Wednesday 29 October 2008

Cultural Industrialisation - cause and effect.

The following article referenced below, concerned the growing difficulties on respect pf art making/makers (certainly here in the UK). Below is a brief excerpt taken from a blog article by Anthony J Hughes http://anthonyjhughes.vox.com/library/post/mad-as-a-march-hare-march-madness-beware-the-eyes-of-march.html


.....What am I saying?

Funding procedures and practice and the funding and economic redevelopment projects aimed at supporting ‘creative industries’ has actually become a system supporting government ‘intervention[1]’ and policy. That policy has either intentionally or inadvertently become a controlling factor in the human act of creativity and now acts in a legislative, often excluding manner and is often damaging for the industries it claims to ‘support’[2].
The funding system has led to: -

1 A skewed artificial view of the creative industries in both nature, practice, shape, scope and for the purposes of counting economic value attached to it.


2 A new industry[3] which originated as a parasite on the back of creativity – and has now been extremely manipulative in reversing the role. This new ‘industry’ is policed by civil servants, accountants, admin paper pushers and is predominantly made up of those who are not from a creative background and have little or no understanding of the nature of either creativity or indeed commercial practice.

My reply to his blog is as follows:

A refreshing thought on the damage that the cultural industrialisation has become. Business as manipulation it certainly is and I agree that civil servants are proudly pushing government policy as art of course. Intervention into the artistic fabric of the day to day is a tragic development. Indeed, cultural industry was a term which was fiercely derided and debated in the early to mid 1990s. Now its accepted common language and way of being for many people (and artists).

As a strategy to this, I continue to disengage from this persuasive financial and political process. Anonymity as hoax and prank work for example, humiliating the art mainstream at times, ad hoc and unpredictable manifestations, mean that I'm less involved in cultural tourism/governance, service led cultural activity (simply helping the needy (which I don’t deride by the way)) and the attack on intelligent human beings (who are of course, innately creative).

In the late 1990s, I was increasingly aware of the dangers of a mediated art making culture and the mechanism in adopting the coercion of money lead creativity. In the 2000's it is clear that many so called artists are robots to a system other than their own autonomy as makers. This has not only dumbed down any potential artist as extraordinary and experimental, but on the contrary, become a way of moronisation of the said individual. Its all about what fits in, with who and how.....the artist is political despite the guessing games that are encouraged to make the quick and continued £1 sale!

I do believe that we are living in a culturally pitiful time (I refer to the UK), devoid of the extension of ideas that foster the superb evolution as humans (worse now than the 1990s which is saying something!). I am lucky to know and work with some great people fortunately, who resist and push forward art-as-ideas in ways that I and others would not expect, hence limit the insistence that I should become involved in the tragic tale of New Labour! I didn't believe it for one minute of course!

It's been great to read this article. Thankyou.

- Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms B.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your comments.

It's interesting that 8 months after posting and 12 months after the original piece- it has appeared on CIB. Not really sure why it’s been picked up now – but it’s of little relevance as any dialogue around these issues will not be discussed openly within the current climate.

Unfortunately, nothing much has changed and my views remain the same.

My piece refers specifically to the human act of creation and the processes which have been lessoned in value by having this type of tangible financial value placed upon them.

I am not against funding of arts, that is an essential patronage that should be encouraged. I make comment on the current funding strategy, system and implementation together with those entrusted with it's management. This is not limited to the Midlands and as my own work is much wider both geographically and culturally, the microcosm of it's impact in a smaller space like the Midlands only serves to illustrate the impact in a magnified way.

Unfortunately these issues cannot be separated from politics. Politics, that is, in social terms rather than political parties - who have little or no relevance today.

Whether by design or stupidity, we have central government policy delivered by Civil Servants. This initiates a generic roll out for regional policies to be ‘interpreted’ by Civil Servants as economic strategies through local government and RDA’s and/ or those who are either tasked with or are self appointed to also ‘interpret’ through their ‘experience’ of creativity, arts and culture. Added to this are the accountants and business graduates who, if you have ever spent any degree of time with, live vicariously through their client base and as such arrive at ‘opinion’ based of the financial concerns of their clients.

In effect, in the words of Oscar, they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Would any other ‘industry’ entrust their future to those who know least about it?

Unfortunately the effect of such conditions placed on patronage are not to encourage creativity or individual comment, but to encourage work after their own likeness. It's a God complex.

Creativity has ceased to engage, speak for or portray the social, political or human climate we live in and has failed to challenge, provoke or detach itself from the short leash that a cap in hand approach has led to.

We are throwing bad money after bad money, often avoiding the root cause of a failing in creative practice. Often the root cause is the money itself.

I see little art that challenges and I see a lot of faker’s. Creativity is about questioning and arriving at another place as a result of it not being directed by those only interest is self promotion. If creative’s don’t question the remit, knowledge and appropriateness of those deriving substantial income from their having engaged with these schemes, they are selling themselves short.

Creativity is the nucleus of these parasite agencies, advisers, funds and property developers who use creativity as a brand by which to profit not the reverse – Only my opinion, but with the current creative climate, any honest opinion seems rare.

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms B said...

I have seen lots of creative activity that would not be identified as art. Folk musicians, folk poets and less concerned 'money making art makers' with ambition and sophistication, inactual fact keep maintain/ reinforce the status quo. Money drags many good intentioned and less selfish people down.