Art, theory, practice & politics: Differences, not "one culture". A response to François Matarasso
This blog post follows on from yesterday’s critique of Stella Duffy’s call for action towards the creation of a “new culture”. It is a response both to François Matarasso’s thoughtful and challenging critique of my blog post and an attempt to answer the people who asked what my basis was for my critique, what my practice was, what alternative perspectives I might have. I fear this post will prove unsatisfactory to many as I do not claim to offer singular nor even collective solutions that will ever be acceptable to “everyone”. Nevertheless, here goes…
Unlock the all-inclusive fun of a “new culture” with added “genius in everyone” NOW! (A reply to Stella Duffy's New Year provocation & arts "campaigns" like Fun Palaces)
A new year. A cultural event. Not all cultures. Our culture’s.
Traditionally, at least in our culture, a time of misadvised, soon misplaced resolutions. Most are very personal. The one I want to talk about here is “for everyone”. Yes, that’s right, everyone! It’s an all-inclusive provocation. A call for change, for cultural change.
The call comes from Stella Duffy on behalf of her Fun Palaces campaign. The campaign manifesto claims:
We believe in the genius in everyone, in everyone an artist and everyone a scientist, and that creativity in community can change the world for the better.
We believe we can do this together, locally, with radical fun – and that anyone, anywhere, can make a Fun Palace.
Creative Placemaking, Or a Violently Anti-Working-Class Vision of the Urban Pastoral
Some short thoughts on the violence of creative placemaking...
The New Rules of Public Art (NOW), or The New Situations of Situations
This blog post reflect some draft writing from my PhD research. The focus here is on Situations; particularly some of their publications and projects in the UK and further afield. The central argument I attempt to make is that Situations' work often directly or indirectly derives from culture- or arts-led regeneration and that this links the organisation to instrumentalism and to gentrification. Situations are, of course, careful to avoid these perspectives...
Complexity, uncertainty & scalability: How Assemble's Granby 4 Streets won 2015 Turner Prize
Did Assemble really play such a big part in Granby 4 Streets? How 'community-led' was the project? What was the role of the Community Land Trust? How did Assemble come to win the Turner Prize 2015? Who were the private social investors and what did they do to help make the project happen?
he intention here is to blow open the façade behind Granby 4 Streets, Assemble and the Turner Prize 2015 win.
his is a long read and part of my research into art-led regeneration projects that are often far more complex than is often portrayed.
argue that the media and art world picture of Assemble is overly simplistic and masks a far more complex and uncertain set of events that, ultimately, relied on 'mystery' private social investors to force local government to act in support of the project and to lever money from national grant funders.
If only Balfron Tower could talk, if only we could see - an ode those in social housing so cruelly dispossessed
This is a re-blog of a guest post I wrote on 20th September 2016 for the Balfron Social Club. An ode to Balfron Tower and its dispossessed residents...
Wake up UK art & culture! I, Daniel Blake shames us all. We should be ANGRY!
I watched , Daniel Blake with my wife this weekend. It left me feeling very, very sad and REALLY FUCKING ANGRY!
This is not a review nor a summary. This is my personal attempt to come to terms with the FOUL WORLD we have all somehow managed to allow to creep into being! I am SO FUCKING ANGRY!
Opportunty areas Pt 3: The Artists and The Puppet Masters - A Cautionary Tale
This is the final part of a three-part series about "opportunity areas". The first two blog posts in the series, Unearthing socially engaged art’s complicity in the gentrification of Elephant & Castle nd 'There for the taking', focused on three artists who I suggested were complicit in gentrification by working for state-funded initiatives like Creative People and Places and with property developers Delancey in the soon-to-be-demolished shopping centre at Elephant and Castle. I know quite a few people felt I had been unfair, aggressive, vitriolic, indignant and cynical. I was at pains to explain that the tale I told was not unique nor unusual. Socially engaged art is commonly used as a form of placemaking. The examples I described in the work of Eva Sajovic, Rebecca Davies and Sarah Butler were mundane. A perhaps crass attempt to illustrate much bigger problems in our lives that are mirrored in art practices.
Opportunity areas Part 2: 'There for the taking' - (Re)writing gentrification & placemaking
This is part two of a three-part series of posts about Opportunity Areas. Part one is here.
Part two explores Sarah Butler’s work in a little more detail. Creative consultations, writing stories for Creative People and Places, advocacy of socially engaged writing as part of regeneration agendas, poetry hoardings ‘covering’ demolished social housing sites whilst new builds spring up and working for the New Deal for Communities. It reveals, perhaps, how artists can be increasingly drawn into complicit relationships with local councils, the state, funders, charities, schools and property developers.
Opportunity areas - Part 1: Unearthing socially engaged art’s complicity in the gentrification of Elephant & Castle
Everyone loves an opportunity don’t they? What about a whole area of opportunities: an Opportunity Area? Investors love them. Property developers love them. Local councils love them. The State loves them. Even (some) artists love them. Opportunities for all! (Well, not people living in social housing … Oh, and not homeless people … Erm, and not market stall holders … Low income families who bought their own council home? No!)
This blog post explores the art world equivalent of MI5 – the socially engaged artists – the creative secret service for third wave gentrification, who, unlike the pioneering, colonial foot soldiers of first and second wave gentrification, do not necessarily live in gentrifying areas and are paid to infiltrate soon-to-be-decanted communities of social housing tenants, low income home owners, market stall holders and small shopkeepers, even, on occasion, homeless people.