A discussion paper presented by Sarah Fisher, interim director at the Centre for Contemporary Chinese Art, set the scene at the Cultural Knowledge Ecology conference in Liverpool.
In it were a glittering array of case studies – among them Northumbria University partnering with Baltic, London Met with Whitechapel Art Gallery, and Liverpool John Moores with FACT and the Liverpool Biennial. The next era of “evidence-based policy-making,” Fisher confirmed, requires “robust, independent [arts] research”. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are part of ensuring this happens.
According to the paper, HEIs are ideal arts partners. They are, said Fisher, “the main educators of cultural sector professionals, employ many of the UK’s artists, lead creative innovation and cultural research programmes and are increasingly significant as deliverers of cultural experience to the public.”
Professor John Goddard’s whistle-stop tour through the development phases of higher education institutions got us quickly to the present day and the “civic university” – an essential ingredient in place-making within a city and part of the process of redefining what universities are for.
In the same vein, Teesside University Vice Chancellor Graham Henderson talked warmly of the mutuality of an impending merger with Mima (Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art), part of “changing perceptions” about a northern town that is better known for social deprivation than culture.
Questions and concerns
Is it a no-brainer, then, that these kind of partnerships will preserve our arts venues while placing HEIs at the heart of delivering social change through learning?
It was in the breaks – isn’t it always thus at conferences? – that the more meaty debates emerged and questions were asked. Real worries were articulated about the arts being subsumed by the ruthless business that underpins HEIs – where the artists employed at the teaching coalface are striking over meagre pay settlements, while managing executives are well rewarded.
There were concerns too that the preservation of a slew of 20th century arts buildings will be at the expense of any support to micro-scale, participatory sites where the real talent development and innovation is taking place. Shouldn’t we also be exploring new learning and engagement models that are relevant to a virtual, boundary-crunching, mobile age?
In his overview, cultural commentator and conference chair Dr Dave O’Brien identified the threat of rising social inequalities, as contextualised by such events. Clearly, there are risks to be carefully considered before leaping with hope and optimism into the HEI bed. Partnerships need very, very careful negotiation so that arts assets – tangible and intangible – are not sold off too cheaply. (Never sign an off-the-peg MoU and do your own stringent risk assessment would be my own top tips).
O’Brien also warned arts organisations and funders that academics are entitled to come to uncomfortable conclusions when they interrogate what arts institutions and their programmes are for, and what they actually achieve against the expectations of advocacy-based policies.
Above all, he advised: “Spend time developing the relationships, make them bespoke. Give time and space to develop the new language and shared values between the partners”. In an era of funding-led, partnership-working and consortia-bidding imperatives, these are sound words indeed.
Cultural Knowledge Ecology – universities, arts and cultural partnerships, organised by Arts Council England (North) took place at Liverpool John Moores University, 5 February 2014
More twitter chat on creative-campus.org.uk/tweetchat.html #hecultureconf
More on a-n.co.uk:
Congrats Hull, but ‘culture city’ status is no guarantee of revival – by Dave O’Brien
