There was a diversity of creative business leaders at last week’s C&binet Forum. As well as global industry leaders from Google, Spotify, EMI, Vivendi and many other major media leaders, publishers, content providers and distributors, there was a rich smattering of creative entrepreneurs (mostly not wealthy either because they work in community creative enterprises, or simply because they are emergent). So both the formal sessions and informal chats were driven by an energy and passion around change and improvement to maximise the impact of UK creativity.
The ‘arts’ did not emerge much during the formal discussions, perhaps due to the domination of the copyright agenda. Twice they were mentioned, once by the CEO of DACS and once by Colin Tweedy of Arts and Business who was given short shift by the panel talking about investment, who were interested in profit not patronage. In their mind, music , publishing and games fell clearly under the remit of the creative economy, but subsidised arts did not.
This division is one which some of our artists and subsidised arts organisations feel comfortable. It provides some necessary protection and a space for the state to encourage the vital support of individual artists and arts activity which cannot and should not be commercial. The metrics of the arts are not only (if at all) commercial but are educational, social and cultural, promoting well being, cultural identity, individual growth and community cohesion – as well as , most importantly, provoking ideas, thoughts and revelations.
But not to engage in the fast moving change around the way we communicate and interact in the digital age could be a catastrophic mistake which threatens some subsidised arts organisations with irrelevance and possible extinction.
And its not about using Twitter as a marketing tool.
The key areas are around interacting with audiences and around 21st century business models.
In terms of interaction, the massive increase in people interacting through games must surely given some ideas to arts organisations – especially those involved in drama and music – some scope to review current products and seek new collaborative methods of creating work.
And as for 21st century business models – its all about Freemium and upselling.
The leaders of some arts organisations engage in the challenge and break through the aspic of subsidy. Watershed, for example, in its Ished project is about to embark on creating theatre with participants through mobile technology. Cornerhouse through the Art of With is at least asking the questions about collaboration with users in curation and programming. But the examples are few and far between. In the mainstream of subsidised arts, the production and presentation of work is entirely led by the visions and drives of the artists at the top, and the machinery around that is concerned with realising the artistic ambition and attracting an audience for it.
So does it matter? Maybe subsidised theatres and arts centres are simply the organised versions of individual artists who create work for arts sake and damn the audience?
A colleague , faced with the evidence which demonstrated the type of work which would attract larger and more diverse audiences, and noting the artistic director’s disdain, described the ‘salon theatre’ with which that organisation was engaged.
Personally, I think that is a great pity. I, like many, discovered the arts with a little help from the library, my dad’s work night out to the (variety) theatre, and school trips. A typical child of the ‘C2DE ‘ household with no books, art or music, the arts unfolded as I began my journey of discovery.
Subsidised arts organisations should encourage the discovery of today’s youngsters and engage with their equivalent of libraries and works socials – social networking and gaming as well as intense engagement in education. Or else adopt the the model of supply-led theatre and arts, the ‘salon’ and make the case for investment for other reasons – the arts are, after all, good for your health, well-being, community cohesion and sense of self.
If that is the case, individual arts organisations will need to have their evidence ready. We have less and less public expenditure available. And government, particularly if the Conservatives win the next election, get it about business models. Barnet Council’s freemium model could, if extended, mean that the arts and culture are an additional extra for tax payers. And will they pay for salon theatre?