It is with some trepidation that I publish this proposal about the future of the arts in Scotland.  I was one of those who applied for the post of CEO of Creative Scotland and was not interviewed.  This blog, therefore, could be read as the response of a bitter and spurned candidate.  It is not, but I understand why it might be considered such and there is little I can do about that.

Throughout the last 15 years of observing the development of the arts and creative industries in the run up to and post devolution, I have had a growing sense of a systemic problem in the way government develops and delivers policy in the cultural sphere.  While on the one hand the arts are flourishing and our international reputation grows, on the other we have been suffering ‘planning blight’ in the policy.   From a cultural commission spawning huge unworkable recommendations, through structural changes which took longer than they should, to ‘stooshies’ about how decisions are made to what appears to be a botched recruitment process with distinguished names being mentioned but no final announcement, we have witnessed, or so it appears, a series of failures in governance and management. In the course of preparing my application for the post I began to wonder if there were not something more fundamentally wrong with how things were structured- although, I admit, that did not stop me throwing my hat in the ring. Now I am free to examine these concerns more openly.

My thesis is that the arm’s length policy by which government funds the arts via non-departmental public body no longer serves us well, and has not since 1999, and it is time to look at the creation of a Ministry of Culture and funding the arts directly from government.

A useful starting point is work by Susan Galloway and an article by her and Huw Jones, The Scottish dimension of British arts government: a historical perspective[1] in which they examine through the archives the relationship between the arts and government pre-devolution.  One of their conclusions is that that as Scotland became more autonomous as a nation at the same time the arts policy function became more politicised.   In the 1970s and 1980s the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) automatically received 12% of UK arts funding via the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), and then spent it in ways it chose even if that did diverge from ACGB policy.  SAC was ‘at double arm’s length’ from government.   In 1992 the responsibility was moved from Westminster to Edinburgh and the Scottish Office which brought arts policy closer to Scottish politicians.  Then, of course, along came devolution which was, it was argued, a means by which decisions taken previously at distance from government were placed in the heart of a democratic process.   Yet despite these changes, and the subsequent merger of SAC and Scottish Screen into Creative Scotland, there has been no fundamental challenge to the notion that politics and the democratic process has no part to play in cultural policy and we persist with the fiction that somehow the arts are too important to be part of that process.

The ‘arms- length’ principle for the arts was established in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War and was in part in reaction to the twin threats of fascism and communism and the fear of a state run arts world doing only state-approved art. Its intention was no more and no less than to prevent politicians interfering in decisions about what should or should not be funded.  The principle has its roots further back in the establishment of the BBC and our University system.  It is a very British compromise with all the brilliance and muddle that implies. And indeed it has worked:  I can think of no evidence to suggest that there has been one exhibition or performance which has been approved or banned because of central government interference. However what is clear is that spending public money means being accountable for it.  The government of whatever persuasion has its own priorities and will direct money in that way.  This is called democracy but sometimes this has been interpreted as ‘political interference’.  So let’s do away with the muddle and establish some clean lines between the artist, the arts organisation, the creative project and the political process which votes the money.

After all what have we got to fear?  Freedom of expression is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.  This is the structure which works across most of Europe including Germany where the federal cultural budget has just been increased while government spending overall is being tightened. In none of the countries which fund the arts directly– with left or right wing governments –is there any suggestion that individual artistic decisions are influenced by party politics.  The biggest threat to the arts comes from the economic crisis – and some might argue, the failure of global capitalism.

And what would it mean in Scotland?  As we have all witnessed in other areas, Government decisions are open to scrutiny: we have a robust committee system in the Scottish Parliament with the checks and balances needed to prevent undemocratic political actions and we also have more media outlets than you can shake a stick at.

But the most persuasive argument is that it already happens.  Government directly funds our national performing arts companies, museums and art galleries.  As far as I can tell, the orchestras are not being instructed to perform Hamish MacCunn in every programme nor is National Theatre of Scotland doing all its plays in Doric. In fact we can see a flowering of many of our national institutions – one only has visit the Scottish Portrait Gallery or National Museum of Scotland to see that. What’s more it is time our national companies were pulled more closely to the rest of the cultural world in Scotland. We are too small a country to have such a division in the way things are managed.

What about cost? Well of course we would have to write off the money and time already spent on setting up Creative Scotland but it’s minuscule in comparison to the billions written off in badly thought through government procurement projects.  Mistakes happen. Let’s move on.   There are potential savings too. The Government would require additional expertise internally drawn from existing Creative Scotland staff but staffing in of central functions could be merged with existing corporate departments.  The use of ad hoc external expertise would address some of the recent demands of the arts community to be involved more in consultation on funding decisions and the process whereby some of the funding is already devolved to small specialist organisations could be extended—especially the funding of individual artists.  Few would weep at the disposal of Waverley Gate – and probably the Glasgow office — with the new Ministry accommodated within the existing estate.  There is, of course a lot of devil in any detail and this proposal is intended as a point of departure for debate not as a blueprint.

In 2002 I co-authored a report to Scottish Executive about the Scottish Arts Council, as part of the quinquennial review of the organisation.  Re-reading the conclusions, I can see hints of concern about the structures which operated:  “There is confusion about the role and remit of SAC that affects all aspects of its work. To clarify this the arm’s length principle needs to be re-visited and relationship made clearer between the Executive, SAC, the cultural community and the partners and agencies which interact with SAC. ‘Ministerial interference’ needs to be transformed into ‘Ministerial leadership’.”

Now is the time to see evidence of that Ministerial leadership and a maturing of the relationship between the arts and government.

On 8 May I participated in a round table discussion in Lyon on Gender equality – Europe in motion : women in the cultural sector organised by H/F (home/femme) Rhones-Alpes.   The event was part of a European Lab which ran alongside the music festival Nuits Sonores.  The aim was to share experience across Europe and identify actions to influence the new EU cultural programme. Below is the paper which formed the basis of my contribution to the discussions over two hours. For a summary of the discussions and their outcomes, see Europe de la culture : où sont les femmes ? ( in French).

 H/F Rhones-Aples is part of a network in France which promotes gender on equality in arts and culture.  The campaign has gained new energy from the election of Hollande and a left government and the leadership of the Minister of Culture, Aurelie Filippetti who has called on all organisations in France in receipt of public money to take account of gender in programming and employment and has pledged to collect and publish data. 

As indicated below, gender equality in arts and culture is a  campaign which has been going on for many decades in Scotland and across the UK.   It is time to re-start the campaign. 

Feminism is like housework.  You need to re-visit it every 10 years.[1]

This is not empty rhetoric.  In preparation for this event, I have gone back through my personal archive and found material/research prepared over the past four decades- mainly, but not exclusively, in theatre and performing arts:

• In the 1980s— I was involved in campaigns on women in the arts.  This work originated from the Labour Party and the publication of  a report on women in the arts and media, The Missing Culture.  I was working with the trades unions in Scotland at the time and organised a campaign and a conference on this in 1989. Our concern then was that the exclusion of women was not simply an issue of jobs but also affected the very roots of our culture.[3]

• In the 1990s I was working at the government agency, the Scottish Arts Council.  We introduced a policy that all organisations that received public funding, monitored their activity and produced figures on equal opportunities.  In 1996 we analysed these figures in a major review which highlighted continuing inequalities facing women in positions of influence and power across the arts. This led to the development of policies in that area.[4]

• In the first decade of the new millennium, I undertook a review of theatre directing in Scotland and identified the lack of women directors in our theatres.

• More recently, I led on a review of theatre for Creative Scotland, the new government agency for culture in Scotland which replaced the Scottish Arts Council.  We uncovered the absence of monitoring of equal opportunities policies within the theatres which received public funding.   Nearly 50% of those surveyed did not bother to monitor. Creative Scotland itself took no steps to gather data nor monitor the application of these policies.  This means that there are no current data available on the number of plays by women which are produced, nor on job opportunities for women directors and designers in theatre in Scotland.  This takes us back before 1990s.

For today’s event, I could be reading a paper I prepared at the end of the 1990s and apart from updating the statistics slightly and making some of the references more contemporary, nothing has changed. The conclusions are just the same.

The most detailed recent research in Scotland comes from Stellar Quines, a feminist theatre company which commissioned research comparing the position of directors, writers, actors, designers and composers in theatre when they were founded in 1993 with the situation in 2009.

Key findings are:

• The gender balance in a typical theatre season was more female in 2009 than 1993 but in no one category were women represented at a level of 50% or more.  Indeed in only one category (actors) was women’s representation above one third. Recent research in England characterised the problem as 2:1 issue: two men for every one women working in theatre in creative roles.
  

• In general comparable data from UK, European and international sources showed an increase in women represented in theatre across a range of artistic roles.  However the trend in Scotland was slow in comparison and there was evidence that women got more opportunities in the less well funded companies.

• Governance—the boards of theatres are mainly male and are, it appears, reluctant to appoint women.

• There is a need for mentoring/support/networking systems for women—and sharing in the success of women.

• Non- white and women with disabilities struggle with the complexity of their identity and appear to suffer from multiple discrimination. The identity issue is further complicated in Scotland by a debate around the desirability –or otherwise—of having Scots leading key cultural institutions- however we define that.

There are other arguments which echo down the decades:

• The bigger the budget the less likely you are to see women in positions of creative leadership: not one of Scotland’s national cultural institutions is led by a women- including orchestra, opera, ballet, theatre, the national museums and galleries, the national library of Scotland and the Edinburgh International Festival.[5]

• And then there is the Shakespeare problem — a particular issue in England. In France perhaps it is the Molière problem- the issue of the ‘canon’- (le canon litteraire).   Shakespeare dominates theatre in England. An interesting fact – he created 981 characters of which 826 are male and only 155 female. This does imply fewer opportunities for women performers.  However it goes beyond that into the heart of programming. Neither Nick Hytner (outgoing director of the National Theatre in London) nor Gregory Doran (recently appointed director of RSC and previously associate director) has ever directed a play by a woman. Ever.  Both have worked extensively with classical or historical texts where women just don’t feature.

• In Scotland we have a different issue.  Interestingly there is much less in the way of the established ‘canon’ of work and indeed in an analysis of repertoire over the decades we showed that new work is central to theatrical output in Scotland.  So if women playwrights are not getting their work produced then it is because they are being offered fewer opportunities. But, as I said already, there is a lack of data.

• And let’s not forget—women make up the majority of audiences in performing arts.

What has to be done?

• Information is power: I was shocked to discover lack of data in Scotland.  If an arts organisation is in receipt of public money, it must have a policy and this must be monitored.  Let’s also recognise the crucial importance of European wide research such as the work done by the FIA – Federation of Actors on Age, Gender and Performer Employment in Europe. This research in 2007/8 showed that there are fundamental issues facing women in the performing arts—shorter careers, less money and age and gender stereotypes when it comes to roles.

• Raising the issue: When there is an injustice, often we look to our lawmakers to pass legislation to make it illegal. It is illegal of course to discriminate in terms of employment and access to services But it is hard to legislate in the cultural world where we rely less on employment contracts and more on artistic collaborations.  Your Minister of Culture is to be congratulated in taking the lead on tackling this in France with her announcement of  ‘une Saison de l’égalité’ which specifically challenges French performing arts organisations to tackle programming and access to production for women.  In the UK all public bodies now have to report on the impact of their policies on equal opportunities.  Creative Scotland has produced such a report although it contains little on gender. [4]  There is a commitment to start gathering data from now, which means we will have to wait a few years to build a picture.  All we can do is keep analysing the data and raising the issue. ‘Why have you not commissioned any female playwrights, composers, choreographers? Why are you excluding the talent of over 50% of the population?’ And in this, as I said above, we need to government data to be gathered and made available.

• Using the tools: The difference today from 30 years go is that we have new campaign tools in Twitter and Facebook – these are also the tools we can use for networking and mentoring. We need to use these networks to highlight these issues.   (An example of this is the Twitter feed @wits_scot which a few of us set up for International Women’s Day).  And let’s not forget international solidarity and events such as this.  We are now able to work across borders much more easily and pan- European campaigning is now a reality.

• Women taking the lead:  I am impressed by initiatives such as Agent 160 a writer-led theatre company that produces work from its female playwrights, based across the UK.  Prompted by the fact that 17 per cent of produced work in the UK is written by women, Agent 160 addresses the production and commissioning gender imbalance in practical ways by producing plays and blogging on issues.  Women need to take initiatives and perhaps stop being too accommodating.  Here’s an example. My grandmother worked as a shorthand typist in the early 20^th century- she learnt shorthand (a form of coding), typing (high level keyboard skills) and filing (data management and retrieval).  That job was a woman’s job so why is it when the digital revolution happened it all came down to boys with toys?  Why, sisters, did we allow men to take over the keyboard, coding and database management? And why, therefore is it men who dominate in the new digital creative businesses?

• And this brings me to my last point: re- visiting feminism.  I care about hearing diverse voices in the arts and culture, including those from minority ethnic communities and those who have a disability, or those, like me, who are gay.  And I support building common cause where there is a common goal.   It seems, however that somewhere along the line we stopped talking about feminism and re-framed the debate around ‘diversity’, ‘access’ and ‘equal opportunities’ in employment.   Women have become bracketed with ‘minorities’ which we are not; and been subject to initiatives which are concerned with ‘creating dialogue and understanding amongst diverse communities’.  Or ‘providing greater access to opportunities’.  The issue about women in the arts is not just about jobs or access to services it is about who we are and how we see ourselves.  Let’s not have the same debate in another ten years.

Thus ran the headline in the French daily newspaper Le Monde on 29 December above a photograph of Gerard Depardieu.

Yet this was not an article about the larger than life French actor, his drunken antics on a scooter, his move to a dreary village in Belgium to avoid the new 75% tax on earnings above €1m.  Nor was it about him in a fit of pique at the French government, tearing up his French passport and accepting President Putin’s invitation to settle in an inhospitable part of Russia (followed by his decision to fail to appear to answer the ‘drunk-in-charge- of-a-scooter’ charge which may result in him being detained in France on a criminal charge).  No, this piece was not about ‘pathetic’ film stars –the French PM’s description of Depardieu.   Instead the article suggested that French cinema is in crisis and it has little or nothing to do with Depardieu.

The author of the think-piece is Vincent Maraval, founder and director of Wild Bunch the successful film distribution company which counts The Artist (Oscar winner Best picture 2012) and Angel’s Share (Jury Prize, Cannes 2012) as two of its recent successes.   So a man who is a key part of the film industry in France and globally and who, when he speaks, is listened to.   Although he subsequently rejected the title given to his article by Le Monde’s sub-editors, his thesis is, nevertheless, that French movies cost too much and this can be put down to the level of fees paid to the ‘talent’.   He blames the financial structure of the film industry in France for the problem and has attacked the process of film finance which has underpinned not only a treasure of French culture but also an industry with lots of jobs.   This is of interest not only to France but also to those who look on the French film-funding model with envy.

First, his thesis.  Put simply, French films cost too much.  According to Maraval, the French movie costs on average €5.4 million.  Only US studios produce movies are more costly.  The average US independent movie costs €3 m.

The recent success of movies such as The Artist and Amour—reaching as they do a global audience- masks the fact that most French films have a limited market beyond France.  At home, French video sales are collapsing , TV  audiences for French films are in terminal decline in the face of reality TV, and cinema attendances stagnating.  There is, according to Maraval, a mismatch between reach of a movie and its cost. He cites the recent Asterix film (Astérix et Obélix : au service de Sa Majesté) which attracted a cinema audience of 4 million – perfectly respectable until he points out that it cost €60 million – equivalent to the cost of a Tim Burton US studio  movie.

Maraval’s argument is that the cost is down almost entirely to the fees paid to artists.  Again he makes comparisons: French actors appearing in American movies are paid a lot less for these movies than they are for appearing in French ones.   Well known names like Vincent Cassel, Audrey Tautou and Marion Cotillad can command fees of between € 0.5-2m for a French film, but are happy with a fee of between €50-200K for an American one which has a global reach.

So why is this happening?  Maraval puts this problem down to the way in which French movies are financed and the availability of state funding.  This ’state funding’ comes via the CNC (Centre national du cinema) which in turn receives funding directly from government with its film investment coming principally from a level on ticket prices (10.7%) and also a levy on French broadcasters—both free to air and subscription channels.   Maraval’s point is that there is no link between the popularity or earning potential of a movie and its cost.

The reaction to this piece has been vociferous and in those news-lite days between Christmas and New Year, there were several headlines criticising Maraval’s attack on individuals and accusing him of putting the government support at risk at a time when Hollande’s presidency is struggling with economic problems and sinking poll ratings.  Effectively, it is argued, Maraval has given the politicians and excuse to cut funding to film.  Leaping to the defence of the film industry, however, is the Minister of Culture,  Aurélie Filippetti and there is talk of a ministerial summit on the funding of the French film industry later this month.

What relevance is all this beyond France? Since the original article was published, the French movie has yet again broken though the ‘foreign film’ barrier at the Oscars with Amour (co-pro with Austria) nominated for five Oscars. Whatever Maravel says, from where we sit, the French film sector continues to produce movies in French about French stories, with French talent and money a few of which become global hits, or are translated into globally recognised films—the rest being shown primarily in France and shaping French culture and ideas.  Is there a problem?  That’s for the French to decide.

In terms of the UK film industry  — and film-making in Scotland—the lesson from France is that commitment from the government and the industry does deliver cultural and economic rewards.  However intervention in the market place with public money does not always guarantee quality (assuming quality means movies which enjoy critical, audience or financial success) and supporting innovation and experimentation should be just that—support for the new and not the enhancing of fees for those who already enjoy great success.

I decided it is time to get New Year into gear and book some tickets for up and coming events.  Three different scales of shows; three different experiences. I have written about poor ticket selling practices in Scottish theatre before.  This time I am naming names.

Arches charges £1 booking fee plus £1 transaction fee plus 50p card fee – per ticket to book online.  NTS sells its tickets for Black Watch at SECC via Ticket Soup.com and not listed so assume sold out- but it took me three clicks to get there and I can’t be bothered trying to find out.  Seen the show before anyway, but friend wanted to go. Need to go back and say I have failed to find tickets.

For David Leddy’s site specific show Long Live the Little Knife in Govan, you are encouraged to book early as space limited and gives a phone number- but no box office opening times.  After some detective work discover box office is Tramway but sadly no opening times given on their website.

I think I will just buy some books online instead.

–      Robert David MacDonald, Chinchilla act 2.

I have resisted entering into the debate on Alasdair Gray’s essay partly because others have already said what I would have said and partly because the tone of the debate was getting a bit too unpleasant for my liking, but mainly because I wanted to read Gray’s piece before jumping to conclusions.  From reports, it seemed to me that perhaps there is a case to be made for encouraging a Scottish interest in cultural leadership posts.  I am with Vicky Featherstone when she suggested that sometimes boards ‘assume that a person from England knows better.’ Although I think there are further more complex reasons for the lack of Scottish appointments to Scottish posts.

Having said that, it did worry me that the essay contributed to a narrowing of the debate- rather than opening it up.

Gray’s theory, that there is a system of classification which describes non-Scots who run our cultural institutions, falls apart when examining what has happened in the last few weeks.  Vicky Featherstone has made a huge contribution to Scottish theatre whatever her background.  She has commented eloquently on her own relationship with Scotland and does not need me to add anything.

However, alongside more recent targets, Gray focussed his criticism on what went on in the arts in Scotland in the 70s, 80s and 90s.  I venture to suggest that in this central part of the essay, Gray is an unreliable witness.  No problem in his works of fiction but, for goodness sake, folk might believe him when he tells them that it was two Englishmen who ran 1990! (It was a Canadian and a Scotsman, by the way)[1].  The essay suggests that Scottish culture was marginalised and, unlike Ireland has failed to protect and promote its own.  By inference it also implies that we are the weaker for it.  I dispute both the evidence offered and the conclusions drawn.

I start with the assertions on theatre. Anyone wishing Scottish theatre could be like Irish theatre clearly has not being paying attention recently.  It is Scottish theatre writing which is ‘punching above its weight’ and for the evidence I point to the recent review of theatre and the work of the Scottish Society of Playwrights in providing the evidence of the international reach of Scottish writing ( see pp72-74).  Further, I argue this strength is as much because of the work in the 1970s and 1980s — not in spite of it.

I am sure we can all describe our great cultural memories.  A few of my theatre highlights of the last century include 7:84’s The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black Black Oil (written by John McGrath– self described as ‘born in England, evacuated to Wales and married to Scotland’).  I saw The Cheviot at the Citizens’ Theatre, following its Highland tour, programmed there by Giles Havergal, (born in Edinburgh to Scottish parents); Chinchilla, by Robert David MacDonald, born in Elgin, interpreter for the UN before coming with Giles and Philip Prowse to run the Citizens’ in Glasgow for over 30 years; The Slab Boys, written by John Byrne (Scottish artist) directed by David Hayman (Scottish actor who began his career at the Citzens’ and played Nijinsky in Chinchilla) produced by Chris Parr (non- Scot) at the Traverse Theatre.  Then there was Mary Queen of Scots Got her Had Chopped Off by Liz Lochhead, directed by Gerry Mulgrew for Communicado (this time by two great Scottish artists) and the revival of Men Should Weep by Ena Lamont Stewart first performed by Glasgow Unity Theatre in 1947 and memorably directed by Giles Havergal in a new production the early 80s as part of 7:84’s Clydebuilt season which also celebrated work by George Munro and Joe Corrie.

Maybe in this period I did suffer from not seeing a great production of Jamie the Saxt but I doubt it (I have seen a production, but not a great one).  I agree that the Citzens’ did not develop new Scottish writing- except work by Robert David McDonald — but I do not accept that Scottish theatre is less because of this. I would go as far to argue that the Citizens’ had a profound and lasting affect on a generations of young people who came in school parties to see the great classics of European drama presented as no other theatre in the UK dared.  In those school parties are the established Scottish writers, actors and theatre directors of today.

What then gave Scottish theatre an added outward looking confidence was the exposure to international work not only at the Edinburgh Festival but also as a result of Glasgow 1990, City Of Culture.  It is easy to pick up a book and read prose or poetry from other lands, less easy to be exposed to international influences in theatre.  For me a great moment in the run up to 1990 was a production of Stars in the Morning Sky by Lev Dodin performed by the Maly Theatre of Leningrad (sic) at Mayfest 1988, whose director was Di Robson, a New Zealander.  The effect of Wooster Group, Robert Lepage and Peter Brook et al on Scottish theatre artists during 1990, was partly an influence on their work but also the confidence to know they could do it too and that others, furth of Scotland, might be interested in what they had to say.  And it also gave them the venue to do it in- Tramway.  Of course Gray is right that a great deal of 1990 was about showcasing international work and making it accessible to Scottish audiences, but not all of it.

Maybe he missed the first theatrical event for 1990, Jock Tamson’s Bairns by Liz Lochhead and Communicado – an epic production on the nature of the Scots inspired by Burns and MacDiarmid, commissioned by Glasgow 1990 or The Ship by Bill Bryden at Harland and Woolf shed about, well, the building of a ship. It seems he also missed David Mach at Tramway and Steven Campbell’s first solo exhibition at the Third Eye Centre, and John Bellany at Compass Gallery and the major exhibition on Scottish art and design, Scotland Creates at the McLellan Galleries in the same year.

So what about support for visual arts?   It is here that I really take issue with Gray and his callous and casual dismissal of the role of Chris Carrell, Director of the Third Eye Centre in the 1980s.  Let’s just clarify the role of the man and the Centre.  Under Chris’s direction, we saw the celebration of the new Glasgow artists: Built in Scotland (1983), New Image Glasgow (1985) which featured the ‘new Glasgow boys’ and Scatter (1989).  This relationship with emerging artists, many of whom came from up the hill at Glasgow School of Art, has been central in creating Glasgow’s international reputation for art which is now the subject of a major research project.  However it was not only the new kids on the block which the Third Eye Centre supported.  Other artists exhibited included, for example, Bruce McLean, Bet Low, and Oscar Marzaroli and his brilliant photographic record of post war Glasgow. It was Chris Carrell who brought to prominence the work of the late and greatly loved George Wyllie. The Third Eye Centre re-positioned the ‘old’ as well as presenting the new.  Projectability grew out of an exhibition of work by artists with disabilities, long before any serious disability arts movement in the UK, and the Third Eye Centre– and Glasgow– became the home to The National Review of Live Art when its Director, Nikki Millican moved to direct performance at the Centre.

Let’s not forget the publishing wing of the Third Eye so close to Chris’s heart – and its imprint which saw the publication of artists’ catalogues to accompany the exhibitions and the work with Hamish Whyte from Glasgow Libraries.

Maybe it is false memory syndrome on my part but I seem to remember the great novelist Alasdair Gray being part of the group of writers and poets who found a convivial place in Sauchiehall Street to listen to readings and discuss work over a dram or two. But it is not my imagination that the Third Eye Centre in 1983 published the first anthology of Glasgow poems, edited by Hamish Whyte, under the title of Noise and Smoky Breath.  And it is certainly not my imagination as I sit looking at my copy, that Alasdair Gray’s own painting of Cowcaddens graces the front cover while the late Edwin Morgan is quoted on the back in fulsome praise of the anthology.

As with theatre, the Third Eye also took an international perspective – led by Chris.  The New Beginnings season of Soviet art at the end of the 1980, featuring the Rodchenko Family Workshop was an eye opener and gave us a new understanding of what was happening not only in art, but also in theatre music and artistic debate behind the iron curtain.   New Beginnings followed an earlier season on Hungarian art and both saw the collaboration across artistic and academic in the city—collaborations which played an important background role in securing the City of Culture title.

All who care about the development of Scottish culture share Gray’s obvious concern about its marginalisation — whether in cultural life or education.  However, sadly his thesis in this latest essay is built on some shaky evidence and an interpretation which does not stand up.  There is a debate to be had on this issue– especially now. Gray is welcome to his views and his memories, but let’s not confuse the work of the artist with the work of the historian and commentator and be a little more rigorous with our sources.

This blog is dedicated to the memory of Cordelia Oliver, (1923- 2009) painter, critic, arts commentator and tireless champion for the arts in Scotland, whose hand I feel very heavily on my shoulder as I write this. 

Correction:  this blog was amended 30/12/202 to clarify the relationship between the Third Eye Centre and the National Review of Live Art.

The debate around the future of Creative Scotland includes calls for a re-visiting of the role of the arts funding body as laid down when it was first established.  In essence what is being called for is the removal of responsibility for supporting what is called ‘creative industries’.  I disagree, and here is why. 

Jenna is a dancer.  She is a member of Spilt Milk, a company formed by two of her fellow dance graduates.  They produce work which takes a witty, intelligent and sometimes ironic look at social dance.  They have performed in festivals across England and were showcased at the Linbury Studio, the Royal Opera House.  Like all emerging artists, they spend time making applications for public funds – especially from the Arts Council.  And like all emerging artists, they don’t earn much from this work.  So to support herself, Jenna teaches dance at University level.  She has also runs a business which is her passion: weekend dance classes for children and their parents. Jenna wants to do a PhD in inter-generational dance and these classes provide her with the material which will inform her research as well as being a creative outlet and, crucially, an income source.

I met the entrepreneurial Jenna when she came to work with me in the Midlands as we developed a centre to support recent arts graduates establish their own businesses.  We received economic development cash to retain creative graduates in the area, support the development of sustainable businesses, and, through this, create jobs.  We worked with graphic artists, photographers, film-makers, dancers, theatre artists, musicians and web designers Our job was to give them access to advice, mentoring, specialist training, technology and hot desk spaces to allow them to launch their businesses. Or that’s what we said when speaking to people in economic development.  When talking to the Arts Council we spoke about helping artists to create work through providing studio and office space and expert support and guidance from established artists and academics working in their field—as well as providing short courses on things like marketing and finance.  Both these statements meant the same thing.  Jenna and I are bilingual in the language of economic development and art, and for us there was, and is, no tension.

More importantly there was little conflict for the artists with whom we worked and they were happy to accept advice on how to work in a variety of settings if it meant they could make work.  Applying to the Arts Council to do a collaborative project or develop a full-blown show or exhibition, or selling the work to specialist markets— both allowed them to do what they wanted to do.  The desire to make money was secondary in all cases to making work (although some of the web-based companies had half an eye on being the next big thing in social media). However everyone needs to make a living and our role was to help our graduates sustain their practice through accessing commercial and public sector opportunities. Which is precisely what Jenna is doing through her dance classes.

We worked with tiny businesses and fledgling companies so I watched with interest the proposals to establish Creative Scotland out of Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council and make a closer and more explicit link at national level, between work which is supported via arts public funds and work which can be sustained through engaging with the market —sometimes given support from economic development agencies.  However for a variety of reasons the debate in Scotland became sterile and there was a growing mistrust from the artist.   Arts funding equalled good; economic development equalled bad and, worst still commercial equalled selling out.  There was no bilingualism, just babel.

This discontent grew into the rejection of whole the idea of ‘creative industries’. Many a tree has died in critiquing the concept of creative industries- and I too tire of the overblown rhetoric around the concept of creative industries being the saviour of our economy.  But it is foolish to deny the link between of film, broadcasting, publishing, recording, design, games architecture and the rest of the arts sector and build some kind of cordon sanitaire.  Equally it is depressing to promote the notion that if a theatre show makes money in a commercial sense it must be without merit and exploitative of the artist and the art.

Some who reject what they call the ‘ideology’ behind the establishment of Creative Scotland and the term creative industries have their own deeply held ideological position which they will hold fast until we reach the sunny uplands of a new Marxist world.  I however, can’t wait that long.

Another position taken by some is that Creative Scotland should focus on art and the artist, and let another agencies in economic development do the rest.  However, as I have tried to suggest above, it is not always so clear-cut and tidy.  I also think this is a timid position. Surely we want to see leadership from the arts community when it comes to seeing public investment in creative businesses?

The real failure in our approach to the creative industries in Scotland is not that Creative Scotland has funded a cookery programme — that’s bad judgement and rightly pilloried.  No the real failure is that, in common with other industrial and commercial sectors in Scotland, we are brilliant at creating and inventing and terrible at making any money from it.  Thus, we have in our midst, paying taxes and being part of our society, the most successful living writer in the world (J.K. Rowling) but Scotland makes next to nothing out of the ‘exploitation’ of her talent in publishing and film making.  And before anyone tells me that we are too wee to make any impact on the global film industry which is US dominated, I say, Wellington, New Zealand.  And oh if only we could use our fabulous talent in writing, acting, music, design, and technical skills and produce just one TV drama to match that which is coming out of Denmark at the moment!

Not all of this is down to what Creative Scotland supports from its budget — economic development bodies have a role too — but the leadership must come from the arts body, surely.  And in turn its legitimacy will come from the expertise and skills it gains from working with artists whose creative output it supports.   It starts with the art whether we call it a project, business or an industry.

Postscript Spilt Milk is keen to tour to Scotland and especially the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.  Follow the link to get hold of them if you can help!

Update****

This blog has attracted a few comments on Facebook and Twitter.  I quote them here with my response.

From Robert Dawson Scott on Facebook, two points:

1.    I’m really glad someone has at least come and out argued this case. Like you, Christine, my initial thoughts on the idea of Creative Scotland were not negative; the very fact that government was treating the creative sector as something worth investing in, rather than just a drain on money that could have been spent on schools/hospitals/la la la, seemed to be a positive step. Where it began to unravel, I think, or at least where one of the threads began to work loose, was when it became clear that CS wasn’t going to get any of the resources that, say, Scottish Enterprise, can access to invest in industries. Whether that was the Enterprise network leaning on government to protect their comfy berths for clapped out business men or not we may never know but I shouldn’t wonder. It left CS a bit broken backed from the start; and also made the mash-up of art and commerce more uncomfortable than it needed to be.

Good point – maybe this needs to be re-visited at the very least to make the relationship between Creative Scotland and the enterprise agencies (let’s not forget Highlands and Islands Enterprise) more effective.  There is what is called the Creative Industries Partnership of which Creative Scotland is a member along with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Funding Council, Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Development International, and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities  (or if you prefer CS, SE HIE, SDS, SDI, COSLA – aka a bad hand at Scrabble). Maybe some clarity is required.

2.    On a smaller point, and you should know better than repeating this, CS has not invested in a cookery programme. It invested in the pitch to get a network programme to Scotland. The cash will be repaid since the pitch was won and the result is about 28 jobs in the TV industry at no cost to anybody (except the licence fee payer). Even cookery programmes need camera people, editors, blah blah. Oddly enough, for all the opprobrium this has attracted, it was actually an example of CS doing something that it was supposed to do. Of course I am an employee of STV so I would say that; but also I am an employee of STV so I do actually know the detail.

I stand corrected and agree I made a cheap dig.  However I do not think this is what CS is supposed to do.  I do not think that its remit should include supporting the core work of a PLC.  I do not think supporting jobs CS’s primary role (although it is always excellent when it does). This perhaps just illustrates how muddled the thinking has been in this area—and I don’t blame STV for trying.

From @johnnygailey on Twitter several tweets and two main points.  I have re-produced the tweets as they appeared but because of the restrictions of Twitter, the points are made in abbreviated form.  I have re-stated what I believe to be the essence of what is being said but happy to correct if I have got it wrong.

1.  it’s not the same thing: one you fund coz it can’t find form in the market, the other you find coz it can, and you expect return

The point is that the creative industries and the arts are not the same thing because you expect a financial return on the former.  I agree with this.  State funding for the arts is indeed about supporting the creation of work which cannot be sustained via the market.  This in itself does not deny the link between the artist/idea and a viable business.  CS has a role in supporting artists directly but it also can, should and does work in other ways to allow the work to be produced and distributed in a way which will make a return.  Whether CS shares in this return depends on what it is.  For example, film funding can be given as ‘an investment’ so the public purse is recompensed if the movie is a hit. But normally the view is that public money is sued to assist the artist – and the work—to reach a wider market and this will in turn help to support future work.  Whether this works as well as it should is a moot point and one I am raising.

2.  The ideology is not to dump ctve ind remit..the ideo is whethr arts should spec. be tied to the Single Overarching Purpose of Govt:”2 focus govt & public services on create a more successful country,with opp fr all of Sctld to flourish,thru increasg sustnble econ growth”

Economic growth is not the only way to ensure a country ‘ flourishes’

Just because there is economic growth, doesn’t mean ALL Scotland is flourishing.

I suggested that the problem with CS is not one of ideology but how the relationship between creative industries and art is managed and developed.  @johnnygailey’s challenge is that the ideological problem is not as I have described but the fact that CS is expected to follow Government policy and in particular the focus on public services being aligned with economic growth. Absolutely fair point. I agree that I have misinterpreted some of what has been said about the underpinning ideology of CS’s remit.

I agree that economic growth is not the only way in which a country flourishes.  I also agree that not all benefit from economic growth. Further, to link the  development of the arts solely to an economic return flies in the face of everything artist stand for – and indeed what we all understand as the role of state funding for the arts.  So far I agree wholeheartedly.

However I think we need to recognise the realpolitik.  The funding is public funding.  Government is responsible for setting the budget and determining how that funding is spent. The current Scottish Government was elected to do just that.  It is not surprising that it expects its public bodies to develop their plans in line with its objectives.  This should not be confused with government interfering with individual funding decisions in terms of what is or is not funded. It is about CS’s plans and priorities.

This is nothing new.  All governments have sought to determine how their money is spent whether directly by them or via another agency.  In reality this works as a continuous dialogue between government and the agency.  I sat around the board room table of the Scottish Arts Council during the last Conservative government in the early 1990s and witnessed the Council managing its relationship with a sometimes hostile—and sometimes not—political reality.  As was said in 1999, the good thing about devolution is that it brings the arts and government closer together and the bad thing about devolution is that it brings arts and government closer together.  For an utterly brilliant and fascinating exploration of all this check out a project led by Susan Galloway at the University of Glasgow, The Scottish Arts Council 1967-2007: arts governance and national identity. A historical analysis of cultural policymaking.

This is neither good nor bad but, like the weather, we have to live with it and how we handle it is part of the democratic process.

From @southfilmfest:  I wonder if JK took HP to Canongate? & no film studio i Scotland, calls for one ignored by Scottish Screen for years.

No idea about whether or not there was an opportunity for Canongate to publish Harry Potter.  It is a remarkable business and has made a great contribution to the cultural as well s economic scene.  I am not an expert int his area but I belive it becomes very hard for small publishers here or elsewhere in the UK to hang on to successful writers as they cannot compete with ‘the big boys’ on advances.

On the issue of film studio, the issue is partly capital investment to create such a facility– which could  attract lottery funding–but also the viability of such a facility.  I realise there is a bit of chicken and egg here but I understand that what is needed is a big commitment from major film and TV companies to make the business plan stand up.
 

Going for Gold: Involving artists and community. 

Above is a link to the paper presented at the World Leisure Congress in Rimini, Italy on 30  September 2012 which discusses issues around access, community arts and arts in the community and suggests we have seen some new interesting developments in the context of the London Olympics 2012.  *

* Slides to be found Arts in Community World Leisure Congress

I am very fortunate to receive invitations to opening nights or special performances from friends, former colleagues and professional associates.  However I also attend lots of arts events on my own initiative and therefore, like anyone else, I am used to booking and paying for tickets.  This experience has, at times, left me feeling ripped off and exasperated with how bad performing arts organisations are at selling tickets. All (bad) examples are unidentified but all happened to me- across theatres in Scotland.

A friend, frustrated about the process of collecting a ticket in Edinburgh this summer, mused about how he could sail through Glasgow Airport flashing his iPhone and board a BA flight to London without ever having to fumble around with a bit of paper. Of course we all have our horror stories about air travel but, in an effort to drive down costs and improve efficiency all airlines encourage you to book and check in on line—and you save money by doing so.

Let’s contrast this with theatre.  Yes you can book online.  Yet all issue you with tickets which you need to pick up at the venue or pay to have sent out.  This becomes even more complicated if the venue is not the booking office.  The Edinburgh Fringe made steps this year to make this easy and hurrah for the Queen Street station booth in Glasgow. However it becomes very tricky with re-sales.  I know of two spare tickets for the sell out Barrowland Project on Sunday afternoon because the selling agent could not arrange a resale via its system.

Some websites are better than others and some are just terrible.  What about the theatre which does not let you book two tickets if it leaves one seat empty next to it?  I know the argument but what if you and your friend really want to sit in the middle of row H because you have a hearing impairment and this is the best place for you to hear?

Plaudits must go to the ‘BA of booking sites’, Edinburgh International Festival.  The site is several years old now, but is relatively straightforward and you can select your seat.    But the real reason I love the EIF booking system is that you don’t pay anything more than the price of the ticket. Some of our most valued theatres – funded by the tax payer- would make Ryanair blush.  £2 ‘transaction fee’ for booking online- what’s that all about?  This can work out at more than 10% of the total cost.  And then you get asked for a donation! It’s like Michael O’Leary asking for you to buy him a wing for his new plane after you have paid for using the loo.  I know, of course that the booking fee is widespread in the commercial sector- including theatre, bands and big sports events.  I can just about understand why a business model which involves the venue/promoter using an external agent to sell tickets might have to charge extra for this service –although I am not totally convinced this cost cannot be absorbed into a ticket price.  I am at a loss, however, to know why a theatre which runs its own box office feels the need to add an extra booking fee for its own productions when booked on line where little staff time is involved.  And like Ryanair they don’t tell you until it is almost too late.

Of course I could book by phone—although again this often incurs a booking fee. You would think that if there were a booking fee, you would be phoning straight through to handling centre.  No. You have to decide if you want to speak to the box office, the artistic director, the catering manager and someone who sorts the education programme .  Once you have pressed the buttons you are in a queue and this is costing you.

Let’s turn now to the issue of efficiency. In the Alice and Wonderland world of theatre booking, my face-to-face transaction with a member of staff does not incur a booking charge. So I turn up on the night and wait in a queue.  Back in the day, I had management of a box office and I did my bit of counting ticket stubs, writing up the advance sales, calculating door sales on the basis of marks on a plan and managing the sales queue on the night.  Of course it is so much better now we have computerised systems. NO IT’S NOT.

Rather than focusing on getting the sale done, today when I book in person the poor member of staff feels the need to show me the seat by pulling the computer screen round for me to see which seat I am being offered.  I make my selection and as the queue builds up I am then asked if I have ‘booked with us before’.  Not sure. Give over my postcode. Then remember I did book before but that was under another address. By the time we have located me on the system and changed the address – or entered an address if I am a new customer, the queue is restive and the stage manager is urgently asking front of house if they are ready to go.

So whatever way we look at it, we have an inefficient system (sorry ‘systems’ plural because there is not just one), which makes you as a customer feel ripped off and dissatisfied.

But the great advantage of the computerised box office is that it provides a wealth of detail on who buys tickets.  From a customer’s point of view this holds few advantages.  OK I go on the mailing list and receive a regular brochure but beyond that I rarely receive targeted information by post or email (again the Edinburgh International Festival is an exception). Unlike supermarket loyalty cards, there is no benefit to me to have my data held by the venue.

From the theatre’s point of view the data provide management reports on the audience profile and a good example of how this is used can be found with the audience development agencies.  But I know from the work we did on the theatre review that not all venues can use their systems properly; there is an issue about sharing data between the venue and the visiting company; and there is still a gap between gathering and analysis and actually doing anything with the data.

This is not an easy issue- let’s not forget the one persistent problem with the Olympics/Paralympics was about how the tickets were sold.  But we are not talking here about global events  with huge demand. We are trapped in a system which is inefficient, costly and ultimately rips off the customer.   And that is before we look at the actual cost of the ticket. So which is your local theatre? BA or Ryanair?

In 2006, while working at the University of Glasgow I undertook a piece of research for the Federation of Scottish Theatre on Theatre Directing in Scotland.  I was encouraged to re-visit this work recently by someone who had read the report and picked up some points from it relevant for now.  And indeed on re-reading, I note that many of the issues identified then emerged again during the Review of Scottish Theatre and some of the key recommendations in the 2006 report have not been implemented. The question is, are they still appropriate and useful?

Christine Hamilton August 2012

I watched the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games on Friday 20 miles from Stratford—the other Stratford, Warwickshire.  I was visiting friends in Coventry which has, incidentally, fully embraced its role as an Olympic football venue.  We gathered around the TV, marvelling at Danny Boyle’s vision:  the NHS, CND and multi cultural Britain for a moment gave us a glimpse of a Games away from the stifling effect of corporate sponsors, eye watering budgets and failing private security firms.  The Daily Mail and the bonkers MP were correct, this was not their Little England.

Sitting in the heart of England, I felt I understood what has been achieved by working together.  Boyle chose Brunel and steel making to represent the industrial revolution, but it could have been Watt and ship building; the coup de théâtre with Tim Berners-Lee is a reminder that Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone was the first step in that digital revolution.  The nurses, clinicians  and other NHS workers celebrated our world class health provision, which was built on the science which gave us disease control, penicillin and anaesthetics.

This was a vision of the Union which no politician, economist, political scientist nor constitutional lawyer has yet articulated.  This was not an event which bowed to ‘tick box’ approach to the UK nations, their cultures and achievements. Granted we did have the children’s choirs and a sweet rendition of Flower of Scotland from Stirling Castle (where else?), but no hackneyed vision of pipes and tartan, just the achingly beautiful voice of Emili Sandé singing the hymn adopted as the English FA anthem while the dancer/choreographer, Akram Kahn performed his moving tribute.  What everyone agrees is that the artists delivered on Friday.  They delivered not only a view of the London Olympics to the world but reflected ourselves to ourselves.

After all this I was not surprised on my return to read headlines in the Scottish media about the Opening Ceremony providing a back drop to the debate on independence.  Some of the headlines were at best wishful thinking and at worst overblown jingoistic nonsense (Games are new Battle of Britain, screamed Scotland on Sunday).  A bit premature since we have two years to go until the referendum.  What the London 2012 event confirms, however, is the role which artists will have in exploring the issues as we approach the day of making the biggest decision of our lives as citizens and voters.  Of course nothing will ever again have a budget of over £20 million and guaranteed global TV audience in billions, but it will be the artists who can take us on the journey of imagining.

After the launch of the Yes campaign, David Greig, wrote, Leaving the Castle, a wonderful blog about what it might feel like the day after Scotland’s independence. At that point I knew that we can hope for two years of sparky creative thinking and making from our artists which will reflect, challenge and ultimately help us each make up our own minds on our country’s future.