into what was then referred to as ‘the arts funding system’, when I joined
Northern Arts as Head of Film, Media and Literature in 2000. One was a picture
of a rapturous audience of young people at an outdoor festival event, and the
emphasis laid on the experiences we supported through our work, and the
excitement of spreading those experiences beyond those already ‘into the arts’.
responsibilities: to artists, to audiences and to the wider public who were not
currently engaged in the arts. (They may have been ‘the public’, they certainly
weren’t the ‘tax payer’.) We needed to remember all three in our work, and may
have to stand up for the interests of one in relation to others at times. That
difficult but creative balancing act remains, to my mind, one of the essential arts
of the funder.
Andrew Dixon, who has been taking a bit of flack in Scotland recently, to put
it mildly. I don’t think it’s my place to get into the details of the Creative
Scotland situation. It sounds like mistakes have been made, and not just ones of ‘manner’. I don’t want simply to stick up for an old friend and
colleague, ‘right or wrong’. But at the risk of never being able to go North again, I do feel compelled to say a couple of things I’ve been thinking on, inspired by that memory.
purely for artists, although artists are central to it. I say this both
pragmatically – this is not a period the argument of ‘artists for arts sake’
can win enough ground – and with conviction: I believe in public funding to
help artists make work, but not on any terms. (By which I don’t mean there needs to be direct public benefit via every project grant.)
I also believe funding systems have historically failed to reach many artists
and audiences they should have served better and that systems based purely on
‘trust’ and relationships tend to favour those ‘we’ know. To portray Creative Scotland as simply ‘administrating’ funds on behalf of government, and therefore not needing to ask questions about potential results and make choices between projects, artists and organisations – because you can’t fund without doing that, one way or the other – is surely both inaccurate and a recipe for an inert body.
craven bureaucrat is to misunderstand the man. I can honestly say I have met
few people who are more passionate about art, artists and the role the arts can
play in places than Andrew. Yes, his vision of that role includes attracting
tourists to places, includes an emphasis on ‘profile’, and being part of the
broader economy in ways which some artists, many even, might not agree with. The language which one uses to talk about art can be helpful or off-putting, even damaging. But as Kenneth Roy puts it in his piece about this subject today, artists v funders on this is an odd fight: ‘Will the pot ever recover from this vicious attack by the kettle?’
I worked together for a number of years at Northern Arts and Arts Council, and
then, after he left, in his role at NewcastleGateshead Initiative, and we
disagreed (productively and supportively, in the main) on plenty of issues of both substance and style in that time. I also learnt a huge amount from Andrew – some things to emulate in my own way, one or two to avoid. I
never doubted his commitment to the arts, and to artists and how they had to work to create great work. I also know
that the North East arts world would look very difficult if it were not for his
energy, passion and skills over his years at Northern Arts and ACE – and what Ian Dowie might have called his
bouncebackability – and that plenty of people here have good cause to be very grateful to him.
I were asked) is to make every attempt to find a positive way forward. I cannot
see much strategic profit (pun intended, forgive me) in unpicking what took so long to put
together. The posts by Matt Baker and Kenneth Roy (a very clear critic of
Creative Scotland) are well worth a read in this respect.