aka, an academic, an economist and an artist walk into a bar …

Last night, at Camden People’s Theatre, I convened a conversation with young artist and fundraiser Dana Segal, economist Hasan Bakhshi, and academic Dave O’Brien. Prompted, in part, by a twitter discussion (and then coffee) that was in turn prompted by Dana’s excellent blog on the ruse that is crowdfunding (ruse when used as an alternative to actual arts investment, where what we’re actually practicing is friend-funding), the idea was to simply have a conversation and see where it went. A conversation that happens all too rarely – between an economist and an academic who care about arts and arts practice, and two artists. Generally we (makers) and they (thinkers) are kept far apart, often by those who seek to support the arts, but in reality are gatekeeping ideas from both ‘sides’.

The four of us spoke a little, around some of the hot issues – does ACE need an entire revamp; should we split up funding for buildings and solo artists/small orgs; what’s the value of culture; what’s the difference between arts and culture; the myth of the lone artist; is it right to fund an already-‘successful’ artist … and quickly opened out to the floor to bring in more people, more thought. (Actually, they were already in, and contributing – welcome contributions – long before we officially opened out. This was a Fun Palaces-led event, we don’t do that us/them, audience/artists thing, we want everyone in and engaged and contributing as much as they want to. Or not. Sitting back and listening is fine with Fun Palaces too.)

Interestingly, given it took place on the same day that ACE published the Cebr report on the contribution of arts and culture to the national economy, several who attended both events said it was clear that the two events were very differently populated – one of the attendees referred to the ‘suits’ at the Shard and the artists at CPT – which is a shame. I invited some ‘suits’ (some ‘frocks’ too, obviously!) – they weren’t free, and that’s no doubt due to the fact that we organised this very quickly, but they were interested, and I have great hope we can have this conversation again, beyond the usual suspects. We should all be talking together all of the time. We cannot make the difference to need to make if we don’t.

My starting point for calling this conversation was that Keynes, progenitor of the Arts Council, was an economist. And all too often, it seems to me, we (artists, makers) talk to each other about lack and are perceived to be approaching with a begging bowl whenever we talk to funders. (I don’t actually think this is funders’ fault, we’re living in a  time of austerity economics – the narrative of lack is everywhere, it’s hard for any of us to overcome that when it is, as now, so all-pervasive.) I also have a sense that funders talk to policy makers, and not to artists. I seriously think policy makers should be talking to EVERYONE. Of course, bridge organisations like the big government funding bodies have a vital place, not least in ensuring that resources are fairly shared, that great new ideas are championed – but policy makers rarely speak to artists, to makers. And when they do it’s too often to famous artists, or already-successful artists, or – even more contentiously – to artists singled out because they live in an area of lack and have made it anyway, thereby colluding with the myth that talent will out, with or without support. Artists speaking to economists about the arts economy seems hugely sensible to me.

Similarly, I think we artists have a great deal to learn from academics. Paying better attention to history, to past work, to current practice that is happening outside of our own (all too small) artistic circles, leads to the possibility that we could stop reinventing the wheel, building on and from each others’ brilliance instead.

It was a starter chat on an incredibly muggy Monday evening in Camden (thank you CPT), many more people came than we’d expected, they engaged, they participated, they care.  Many who couldn’t be there responded via twitter. This is a great start.

Fun Palaces sees facilitating these conversations as part of our campaign for greater engagement for all. We have big dreams for creating a forum to bring together everyone who cares about culture for all – the artists, the makers, the funders, the thinkers, the academics, the economists – all the people who know that ALL arts work could be more inclusive, more engaged, more open. We know we’re not the only ones doing this, much of our work around the Fun Palaces weekend (as opposed to the ongoing campaign) is to help shine a light on brilliant people doing amazing stuff – a  national, international, shout for culture at the heart of community – as the heart of community.

This was one conversation, a different kind of beast from a Fun Palace itself, but equally valid in a Fun Palace, the politics that are the guts of engagement, of artistic practice, of arts and culture making an impact. Lots to do, more to come.

So – no-one has any time and we’re all overworked (and yes indeed, underpaid), but we think this conversation would benefit from being ongoing, cumulative – and everywhere. All it needs is an economist, an academic, a local artist, and a venue (doesn’t have to be a theatre) with a bar – the bar conversations last night were as much a part of the whole as the hour we were in the theatre. Let us know if you’re up for it via the contact form here, we’ll make some more happen. (Maybe not immediately – Fun Palaces weekend, 3/4 October, is coming soon!)

Stella Duffy, Fun Palaces, July 2015