Thanks, Maurice. I saw the debate at the Courtauld and will try to make it 
along.

best wishes,
Munira


>From: Maurice Davies <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: MLA Cultural Diversity Network 
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Invitation
>Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:26:13 -0000
>
>Thanks, Munira - looks like a good event; I've accepted the invite
>
>see you there
>
>all best
>
>maurice
>
>PS in case you're interested I'm in a 'debate' at the Courtauld on is there 
>a crisis in curatorship on Monday 30th at 6
>
>
>
>Maurice Davies
>Deputy Director
>Museums Association
>24 Calvin St, London E1 6NW
>020 7426 6952 direct
>020 7426 6970 MA reception
>[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>www.museumsassociation.org <http://www.museumsassociation.org>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: MLA Cultural Diversity Network
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Munira Mirza
>Sent: 24 January 2006 12:08
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Invitation
>
>
>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.