Inviting communities to get outside and engage in the arts: how does cultural policy in England recognise the instrumental value of the outdoor arts?

A paper written in relation to the Practice, Policy and Markets unit for MA Arts and Cultural Enterprise. I have no affiliation with any of the organisations mentioned.

The ‘outdoor arts’ in England is a varied sector encompassing street arts, festivals and carnivals. Arts Council England (ACE), the distributor for DCMS (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) and Lottery funding to arts and cultural projects within England, categorise it as ‘Combined Arts’ within their strategies: “Combined arts is where different artforms interact and create something new and exciting across outdoor arts, carnival, festivals, spectacle, interdisciplinary work, live art and participatory and social art practice. It takes place in a diverse range of venues…pop-up spaces and outdoor sites” (Arts Council England, 2017, p.2).

Instrumental value of arts refers to using the arts as a means to attain goals in non-cultural areas including the economy, society, political diplomacy, urban regeneration and health (Bonham-Carter, 2018). Typically, within cultural policy, these values are economic and social considerations, with an instrumental value beyond the arts themselves (McGuigan, 2004). The UK Government recognise that art makes a valuable contribution to delivering key outcomes including “lower long-term unemployment, less crime, better health and better qualifications…help to develop the individual pride, community spirit and capacity for responsibility that enable communities to run regeneration programmes themselves” as discussed within the DCMS Policy Action Team Report (Holden, 2004, p.15). Arts Council England also reflect this within their policies “the arts are also instrumental in meeting public policy objectives” (Holden, 2004, p.25) and continue to advocate for the arts on both a national and local authority level.

Accessibility of the outdoor arts sector could be the reason that its instrumental value has such an impact on policy, with this sector being where people often become involved with the arts for the first time (Arts Council England, 2017). However, within the annual Taking Part Survey in 2016/17, 9% of respondents attended a ‘Street Arts’ (defined as art in everyday surroundings like parks, streets or shopping centres) event and additional 9.9% attended ‘Carnival’. This is significantly lower than 31.1% for ‘Other live music event’ and 21.4% for ‘Play/Drama’ (DCMS, April 2018), but as many outdoor arts events are free, a true reflection on attendance may be hard to capture, especially if audiences encounter the work without knowing they are engaging in an arts event.

By examining national investment in outdoor arts and then exploring place-based cultural strategy in Birmingham, Milton Keynes and Plymouth, it is evident that the instrumental value of outdoor arts is reflected in cultural policy and vision for these cities specifically. Investment in outdoor arts in England is increasing. ACE have recently increased their investment in Combined Arts from £52.7 million per annum (14% of their National Portfolio) in 2015-18, to £66.7 million (16% of the portfolio) in 2018-22 (however, it is worth noting that this may include some elements of the portfolio within the Combined Arts category that aren’t outdoor arts such as live art or social art practice). The investment aims to create growth in the outdoor arts and festival ecology, bringing high quality art to larger and more diverse audiences through funding organisations such as Without Walls, Seachange Arts, ISAN and SIRF (Arts Council England, 2017).

Other national policy doesn’t specifically reference outdoor arts but implies the value of this within wider programmes. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport departmental plan in 2018 cites the proportion of people engaging in the arts through UK City of Culture1, Great Exhibition of the North and Northern Cultural Legacy Fund as a performance measure for maximising cultural participation (DCMS, January 2018).

The Culture White Paper published in 2016 defines the benefit of culture within three values: the intrinsic value of culture itself; the social value of improving educational attainment, health and community cohesion; and the economic value of creating jobs, growing the economy and securing strong tourism (DCMS, 2016). The document continually addresses the instrumental value of arts with the policy aiming to use culture to benefit communities across the country, increase international standing and give everyone the best start in life, recognising that culture is an important part of our economy and society (DCMS, 2016).

However, similarly to the Single Departmental Plan, the White Paper mentions examples of outdoor arts in an indirect way “…culture that is rejuvenating our society and our national and local economies. We are seeing this wherever culture is an integral part of thinking…in Hull and in rural areas like East Lindsey2” (DCMS, 2016, p.6).

It seems to be common for national policy to not directly refer to outdoor arts, as highlighted by the Plymouth Public Art Plan “Within national and regional policy there are few specific references to public art” (Doherty, 2016, p.6) but it is evident that these national policies recognise the instrumental value of outdoor arts programmes through case studies.

Regardless of the strong recognition for the instrumental value of arts, it can be difficult to measure with responses to culture often being personal with evidence of subjective effect gets dismissed as anecdotal (Holden, 2004). This could especially be true during outdoor arts events that are free and non-ticketed, when capturing audience response is challenging, and other factors in addition to the outdoor arts programming may be directly affecting the economic and social outcomes for the locality.

Local cultural policy can be examined to explore its reflection on outdoor arts and links to instrumental value. Three cities in England have been chosen for the purpose of this study: Birmingham, as one of the largest cities in the UK with a very diverse population; Milton Keynes, a new town with unique green spaces available; and Plymouth, as interestingly their Public Art Policy that hasn’t been written by the local authority.

In 2010, Birmingham developed a cultural strategy with instrumental value as its central focus: “Participation in culture is inherently a good thing – it challenges perceptions…enables people to understand the world they live in, its possibilities and the cultures of others more profoundly. Cultural activities can also deliver a range of other outcomes including health and wellbeing, social and community cohesion, civic engagement, economic impact, development of transferable skills and improved environment” (Birmingham City Council, 2010, p.3). This recognition for the importance of arts and culture in Birmingham has shaped its ongoing vision and was initially developed in partnership with communities for the City of Culture 2010 bid (Birchall, 2018).

Birmingham’s current Public Art Strategy3 defines public art as place-based creative practice and includes temporary participatory and event-based activities, which happen in the public realm. On justifying reasons for investing in public art, Birmingham states “The strategy celebrates public art for its intrinsic arts value, as well as its links to other council policies where culture-led innovation can make a huge difference to non-arts agendas” (Birmingham City Council, 2015, p.17) recognising the instrumental value of outdoor arts on the economy and wellbeing.

In addition, Birmingham’s Festival Strategy notes the demonstrable role on increasing cultural tourism, and economic growth, as festivals make a strong contribution to the city’s reputation as a vibrant place to live and visit (Birmingham City Council, 2013). The strategy also recognises that free outdoor events support priorities for social inclusion and cultural participation by improving accessibility. In such a diverse place such as Birmingham, culture is an essential tool to enable social cohesion, and religious festivals that naturally come with this diversity can further enable culture to be embedded across communities.

These strategies all recognise the transformative nature of arts and culture to challenge perceptions and enable people to better understand the world they live In this policy, Milton Keynes recognise that in order to grow the sector they want to continue to make use of spaces outdoors due to the unique expanse of parks, large boulevards and designated public realm (Milton Keynes Council, 2018). This infrastructure of outdoor sites is also complimented by the cultural infrastructure of Milton Keynes International Festival and well-established arts organisations based in the city, resulting in “Outdoor Arts and Public Art are intrinsic components of the city’s cultural USP” (Milton Keynes Council, 2018, p.9).

Their approach to success for delivering culture in Milton Keynes strongly links to the instrumental value of culture. Firstly, Milton Keynes want to create a European destination that is known for high quality outdoor arts, collaborating with European Cities to create outdoor arts school (Milton Keynes Council, 2018) and boosting cultural tourism, and in turn, grow the economy. Secondly, they are prioritising culture to build social mobility and opportunities, in addition to contributing to the health and wellbeing of residents. Lastly, they want to use culture as a tool to be recognised and prioritised within all Council strategies and policies for place-making, which can activate change and benefit the economy and the wellbeing of citizens, through a strong political mandate (Milton Keynes Council, 2018). The latter is interesting in relation to ‘soft power’ which Professor Joseph Nye said is “The ability to persuade through culture, values and ideas, as opposed to ‘hard power’, which conquers or coerces through military might” (Bonham-Carter, 2018) and is also reflected in reflection of national policy within The Culture White Paper (DCMS, 2016). Local politicians may not only embed culture across their decision making, but use it as a tool to promote Milton Keynes standing nationally, and their individual political goals.

The Plymouth Public Art Plan was developed by Situations, an independent arts charity with experience of developing public and outdoor arts across the South West of England and beyond, alongside Plymouth Culture who assist with the development of culture in Plymouth. This removal of direct local authority influence over the strategy demonstrates the new role of local authorities (Mangan and Needham, 2014).

Plymouth’s plan positions that justifiable investment in public art is evaluated against its positive contribution to place-making, with successful occurrences having the ability to gather diverse temporary communities. The plan states that it “celebrates public art for its intrinsic arts value, as well as its capacity to address other city council polices and non-art agendas” (Doherty, 2016, p.5) and queries why permanence is valued over cultural impact. The new vision for public art include investing in one-off projects that offer significant impact and commission work that crosses artform boundaries to directly engage audiences. The author questions why local authorities are so risk adverse when the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad4 programme demonstrated that audiences are ready to be challenged in public and outdoor arts (Doherty, 2016), insisting that local authorities change their approach.

This positive recognition for outdoor arts in local policy could be due to the major advocacy work for the value of outdoor arts in the UK. The Without Walls Consortium has advocacy work at its core aiming that “the UK Outdoor Arts sector is visible and well respected nationally and internationally” (Lewis, 2017, p.31). The Independent Street Arts Network (ISAN) are another organisation to recently receive increased funding from Arts Council England, aiming to create growth in the outdoor arts and festival ecology, bringing high quality art to larger and more diverse audiences (Arts Council England, 2017).

The value of outdoor arts, including street arts, festivals and carnivals, is being recognised in cultural policy in England, but mainly on a local level (Birmingham, Milton Keynes and Plymouth among these localities as discussed), where the instrumental value of outdoor arts relates to the social and economic outcomes. The outdoor arts are praised for accessibility, due to often being free and non-ticketed events, resulting in a wide range of demographics accessing this type of work. Therefore, local authorities can use the commissioning and programming of outdoor arts activities as a tool to enable wider agenda including health and wellbeing, community cohesion, place-making and growing the economy. The effect of these activities is becoming more commonly evidenced in recent years due to the success (and effect on non-arts agendas) of outdoor arts programmes within initiatives such as the Cultural Olypiad, Hull City of Culture and SO Festival (in East Lindsey). The coming years with further investment by Arts Council England in the outdoor arts sector, will continue to address whether its value can have a long-lasting impact. As permanent public art has traditionally been valued more highly, the idea of temporary and one-off events is new to many local authorities, but the precedence set by cities like Birmingham and Milton Keynes will challenge policy locally and nationally to take risks.

Notes

  1. Outdoor arts events and festivals at Hull City of Culture 2017 made up a significant proportion of activity, contributing to total audiences with the opening event Made in Hull generating an audience of 342,000 and the annual Freedom Festival attracting over 144,000 visitors. Free and non-ticketed outdoor events close to communities had the biggest impact in terms of reaching audiences in the most deprived areas of the city who may not usually attend arts events. The evaluation of Hull City of Culture 2017 values the significant contributions of these activities to place making, economy, society and wellbeing (University of Hull, 2018) and the award of UK City of Culture 2017 is estimated to be worth £60 million to the economy in Hull (DCMS, 2016).
  2. East Lindsey is referenced here due to the successful So Festival, an outdoor arts festival in Skegness and surrounding market towns. In 2014, the festival bought an additional 27,228 visitors to the area and additional visitor spend of £671,964 (East Lindsey District Council, 2016).
  3. As an action to support the outdoor arts in Birmingham, an outcome of the Public Art Strategy is to create Street Art Guidance in partnership with relevant organisations to assist artists and commissioners, identifying appropriate sites, health and safety considerations and permits (Birmingham City Council, 2015) but this does not yet appear to be published.
  4. The London 2012 Cultural Olympiad programme had a dominance of ‘combined arts’ events (24.5% of total activity) involving many outdoor arts. Programming took place across many of the most iconic outdoor tourist attractions in the UK, in addition to unusual places where art was programmed for the first time, meeting its objective to bring art into unusual places and animate public spaces, with 38.5 million free public engagement experiences. This had major impact on reaching new audiences, developing tourism and putting “culture at the heart of the games” (Garcia, 2013).

Resources

“Do you own your building?”

I have found myself asking this question to many arts and cultural organisations when having my introduction to their work and organisations. It’s a question that always gives a surprising, but increasingly familiar response, and usually goes something like “no, but we’d love to, it’d let us do XYZ”.

Often, the ‘owners’ of these buildings have been the local authority, a school or similar not for profit. The income this landlord is receiving is minimal, and they may still be paying for maintenance depending on the agreement. The ‘easiest’ thing to do (said in the loosest sense, as I know this would require much paperwork and tax issues) would be to gift these building to the arts organisations, or allow them to purchase at a much reduced price.

Imagine the sustainability of a smaller organisation if they own the bricks and mortar they are housed in. Organisations would be able to apply for funding to make their spaces fit for purpose. They don’t have to build brand new facilities, but can invest in the tired buildings they occupy. This makes our places better, utilising empty spaces in high streets for cultural purposes. They can make longer-term strategic plans, knowing their space and future is secure.

This is of course blue-sky thinking, no organisation, even if a charity or non-for-profit, is going to give their biggest assets at such a reduced cost. Buildings are still one of the most secure places to hold money, even after the financial crash, and even if they are empty.

However, as the world becomes more digital, will buildings and physical infrastructure still be as vital? Do arts organisations need to stop obsessing about their buildings? Our towns and cities are going to become very bleak places if we reject the idea of physical presence. As The Specials said, “This town is coming like a ghost town”, so we must allow and encourage the country’s most exciting asset to solve this, our arts and cultural organisations.

Supporting libraries to programme arts experiences

An edited version of a paper written in relation to the Arts Entrepreneurship unit for MA Arts and Cultural Enterprise. Through my own experience with North Lincolnshire Libraries, interviews and secondary research, I developed a proposal for a gap in the market.

For public libraries, the core universal offer states: “people enjoy a quality and diverse cultural experience in libraries” and the stretch offer related to this “people see libraries as local creative hubs where exploration, experimentation, pursuing of cultural interests and creative making are encouraged.” The goal is that “more people have access to quality and diverse cultural experiences and events through libraries, especially those less likely to access arts and culture” (Libraries Connected, 2018).

Through extensive secondary research, it is clear there is ambition for cultural programming in libraries, with funding and potential partnerships available to enable this. With over 3000 public libraries in England and more than 225 million visits per year (SCL, 2017, p.6), libraries are the most well-connected cultural spaces, providing a gateway to the wider arts and cultural offer. However, existing research shows there are some clear challenges faced by library professionals in delivering the cultural offer: capacity, funding, staffing and resources; developing an audience; physical environment of libraries/continuing to provide suitable space; staff skillset and confidence; and marketing and publicity capacity (SCL, 2017, p.28).

This project explores how libraries can be better supported and equipped to offer arts and culture, with a contributing solution proposed that works directly with library professionals to combat the issues they face to programming arts.

Through field research, nine individuals were interviewed from six library services. All those who were interviewed agreed that arts and culture were an integral part of their programme, emphasising the importance of the offer alongside literature: “Libraries have always been about arts and culture as well as information and knowledge. Literature has of course been at the core of what libraries are about since the beginning, but forward-thinking library services have also embraced other art forms.”

In line with the secondary research, the primary research also showed that libraries have a wider reach than many arts organisations, “libraries act as an important bridge or gateway to accessing arts and culture for people who may not feel comfortable in traditional arts venues”, emphasised by another librarians thoughts “in an area of low arts engagement, libraries provide access to cultural activities that enrich the lives of our customers in a safe neutral space” and perhaps diversity is the reason for this reach, “Libraries are about celebrating the culture of the local community, the diverse culture of nation and the world”.

However, the closure of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and merge with Arts Council England has led to many library services feeling their strategy is confused, with a lack of library expertise at a national level and arts expertise at a local level, generating a juxtaposed alignment of colleagues with a lack of shared vocabulary.

From the interviews, the challenges faced by library services and the needs of library professionals were mapped and can be seen in figure 1:

Library Challenges

From the challenges facing libraries in exploring arts and cultural projects, there is a clear problem: library professionals need a way to develop expert knowledge of programming arts and cultural experiences in a way that makes libraries relevant to communities and in line with national strategies.

Within this market of supporting libraries, the national body of Libraries Connected leads the strategy for public libraries. At an operational level, the main contributors to arts and culture is libraries are: Fun Palaces, an annual weekend promoting culture at the heart of community, with many library spaces opening their doors to activities that combine arts and science (Fun Palaces, 2018); and Get in Loud in Libraries programming live music events in libraries throughout the UK (Get in Loud in Libraries, 2018). On a more regional level, the South Western Regional Library Services support the cultural and community engagement role of libraries as part of their work (SWRLS, 2018) and The Spark in Leicester commissions children’s theatre which tours East Midlands libraries (The Spark, 2018).

Another relevant organisation with some aligning agenda is the National Rural Touring Forum, supporting a national network of touring schemes that work collaboratively with communities to programme theatre, dance and music in community spaces (NRTF, 2018).

The gap within the market shows a need for a service that aims to support libraries to programme arts experiences. This would be achieved by collaborating with arts organisations and theatre companies, including Arts Council England National Portfolio Organisations, gaining external support from funders and national partners (e.g. Arts Council England, Libraries Connected), to commission artists to create work for library spaces. There is a need to also provide expert knowledge on audience engagement, recruiting volunteers and local partners, and advocating for culture within the library agenda. In essence, the formation of creative producers, working with artists to generate specialist work for library spaces.

 

Resources

Getting the balance right: Local Authorities support for Arts and Culture

It’s been widely reported that the financial support from Local Authorities for arts and culture has dramatically reduced in recent years. According to Arts Council England, between 2010 and 2016, investment had reduced by £236m, equivalent to 17%. (Arts Professional followed this up with an interesting report about the effect of this on the sector. To compare local authority spend, the 50p for Culture campaign did gather some interesting data in 2013/14). The days of Arts Development teams in every Council are long gone. When thriving, this warranted a network of officers called Arts Development UK, which ceased to exist earlier this year. However, there is still some exciting work happening.

An obvious case study for investment in exciting cultural development is Hull. Beyond City of Culture 2017, a culture company ‘Absolutely Cultured’ was formed, working closely with the Hull City Council Arts Development team. They recently advertised a new part time ADO role, showing their continued investment in this service.

The other approach to continuing this service is to take them out of the authority directly and creating trusts or other organisations. This has been seen in areas such as North Kesteven in Lincolnshire (artsNK) and the most obvious case study, the Arts Development Company in Dorset. By creating an external organisation, the idea is that the local authority can sub-contract the services, but the newly formed service has wider funding and income generation opportunities. They are also able to be part of the local arts and cultural ecology without directly being the local authority, which can have political goals.

The main challenge facing local authorities is how to justify investment in arts and culture to senior leadership and portfolio holders. When facing decisions between social care and culture, it is an obvious choice, but what if the latter can dramatically help to achieve the former? There are many Health and Wellbeing related case studies but this is yet to be widely recognised with tangible evidence. The other return on investment is working towards the inevitable place based goal set by the local authority. Arts and culture make better places, this is obvious, especially in areas that struggle with lack of identity, perhaps due to declining trades such as manufacturing.

Some local authorities have recognised this and are supporting arts and culture in different ways, such as through economic development, focusing on the instrumental value that culture can bring. Rather than directly supporting the arts, some officers sit within regeneration or economic development teams, with a focus on culture within their role.

The key exploration needed is around what is an appropriate level of support. Is the need for cash investment into local organisations? Or Officers who can give capacity to projects? Should the local authority be delivering arts and culture themselves or be enabling local organisations? There isn’t a one size fits all approach, and it does depend on the development stage of the local arts and cultural infrastructure. However, there should definitely be some support.

The successful engagement of isolated older people with arts and culture: Meet me at The Albany and the initiatives that inspired this

A paper written in relation to the Local and Global Challenges unit for MA Arts and Cultural Enterprise. I have no affiliation with any of the organisations mentioned.

As the UK population continues to grow and age, with those over aged 65 equating to 18% of the population in 2016, and predicted to grow to 24.7% by 2046 (ONS, 2017), there is increased demand for local services (Cutler, 2014). There is a growing need for social and creative activities that protect good health and wellbeing (Mental Health Foundation, 2011) with creative and cultural participation found to be the highest contributor to the individuals wellbeing later in life (Age UK, 2017).

The impact of arts and cultural activities for the individual includes physical health, mental health and development of personal relationships (Cutler, 2009). In addition, there is strong evidence for societal benefits including community development and social capital (Cutler, 2009), creating positive attitudes towards older people and social cohesion (Mental Health Foundation, 2011).

There are several successful initiatives around the world that use the arts to engage isolated older people, improving their health and wellbeing. This report will specifically focus on ‘Meet me at The Albany’ (MMatA) led by Entelechy Arts in the London Borough of Lewisham, but there will also be mention of other projects that have inspired MMatA or been inspired by its success.

Meet me at The Albany was developed in 2013 when London Borough of Lewisham and Entelechy Arts asked, “What if isolated and lonely older people had the opportunity to go to an arts centre instead of a day centre?” (Entelechy Arts, 2018) which resulted in the development of creative art clubs for the over 60s, based at The Albany, an Arts Council England National Portfolio Organisation in Deptford, London.

The current MMatA programme features a choir, working with writers and visual arts sessions, where those over 60 are invited to attend on a Tuesday and contribute just £6 per day which includes a hot lunch (Entelechy Arts, 2018).

The most innovative initiative as part of the MMatA project is ‘Flying and Falling’, circus sessions led by Upswing which challenges perceptions of what was possible and fed into wider research about the relationship between circus and falling in older people (Amedume, 2014). Amedume worked with Newcastle University, exploring the topic “with ageing, there is an increase in the need to control movement through higher level cognitive functions (i.e. you have to think more about how you move)” and as a circus performer, movements need to become intuitive, in turn potentially making these artists less susceptible to needing to use higher level cognitive functions (Amedume, 2014). Upswing’s work with MMatA has led to similar projects in Devon and residential care homes across the UK.

The circus project is one aspect of MMatA that has also led to conversation about older people as artists. During Upswing’s initial session at MMatA, one older participant explained that she had been a dancer when she was younger and found her, now lack of, capability frustrating. The limitations of older bodies bring about discussion of what is valued and how adaptations can be made (Amedume, 2014). In addition to the social and health benefits, older people have developed circus skills, with potential to become performers themselves or contribute to the work created by other artists in the case of Vicki Amedume from Upswing (Gardner, 2014). The project encourages agency and ownership (Gardner, 2014), making their own decisions about participation and the work created.

The success of the initiative has been recognised by local decision makers, with the Lewisham public mental health and wellbeing strategy sites it as a good practice example: “Raise awareness about ways to protect mental wellbeing and connect residents in with organisations/initiatives that seek to improve mental wellbeing e.g. ‘Meet me at the Albany’” (Lewisham CCG, 2016, p17). Lewisham Council have also committed £110,000 per annum from 2016-2019, with other London Boroughs hoping the project can be rolled out to other areas and settings (DCMS, 2016).

A major inspiration for MMatA is Meet Me at MOMA, an engagement programme established in 2006 for those living with Alzheimer’s and their caregivers at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. The programme extends well beyond the museum and has developed resources for care providers and other museums (MOMA, 2018).

Internationally, ARTZ (Artists for Alzheimer’s) are supporting and collaborating with cultural institutions to “enhance the cultural and creative life of people living with dementia…lessen the stigma that often accompanies a diagnosis” (ARTZ, 2018). ARTZ also claim that their research is showing that “art experiences can significantly reduce certain psycho-behavioural symptoms so often associated with Alzheimer’s disease” (ARTZ, 2018), recently supported in the UK by the parliamentary group inquiry into arts, health and wellbeing (Gerrard, 2017).

The Valuing Older People Cultural Offer led by Manchester City Council since 2004, is another interesting initiative that has spread City wide, as part of Manchester’s work as an Age Friendly City. The partnership of 19 organisations has attracted funding of over £700,000, sharing best practice, recruiting community ambassadors to increase attendance, upskilling arts practitioners to work with older people, in addition to benefits for the venues such as increased engagement, audience development and audience income (Cutler, 2014).

From these and other examples, it is clear that the arts are now being widely recognised as a mechanism to combat health issues in older people, especially mental health. However, there are barriers1 to older people attending or participating, which led to the Family Arts Campaign2 responding with a set of ‘Age-Friendly Standards’. The standards act as a self-assessment accreditation scheme, with organisations taking action around a number of topics: build relationships, including cross-generational conversations and involving older people as decision makers rather than just audiences; consider programming, including the content and logistics being relevant without assumptions; provide appropriate facilities and evaluate accessibility; communicate appropriately; and provide a warm welcome (Family Arts Campaign, 2017). This campaign, and the success of many initiatives, should see an increased number of venues and organisations considering how they can become open to more older people engaging.

Meet me at the Albany, and similar initiatives, use the arts as a mechanism to improve the health and wellbeing of older people, reducing their need to access additional services. The programme also uses arts spaces which may be underused during the daytime. The success of these initiatives is in their intention: to engage those who are lonely, isolated, may have other health issues, with a positive and high quality experience within their own community, improving their life, even if for just one day a week!

Notes

1 There are a number of well documented physical, psychological and social barriers to participation for older people including: geography and transport links; cost; disability; lack of perceived interest or relevance (Cutler, 2009).

2 The Family Arts Campaign, who happen to be based at The Albany, is a national Sector Support Organisation funded by Arts Council England, aiming to increase engagement with arts and culture (Family Arts Campaign, 2018).

Resources

How can education make our children more intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise enough to address our global challenges?

A few interesting facts:

  • Children from low income families who take part in arts activities at school are three times more likely to get a degree.
  • Secondary school pupils engaged in arts and culture are twice as likely to volunteer in the community and are 20% more likely to vote as young adults.
  • Schools integrating the arts show above average reading and mathematics scores.
  • Students who engage in quality arts experiences demonstrate improved achievement, engagement, collaboration and motivation.
  • Disadvantaged young people taking part in arts activities show positive social and academic outcomes.
  • Drama in schools significantly increases young people’s communication skills and makes them more empathetic, more tolerant and more likely to participate in public issues.
  • Young offenders who take part in arts activities are 18% less likely to re-offend.
  • Children who take part in arts activities in the home during their early years are ahead in reading and Maths at age nine.
  • People who take part in the arts are 38% more likely to report good health.

So when the Government is supporting schools to no longer teach arts and creative subjects, how can our education system make humanity more intelligent, knowledgeable and wise?

(Sources: Imagine Nation – The Value of Cultural Learning, The Value of Arts and Culture to People and Society and 10 Reasons Why Arts and Culture Make a Difference to Young People’s Lives)

Bob and Roberta Smith Art Makes People Powerful

Image: Bob and Roberta Smith

The unsuccessful navigation of ethical arts fundraising: evaluating the partnership between the Great Exhibition of the North 2018 and BAE Systems

A paper written in relation to the Local and Global Challenges unit for MA Arts and Cultural Enterprise. I have no affiliation with any of the organisations mentioned.

Diversifying funding streams is a key topic as arts and cultural organisations must rely less on government subsidies, seeking sponsorship from corporate organisations and other investors, with the government encouraging a culture of philanthropy (Trowell, 2013). There is also a continuous debate about which of these funding sources leads to risk taking, with the social demands of income often classified as: private funding having a commercial orientation; public funding encouraging innovative cultural programming depending on political agenda, and potentially only that received on a national level, rather than local where criteria may be different (Castaner, 2014, p272). This report will assess the ethical issues around the private funding with a commercial orientation, using the Great Exhibition of the North as a case study.

The overwhelming reason that corporate businesses sponsor arts initiatives is to improve their image (Lidstrom, 2004) and therefore, arts organisations may want to consider if they want to be associated with that image. It can be argued that the blurring of art and advertising means critical space has lost its meaning, with critical gestures becoming neutral due to corporate capitalism (Mouffe, 2013). When a cultural initiative is sponsored by a corporation, what can truly be critiqued? The image of the corporate business and arts organisation can also become blurred, and organisations find then themselves associated with the brand. Sometimes, this can result in artistic responses that generate critical conversation, such as the relationship between Tate and BP (Blockadia Britain, 2018) but it can also lead to bad PR for the art due to ‘dirty’ money (Trowell, 2013).

In 2002, the Charity Commission advised “Charities should consider establishing an ethical policy, which clearly sets out the charity’s values. This will form part of their wider fundraising strategy and it can be used to ensure that trustees, staff and any potential commercial partners share a common understanding of the charity’s ethical values”. The Arts Marketing Association’s Culture Hive published a document advising how to generate these ethical guidelines. The document states that organisation should consider: fundraising and marketing; influencing and advocacy; images; procurement and investment; and ownership and awareness (Winchester, 2015).

In October 2016, Newcastle Gateshead was announced as the host of the Great Exhibition of the North (GEN), to be delivered in Summer 2018 (DCMS, October 2016) 1. The partnership bid for a £5 million Government contribution was led by Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, BALTIC, Sage Gateshead and the North East Culture Partnership. With a reported exhibition cost of £12.5 million (Steel, 2018), additional financial support to the £5m governmental contribution was essential. Newcastle City Council couldn’t be seen (or afford) to financially support the exhibition significantly, as the authority had recently reduced investment in a key cultural venue, Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (Watson, 2018), due to the strain of local government cuts 2.

The partnership investment in GEN has been led by the NewcastleGateshead Initiative, who already generate over £1 million of their annual funding from the private sector, to lead national and international marketing for the area and festival and events that “secure positive profile, attract visitors, deliver economic impact and build local pride” (NGI, 2018). With an expected £184m economic boost to the region (NGI, 2017) it is obvious to see why corporate partners may be interested in investing in GEN, associating their name with a high-profile event. Although exact sponsorship package costs are unknown for GEN, the general NGI partnership packages range from £431 as a Category E Bronze Partner, to £11,878 as a Gold Partner in 2019 (NGI, 2018), so it is expected that the top tier Premium Partners for GEN had a significantly higher investment package.

In February 2018, BAE Systems were ‘proud’ to announce their Premium Partnership with The Great Exhibition of the North (BAE Systems, 2018). Artists and the media quickly responded to the announcement of support from the UK’s largest defence, aerospace and security company, with a headline from Arts Professional reading “BAE Systems, accused of “profiteering from the deaths of innocent children” in Yemen, is one of the Exhibition’s three ‘Premier Partners’” (Romer, 2018). Where some would suggest “wherever the money comes from…if it goes to the art it becomes good money” (Trowell, 2013, p8), this was not the response to the BAE sponsorship of GEN.

It can be argued that art should be critical, resistance from within capitalist and governmental systems and there are fine interstices to navigate between the ethical demands of the artist, institution and public (Critchley, 2010), but in the case of GEN, the BAE partnership was too far, with artists withdrawing from the exhibition and associated organisations such as Arts Council, Baltic and Sage Gateshead all distancing themselves from the relationship with BAE (Steel, 2018). On the 7th March 2018, less than a month after the announcement that they were a Premier Partner for GEN, BAE Systems published a short statement withdrawing their involvement in the exhibition (BAE Systems, March 2018).

It has been reported that businesses have supported GEN to the value of approximately £8 million 3 (Hill, 2018), £3 million more than anticipated, despite BAE no longer sponsoring the event. Hill (2018) reports in Chronicle Live that Greggs, “the North’s favourite bakery”, are supporting the event as they were established in the North East almost 80 years ago and “felt only right to do so” 4. There was no ‘uproar’ about Greggs, despite their recent job cuts and controversial advent calendar where a publicity image showing a nativity scene had a sausage roll in the place of Jesus (Hawken, 2017)! Although this is clearly less controversial than the nature of BAE’s business, it does demonstrate that most corporations has been involved in ethical discussion around their actions.

The key outcome of this is exploring how the Great Exhibition of the North could have avoided this tainted beginning and high profile negative backlash to their partnership approach.

In response to the debate generated by the relationship between GEN and BAE, Arts Professional published a survey and then findings exploring ‘Ethics in arts sponsorship’. The survey received 586 responses from those working in arts and cultural organisations. The results show an overwhelming consensus that organisations need to be more careful about where their sponsorship comes from “This is down to each particular arts organisation and what its ethical code is, along with the perceived ethical codes of its audience” with over 85% of respondents agreeing that arts organisations should take into consideration the activities of potential sponsors. Surprisingly, only 27% of respondents were aware of any organisational policy that guides ethical decisions in relation to sponsorship (Richens, 2018).

As advised by the Charity Commission (2002) and the resources from AMA Culture Hive (Winchester, 2015), having these ethical guidelines in place can help to resolve issues such as this incident between GEN and BAE before a sponsorship agreement was in place. The ‘mistake’ perhaps happened due to the nature of the new organisation (although managed by the established NGI) of GEN, without their own ethical guidelines in place. In a funding environment where organisations are expected to adopt a culture of philanthropy, it is continually important that they ask themselves, do we (and our audiences/artists) care where this money is coming from?

Notes

  1. The competition to host GEN opened in April 2016, encouraging towns and cities across the North to bid to host a two-month exhibition in Summer 2018, celebrating the best of art, culture and design (DCMS, April 2016). The guidance document for bidding venues states that “Government has committed £5m of funding towards the Great Exhibition of the North. However, we expect the winning venue to increase the total budget available for the Exhibition by making use of local resources and budgets, and building partnerships with both public and private funders.” (DCMS, 2016, p4). The requirement for bidding venues puts a strong focus on creating a credible fundraising plan with both realistic cost estimates and funding aspirations.
  2. Newcastle City Council stated that the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (TWAM) will balance the budget by “developing its generated and contributed income streams” (Watson, 2018, p5) increasing long-term resilience and sustainability, in addition to general cost saving measures. The Integrated Impact Assessment of this budget reduction also notes that “TWAM was instrumental in bringing the Great Exhibition of the North to Newcastle and this is likely to generate substantive amounts of tourism activity in 2018” in addition to TWAM using the GEN as an opportunity to apply for funding and diversify income that links to the exhibition.
  3. The article later states “£8 million of funding from private and public sector backers, on top of the £5 million the Government allocated for the event” so it is unclear whether this funding is all from ‘businesses’ or includes public funding.
  4. Although there has been little comment on the connection between the sponsorship and work exhibited, an attraction as part of the Great Exhibition of the North is a mural featuring a Greggs steak bake (Pidd, 2018)

Resources

Digital Technology in the Art Gallery

As part of my MA Arts and Cultural Enterprise at University of Arts London, I explored literature that discussed the use of digital technology in art galleries. 

Digital technology in the art gallery environment is an ever-increasing topic and debate in improving engagement and learning. The literature exploring it covers a variety of topics and opinions including games, augmented reality and the internet. As general guidance, Enhuber (2015) divides digital technology and the art gallery’s relationship into two clear categories: digitisation, the conversion of physical into virtual content, and digitalisation, processing of digitised content. This literature review will explore the overarching theme of digital technology in the art gallery environment for enhancing learning and engagement, focusing on gaming through both digitisation and digitalisation.

A number of key texts were examined including journal articles, published guidance and books. Two important texts which included a collection of useful essays were Museums in a Digital Age edited by Ross Parry (2010) with a range of texts that discuss topics including virtual museums, accessibility of digital, and the future of digital in museums, and Katy Beale’s (2011) Museums at Play: Games, Interaction and Learning which explores case studies and research with a focus around games enabling discovery in museums.

The topic for this literature review was developed from Prensky’s (2001) writing which said that Digital Natives have grown up with technology, see it as an integral part of their lives and respond best to different methodologies of teaching and engagement, for example games as learning tools and ‘edutainment’. This “arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology” (Prensky, 2001) has created opportunities for museums and galleries to reach broader audiences and engage those who wouldn’t traditionally visit these cultural institutions (Schaller, 2011).

Institutions are now changing their approach, putting the visitor experience at the centre of focus, rather than the collection and artefacts (Enhuber, 2015) which creates further opportunities for embedding digital technologies into the museum visitors experience.

Digital technologies offer opportunities for learning in museums to become a journey, with choices and control, with visitors becoming active pursuers, rather than just receivers of expert knowledge from the museum (Hawkey, 2006). Enhuber (2015) supports this, arguing that visitors add artistic value to work and active engagement through digital technology can enable this. This active engagement, rather than being a passive receipt of art, enables museums and galleries to challenge pre-conceptions that they are ivory towers, welcoming new demographics of visitors (Enhuber, 2015), and Flowers (2011) says that gaming can be the medium which reintroduces wonder into museums.

Museum collections can provide content and context for games, connecting audiences to art, science, history and technology by engaging them in a series of interesting and meaningful decisions honouring this real-world content (Schaller, 2011). Games offer new ways to experience museums and their assets, by translating them into other realms (Chatfield, 2011), and “provide ways into collections that are both interactive and accessible” (Flowers, 2011).

Games foster understanding with the real world, adding “adventure, mystery, magic and intrigue” (Flowers, 2011). Chatfield (2011) supports this claim, stating that video games can help players develop a relationship with museums, through a series of discoveries, whilst improving and investigating.

A number of authors note that the museums’ building and fabric can be used within a game as a device to create fictional narratives that transform museum spaces into places of wonder and imagination (Flowers, 2011). Games can also provide a medium to learn
through play, which unites imagination and intellect, with children learning at their own pace, in their own way (Roussou, 2010). A meaningful and memorable learning experience is created within games, by using goals, context and psychology to create an emotional response (Schaller, 2011).

Gaming in museums and galleries is much more successful than other degrees of digital technology integration, and provides opportunities for longer engagement by giving players a deeper insight into content and collections by asking interesting questions and meaningful choices, making the experience fun (Schaller, 2011), especially for Digital Natives, who prefer to access information quickly with instant gratification (Prensky, 2001). Roussou (2010) supports this, arguing that there is a need for interactivity in learning. Virtual tours may appeal to adults or Digital Immigrants who don’t have the digital literacy embedded as it’s been learnt later in life (Prensky, 2001), and they generally don’t want an active role. Children or Digital Natives have higher expectations of engagement and can lose interest quickly, meaning that games are a useful engagement tool (Roussou, 2010).

There is some contention as to whether digital technology and ‘edutainment’ does create better experiences, with the language and option changing over time. Prensky (2001) praises ‘edutainment’ as a learning tool for Digital Natives. However, Enhuber (2015) says “inappropriate use of digital media could turn art education into ‘edutainment’” arguing that this diminishes quality, creating alienating and isolated experiences for gallery visitors. Roussou (2010) supports this criticism, suggesting that ‘edutainment’ creates an environment that guides the visitor and makes decisions for them, whereas visitors should be stretched and challenged to ensure full engagement. Flowers (2011) also notes that ‘edutainment’ products create games with exogenous fantasy, where the scenario has no effect on the game, with no link between the skills practised and the game.

A further challenge discussed by a number of texts is that the successful implementation of digital technology, including games in gallery education, is reliant on the scope of technology, and level of budget, and the purpose or motivation of its use (Enhuber, 2015). However, Chatfield (2011) states that the video game industry provides a huge number of opportunities with “ready-made and highly-evolved expertise in the embedding of mechanics for engagement in public spaces” enabling museums and galleries to use alternative learning methodologies that become more relevant to Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001).

As digital technology develops, engaging with objects through 3D technology and
augmented reality can enhance experiences and learning effectiveness, promoting greater interaction between visitors and paintings (Enhuber, 2015). Another example of digital technology that can provide educational engagement, but are not games, are virtual museums such as Google’s Cultural Institute (Flowers, 2011). Chatfield (2011) claims that games, and technologies that use the buildings fabric, such as virtual museums, could be used to improve museums in the future, by learning about players or users’ preferences and exploiting this in museum design.

The research around digital technology and gaming in the museum and gallery context is ever developing, due to technology itself becoming more accessible and viable for museums. Therefore, this literature review is limited in its scope and further investigation will address gaps, especially exploring practical application of games in the museum context and the long-term affect that video games will have on these institutions.

Resources

  • Atkinson, R. (2013) ‘The in-crowd’, Museums Journal, 113:11, 79.
  • Arts Council England (2017) Digital Culture 2017. MTM London. Available at:
    http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/digital-culture-2017 (Accessed: 4 February 2018).
  • Beale, K. (ed.) (2011) Museums at Play: Games, Interaction and Learning. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.
  • Chatfield, T. (2011) Telling Your Own Story: Analogies between Players’ Encounters with Game Space and Visitors’ Encounters with Museums. In: Beale, K. (ed.) Museums at Play: Games, Interaction and Learning. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc, pages 480-485.
  • Dieck, D. Dieck, M.C. Jung, T.H. (2016) ‘Enhancing art gallery visitors’ learning experience using wearable augmented reality: generic learning outcomes perspective’, Current Issues in Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2016.1224818.
  • Enhuber, M. (2015) ‘Art, space and technology: how the digitisation and digitalisation of art space affect the consumption of art – a critical approach’, Digital Creativity, 26:2, 121-137. DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2015.1035448.
  • Flowers, A. (2011) Transforming Galleries through Gaming. In: Beale, K. (ed.) Museums at Play: Games, Interaction and Learning. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc, pages 286-298.
  • Fors, V. (2013) ‘Teenagers’ Multisensory Routes for Learning in the Museum’, The Senses and Society, 8:3, 268-289. DOI: 10.2752/174589313X13712175020479.
  • Freitas, S. (2006) ‘Using games and simulations for supporting learning’, Learning, Media and Technology, 31:4, 343-358, DOI: 10.1080/17439880601021967.
  • Gavin, C. and Minett, L. (2008) ‘The Middleton Mystery: An Adventure at Belsay Hall,
    Interpreting Heritage Through the Design and Development of a Computer
    Game’, Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, London, 22-24 July 2008. 157-166. Available at: http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_eva08_paper19.pdf (Accessed: 1 February 2018).
  • Gulec, A. Hummel, C. Parzefall, S. Schotker, U. and Wieczorek, W. (ed.) (2009) Documenta 12 Education: 1 Engaging Audiences, Opening Institutions, Methods and Strategies in Gallery Education at Documenta 12. Zurich: Institute of Art Education.
  • Hawkey, R. (2006) Digital Technologies and Museum Learning. In: Lang, C. Reeve, J. and Wollard, V.(ed.) The Responsive Museum: Working with Audiences in the Twenty-First Century. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, pages 115-116.
  • Parry, R. (ed.) (2010) Museums in a Digital Age. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
    Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’, On the Horizon. MCB University Press, 9 (5).
  • Price, K. (2017) ‘V&A Secret Seekers – designing a new mobile game for family
    visitors’, Digital Media at the V&A, 7 July. Available at: http://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/digitalmedia/va-secret-seekers-designing-a-new-mobile-game-for-family-visitors (Accessed: 5 February 2018).
  • Quirke, A. (2018) ‘Digital Arts: Crown Heights, The Boat, Google Cultural Institute, The Miniaturists’, Saturday Review [Podcast]. 6 January. Available at:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09k0nrn (Accessed: 31 January 2018).
  • Roussou, P. (2010) Learning by doing and learning through play: an exploration of
    interactivity in virtual environments for children. In: Parry, R. (ed.) Museums in a Digital Age. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge, pages 247-265.
  • Schaller, D.T. (2011) ‘The Meaning Makes It Fun’, Journal of Museum Education, 36:3, 261-268, DOI: 10.1080/10598650.2011.11510707.