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.
|