I did.
>From: Ruth DeSouza <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: MLA Cultural Diversity Network
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Invitation
>Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:57:54 +1300
>
> Ian you think that is bad, try New Zealand:-) Ruth
>
>Ruth DeSouza
>Wairua Consulting Limited
>PO Box 60-517, Titirangi
>Waitakere City, Aotearoa/New Zealand
>www.wairua.com/ruth
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: MLA Cultural Diversity Network
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Heath
>Sent: Thursday, February 2 2006 08:14
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Invitation
>
>Always nice to see things going on in the cultural capital, but what about
>the rest of us?
>
> >From: Munira Mirza <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: MLA Cultural Diversity Network
> ><[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Invitation
> >Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:08:26 +0000
> >
> >Please find below an invitation to the launch event for a book I have
> >edited called "Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy damaging the arts?"
> >on Tuesday 7th February, 6.30pm. I hope you can make it along.
> >
> >Also pasted below is a press release for the book.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >Munira Mirza
> >--
> >
> >You are invited to the launch of 'Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy
> >damaging the arts?' on Tuesday 7th February, 6.30pm.
> >
> >Politicians today often claim that the arts are now not only good in
> >themselves, but make a vital contribution to the economy, urban
> >regeneration and social inclusion. But is there actually any evidence
> >to support this? This collection of essays shows that many of the
> >claims made about the social benefits of arts are exaggerated,
> >resulting in wasteful projects of poor artistic quality. The criteria
> >for funding means that arts organisations are drowning under a tidal
> >wave
>of 'tick boxes and targets'.
> >
> >Speakers:
> >
> >Hugo Swire MP, Shadow Minister for Culture Mark Fisher MP, former
> >Labour Minister for the Arts Prof. Sara Selwood, Head of Cultural
> >Policy and Management, City University Andrew Brighton, arts writer and
> >commentator Josie Appleton, writer and author of ‘Museums for the
> >People’
> >
> >Time: 6.30pm
> >
> >Venue: Policy Exchange offices, 10 Storeys Gate, London SW1P 3AY
> >(nearest
> >tube: Westminster or St James)
> >
> >RSVP: [log in to unmask] or 020 7340 2650
> >
> >--
> >“Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy damaging the arts?” edited by
> >Munira Mirza. £10, ISBN 0-9551909-0-8
> >
> >--
> >PRESS RELEASE
> >
> >Government has created culture of bad art
> >
> >Government policy has created a culture of bad art, finds a new study
> >to be launched by the think tank Policy Exchange on Tuesday February
> >7th
>2006.
> >
> >'Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy is damaging the arts?', shows
> >official claims about the social benefits of art are based on
> >exaggeration, and that arts practice suffers as a result.
> >
> >The study warns that Government arts spending has become skewered by
> >the 'social inclusion' agenda and warns of a 'culture of mediocrity',
> >resulting in wasteful and ineffective social policies.
> >
> >"Whilst this government has given generous funding to the arts, the
> >evidence suggests they have been damaged as a result. Official thinking
> >is slave to bureaucratic policy targets rather than the spirit of
>creativity"
> >says the report's editor, Munira Mirza says,
> >
> >The authors are a mixture of influential academics and commentators,
> >who show the failure of arts-based projects funded by the Arts Council
> >and DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) to deliver on
> >promised goals. "If you read the policy literature, it seems
> >uncontroversial that the arts can stimulate economic growth, reduce
> >social exclusion and improve our health – in short transform our
> >society. Yet, as this book seeks to show, there is surprisingly little
>evidence for these claims," Mirza argues.
> >
> >Eleonora Belfiore, of Warwick University adds that Government’s
> >discussion about the social impact of the arts relies on "a very
> >selective use of the available information and evidence. The growing
> >trend towards instrumentality has not been slowed down by the obvious
> >lack of evidence of the existence of such impacts".
> >
> >Commentator, Josie Appleton, points out the phenomenal growth in
> >spending on 'public art' in town spaces. In 2002, the National Lottery
> >reported that in the previous six years it had spent £72.5million on
> >1500 public art projects. In the 1990s 659 permanent sculptures were
> >built; meaning that today, we are building six times as many sculptures
> >than during the high point of 'statuemania', between 1900-9.
> >
> >But, no one asks about the quality of the art: "today's public art is
> >not really the expression of community values or desires: it's driven
> >by officialdom. The regeneration industry has become a law unto itself,
> >developing its own standards and methods for evaluating public art,"
> >says Appleton.
> >
> >The criteria for funding means that organisations are drowning under a
> >tidal wave of 'tick boxes and targets' measuring their social impact.
> >Professor Sara Selwood, at City University and leading expert on arts
> >policy states, "For many people working in the sector, the requirement
> >to collect data represents a growth of state power and bureaucracy".
> >Andrew Brighton, an arts writer, complains, "the autonomy of expertise,
> >which is crucial to the integrity of the arts, has been undermined".
> >Many artists are beginning to feel that their work is only valued if
> >they can prove they have a social impact.
> >
> >Critics also aim their fire at local authorities, one of the largest
> >funders of the arts in Britain. James Heartfield argues, "local
> >authorities have also turned to cultural regeneration as a phoney
> >substitute for real economic revival. For the residents of those
> >cities, much-needed economic regeneration has been put on hold. Instead
> >of renewing infrastructure, every municipal government has prettified
> >cities with flowers, festivals, paintings and sculptures."
> >
> >The authors include recommendations to Whitehall and arts quangos:
> >
> >· More honest and independent use of evidence in cultural policy. Too
> >much research is driven by arts advocacy and is therefore biased.
> >· Less bureaucracy around arts funding. The funding framework forces
> >artists to spend valuable time and resources on ‘ticking boxes’, at the
> >expense of producing excellent work.
> >· Debate about true value of the arts. The government and arts quangos
> >should promote the importance of art for its own sake.
> >
> >For more information or to arrange an interview with the book's editor
> >or contributors, please contact Munira Mirza:
> >[log in to unmask] or 07980 551 945.
> >
> >--
> >Notes to editors:
> >
> >1. Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy is damaging the arts?, edited by
> >Munira Mirza, is published by the independent think tank Policy
> >Exchange, London. It is sponsored by the City of London.
> >
> >2. The chapters look at the impact of the arts in the field of urban
> >regeneration, the economy, health and wellbeing, public space and
> >community cohesion, and social inclusion. The contributors are:
> >
> >Josie Appleton, arts and cultural commentator.
> >Dr. Eleonora Belfiore, Research Fellow in Centre for Cultural Policy
> >Studies at Warwick University specialising in social impact of arts.
> >Andrew Brighton, former Head of Events at Tate Modern and arts writer.
> >James Heartfield, University of Westminster, writer and lecturer on
> >cultural regeneration.
> >Munira Mirza, University of Kent and writer/broadcaster on arts and
> >multiculturalism.
> >Professor Sara Selwood, Head of Cultural Policy and Management at City
> >University and the country’s leading expert on arts statistical trends.
> >
> >3. Policy Exchange is an independent think tank whose mission is to
> >develop and promote fresh policies that encourage freedom for
> >individuals and communities.
|