Abstract
This text traces the changing attitudes and arguments to social relevance at stake in and used by small-scale visual arts organisations. It seeks to identify who first presented ‘relevance’, as a means of legitimisation, and to establish at what point this occurred, with what intentions, and through what structures was it monitored. It becomes apparent that relevance describes an extremely varied and complex constellation of values and that demonstrating this multi-layered notion of value is central for the continued existence of the institutions that are the subject of evaluations.The contrast in the knowledge economy between the bustling research activity of the Arts Council and the as yet largely lacking exploration of the complexity and achievements of small-scale visual arts organisations prove to be especially problematic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The public event took place on December 6, 1949, at the ICA. The heterogeneous composition of the panel produced a polyphony of opinions. The list assembled by the group comprehensively includes almost every function imaginable at the time. Summary notes are available in the archive of the ICA.
- 2.
Summary notes on this event are available in the archive of the ICA.
- 3.
The minutes of the general meetings where these discussions are documented are available in the archive of the ICA.
- 4.
A short history of the early days of Matt’s Gallery by Robert Grayson, written as a memoir in 2008, is accessible on the website of the gallery: http://www.mattsgallery.org/history/presenttense.php
- 5.
A descriptive summary of the early years of ACME Studios is available on their website: http://www.acme.org.uk/aboutacme
- 6.
Compare, for example, the “West London Social Resource Project,” as well as “The Oxford Insight Development Project,” both documented in the publication Willats, 1973.
- 7.
The leaflet is available in Artangel’s archive.
- 8.
These terms are found in a number of their early policy documents, be they mission statements or policy statements. See, for example, the minutes of the meeting of January 27, 1995, in Beaconsfield’s digital archive.
- 9.
As discussed at the annual general meeting on November 13, 1997. Minutes are available in Beaconsfield’s digital archive.
- 10.
As discussed at the meeting of October 7, 1998. Minutes are available in Beaconsfield’s digital archives.
- 11.
This point was particularly criticised since it heightened the risk of introducing “positive discrimination.” Discussed at the meeting of December 11, 2002. Minutes are available in Beaconsfield’s digital archive.
- 12.
Drafts for these plans were included with the invitation to the meeting of January 19, 2005. Available in Beaconsfield’s digital archive.
- 13.
“Aim 1: appendix”, Critical Practice, accessed February 5, 2016, http://www.criticalpracticechelsea.org/wiki/index.php?title=Aim_1:_appendix
- 14.
This is one of the aspects that the curatorial team, especially Sally Tallant and Janna Graham, repeatedly find themselves defending against the funding structures of the art context. See also O’Neill and Doherty 2011, 230231.
- 15.
The “non-instrumental” approach includes the objective to build trust and common ground with the local population. Central to this is the notion of the “curator-producer,” who should primarily demonstrate solidarity with the neighbourhood. See the account of this idea in O’Neill and Doherty 2011, 813.
- 16.
The founding members are Afterall, Chisenhale Gallery, Electra, Gasworks, LUX, Matt’s Gallery, Mute Publishing, The Showroom and Studio Voltaire.
- 17.
The central function of these aspects was emphasised by several speakers at the conference; for details, see the video documentation of the conference on the website of Common Practice: http://www.commonpractice.org.uk/public-assets-small-scale-arts-organisations-production-value/
- 18.
In 2002 Michelle Reeves, Research Officer, composed a review of the studies conducted so far on the topic of “Measuring the economic and social impact of the arts,” commissioned by the Arts Council. The Arts Council’s intention was “to help improve the robustness of research methods and evidence demonstrating the contribution of arts and culture to the social and economic objectives of national and local government, and other key partners” (Reeves, Ibid. 1). In her paper “State Support of Artists: The Case of the United Kingdom in a Labour Party Environment and Beyond,” sociologist Victoria D. Alexander exemplarily points to the arguments employed by the Arts Council to legitimise its funding decisions, which usually directly refer to a political agenda. Alexander 2007, 11.
- 19.
In his analysis, Clive Gray emphasises the paradox of neoliberal politics, which demands a simultaneously lean but strong state. Gray 2000, 10607.
- 20.
See also the confidential “Executive Note” by Philip James, dated March 23, 1950, in the archive of the ICA.
- 21.
See, for example, the list from the period of 1976 to 1977, which is available in the Arts Council England archives.
- 22.
Quoted from a statement by Alan Bowness on July 3, 1978, on the priorities of the Arts Council, a contribution to the discussion of the Arts Council’s Art Advisory Board, which discussed a possible shift in the distribution of funds in its meeting of July 12, 1978. See the minutes of the meeting in the Arts Council England archive.
- 23.
The basis of this approach to cultural politics is the first policy paper drawn up by Jennie Lee in 1965 at the behest of the government. In a lecture on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Camden Arts Centre, Nicolas Serota emphasised that the principles of cultural politics formulated in that paper are still valid today. The lecture held on September 22, 2015, can be accessed at http://www.camdenartscentre.org/whats-on/view/50-talk1
- 24.
Before his appointment as Director of the Museum of Modern Art in Oxford, Serota worked for the Arts Council as “Regional Art Officer” from 1970 to 1973.
- 25.
The foundation board only intervened on issues related to content in cases involving what they perceived to be sensitive political topics, such as the exhibition “Art for Society,” which took place at the Whitechapel Art Gallery in 1978.
- 26.
See the Evaluation Report on SUPERNOVA, in the Arts Catalyst archive.
- 27.
Andrea Philips, 2015, in the introductory speech to the conference “Public Assets.” Recording available at: http://www.commonpractice.org.uk/public-assets-small-scale-arts-organisations-production-value
- 28.
Brett et al. 2010–11, 616.
- 29.
Ibid., 89.
- 30.
Ibid., 1011.
- 31.
Ibid., 1213.
- 32.
Ibid., 1415.
- 33.
Maria Lind uses this term with reference to the Swedish academic Sven-Eric Liedman who in his paper “Pseudo-quantities, new public management and human judgement” (2013) differentiates between the output and value of quantitative measurements in contrast with what he calls “verbal evaluations,” Maria Lind in her input at the conference “Public Assets.” Recording available at: http://www.commonpractice.org.uk/public-assets-small-scale-arts-organisations-production-value
Bibliography
Alexander, Victoria. “State Support of Artists: The Case of the United Kingdom in a Labour Party Environment and Beyond,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 29, no.1 2007, pp.1–16.
Alexander, Victoria. “Enterprise Culture in British Arts Policy,” in Art and the State: The Visual Arts in Comparative Perspective, edited by Victoria D. Alexander and Marilyn Rueschemeyer, 58100. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Belfiore, Eleonora. 2010. “Über die Zweckdienlichkeit hinaus: eine Kritik der politischen Instrumentalisierung der Kultur”, Lecture held at the annual conference of the Forum for Culture and Economy in Lucerne, Switzerland, Month date range. Full text available at academia.edu. Accessed April 5th 2016, http://www.academia.edu/3051502/Über_die_Zweckdienlichkeit_hinaus_Eine_Kritik_der_politischen_Instrumentalisierung_der_Kultur
Brett, Natalie, Tony Buckley, Emily Druiff, Brigid Howarth and Matthew Taylor. Impact Study. London: Peckham Space, 2010–11. http://www.peckhamplatform.com/about#slice_50229dbb7d636819dd000005
Cranfield, Ben. Introduction to How Soon is Now: 60 Years of the Institute of Contemporary Arts, edited by Ekow Eshun, 10–27. London: ICA. 2007.
Gordon-Nesbitt, Rebecca. Value, Measure and Sustainability: Ideas Towards the Future of the Small-Scale Visual Arts Sector, 2012. http://www.commonpractice.org.uk/research-papers/
Graham, Janna. “What is a Possible Study?”. In On the Edgware Road, edited by Janna Graham, Amal Khalaf, Rebecca Lewin, Sophie O’Brien and Lucia Pietroiusti, 21–25. London/Berlin: Serpentine Gallery/Koenig Books. 2012.
Graw, Isabelle. Der grosse Preis: Kunst zwischen Markt und Celebrity Culture. Köln: Dumont, 2008.
Gray, Clive, The Politics of the Arts in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000.
Lind, Maria. 2015. Lecture at the conference Public Assets: Small Scale Visual Arts Organisations and the Production of Value, London, Central Saint Martins, 5 January 2015. http://www.commonpractice.org.uk/public-assets-small-scale-arts-organisations-production-value/
O’Neill, Paul and Claire Doherty, eds. Locating the Producers. Durational Approaches to Public Art. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2011.
Philips, Andrea. 2015. Introductory speech at the conference Public Assets: Small Scale Visual Arts Organisations and the Production of Value, London, Central Saint Martins, 5 January 2015. http://www.commonpractice.org.uk/public-assets-small-scale-arts-organisations-production-value/
Serota, Nicholas. Preface to Art for Society: contemporary British art with a social or political purpose, 5. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1978.
Thelwall, Sarah. Size Matters. Notes toward a Better Understanding of the Value, Operation and Potential of Small Visual Arts Organisations, 2011. http://www.commonpractice.org.uk/research-papers/
Willats, Stephen. The Artist as an Instigator of Changes in Social Cognition and Behaviour, 1973. Reprint, London: Occasional Papers, 2010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mader, R. (2017). Who Sets the Agenda? Changing Attitudes Towards the Relevance of Small-Scale Visual Arts Organisations in the UK. In: Bonham-Carter, C., Mann, N. (eds) Rhetoric, Social Value and the Arts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45297-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45297-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45296-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45297-5
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)