..a bit of a rant to follow up on this, because i don´t really see the silver lining..

personally I think the way the Unviersiy of the Arts has allocated funds from elsewhere has made for mediocre culture-fashion events devoid of much space for genuine criticality. The most sad example in my view was the Aprilla "show" at the Chelsea Space, where one couldn´t even have a seconds doubt that what was labelled art there was in fact advertising. I think its incredibly sad and dangerous if traditional art spaces get invaded by business, and in terms of ways of funding art, I can only think of business, public funds or philanthropism- assuming artists aren´t to be even more precarious workers than they have been up to now, assuming there is such a thing as art and as a legitimate field within culture. But I´d be very interested to find alternative ways to these.. The last thing I want to put forward is some sort of modernist view that artists can be free and detached from society and economy at large, but I think there must be space for critical thinking, especially with regard to current economic, social, political, environmental developments. So far, I definately don´t see that happening with public-private partnerships, or with the creative industries, and lets leave out philanthropism. So to me public money for arts is still the best and most sustainable way to think about keeping alive a critical and experimental culture- if our taxes and/or lottery tickets go to mega sports events, why should they not go towards art? Unless you think taxes are a thing of the past, or art is a thing of the past, I would argue the arts is a viable and important field to invest in, particularly those smaller or more independent initiatives that fail to attract big money or publics. Already with Arts council funds, applicants are constantly asked to prove the benefit of their work to a wide public and economy, which has good and bad sides of course, but importantly there is more playing field with these public monies than when collaborating with business. As an ACE funded artists you don´t collaborate with ACE as such- you do negotiate some terms and conditions for your work with them, and you have to slime and sell yourself to pieces in the application process, but once you´re granted the money they don´t come and tell you what to do. What other ways might there be for art-work to be financially sustained and at the same time somewhat independent? You might contest this very much, but I think its important that not everything is measured against entertainment and economic profit, or "public benefit" (meaning economic benefit most of the time) so that there can be experimental, risky, critical and most of all radical things happening. If somebody is going to make art that operates outside of institutional structures, isn´t trying to sell anything or have a feel-good effect, or engage some pretense solution to problems within communities or society at large that should really be solved by Politics, then you will need to try to keep art a bit seperate, so that it can fulfill a function that is productive in terms of being critical and reflexive of social conditions etc. I.e. Art-work that is shambolic and self-reflexive, in the good and the bad ways.. such are my thoughts at present anyways. I much admire the optimism and endurance people have to work in public private partnerships, and surely there are lots of ways in which this can be interesting and productive, it´s just what i´ve so far seen coming out of those so-called partnerships doesnt go with the kind of social and political culture I hope for, and thats a very personal thing of course. I´d hope for art to offer space for a slightly more agnoistic, critical, open and perhaps radical approach to culture and society, as an activity that can legitimately be unproductive in economic terms but is likely to be productive in social terms, though perhaps in less obvious ways than currently advocated, especially by UK cultural policy.

..apologies if i misunderstand what you are trying to say, ian..

cm01...@blueyonder.co.uk (aka Corrado) To: manuela zechner a href="mailto:manuela@thisappearance.org">manuela@thisappearance.org

...another rant,

i have been involved with short courses at UAL for some time, i wan't to be un-involved with short courses at UAL...none of the money generated by these short courses goes back into where it should, only into badly written prospectuses and advertising for these short courses. (maybe)

also..i have been watching with interest the proposals for alternative income generating activities and i'm damn disgusted. weddings and corporate shindigs are not what an art college should be about...again where does the cash go. certainlt not into teaching

read ippolito's text 'why art should be free' for some pointers, it's a bit old but it's cool

alternative funding strategies seem like spin to me too

Corrado

---

Ian Drysdale To: manuela zechner a href="mailto:manuela@thisappearance.org">manuela@thisappearance.org Cc: CriticalPractice@chelseawiki.org Hello,

> personally I think the way the Universiy of the Arts has allocated funds > from elsewhere has made for mediocre culture-fashion events devoid of much > space for genuine criticality.

I agree that the University is poor in developing genuine and interesting partnerships, however I am excited that these relationships can, in turn, become spaces for practice - here I'm thinking about events like the 'special' opening or the Chelsea Late at Tate.

> The last thing I want to put forward is some sort of modernist view that > artists can be free and detached from society and economy at large, but I > think there must be space for critical thinking, especially with regard to > current economic, social, political, environmental developments.

I think this discussion *must* take place in the thick of society and the economy, and it's our job, as artists, to create the space for this to take place.

> importantly there is more playing field with these > public monies than when collaborating with business.

What makes you say that? I've seen inspiring work come from interesting partnerships with business - works like Heger & Dejanov's partnership with BMW.

> As an ACE funded > artists you don´t collaborate with ACE as such- you do negotiate some terms > and conditions for your work with them, and you have to slime and sell > yourself to pieces in the application process, but once you´re granted the > money they don´t come and tell you what to do.

This is clearly my opinion, but I think that's a really fucked up relationship. How is accepting that public money more 'independent' or 'free' than any other economic relationship / exchange?

> I´d hope for > art to offer space for a slightly more agnoistic, critical, open and perhaps > radical approach to culture and society, as an activity that can > legitimately be unproductive in economic terms but is likely to be > productive in social terms, though perhaps in less obvious ways than > currently advocated, especially by UK cultural policy.

Exactly - and we should be exploring ways we can make this happen!

Last modified: 25.04.07 by manuela

Comments

FlatThreadedNested Oldest FirstNewest First

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.