bad?
Another thought, inspired by the conjunction of McMaster, the cultural offer, and me spending a week away with my family, enjoying ourselves and relaxing without anything approaching a life-changing experience, arts or otherwise...
Noel Coward said it was ‘extraordinary how potent cheap music can be’. Brian McMaster (or his report at least) recommends that ‘cultural organisations stop exploiting the tendency of many audiences to accept a superficial experience and foster a relationship founded on innovative, exciting and challenging work’. He rightly says that ‘An excellent cultural experience goes to the root of living.’
But how much excellence of that sort can a person – especially an impressionable young person –bear? Is it not enough at times to be stimulated, inspired and challenged as well as entertained at a deep level? Is an hour wandering TATE modern not a ‘superficial’ experience for many, no matter how great the art? I don’t think it’s necessarily transformational, or certainly not immediately. Anyway, don't some superficial things sometimes sneak up on you and turn into life-changing experiences?
I want fulfilling arts experiences, and surprise. I want to laugh, dance, think, ponder. I don’t necessarily want my values reorganised every time I go to the theatre or read a book. I don’t think that makes me shallow. Tell me if I’m wrong.
Noel Coward said it was ‘extraordinary how potent cheap music can be’. Brian McMaster (or his report at least) recommends that ‘cultural organisations stop exploiting the tendency of many audiences to accept a superficial experience and foster a relationship founded on innovative, exciting and challenging work’. He rightly says that ‘An excellent cultural experience goes to the root of living.’
But how much excellence of that sort can a person – especially an impressionable young person –bear? Is it not enough at times to be stimulated, inspired and challenged as well as entertained at a deep level? Is an hour wandering TATE modern not a ‘superficial’ experience for many, no matter how great the art? I don’t think it’s necessarily transformational, or certainly not immediately. Anyway, don't some superficial things sometimes sneak up on you and turn into life-changing experiences?
I want fulfilling arts experiences, and surprise. I want to laugh, dance, think, ponder. I don’t necessarily want my values reorganised every time I go to the theatre or read a book. I don’t think that makes me shallow. Tell me if I’m wrong.
Monday, 18 February 2008
What role does the ‘craft’ of an artist play in excellence?
Justin O’Connor’s recent literature review of the Cultural and Creative Industries for Creative Partnerships traces the history of the terms creative and cultural industries. It’s a fascinating read – from Adorno through the GLC and cultural industries to the creative industries as conceptualised in the early years of the New Labour government and the recent interest in linkages to Innovation. (Innovation is, in all industrial sectors, this year’s Black, it seems.) It’s very readable and a good example of the kinds of research and thinking Creative Partnerships has done alongside its work with young people. I think it would be a good part of any induction at Arts Council or for local authority arts officers and other development agencies.
At the end of the report O’Connor makes a very provocative statement, though. He argues: ‘But maybe creativity is the problem. As we suggested, the creativity mobilised in the new spirit of capitalism is one based on a particular modernist artistic tradition, of rule-breaking innovation, of the shock of the new. Maybe creativity has stripped out certain values associated with ‘artistic practice’ – innovation, inspiration, intuition, rule-breaking etc. – in a way that leaves a scarred landscape of discarded artistic practices, poisoning the well springs of the culture whence they sprung. The older traditions of the ‘golden mean’, the Chinese ‘middle way’, balance and harmony; the idea of a life spent in the acquisition of a difficult singular expertise, the artistic sacrifice of other routes, other skills, in order to master one; the gradual abandonment of self-expression in favour of other formal languages and meanings – all these appear archaic, irrelevant to the incessant innovation drive of creativity.’
He suggests that the emphasis on innovation, newness, risk-taking is at the expense of the tradition, apprenticeship, and craft that some other (often non-European/Western) art practices would put at their core. Reading Sir Brian MacMaster’s ‘Supporting Excellence in the Arts’, with its emphasis on innovation and risk-taking, and nary a mention of craft, I wonder if we need to do more thinking to integrate the two strands.
Does privileging ‘innovation’ lead to the emperor’s new clothes syndrome many people suspect is at play in some parts of the arts? (The Arts Debate revealed a very strong public suspicion of conceptual art, for instance.) When does 'risk-taking' become an indulgence? Do the routes artists follow to become professional give enough chance to build up craft skills as well as to experiment? How do we better integrate innovation and the development of core skills? Innovation is vital, Brian MacMaster is right. But it’s not the only thing an artist needs and we should not forget to say that.
(Not the last time I'll touch on the McMaster Report, I'm sure. Arts Council will be responding formally very soon.)
At the end of the report O’Connor makes a very provocative statement, though. He argues: ‘But maybe creativity is the problem. As we suggested, the creativity mobilised in the new spirit of capitalism is one based on a particular modernist artistic tradition, of rule-breaking innovation, of the shock of the new. Maybe creativity has stripped out certain values associated with ‘artistic practice’ – innovation, inspiration, intuition, rule-breaking etc. – in a way that leaves a scarred landscape of discarded artistic practices, poisoning the well springs of the culture whence they sprung. The older traditions of the ‘golden mean’, the Chinese ‘middle way’, balance and harmony; the idea of a life spent in the acquisition of a difficult singular expertise, the artistic sacrifice of other routes, other skills, in order to master one; the gradual abandonment of self-expression in favour of other formal languages and meanings – all these appear archaic, irrelevant to the incessant innovation drive of creativity.’
He suggests that the emphasis on innovation, newness, risk-taking is at the expense of the tradition, apprenticeship, and craft that some other (often non-European/Western) art practices would put at their core. Reading Sir Brian MacMaster’s ‘Supporting Excellence in the Arts’, with its emphasis on innovation and risk-taking, and nary a mention of craft, I wonder if we need to do more thinking to integrate the two strands.
Does privileging ‘innovation’ lead to the emperor’s new clothes syndrome many people suspect is at play in some parts of the arts? (The Arts Debate revealed a very strong public suspicion of conceptual art, for instance.) When does 'risk-taking' become an indulgence? Do the routes artists follow to become professional give enough chance to build up craft skills as well as to experiment? How do we better integrate innovation and the development of core skills? Innovation is vital, Brian MacMaster is right. But it’s not the only thing an artist needs and we should not forget to say that.
(Not the last time I'll touch on the McMaster Report, I'm sure. Arts Council will be responding formally very soon.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
