JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  March 2011

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING March 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: ACE funding

From:

Bronac Ferran <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:13:49 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (54 lines)

Some points in response:

no-one should be under the illusion that decisions about the portfolio will have been taken by individual officers in different regions.  Arts Council England has for many years had strategic groups of artform officers (or whatever the name is now) who meet every few months to discuss the infrastructure for that artform across the whole country. Drawing up a portfolio of what to prioritise would have been carried out in negotiation across the country by those officers building a set of criteria which would have been agreed - for eg it may have been agreed that having a wide diversity of lesser funded organisations that they'd fund fewer better, to strengthen a core set of spaces, or venues or initiatives....

The individual assessments would then also have gone to senior layers of management who would set their own priorities on top of the artform priorities and without any level of advocacy for this or that artform at senior level there would be no-one to argue for more money to be allocated in a particular direction and so the chances of anything on the margins of being seen as 'core' as being salvaged at that point would not be likely again if no-one is championing it at director or chief exec level regionally or nationally,

So there is a sense of consolidation of a core infrastructure - and media/digital practices well I think there's been a void at national office for a while with broadcasting agenda dominant and notions of capacity far more of a priority than anything remotely related to sustaining and developing the practice/s.

SO where do we go from here?  It is helpful to consider some form of collective response. There are three letters in Evening Standard this evening in London and some outspoken responses from individual theatre companies for eg but nothing remotely representing this terrain.  I don't think I can lead this as a former ACE Director am probably just too close but am writing a critical text essay for Proboscis at the moment which will allude to the changing environment (which has been visible for some time) ...and also can feed into whatever is drafted....I would suggest emphasis on short-term thinking, lack of ability within the arts funding system to differentiate quality in media culture arena from access and distribution issues and I'd suggest they are pressurised to recruit some advisory expertise from within the field to help make decisions for their future programmes. Absence of any peer review process remains one of the most corrupting elements damaging arts funding here in the past decade along with failure to recognise the decentred and networked nature of media arts culture.

Re asking for documents, just do it....this will help push the profile of what many have probably seen as a non-existent community of practice into the foreground...and make future advocacy much easier also for those who work within the system and have probably not had their voices heard.


with best wishes

Bronac


On Mar 31, 2011, Clive Gillman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

This is all a rich vein of conversation, but what can be done ?

There has been a suggestion here that some level of correspondence might 
be appropriate - and I'm sure ACE will be fairly resilient to that - but 
it might help jog the conscience of some officers that a set of 
decisions that may have been taken individually have created a 
compounded effect upon an important area of practice (was any review 
made at this level or were all the decisions made at the individual 
application level ?). So who is to lead on this ? (Bronac ?)

Is there also scope for a more strategic approach aimed at reminding ACE 
of the paradox of their position ? (again this has been articulated well 
in this list over the past 24hrs). However, without an internal advocate 
it might be difficult to get any purchase for such an approach. There 
was a suggestion that other alternative sources of funding from ACE 
might be available from 2012, so perhaps the best that can be gained is 
to get them to acknowledge a mistake that requires a national response 
in 2012 ?

The academic partnership and independent approach are positive stories, 
but personally I'd like to see an Arts Council that recognises that the 
most significant areas of practice are often those in emergent forms and 
seeks to invest and nurture them.

But like Simon, I'm up north across the border and not feeling the pain 
directly, but it has come as a real shock to see so many organisations 
that I have worked with directly being culled in this way. Like the 
early practice of video art in the UK that has been resurrected through 
research projects like Rewind, the best we might achieve here is to hold 
on to some kind of legacy - but perhaps that's better than a landscape 
devoid of any memory of this work and hope for its future influence.

Clive

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager