Friday, February 16, 2007

Arts Council Debate

Arts Council England have produced an on-line debate/consultation on the future of public investment in the "ARTS".

I have, in the past, done the research,found subsidery sources of support/income, written a proposal for funding for a project and recieved "advice" from the 'ARC + Advise' advisor at OVADA in Oxford. The bottom line was that I had no status as an artist so would be unlikely to receive any significant funds for my work. So I have gone back to producing work which has a realistic chance of paying for itself direstly.

Lindesay Irvine asks in The Guardian's art blog:

"So why is ACE so keen to find out what the broader public wants? It may be that this is a more or less cosmetic exercise, designed to make an inescapably elitist organisation appear "accountable". The press officer I spoke to was keen to stress that this was a "deliberative" exercise, that other "stakeholders" such as arts professionals will also be consulted, and that it's way too early to say exactly how much influence public opinion will be given."

I feel that, for good or bad, judge the work not the artist.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Blogger Graham said...

I looked into grants a few years ago and it seemed you’d really need to play the system and show how your project would benefit various groups within the community. This initially seems like a reasonable way of justifying why any particular individual should get a grant.

But, it seems that individuals actually get grants by being very good at justifying a project in academic terms, by showing that they’re taking their art out into the community, into schools, opening their project up to allow members of the community to create their own piece of the artwork etc.

While this, in and of itself can be excellent and rewarding for sections of the community. It does not mean anyone’s created any “Art”…It just means the “artist” was skilled at presenting their idea and that idea has been broken down into nice manageable chunks that can all be used to justify the expenses involved.

Having a system whereby the Arts Council looked for artists producing interesting work to award them a grant to produce a body of work, in a specified timeframe, to be shown to the public on completion, would be of much greater benefit to the artist and perhaps produce more interesting artwork at the end of the process…?

It would also have the benefit of awarding a grant to an artist producing interesting work. Not an “artist” good at talking crap…

:) G

10:17 pm  
Blogger Graham said...

posted that on the Arts Council site too :)

10:36 pm  
Blogger Lorna said...

I talked the "crap" and jumped through the hoops but at the end of the day I would be judged on my status and not on my work. I was advised to only ask for a small sum for a small project. All the other sources of income/support depended upon the Arts Council funding, so at the end of the day I walked away.

10:46 pm  
Blogger Graham said...

The problem with getting a small grant, for a small project is, if it’s that small you could probably do it by yourself anyway…it’s only when you get enough cash to live on, for 6+ months you’re in a position to put aside day to day financial issues and focus on creating some exciting art…

Several of the arts council funded projects I’ve seen have used VAST sums of money to fabricate stupid, “hollow” ideas…The “art” created was not made by the artists hand…they were there simply to facilitate the idea…

I could have painted full time for 3 years for the amount spent on one of these “installations”…Which is a VERY annoying thought…:)

11:41 pm  
Blogger Lorna said...

mmmm ... exciting to spend time expanding your vision instead of thinking what will sell!

8:53 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home