'TAKING THE PICASSO'
There’s been much criticism in the press recently of frittering public money on art. The attack on the London University College Hospital last year was focused on a confused argument around diverting funds from patient care to commissioning extravagant works of public art. The SUN newspaper captured the feverish feeling of the press in its October 26th 2005 headline; ‘Taking the Picasso, £9m NHS art bill’. This exclusive story went on to describe how, ‘barmy health bosses have blown an incredible £9 million on hospital art in just two years,’ within the NHS. The equation here is simple; spend the money on doctors and nurses and not art.
Whilst the article notes that the money for this work comes from charitable donations or Government grants, the implied message is that culture and the arts are not valued; moreover, when there’s a connection between the arts and health, there is outrage at the very suggestion that the arts happen in any setting other than cultural venues.
The role I have is to explore the potential impact of creativity, culture and the arts on the public health agenda, and that doesn’t mean looking exclusively at hospitals, but more broadly at how strong practice can question attitudes and behaviour and bring about change in settings that aren’t exclusively cultural or clinical. When public understanding of the arts and health agenda is skewed towards hospitals, and reporting generally, is knee-jerk and reactionary, this is a constant challenge.
Turner Prize wining artist, Grayson Perry further fuels potential misunderstanding of the arts and health agenda in his article for The Times on March 8th 2006. In his attack on Government spending on the arts he comments, ‘I don’t believe that thrusting mediocre culture at targets will improve health (or) enliven run-down cities…’ His argument here seems to be around the commissioning of ill conceived and uninspired public art. In my experience, the people involved in the arts and health field are concerned not only with the finished piece, but the process involved; a large number of truly effective projects steering clear of ‘public art’ in favour of processes utilising a range of art forms that inspire, provoke and engage.
The question of the subservience of the art form in relation to health targets is a realistic concern, and one that the artists involved in this agenda are acutely aware of. I think Perry is right in his view that local authorities, indeed the Government are, ‘…eager to foster spurious community identity, (parking) hundreds of anodyne public sculptures like tanks in a war of cultural aggression against the relatively uneducated.’ It does seem that the cultural box can be ticked by commissioning a quick fit sculpture and Perry’s comments that these ‘civic baubles’ can’t replace jobs and social capital are spot on, if a little obvious. Where I do disagree with Perry is that there is some ‘Government orthodoxy that the arts have healing properties’. If only there was orthodoxy; if there is Grayson, where is it held and who do I need to be talking to?
In truth, we all know that the motivation behind much art commissioning is driven by token gestures and ego, but dig a little deeper in the field and you’ll find some rigorous and challenging practice. Much of the good practice I refer to never reaches the public platform of the gallery space or Turner Prize, but bubbles up from the ground in places where the cream of the art-world fear to tread; the real world. So, practice taking place in some of the arts on referral projects, which offer opportunities other than medication to people affected by mental heath issues, never really reaches the headlines; but as evidence suggests can have a profound effect on people’s lives.
I’ve heard awful poetry, seen terrible performances and read some dire books; these are my singular perspectives sometimes biased, always affected by personal baggage; but I have learnt to be open to challenges and other viewpoints. But it seems that often the people I’m interested in working with have their own entrenched camps; artists with their often unfathomable vision and those within health driving blindly towards their next target. I do think there’s a middle ground that doesn’t necessitate mediocre practice, or work that’s irrelevant to a health agenda. When Perry talks about his ‘community, the art community’ being damaged by the Government using the arts to further it’s social policy, he runs the risk of damaging the cultural and artistic opportunities of people already marginalised by poverty and it’s resultant impact.
In your article for the Times you describe how you’ve got a piece of art in the political community that you want to influence; I’d like to know how your etching will influence the political community it hangs in Grayson; and how will you influence a society where you have established your own, if not unique, certainly niche market? I’d personally like to see a Grayson Perry set of NHS disposable bed pans.
What we need are champions from both the cultural and health sectors to stick their heads above the parapet; who understand both the difficulties and challenges, but who can articulate with a passion and perhaps, some of the evidence that Perry asks for.
The arts have the power to liberate and enable people to make sense of the world, give excitement and challenge mind-sets; and don’t just exist so that artists can create there own elitist ghettos.
Clive Parkinson
To read the Grayson Perry article in full go to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2073668,00.html
Grayson Perry, Balloons photograph used with thanks to Victoria Miro Gallery
Posted on April 27th, 2006
May 16th, 2006 at 9:46 am
In his article, ‘Cheap art won’t make poverty history, Tony’(Times, March 8 2006), Grayson Perry has completely overlooked the value of creative processes for hundreds of people, that has been recognised and enabled through the efforts of recent government, local authorities, international development organisations and community artists. To damn community and public arts in its entirety, sweeping process, product and all, into the same bin, is complacent, and frankly, a misuse of Perry’s position as a respected artist. I saw his work at the Turner show in 2003, and was moved by its personal and seemingly cathartic elements, (a far cry from the usual minimalist stagnating pieces usually on offer). To me the value of his work (such as I was an Angry Working Class Man 2001), lies in its intensely personal mental and pictorial processes, and it was great to be able to have an insight into this.
It makes me angry that he has overlooked exactly this point, suggesting that funding should only be avilable for artists, and not be targeted to ‘poor schools’ and ‘ethnic groups’ that may be being socially excluded. Take some arts funding to a really excluded, highly talented ethnic group like Roma gypsies in parts of Eastern Europe and see what they can get out of it, spiritually, economically and socially.
Hundreds of projects are concerned not with simply providing something pretty to look at in otherwise drab environments, but involving people in creative methods that can make life easier; drama role play for young people with HIV helps them address their fears from a safe distance, in a non-personal way, adapting ideas to their own lives. Supporting community story telling sessions after an earthquake stimulates problem sharing, enabling survivors to come to terms with loss and difficult issues, and can help children say goodbye in safe and supportive ways. Mural painting and music making supported by Youth Offending Teams can give young offenders a sense of pride and motivation. Young people have used art this way for decades, and finally the government recognises and supports it. Employing artists with natural people skills, (who are not always easy to find) to take this forward is valuable.
Perry points to a lack of empirical evidence, but preventative work takes time to prove its effectiveness, and doesn’t produce results overnight; crime figures and public health statistics have to be collected for around 10 years before we can prove any real changes. Admittedly the arts community is not so good at this, let’s hope we are getting more serious about it. Through working with truly isolated individuals such as young offenders, it is hoped future crises can be avoided, and there will be less demand for expensive targeted services and sentencing.
In places where there have been serious immediate crises; pandemics, natural disasters and armed conflict, community arts can have an immediate effect; recently I heard of an NGO in Tanzania that took drums to a group of homeless young men, drug addicts affected with HIV, who supported their addiction through robbery and crime. Through the exhilaration of the musical experience, and mutual support in music they found something more positive, recognised they had skills and talents they didn’t know about, and this has led them to attending courses in life skills, with a view to setting up a micro- business. Four months after the Bam earthquake in Iran mothers came to a community arts team and told them that weekly arts and drama workshops had made their children more confident, able to leave their mothers’ sides, play outside again and everyone was able to go about their business with much more ease. Many a life has been turned around through art and performance opportunities in prison. The list goes on…
Perry says Art whose prime purpose is to fulfil a social agenda is usually bad art. I am not in favour of foisting arts on to anyone, but shouldn’t we all at least have the opportunity? And who is to say what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art? Surely this only makes art elitist; it is up to the viewer and the maker to interpret it in his or her personal way. Art created by an individual doesn’t have to be on view at all, what is important, is that it holds its own distinctive values, through processes and final result.