ARTISTS TALKING

# 1 [6 April 2008]

Incipit

The first post of this blog describes the focus of the NAN event in France, The Artist As Social Entrepreneur. During the event, organised by NAN and Fabrica, Brighton, which involved 15 artists from all around the UK and several artists from France and Belgium, a discussion was made around these points:

On both sides of the Channel, the past twenty years have witnessed the emergence, consolidation and networking of more or less loosely knit associative structures in the field of the visual arts, opening up production, residency and exhibition spaces outside of the established museum and market circuit. The very proliferation of these artist-run spaces, their proximity to often experimental practices, and their hard-nosed determination to withstand the pressures of time and under-funding underscore the extent to which they have managed to offset a palpable deficiency in the institutional artworld. Yet, as they become in their own right full-fledged “social enterprises”, fostering new practices and activities in the creative economy, are these structures not at risk of falling prey to their own success? For better or for worse, have they not already acquired a “proto-institutional” status? Is it their role, their ambition, their fate to operate as “laboratories” and proving grounds for the market and the museums, participating in producing a value that ultimately eludes their capture? It is these questions regarding the paradoxes and the future of these associative structures which will be discussed. Above all, perhaps, in order to deploy these questions in the very place where the institutional market would be inclined to impose its solution.

On our return from France, I felt the urge to start a blog about the issues discussed. What are the political implications of the idea of artists as social entrepreneurs? Can this idea be parallel to the idea of capitalism and reappropriate the word to give it a less self-centred, more ideas-centred meaning? 

Links: 

NAN: http://www.a-n.co.uk/nan

Fabrica http://www.fabrica.org.uk

# 2 [5 December 2008]

Value matters

Art and economics. Are they closely related or completely incompatible? I personally go for the former. In the early years of deciding to train as an artist, I remember having deep and prolonged conversations with my father, who was an entrepreneur, walking amongst industrial estates in the stark and difficult working environment of the Puglian landscape. He always used to say to me that being an artist, as well as anything else, is also about understanding and valuing what you offer, be it ideas, products, or life-changing affirmations. And he meant value not only in ideal, but also in financial terms. "People will only value what they perceive as valuable. If you don't value what you do, nobody will". A deceptively simple statement, that has stayed with me all this time.

What are the consequences of that value? What are its characteristics?The concept of "cultural entrepreneur" is one of material as well as idea-related value. Being an artist can't be isolated from the larger economic values and infrastructures that surround us. And at the same time, the monetary value of art cannot be isolated from its idealistic, vocational value.

Throughout my practice as an artist, I have tried to make that value come across in different ways. Questioning why art is necessary, even in difficult economic times, even after a tragedy like a landslide, an economic downturn, an earthquake.

A few weeks ago I was in Gothenburg, Sweden for the ELIA (European League of Institutes of the Art) conference. Zou Xianping, the director of the Department of Music at Mianyang College, a region of China badly affected by the recent earthquake, said to me that especially in those circumstances people need art to restore hope, humanity and belief in future change beyond just survival. An opinion mirrored by that of Rahraw Omarzad, the director of the Centre for Contemporary Art in Kabul, Afghanistan, who said in its manifesto in 2004: "Art should be valued as a major discipline which should contribute to cultural development and the advancement of society."

In this blog, I will be examining that value, interfacing it with the global economic environment that we find ourselves in, drawing from art and non-art economic landscapes. 

Links: CCA Kabul manifesto: http://universes-in-universe.org/deu/content/view/...

# 3 [10 December 2008]

From Leigh French, continued

If Creative Scotland mirrors other European models, and given what the Culture Minister has said to date, the likelihood is that in Scotland, too, there will be significant financial pressure to replace grants with a system of credit or loans for both artists and organisations. Adopting an exploitative commercial model for 'creative' production would immediately place Creative Scotland at ideological odds with cultural organisations and services in Scotland established as not-for-profit. Furthermore, given the economic climate is predicted to worsen, such a move is sure to be ruinous for the organisations and infrastructure reliant on grant funding. There is evidence. A credit/loans system for arts organisation has only recently been tried and tested in Europe, before the height of the credit crunch. It failed. The Catalan Department of Creative Industries is currently under investigation for their calamity.

What of the 'creatives' that are to be the consumer base for any new financialised system of commercial 'creative' development? A study by Push.co.uk, the student guide, in August 2008 expects undergraduate students to be more than £21,500 in debt by the time most graduate in 2011. The normally Labour-loyal NUS has said: "It is clear that many students are sleepwalking into financial crisis. As the credit crunch kicks in, and with food and fuel costs set to rise even further, we can expect more and more students to get into serious financial difficulty, with many having to resort to taking out [additional] commercial loans..." The Council of Mortgage Lenders reported in October that 45,000 homes in the UK are expected to be repossessed by the end of this year.

It is widely accepted that a cause of the current financial crisis was the rampant free-market exploitation of debt/credit and the introduction of speculation and risk into an otherwise marginally more stable affair. With regard to Creative Scotland, we can detect no acknowledgement of this global tectonic shift and the deepening international financial crisis and how it will affect artists in Scotland.

Leigh French, Variant 

variantmag@btinternet.com

http://www.variant.org.uk

# 4 [10 December 2008]

From Leigh French, continued

We believe that Creative Scotland will look to generate income streams through the exploitation of 'creatives'. Increasingly, they will be treated as the consumer base for a new financialised system of commercial 'creative' exploitation -- indebting artists and exploiting retention of Intellectual Property Rights.

" [T]he cultural industries are seen as complex value chains where profit is extracted at key nodes in the chain through control of production investment and distribution and the key “creative” labour is exploited not, as in the classic Marxist analysis of surplus value, through the wage bargain, but through contracts determining the distribution of profits to various rights holders negotiated between parties with highly unequal power (Caves 2000). [For example, through the exploitation of Intellectual Property Right, as NESTA advocates & promotes] ... [T]he political economy approach placed its major emphasis on the technologies of distribution, on the ways in which key economic and regulatory debates were to be seen as struggles over access to distribution under shifting technological conditions without any necessary effect on either the nature of the product being distributed or the relation with the audience. In particular, this analysis stressed the ways in which the profits of the whole process were returned to controllers of technological distribution systems rather than to the original producers of the cultural products or services."
('From Cultural to Creative Industries: An analysis of the implications of the “creative industries” approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom', Nicholas Garnham, International Journal of Cultural Policy Vol 11, No. 1 2005)

Liberal MSP Jeremy Purvis challenged Fabiani over the "provision to provide loans for business enterprise, although we still do not know how that will be delivered, or, indeed, what priority the new organisation will give to business support — as opposed to acting as a grant-making organisation for arts bodies — as there must be some form of financial assistance and there will be a cost in creative Scotland providing such services." Indeed, a significant aspect of the financial crisis has been "financial institutions that aren't banks from a regulatory point of view but nonetheless perform banking functions." (Guardian Weekend, Dec 6 2008) It is doubtful a coincidence that an ex-banker, complicit in 'greed is good' demutualisation and deregulation of financial services, has been placed in charge of overseeing the creation of Creative Scotland Ltd and its transition. No doubt banks would like a little liquidity from the Scottish government via Creative Scotland... and the SNP is desperate to show an independent economy is viable at a time when it has effectively lost two significant financial institutions.

# 5 [10 December 2008]

From Leigh French, continued

Given what will be a shortfall, if not initially then quite quickly, Fabiani has stated: “If formed, Creative Scotland will add to the range of funding sources available to artists and creative practitioners. As well as grants, it will develop a wider portfolio of funding methods including loans and investments." According to the same Sunday Herald article, "A spokeswoman from the Creative Scotland transition team said: 'Creative Scotland will be looking at a range of alternative investment models, with the aim of finding and increasing sources of funding.' Tax incentives, venture capital, loans and corporate investment are all potential models previously mentioned by the transition team."

This is a fundamental ideological shift.

Before the credit crunch and the property bubble bursting, there was a received notion (via Richard Florida) that there is such a thing as a 'creative class' intensely interested in cultural goods of many kinds, which in turn gave rise to the idea that cities must 'invest' in and through culture; supposedly-benign terms such as 'creative cities' and 'creative clusters' have become increasingly prevalent as a way of describing culture-led regeneration strategies that appropriate the 'moral prestige' of the creative artist.

An abstract rhetoric of creativity has also become increasingly important to the fueling of labour markets marked by irregular, insecure and unprotected work; this argument in turn has had much wider implications in that it has pushed education policy much more strongly in the direction of a discourse of skills, on the basis that future national prosperity depends upon making-up for a supposed lack of creative, innovative workers. But Creative Industries policy, while seeming to offer a certain freedom of creative autonomy and self-realisation for workers, is in fact explicitly bound up in finding new articulations of existing power relations – the way in which notions of passion for, and pleasure in, work serve as disciplinary devices, enabling very high levels of (self-) exploitation, noting the extremely low levels of union organisation in most cultural industries.

This unqualified policy and theory using the term Creative Industries tends to be based on arguments which all too often come close to accommodating, if not explicitly endorsing, rising inequality and a considerable degree of exploitation associated with contemporary neoliberalism -- and now its failure. With 'Creative Industries' policy there is a lack of attention to the way capitalist markets repeatedly work with other processes to produce inequalities of access and outcome in the domain of culture, as in many other aspects of society. Ultimately, the limits of the discourse appear to serve policies that reinforce both economic and cultural inequalities in our societies and diminish real social freedoms which remain enshrined in UNESCO universal declarations. Something the formation of Creative Scotland has no choice but to address, at some level.

# 6 [10 December 2008]

From Leigh French, continued

The Cultural Commission, established in 2004 to gather "views and opinions from the people of Scotland on where and how culture in Scotland should be supported", cost us around £500,000. What is the justification and expense of the plethora of policy-based consultancies from 'A National Cultural Strategy for Scotland', by Bonnar Keenlyside, in 2000 right up to today, just to end up at this juncture?

Anne Bonnar is the Transition Director of Creative Scotland, for which the public pays her £10,000 a month. She was appointed in November 2007, 13 months ago.

The Scottish Artists Union has established 82% of visual artists earned £5,000 per year (gross) or less from their artistic activity, and 29% earned nothing at all from making art.

Initial transition costs for Creative Scotland were given at £700,000 in its Financial Memorandum, then £1.4 million, and now they are speculated as being anything from £2m to £7m. These costs are expected to come out of Creative Scotland's grant in aid budget. The Finance Committee is reported having said the transition costs were "not sufficiently detailed and had not taken consideration of issues such as the potential cost of redundancies (particularly regarding senior staff), pension issues, senior staff recruitment or office relocation. The estimate also contained no margin of uncertainty and gave no details on the assumptions upon which it had been based."

We are told Creative Scotland will inherit the £50 million grant in aid of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen. It will also receive an increase of £5m, effectively a stand still in line with inflation over the first 2 years. Whereas the Sunday Herald has reported that the combined budgets amount to nearly £70m today (Creative crisis: the arts world in revolt, December 09, 2008), which would amount to a £20m cut in provision before we even start.

Section 99. of the 'Stage 1 Report on the Creative Scotland Bill' is worth quoting in full regarding Creative Scotland's budget:
"The Finance Committee noted that the new body will have the same grant in aid that would have been provided to the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen despite Creative Scotland having 'new and wider functions than its antecedent bodies'. The Finance Committee received written evidence from the PCS and Unite trades unions, which represent staff at the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen. The unions expressed concerns regarding the possible effects that an increase in remit without an increase in budget could have on the workforce, stating that it could put 'considerable pressure on the budget for staff and workloads' and that it would be 'left to an increasingly demoralised workforce to create something new and radical'.”

# 7 [10 December 2008]

From Leigh French, continued

We are now told Creative Scotland will firstly take the form of a "publicly owned limited company" after which it will be established as a statutory NDPB through the Public Services Reform Bill in 2009 (which will deliver a 25% cut in Scottish public bodies and scrutiny bodies by 2011 if it is passed). This we believe is the same set up as Scottish Screen -- the Scottish Arts Council differs in that it is incorporated via Royal Charter, which we understand provides it additional protection (Scottish Screen has an in-house legal team).


'Creative industries' is the central new feature in the remit for Creative Scotland. This remit is substantially expanded on previous roles to now include: "advertising; architecture; crafts; design; designer fashion; film; interactive leisure software; music; performing arts; publishing; TV and radio; and visual arts". The budget has not.

The Culture Minister, Linda Fabiani, has stated Creative Scotland will "evolve complementary specialist advice and information services for creative enterprises. [...] In order for it to do that, I can confirm today that the resources that are devoted to that purpose by Scottish Enterprise will, from the beginning of the next financial year, transfer to creative Scotland." And the 'Public Support for Creative Industries Report', which the government has accepted, states Creative Scotland "will be the lead agency for the arts and creative enterprises in Scotland".

But the Minister has also stated, "It is not proposed that creative Scotland will take on the role or activities of the business gateway or Scottish Enterprise. That would just muddy the landscape".

And therein lies much of the confusion.

The Minister has stated, "we also propose that creative Scotland will build on and evolve existing good practice—in the cultural enterprise office, for example—in providing complementary tailored services for creative entrepreneurs in the first stages of business development", and elsewhere that Creative Scotland, "will be the national development body for the arts and culture, working in partnership with other organisations to support the creative industries."

Apparently Scottish Enterprise's £50 million cultural budget will not be transfered to Creative Scotland. The administrative funding of £100,000 is being transferred from Scottish Enterprise to Creative Scotland for the Cultural Enterprise Office.

Just what is meant by "resources" and just what is or isn't being discussed regarding Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland all depends on which conflicting account you read.

Whether Creative Scotland or Scottish Enterprise should be the lead strategic body that receives the public funding for support of creative industries has via the "creative industries working group" (stacked with Enterprise Agencies) been passed on to the creation of a "creative industries forum, which will include all such agencies [and now also believed to include COSLA] and answer the question about who takes which decisions."

# 8 [10 December 2008]

A Scottish Perspective on the economy of artists - by Leigh French

This evening, special guest Leigh French from Variant talks to my art and economics blog about the debate around the proposed changes to the funding system in Scotland, which touches upon the economic crisis and the situation in which many Scottish artists find themselves. I hope this will generate some discussion about the implication of these changes and how they will affect artists in Scotland and beyond.

From Leigh French, Variant

There is much confusion over the formation of Creative Scotland and its remit, responsibilities and functions. What the proposed changes will mean for artists is being still further confused in what appears to be inter-agency horse trading. In the absence of transparency, the need for "confidence" in the "process" is much invoked. Here is what we think is actually going on...


The Scottish National Party (SNP) form the minority government of the Scottish parliament. Like the Labour Party before, the SNP have pledged a streamlining of the numerous Enterprise Agencies that are "responsible for implementing the economic development strategy of the government". This Network was to be streamlined to remove "wasteful duplication and overlap".

The current remit of Scottish Enterprise includes support of creative enterprises, some of which is delivered through its funding of the Cultural Enterprise Office, which provides a "Business Development Service for creative and cultural practitioners and micro businesses". Other creative industry pushers in Scotland include Highlands and Islands Enterprise, HI-Arts, the local authorities, NESTA, Creative & Cultural Skills, Demos, Creative Industries Forum, Arts & Business, Scottish Cultural Enterprise, The Creative Entrepreneurs Club, Voluntary Arts Scotland, Scotland's Futures Forum, The British Council, and a plethora of training/advice/development agencies/companies all of whom will directly or indirectly receive public funding, which is not to begin to map agencies explicitly involved in the music scene, audience development, tourism, and think wonkery...

Creative Scotland has been proposed as the abolition of the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) and Scottish Screen. If the Scottish government get their way, having previously failed to get the Bill passed, these two Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB) are to be superseded by a single body, Creative Scotland.

# 9 [12 December 2008]

(A Class Act, Part III)

In a situation where individual artists (as opposed to organisations) are not able to apply for funds directly, those who are able to stay in the profession in the long run are either those artists who have other substancial means of income by social heritage (and therefore perpetuate the public perception of art as class system-led), or those who operate in a largely commercial way, with little room for the conceptual or the non-commercial.

Exhibiting in places outside the perceived ones where art should be, such as museums, is extremely important to generate awareness of the diversity and importance of art. The UK public’s exposure to contemporary art has improved immensely due to artist-led initiatives taking it to unusual, non-institutionalised places.

Artist-led galleries taking place in unconventional places like disused churches, breweries, and even car garages , have allowed for art to be visible at all levels of society, and at the same time allowing artists to thrive and express their self-determination.

As well as artist-led galleries, the concept of the artist’s open studio or open house is interesting as it goes towards the Italian idea of the “bottega”, where the process of making art is demystified, creating a displacement of the concept of “inaccessible art”, perhaps exacerbated by the traditional division between alienating, isolated residential areas and busy, bustling city centres. This has generated significant cultural growth in places where open studios and houses happen, like Brighton, which started with a few houses opened by Ned Hoskins in 1982 to protest against the lack of visual arts in the Brighton Festival and has now grown to over 200 open houses every year. Similar open houses and open studio events happen every year in England, Scotland and Wales.

Without investing in the individual, the collective suffers. Without believing in the value of the collective, the individual is alienated.

The post below about public funding for the arts in Scotland is extremely important on this point.

A presto!

Links:

a-n Collections: Trade-Off, with links to several articles about the art market, written and edited by Emilia Telese with articles by Ayling & Conroy, Rachel Cattle & Paul Stanley, Patricia Fleming, Charlie Fox, Martine Rouleau, Guyan Porter, Ken Pratt,:

http://www.a-n.co.uk/publications/topic/377156

 Artists’ Open Houses: http://www.artistsopenhouses.org.uk/ Brighton: http://www.aoh.org.uk/2008/

# 10 [13 January 2009]

(A Class Act, part II)

In Italy, the perception of an artist as a socially valid professional has been socially accepted since the times when Renaissance artists would have their "bottega", their workshop right in the heart of the city. Even though you couldn't afford a painting, you could see an artist at work, perhaps even have a chat with them about the meaning of their art, or the price of bread. Their bottegas' presence amongst the other traders and in full view of any passer-by, demystified the process of making art and had the side effect of creating a culture in which being an artist and enjoying art would not be just a the preserve of the rich, generating the democratisation of the artistic profession.

Italy is an extremely difficult country for contemporary non-commercial artists to receive public funding directly, which means that artists have to work mainly in a commercial way to make a living. But bottegas still exists, and artists act as direct agents of their own work, alongside the curators of the galleries who they work with .  The difference is in the public perception of art as socially valid, which -in the right political climate- would mean that if Italian artists were publicly supported the public wouldn't scream outrage at the loss of hospital beds in the name of art.

But are the UK public really screaming outrage? This is what the tabloids would have us believe, but in the UK there is a lot of evidence that public interest for contemporary art has improved a lot in the past fifteen years. Arts Council England's research Taste Buds pointed to that, saying that the UK has the potential to double its art market.

Here a crucial distinction must be made: allowing the art market to grow to improve public perception of artists' value in society is one thing, supporting and fostering individual artists operating in a non-commercial way to allow them to exist is another. The two are not mutually exclusive.