UK Arts funding, voucher scheme?

The UK arts has its rescue package although details of how it will be funded are still being worked out.  But notes that I have (much communicated via ACE, Arts Council England) are:

  • Indicative timetable; guidance published  end of July/early August, application period August, decisions from early October (very much still tbc) 

  • likely that loans would have a commercial sector focus, grants (some administered via ACE) a not for profit focus  – although not fixed.

  • likely that money will be for survival and support cash flow, not making work

  • money is for current  financial year (ACE’s own grant not confirmed beyond April 2021, a comprehensive spending review in autumn ’20)

  • recovery fund is being administrated by ACE on behalf of DCMS and will reflect Government priorities

  • there will not be enough to rescue everyone and costs savings will still need to be made. 

There’s no real mechanism for supporting freelancers here as I can see yet.

On this note, one populist package that could be enacted has been outlined by Tyler Cowen. This essentially is an arts voucher programme given to everyone to spend on the arts - that way the public can choose what to spend their money on - and it is not decided by any one institution or body.

I think this could work if a wide definition of arts were to be used and could also be popular.

Do follow the ACE twitter feed to be up to date.

Government Arts Funding scheme press release link:”…

  • £1.15 billion support pot for cultural organisations in England delivered through a mix of grants and loans. This will be made up of £270 million of repayable finance and £880 million grants.

  • £100 million of targeted support for the national cultural institutions in England and the English Heritage Trust.

  • £120 million capital investment to restart construction on cultural infrastructure and for heritage construction projects in England which was paused due to the coronavirus pandemic.

  • The new funding will also mean an extra £188 million for the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland (£33 million), Scotland (£97 million) and Wales (£59 million).

Decisions on awards will be made working alongside expert independent figures from the sector including the Arts Council England and other specialist bodies such as Historic England, National Lottery Heritage Fund and the British Film Institute….”

And here are some details via Cowen on his idea after Peacock:

…Out of the 1.4bn, would the Treasury consider some funding (or indeed extra) for an Arts Voucher scheme? I think the funding proposed may work at the institutional level but still misses something

[Albeit Cowen  directs his thoughts at the US, it's still applicable in the UK. The core idea would be:]

"...The second element of the arts rescue plan would take a different tack. Rather than giving money to arts institutions, the federal government could set aside some amount for a concept known as arts vouchers, originally developed by the British economist Alan Peacock.

Arts vouchers are similar to education vouchers except that they cover the arts. The government would hand them out to each [American] British citizen.... .... Unlike direct grants to arts institutions, arts vouchers give consumers a big say in where aid goes. They could be more popular with voters, because they give each one a direct benefit — namely, cash in pocket (yes, they would have to spend it on the arts, but it’s still cash). (My emphasis)

Most of all, vouchers would recognize that planning authorities, even at state and local levels, don’t always know which artistic forms will be popular. If some reallocations are inevitable — for instance out of nightclubs and into outdoor bluegrass festivals — vouchers will allow those preferences to be registered quickly.

Obviously, if state and local governments specify a narrow set of eligible recipients, arts vouchers aren’t much different than direct grants. In that case, little is lost. Still, one hopes that vouchers can be used more imaginatively. ...

In short, vouchers can allow [American] artistic innovation to proceed, even flourish, rather than merely preserving everything as it was before the pandemic. Vouchers also serve an important macroeconomic function by maintaining consumer spending and demand, thus addressing one problem area of the broader economy. With direct grants to arts institutions, there is always the danger the funds simply will sit in the coffers of still-closed non-profits while the broader economy remains weak.

..."

On-line communities, light + dark

As I’ve mentioned I’m involved with several communities which live much of their life on-line. Like many human tools they can be used creatively or destructively.

The one Anoushka set up Transport Sparks for young people with transport special interests could not easily have happened in a world Pre-Facebook. It’s brought a lot of community and social value together. We may laugh or be cynical about Zuck’s assertions about the power of connections and Facebook’s mission, but I observe truth to that.

This long form William Davies (Guardian, H/T Anna Gat) looks at the dark side of WhatsApp groups. Where Transport Sparks brings together light. Davies highlights how private groups can breed hate and conspiracy.

One aspect of some successful communities is while there may be a strong on-line component and in fact the group might not survive without a sustaining online platform there is also a real world meet-up component or at least - in COVID times - a video meet up. The group doesn’t remain solely hidden and anonymous, it acts as a catalyst for real world meetups. My own Mingle was a little like that as well.

Anna Gat’s Interintellect has salons as a pivotal focus. Transport Sparks have transport meet ups. Climate Action Tech has meet-ups real world and now online as well. British American Project thrives on its conference.

That said some gaming communities are almost all on-line. The MiiVerse community was a wonderful community. Sadly, there was little money in it - only social value and it was decommissioned by Nintendo. 

On balance, I remain positive on humans. From this flows, I feel on balance positive about social media, platforms and communities and I feel positive about free speech and sharing ideas - even bad ones (thoughtful articulation of this importance by recent Paul Graham essay on conformity here) - as I think on balance we can add up to a better world despite all the challenges. Perhaps that’s one theme you can find from Thinking Bigly too.

Frequent Production equals successful internet production

I’ve managed for the last 2 years or so a fairly consistent 2x a month newsletter. It would be net better if I was 1x a week (although there’s slightly higher churn for those who don’t like quite so much email / newsletters), and I don’t advertise it and there’s almost 1,000 subscribers now - mostly friends and contacts. My blog has been at about 1x -3x per week and backs up the newsletter.

I think I’ve understood this central lesson

“... successful internet production is frequent production. …” this is what you see in Instagram and other social media.  Relevant, thoughtful and authentic helps but frequent production is the crucial component.

Tyler Cowen - who is one of the most frequent and well read economics blogs of all time - expressed that view and he applied it to what Magnus Carlssen is doing to on-line chess. Cowen himself is one of the most prolific bloggers alongside being well read.

Scott Alexander had done the same with his Star Slate Codex blog, before he took it down in a problem with the NY Times  potentially exposing him in a friendly article. 

I think it’s also part of Elon Musk’s genius.

It’s not necessarily that same for all types of production - I’m not sure live theatre is the same, but as more events move on-line, it’s something I am dwelling on.


Tyler on Chess: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/05/the-new-economics-of-chess.html

Scott Alexander on deleting his blog: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/

Wendell Pierce

…In Pierce’s vision, art “changes people’s humanity, it changes the air in the room, it changes everything. People always ask me, ‘Well, give me an example of that.’” Then, sat in an armchair, with a coffee in one hand, Pierce embarks on the story of Charles L Black, a white lawyer from Texas, who saw Louis Armstrong play jazz in 1931, and two decades later joined the legal team that would help tear down racial segregation. “He always talked about how he had never seen genius in a black man before. I like to think that moment of art was the thing that changed his humanity — that it was not just an intellectual decision.”…”

From FT interview of actor, Wendell Pierce. Pierce is currently (1 Nov) in Death of a Salesman in London.

In defence of Arts Education investment

"...The returns on investment in performing arts are significant, but the strength of any country and its people is about far more than the financial wealth it generates. We must challenge the dangerous narrative that equates success with the level of a graduate’s income and which reduces education to a financial transaction. If we don’t, we risk losing the next generation of artists and all that they contribute to our wellbeing and society…”

David Ruebain makes the case for protecting arts and creative education not only because of a financial return but because of its creative and social capital. This is a move that New Zealand is trying to capture more of by setting its budget by more than only looking at GDP.

The conservatoire David leads has one of the only Circus perfoming arts schools in the UK in its federation. The teaching of this art form we may be losing due to continued cuts to arts education.

His op-ed here: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/20/if-we-dont-protect-arts-education-well-lose-the-next-generation-of-performers

On New Zealand and non-financial capitals: https://www.thendobetter.com/investing/2019/2/24/new-zealand-looking-at-non-financial-capitals

And here you can see a YT of the Circus School:

World echoing language and lacuna choices

Four observations on the power of language and lacuna.

Language can take us out of context. But, language and artistic choices will and should always reflect the wider world, when made public.

The choice to use a puppet to portray a severely autistic boy in a recent play in London has had much criticism from the wider world outside the play.*The creative decision is mediocre, but beyond that the social political world beyond the play cannot be ignored. We live in a world of metaphor and symbols.

The decision for a German CEO to use words that echo the phrase that appears on the entrance of Nazi Auschwitz, even if accidental shows a lack of judgment for the reflection it would bring to the wider  Germanic world.

The casting of a queer-phobic actor into a leading bisexual role (the Color Purple) has echoed angrily and awkwardly with queer audiences and creatives.

On the flip side, the New Zealand Prime Minster, Jacinda Ardern has evoked  “Damnatio memoriae”. In Roman times the state condemned the memory of a person and erased their name from history, it’s been done within many civilizations.

"I implore you, speak the names of those who were lost rather than the name of the man who took them. He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless."

She’s condemned the recent terrorist to no name, such that their cause and “fame” fail.

Our words and actions echo like small and major myths. If you will speak to the wider world, the world will judge what words and actions you use.

*

https://www.thendobetter.com/arts/2019/3/6/autism-stories-representation-and-all-in-a-row-review

CEO blunder:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47566898

UK casting of Color Purple

http://exeuntmagazine.com/features/color-purple-gets-play-gay/

No name to the terrorist.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47620630

Launch of the Developer, architecture and placemaking site

“The biggest risks are the ones we never talk about… If development, design and government doesn’t join forces, unite as a powerful lobby and face the challenges ahead, we may stumble into a future in which the real value of everything we’ve built is nothing, writes Christine Murray…

 

The architectural press is a tidy place to be an editor. For the past 10 years, I visited buildings in the hazy afterglow of construction, between practical completion and handover. The projects were rich in artistic intention and unsullied by human inhabitation. Walking around with the architect, there was an air of celebration, because the difficult birth of the building was over.

 

Writing about these projects, I was often troubled by the fact that I didn’t know yet whether the building actually worked. That nagging feeling was formative in what would become The Developer – the need to look at places as they develop, from concept to decades after completion, and take the long view. With regards to successful city-making, everything about the journey counts, especially what’s there before you begin.

 

Plunging into the waters of place over the past few months, I’ve enjoyed meeting developers on muddy sites and hearing how on these plots of land will grow orchards of offices and homes. The scale of urban redevelopment in the UK is staggering.

 

Just as interesting as the stories developers have told me, however, is what they’ve failed to say.

 

Unmentionables in conversation often reveal our fears and their silence speaks of risks to UK investment. Brexit has been the most avoided topic. This week, at Mipim, there is magical thinking in action that if Brexit isn’t mentioned, it won’t scare investment away. The only person to bring it up was the French taxi driver.

 

This week, at Mipim, there is magical thinking in action that if Brexit isn’t mentioned, it won’t scare investment away. The only person to bring it up was the French taxi driver

 

There are other spectres scary enough to make crashing out of the EU (almost) a distraction. They also remain off the agenda…..

…Even those with major projects fronted on UK waterways don’t explain how their buildings will cope with the expected 60-fold increase in flooding. The number of floods in the UK has already doubled since 2004. The Thames Barrier will fail within 40 years – what then?

 

No longer a distant threat, the risk of frequent heat waves, water shortages and floods now falls within the investment timelines of major UK redevelopments completing in 10 to 30 years.

 

By 2030, we are expected to pass the 1.5ºC marker, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If that seems a small or even a welcome degree of warming on an unseasonably warm, winter morning, let David Wallace-Wells’ new book, The Uninhabitable Earth, scare you. In it, he describes how seven million people are already dying of air pollution globally in “an annual Holocaust”.

 

No longer a distant threat, the risk of frequent heat waves, water shortages and floods now falls within the investment timelines of major UK redevelopments completing in 10 to 30 years

 

As the Earth warms, the risks grow: in a 2º warmer world, 150 million more people would die. Wallace-Wells writes: “Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of 25 Holocausts… It is more than twice the greatest death toll of any kind – World War II.” Within 20 years, there will be 200 million climate refugees fleeing and in search of a new home, according to the UN.

 

The difficulty with carbon emissions, as explained by Wallace-Wells, is that we can no longer afford to do one or two token eco-things per development as an offset – we need to do everything at once and at speed: less waste, no concrete, fewer diesel vehicles, smarter estate management, more wildlife and biodiversity, and more innovation. But in return, we get the chance to future-proof investments.

 

“The risk of not engaging with these debates is obsolescence or worse – the loss of the real social, cultural and financial value of our places”

 

In the face of immense challenge might creep an inkling of futility, but we have the power to change how and what we build.

 

True visionaries see opportunity in every risk, while the peril of not engaging with these debates is obsolescence or worse – the loss of the real social, cultural and financial value of our places.

 

In our first edition of The Developer, we come at the topic of risk from many angles – from risky procurement to the anodyne public spaces created by the risk-averse.

 

On the whole, placemaking has always been a risky business, volatile in the short term but resilient in the long term, with high-stakes winners and losers.

 

“It’s the developer who takes the bulk of the risk, if they’ve acquired the land and have conditional funding arrangements, long stop-dates and need residential units to be sold before profit can be recovered,” says Theresa Mohammed, construction litigation partner at law firm Trowers & Hamlins.

 

But developers are not afraid of risk, perhaps because this is a well-heeled industry – CEOs with affluent roots take more risks than those from poorer backgrounds, according to a 2014 study published in the Academy of Management Journal.

 

True collaboration is a refreshing concept, because the time for finger-pointing is over. As makers of place, we must take great strides and big risks together

 

Fear of risk might explain why nimbys dig their heels in so deep – communities have a lot at stake, too. From residents decanted from social housing to small businesses ousted from their market stalls, embracing change can be a leap of faith too far. And are we worthy of their trust?

 

Tackling the risks of our time will increasingly require sharing them. In an era of finger-pointing and what Paul Berg, partner at insurer Griffiths & Armour, calls “back covering”, sharing risk is a challenge in an industry where an “integrated, collaborative environment is the exception, not the rule”.

 

Berg says: “Where it exists, it invariably requires an insurance solution that recognises that among the team delivering the project, there is no blame, no litigation, no fault, so that between team members, there is no finger-pointing.”

 

This industry has a handle on charm, bluster and glib retorts, but in the age of social media activism and hyper-accountability, more thoughtful responses are now required

 

True collaboration is a refreshing concept, because the time for finger-pointing is over. As makers of place, we must take great strides and big risks together. This will require a search for common ground and shared goals among the whole design, development and management team, including planners, architects, contractors, politicians, investors, engineers, policy workers, developers, asset managers and end users – especially the marginalised ones.

 

My ambition for The Developer is to bring the whole industry together to break down barriers between our siloed professions, first at the Festival of Place on 9 July. At our events, there will be frank discussion about the future of cities and no ‘unmentionables’.

 

The Developer exists to unpick the key ingredients to successful placemaking and promote evidence-based findings to help us mitigate risks.

 

This industry has a handle on charm, bluster and glib retorts, but in the age of social media activism and hyper-accountability, more thoughtful responses are now required.

 

Launching The Developer is a risk, too. But I believe we need more thoughtful reporting on the user experience of our cities. The Developer is an experimental space where we can grapple with the most difficult questions as an industry and work out inspiring solutions together.”

Check out the site and the full article here.