The Ecology of Culture
 |
| Searle, P. (2017) Radium88 in Concert |
This document, The Ecology of Culture (A Report commissioned by the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Cultural Value Project) by John Holden Visiting Professor, City University, London Honorary Professor, University of Hong Kong January 2015, was very interesting on a personal level.
I paused to consider how the industries I've worked in have been a part of creative ecology model... where they fit into different sections and networks - and realised I've experienced all forms of the 3 spheres that make up his model. Publicly funded, Commercially funded and Amateur/Homemade.
I received benefits in the 1990's to be in a band (publicly funded) - which made an enormous difference to my creative potential - I had time to make music (which I still do today - 11 albums and counting) and also created costume and art which led to starting my own business... obviously I hoped at that point that the band would be invested in by the commercial sector - it never happened so we continued (without public funding sadly) as professional amateurs of the homemade cultural sector... funding our own gigs with ticket sales that go immediately into costs of venue hire, equipment and travel etc...
I started my own business creating corsetry wedding gowns and costume - (private sector - commercially funded creativity), which started strong but sadly crumbled after 10 years when the internet enabled cheap imports of superficially similar goods made in china from copies of my designs to flood the market.
I have worked for the BBC and Sheffield theatres, the BBC (publicly funded) indirectly as a freelance costumer hired by a commercial production company, and also as a freelance cutter by the crucible theatre, Sheffield.
Most creative jobs in the cultural sector (as opposed to administrative ones) are freelance, there is no holiday pay, sickness pay, safety net or pension.
I feel that many essential artists(and I use the word in a general way) of the cultural ecology are sucked dry and spat out with no security or nurturing by both the publicly and commercially funded sectors.
Obviously these artists have enormous cross - discipline networking and crazy transferable skills - and work in all 3 sectors, but that is because they can't make a living any other way. Rules and regulations governing the use and treatment of artists as disposable freelance commodities needs to be seriously considered or the leaching of talent away from commercial and publicly funded areas into purely amateur ecologies will occur more and more as extremely talented people find jobs in other non cultural industries with actual job security and reasonable finances.
This might not be initially considered a problem, but art needs to stretch boundaries, ask difficult questions and often use public space to be of general wider cultural significance... reliance on amateur and hobby practitioners could quickly lead to just popular and easy "lowest common denominator" performances and artworks being produced, as these are the most "popular" and therefore the most financially vialable for that production model, this leads to art production without room to challenge or subvert. This is catastrophic for society as a whole in my opinion.
It is most noticeable in the steampunk movement - which started out as an edgy political fine art and literary movement - but has transformed via popular hobby maker culture into something quite different. Current Steampunk culture, whilst vibrant and fun, is not really producing anything more significant than fancy dress ups and a jolly night out to feel-good music. There is obviously still a place for this, but I don't believe it should be the only culture available.
Many places of work continue to abuse the desire of many to work in the arts - costume shops can be particularly bad - insisting all workers are freelance (even though some may work there for 3 years or more) offering no overtime pay despite very long hours, no contracts, and often poor health and safety considerations. film companies, theatres, museums all encourage this practise by simply buying these works of art as "finished items" from the company, rather than understanding the depth of skill and artistry shown by the creators of these one off pieces of art.
I received benefits in the 1990's to be in a band (publicly funded) - which made an enormous difference to my creative potential - I had time to make music (which I still do today - 11 albums and counting) and also created costume and art which led to starting my own business... obviously I hoped at that point that the band would be invested in by the commercial sector - it never happened so we continued (without public funding sadly) as professional amateurs of the homemade cultural sector... funding our own gigs with ticket sales that go immediately into costs of venue hire, equipment and travel etc...
I started my own business creating corsetry wedding gowns and costume - (private sector - commercially funded creativity), which started strong but sadly crumbled after 10 years when the internet enabled cheap imports of superficially similar goods made in china from copies of my designs to flood the market.
I have worked for the BBC and Sheffield theatres, the BBC (publicly funded) indirectly as a freelance costumer hired by a commercial production company, and also as a freelance cutter by the crucible theatre, Sheffield.
Most creative jobs in the cultural sector (as opposed to administrative ones) are freelance, there is no holiday pay, sickness pay, safety net or pension.
I feel that many essential artists(and I use the word in a general way) of the cultural ecology are sucked dry and spat out with no security or nurturing by both the publicly and commercially funded sectors.
Obviously these artists have enormous cross - discipline networking and crazy transferable skills - and work in all 3 sectors, but that is because they can't make a living any other way. Rules and regulations governing the use and treatment of artists as disposable freelance commodities needs to be seriously considered or the leaching of talent away from commercial and publicly funded areas into purely amateur ecologies will occur more and more as extremely talented people find jobs in other non cultural industries with actual job security and reasonable finances.
This might not be initially considered a problem, but art needs to stretch boundaries, ask difficult questions and often use public space to be of general wider cultural significance... reliance on amateur and hobby practitioners could quickly lead to just popular and easy "lowest common denominator" performances and artworks being produced, as these are the most "popular" and therefore the most financially vialable for that production model, this leads to art production without room to challenge or subvert. This is catastrophic for society as a whole in my opinion.
It is most noticeable in the steampunk movement - which started out as an edgy political fine art and literary movement - but has transformed via popular hobby maker culture into something quite different. Current Steampunk culture, whilst vibrant and fun, is not really producing anything more significant than fancy dress ups and a jolly night out to feel-good music. There is obviously still a place for this, but I don't believe it should be the only culture available.
Many places of work continue to abuse the desire of many to work in the arts - costume shops can be particularly bad - insisting all workers are freelance (even though some may work there for 3 years or more) offering no overtime pay despite very long hours, no contracts, and often poor health and safety considerations. film companies, theatres, museums all encourage this practise by simply buying these works of art as "finished items" from the company, rather than understanding the depth of skill and artistry shown by the creators of these one off pieces of art.
Comments
Post a Comment