'The new Culture Forum - a 'Big Conversation' or rather more selective?'

[Katriona Beales]

Follow the link below to read for yourself the make-up of the new Culture Forum (don't confuse with the 'New Culture Forum' a centre-right culture lobbying group), which has been set up to give “the sector an opportunity to engage in the Government’s call for a national debate on the cultural economy” [source: Arts & Business website].

I am troubled by the fact that it appears that none of the Culture Forum members are arts practitioners - all appear to be arts professionals. This is despite the fact that 6 members were later co-opted by Arts & Business "to ensure the Culture Forum had representation from all regions and all major art forms". Careful thought obviously went into the make-up of this group and yet still there are glaring omissions - no practitioners.

The voice of the artist appears not to be represented here.

Is this the fruit of a fundamental assumption that artists can't speak for themselves?

It appears that the same old hegemonies are at work - that the hierarchies of the arts worlds, again, leave the actual artists, makers and practitioners, out of the biggest debates that directly affect us. I am a member of AIR (www.a-n.co.uk/air), along with over 14,000 other professional visual artists. I'd like to suggest that #cultureforum considers a representative from AIR, who will be able to feedback and bring comments from the wider membership.

I struggle to see how the Culture Forum can claim with integrity, to be able to "feedback on the impact and effects of proposed cuts to the arts sector", without a membership involving actual arts practitioners, alongside arts professionals. At present there is no-one who could directly comment on the experience of the artist in the current climate. In the light of statistics like 72% of artists are self-employed, and have been given no specific support in the recession as 'sole traders' or 'small businesses' [source: AIR], surely artists' voices have to be given space in the debate, and at least one place at the table.

http://artsandbusiness.org.uk/News/2010/july/culture-forum-represen...

[Katriona Beales]

Thank you Matthew for your comments here. I'm not able to fully reply today due to prior commitments but will post a more detailed response tomorrow. In the meantime since you agree "the role of artists in making the case for the arts is critical" I would be interested to hear more from you in terms of exactly what opportunities you think there are for the visibility of artists in these discussions?

[Lucy Carolan]

Hello Matthew, does this mean the culture forum has decided not to consider AIR's request to join it?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the relevance of AIR's inclusion is actually not about it specifically representing the visual arts (although as the culture forum has only one viz arts rep another couldn't hurt...), but as an organisation that has a direct connection with and understanding of issues facing individual practitioners. If 72% of visual artists are self-employed, what percentage of other practitioners - composers, authors etc - are also? AIR's understanding of the impact of proposed funding cuts to its own membership must be generally relevant across the arts, and as such it surely has an important contribution to make to the forum's deliberations, which otherwise might seem to focus on organisations and, as Katriona has suggested, not be adequately representational.

[Bridget McKenzie]

I am inclined to agree that the make-up of the Forum is not as balanced as it could be. 12 of the 20 are primarily from the music sector. None are identified as independent or practising artists. I'm also a little confused about whether it is advocating for the cultural sector (as it's a Culture Forum), covering heritage, museums, archives, design etc, or whether it is focusing on the visual and performing arts. If it is broadly covering Culture then it seems inadequate to only have one representative of heritage and nobody from museums. That all said, the question is, how can this lack of balance be overcome, not by changing its constitution now, but by ensuring that their enquiries are as open as possible. Can we propose that the Culture Forum is a central gathering point for views from unrepresented domains? Can it be (or, is it) co-ordinating with AIR, the Cultural Learning Alliance, the Museums Association/NMDC and so on to ensure that a) unconflicting data is being used to underpin arguments and that b) the values/value of each domain are strongly advocated to ensure that the diversity of contributions of culture to society are seen? Can the Culture Forum identify some specific enquiries and ask us all to contribute data and evidence?

[Jack J Hutchinson]

I think there are two key elements to this discussion that need to be resolved.

Firstly, as Jonathan Best has previously commented, it is the assumption that the Culture Forum is speaking for the sector as a whole – they are not. The language used on the Culture Forum’s page on the Arts and Business website is misleading, and should be changed. It implies it is the sole channel of opening discussions with the government (obviously not the case) and assumes an air of monocracy that ultimately suggests exclusivity. There needs to be more clarity as to what exactly the forum represents. Be clear that it doesn’t represent the views of individual artists and practitioners – only those of Arts and Business and the NCA.

Secondly, following clarification of the exact nature of this particular group, there needs to be a strategic unification of effort between different bodies. There is no use competing to see who has the loudest voice – we are all essentially fighting the same cause. I wholeheartedly agree that there are problems with the make-up of the Culture Forum, yet there are greater issues at hand.

We seem to be wasting a large amount of time discussing the best format with which to not only communicate with government, but also one another. A prime example is this forum, which people still seem to be questioning despite the evident success it has had at pulling people together.

I would suggest a form of network where each strand has a clear vision of what it wants to achieve and lobby for, feeding into a more channelled and strategic method of campaigning. In that sense, the Culture Forum would not be seen as a bad thing, just one mode of communication amongst many.

We seem to have an archipelago of thought that, although infused with common goals, is simply not working concurrently. AIR has 14,500 members – many of which are part of different organisations. A strategic affiliation would provide one heck of a large lobbying group…

[Patrick Hussey]

Splitters!

Ok let's discuss. What bits of the blurbs do you think are OTT? BTW Minutes from Cultures Forum will be coming tomorrow, all in place just need to get up on line.

[Lucy Carolan]

Hi Patrick. In the OTT dept, how about "...the Culture Forum in association with the National Campaign for the Arts [...] will act as a unique, unified voice for the whole cultural community".

No.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/30/arts-organisati...

[Susan Jones]

I'd just like to quote from a piece by member Susan Diab in the AIR publication Routes for artists' representation as this seems apposite to the discussions above: ""When others speak on artists' behalf, they sometimes have to imagine what we might need [and aspire to] and this can easily be influenced by the traditional image of the struggling artist trying to operate successfully within artworld systems and structures. Through representation, artists will be able to speak ...for themselves".
From my experience at a-n The Artists Information Company there are huge benefits gained from giving artists that space and honouring their knowledge and experiences acoss all aspects of our decision-making processes. Without this, there is inadvertent paternalism and surely we're all trying to avoid that?

[Katriona Beales]

So now I have the time to respond I'd like to come back to Matthew's post with a fuller reply. I have checked with AIR and they have not received a response from the Culture Forum about their formal request for an AIR representative to be included. Hence, I am taking Matthew's comments as his own rather than reflective of the position of the Culture Forum as a whole. Please do let me know if this is incorrect.

What I want to be very clear about is that I am not, and AIR are not, arguing that it is ONLY artist voices that should be heard in this debate. Clearly that is nonsensical. I and my peers operate in an cultural ecology - we need and VALUE the arts institutions, arts development organisations and all the multi-faceted structures that operate within the sector alongside artists. What I am saying is that artist voices need to be heard as they have a distinctive set of viewpoints. Whilst this is a position stated by Matthew, e.g. "the role of artists in making the case for the arts is critical" it does not appear to be supported by the current membership of the Culture Forum.

Deep breath - I feel it is something to do with power dynamics within the art world - which at times seems more concerned about artistic product rather than artists as people. Of course artists' bear some responsibility for these dynamics, and one of the things AIR is trying to do is become more coherent and more effective at mobilising the 14,500 professional artists who are members so we can be more effective at lobbying. For more information on this please read the AIR Road Map to Representation which you can download from here: http://www.a-n.co.uk/air/topic/646944

It is fair to say that artist points' of view are often presumed to be understood by arts professionals, and they aren't always. Differences in perspective have to be at least acknowledged. This isn't disparaging in anyway - just as I would not have that much understanding of the job of a CEO of an arts organisation. However, there are big differences, for example, between being self-employed (as 72% of artists are) to having a regular monthly income (though I recognise there are many freelancers in the sector who are not artists I would suggest the percentage is less).

I want to contribute to the arts funding debate and join with the rest of the arts sector to have a robust, articulate and clear response to DCMS. As Jack Hutchinson clearly articulated the problem is with the rhetoric around the Culture Forum - not with the aspiration. If artists are not welcome to the table then that's that. However, please don't advertise it as speaking on behalf of the whole sector if we're not allowed to join the conversation.

[Matthew Rowe]

Dear Katriona, thank you for this fuller reply, I do not represent the management of the Culture Forum but as the visual arts representative I speak on behalf of the membership, I expect Arts & Business to respond to AIR's formal request. The minutes of the Culture Forum will be circulated on Monday 2 August so check out the Arts & Business website and you will see that the Forum do not see themselves as the sole advocates for the arts but as part of a broader strategy including Arts Council England, Turning Point, Museums Association etc., artists and audiences that need to work together to make the case strongly and consistently between now and October. The Culture Forum speaks on behalf of arts and cultural organisations directly affected by the Treasury funding decisions through the Comprehensive Spending Review but this is not the whole story. Artists are key to making the case of the value of culture to society and economic recovery and therefore I wish to consult with my AIR area representative next week to discuss ways and means for artists to support the broader campaign. The needs of artists are addressed through policy development developed by Arts Council and the DCMS. When you view the minutes of the Culture Forum I hope all will become clear as to why the focus is on organisations repostioning themsleves and surviving the inevitable budget cuts and that it is not the only advocacy group for culture. Individual artists are best placed feeding case studies and evidence of cultural value into the Forum around the themes identified in the Minutes, through AIR liaising directly with me. I do not have the time to respond to every individual and organisation so I hope that they can support the Forum through the Arts & Business communication channels published alongside the Minutes of the first meeting on Monday.

[Susan Jones]

Came across this comment today and felt it just needed to be 'heard' within this debate:

“Once a society loses this capacity (to dialogue), all that is left is a cacophony of voices battling it out to see who wins and who loses. There is no capacity to go deeper, to find a deeper meaning that transcends individual views and self interest. It seems reasonable to ask whether many of our deeper problems in governing ourselves today, the so-called “gridlock” and loss of mutual respect and caring might not stem from this lost capacity to talk with one another, to think together as part of a larger community.” (This is from Peter Senge)

Although it may seem expedient in times when the arts are being undermined to stick to some traditional consultation formats, in my view, the arts argument would really be strengthened by some of the evidence and insights that would emerge from serious listening to a wider range of voices. What we faced with now are a set of issues that have been 'imposed' on our normal modus operandi by the cultural and economic environment. The frameworks that we devise to debate and address them, however, can stand us in stead for the longer-term. Let the dialogue begin in earnest!