The System Has You….

In order for humans to survive, building equitable relationships with the natural environment, we first need to design a sustainable culture. To design a culture we need to change the arts, by re-configuring our art forms to collaborate and amend the rules of our communications systems. The resulting lexicon, iconography and stylistics options created for sustainability, will enable designers from all the other cultural drivers, like ethics, politics, economics, methodologies /science /technology & the environment, to build their own subsystems, into a unified coherent sustainable culture. Using socially agreed and commonly held communication system principles and rules. By designing the rules of our communication systems, the arts create a type of social glue, binding people into a coherent culture. What form this sustainable culture takes is up for discussion. If from the range of options, our society fails to ensure that our artists build a democratically agreed lexicon and stylistic for sustainability, then our dominant scientific culture will have succeeded in appropriating the messages of sustainability. Causing confusion, by attempting to ensure it’s continued survival. This attempt at appropriation is easily delivered by creating a communication mismatch, between sustainable message and scientific stylistic, media & cultural context. Negating the message, causing ambiguous communication and social confusion. Fortunately, such survival attempts may be short lived, because our culture is based on unsustainable principles. We have catastrophic flaws within our scientific culture, which if we do not correct, ensure our species will not survive. Ironically, it is also science telling us that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are at such atmospherically dangerous levels, that we have reached a tipping point. Overbalancing our environments equilibrium and causing it to switch from one that supports human and plant life, to one that does not. Estimates of this point of no return vary from 2005 - 2015.
System fa.i..l…u…….
____________________________________________________________________
Once we understand what the arts are for, we will realise how to use them more effectively. Knowing how to use them, tells us how important the arts are. Culturally without exemption everyone is dependent on the arts.
Re-programming our minds, controlling how we communicate, comprehend, think, behave and act socially. Culturally everyone is dependent on the arts to survive and to live.














This first debate specifically attempted to identify ‘barriers’ to collaborations between social designers, urban designers, environmental designers and creative artists/designers, including issues relevant to practitioners within the city.
_____________________________________________________________________
Report compiled by Roman Piechocinski
James Wallbank
Copyright Cultural Design Trust

1.0 Background:
1.1 Debate: Cultural Design Trust in association with Access Space Network Ltd. jointly organised a pilot debate for Sheffield.
* The objectives were to inspire, empower and motivate practitioners
*Arts practitioners, social designers, urban designers and environmental designers were invited to an open debate on the 28th March 2007, entitled ‘ What are the Arts for – in Creative Sheffield? ’
*A series of four debates were planned, each with similar formats, but different emphasis a) barriers, b) solutions, c) policy changes, d) holistic programmes

*Two key note speakers begin each debate prior to an open discussion
*Each debate will be recorded, a report complied with practical proposals and action plan.

1.2 Debate Objectives:
* To inspire, empower and motive practitioners to collaborate
* To identify barriers, solutions, policy changes and practical programmes.
To initiate a framework for practical research, design collaborations and debate between social, urban, environmental designers and creative artists.
* To test a communication theory of culture
* To initiate Multi-disciplinary Design Ideas Competitions
* To design lexicon, iconography, genre and stylistic alternatives for a Sustainable Culture

1.3 Multi-disciplinary Design Ideas Competition -
* Volunteers, students & practitioners, were asked to participate in a design project: to develop a Multi-disciplinary Design Ideas Competition
* To design & build a Sustainable Culture
* By designing iconographic, lexicon, genre & stylistic options, using a multi-disciplinary approach.

1.4 Evaluation Comments - Bookings & Debate:
* Over 350 invitations were e-mailed.
* 76 advance bookings were made.
*Selected booking comments included: ‘timely debate’, ‘much needed debate’, ‘just what’s required’, ‘about time’, ‘thank goodness some one has the courage to organise the debate’, ‘long overdue’, ‘Independent organisers at last’, ‘artists & designers views need to be heard’, ‘arts have much to contribute’.
* 41 people attended the first Sheffield debate.
*11 evaluation forms were returned: ‘Excellent the debate has been opened’, ‘Overall worthwhile’, ‘Is anyone else pushing the Arts debate out there?’, ‘Interesting ideas from speakers, but did not expect speakers!’, ‘co-ordinated follow-up action needed’.
**5 volunteers signed up to steer the Multi-disciplinary Design Ideas Competition.

1.5 Sponsored by Sylvester Space, Access Space Network Ltd & Cultural Design Trust.

2.0 Context:
2.1 Sheffield has one of the largest artists and designers populations out side of London, covering the majority of art forms.
2.2 The city has two universities catering for most arts disciplines. In the 1970’s and 1980’s Sheffield boasted one of the best art colleges in the country.
2.3 There is a long established tradition of practitioners developing arts organisations within the city covering public, private and charitable sectors.
2.4 In 2006, in line with Government policy, Sheffield City Council has established its first Cultural Strategy identifying arts priorities.
2.5 Intended as a new type of economic regeneration agency, ‘Creative Sheffield - City Development Company’ became operational on the 1st March 2007.

3.0 Summary of Comments / Observations:
3.1 Contributions by some artists showed disempowerment, anxiety, nervousness and exclusion. Some were very unused at being asked to articulate what they do. Some even felt inhibited from speaking on the record, fearing negative reactions. Perhaps indicating that the debate process was timely.
3.2 Practitioners strongly perceived themselves as being under-valued, under-resourced and under-used. This justifies the prevailing Treasury view that - if artists are unable to explain what the arts are for, or explain what artists do, then despite current funding, the arts should not be valued, nurtured, funded above higher priorities like defence, education or health.
3.3 An attitude of mistrust still persists between sectors, i.e. establishment agencies and practitioners. A cordial but nevertheless ‘them and us’ attitude prevailed from both sides. Some fine arts practitioners specifically, felt excluded and isolated even disenfranchised and therefore inclined to disengage.
3.4 The majority of the participants considered that the debate should focus on artists/designer issues rather than on the Arts issues per se.
3.5 Indigenous practitioners felt under-represented at various City discussion tables. No democratic mechanism exists to identify or represent local artist/designers views at City/Region and National discussion fora.
3.6 Some artists felt under-appreciated, perceiving that a disproportionate amount of resources were being spent on external high profile imports.
3.7 There appeared to be a strong silo mentality amongst participants, preferring to stick firmly to their own internal practice issues, education issues, economic status difficulties and exclusion issues, rather than address wider debates.
3.8 There appeared to be no real appreciation of or the need for collaboration with other disciplines. Local practitioners seemed to work independently rather then co-operate or collaborate or form wider partnerships. Possibly because there are no frameworks so to do.
3.9 When emerging practitioners sought support or advice, their business development needs were not addressed by organisations set up to encourage local business development. Some participants even perceived such business development agencies as direct competitors for the same resources. Historically this has been considered to be an inadequate service for the creative sector.
3.10 A feeling of sharp competition rather than cooperation exists for scarce resources amongst arts/design related organisations, disciplines and practitioners within the City/Region and Nation.
3.11 Concern was expressed that Arts Council funding for the next spending round was being diverted to the London Olympic Games, to the detriment of the Arts and Regional Arts practice.
3.12 Deep concern was expressed by some participants at the lack of funding available to and from Sheffield City Council. Practitioners felt that Sheffield, the fourth largest city in the UK, should have a substantial budget at its disposal to deliver its Cultural Strategy. Such stringency definitely hampers local organisations ability to raise match funding from other sources. Confirmed by representatives of two major City based organisations.
3.13 There appeared to be no real appreciation of the benefits that will result from building a practical relationship between Sheffield City Council’s Cultural Strategy, the Unitary Development Plan, the Sustainable Communities Strategy and the Environmental Strategy or indeed the need to address Government’s ‘Joined-up Thinking Agenda’ within the City, Sheffield Partnership or within the Region. Nor indeed the central role the arts play in its delivery. Perhaps because no one has publicly advocated such a strategy.
3.14 No substantive practical relationship exists between local universities and the indigenous arts/design population. It must be noted that this is not universal, architecture being a notable exception with both universities networking strongly with practices. Conversely, in the fine arts disciplines this view predominates, to the detriment of local practitioners, students, local Institutions, the City and the Region. The notion that, ‘once you graduate, you are on your own’ still predominates below Vice- Chancellor levels, within university departments.
3.15 The universities are one of the biggest employers within the City/Region, yet fewer & fewer local practitioners are employed or actively nurtured as home grown talent.
3.16 There appeared to be confusion about the function, role and purpose of the arts within society, amongst practitioners present at the debate, leaving broader policy and funding decision making professionals bemused as to how to respond or indeed why to respond to artists’ needs. This is a Local/Regional and National phenomenon that needs re-addressing.
3.17 Major confusion about the use of arts terminology still persists. In particular the abuse of the term ‘Culture’, which is still used as a euphemism for the arts, media and sport, rather than a description of a holistic ‘System’. Making it impossible for a lay observer to understand what is meant.
3.18 Perceiving them selves to be under-valued, an attitude of social disengagement was evident from some practitioners’ comments. Feeling that they should be left alone, like pure scientists, to undertake their work without interference, nevertheless like pure scientists, expecting public funding for the privilege.
3.19 From a systems perspective, there appeared to be little awareness of the unique and pivotal role of the arts play in designing, or maintaining or regenerating our society; building an alternative culture, its economy, political structure, or environment. Some, though by no means all practitioners felt, that their work represented cutting edge or challenged conventions which somehow set them apart from the rest of society, rather than actively engaged them in its day to day running, maintenance or regeneration. Yet there is no equivalent Regional, National or International Arts Research Council or Academy to aid practical creative design research, as there is in Science. NESTA has recently withdrawn its Arts Fellowship programme.
3.20 Some claimed that the Arts are integrally bound up with skills development. That the arts are engaging, exciting and motivational, getting people involved in skills acquisition and then in the development of productive activity, increased employability and business incubation.
3.21 One interesting question was raised, ‘Given that we live in a scientifically driven society, how can we curb our reliance on statistics to drive our Local and National Policies? Eliciting the response, ‘By using multi-disciplinary arts practice to re-design our society’s lexicon, changing us from an ‘empirical’ to a ‘value’ driven culture’! By so doing, highlighting the unique and central role for the arts in society.
3.22 The view that education was the answer to building a better future, was raised and challenged, claiming that education was extremely useful in maintaining and regenerating society, but not when designing out its system flaws. Particularly cultural faults that lead ultimately to a catastrophic system failure, like the causes of global warming. Suggesting that it is important to understand that practice and not education or academic research is the initial vehicle to deliver conceptual system shifts or principle changes when designing cultures.
3.23 What is required is a different type of research, a practically based research that designs alternative, lexicons, iconographies, genres and stylistics. Thus designing the basic building blocks for a sustainable culture.
3.24 To design and build a stable culture we need a multi-disciplinary approach, creating collaborations between artists/designers, social designers, urban designers and environmental designers to ensure a holistic approach to design.
3.25 Except for speakers, issues of climate change, building a sustainable culture, Sheffield’s ability to survive the rise of sea levels, developing a sustainable ‘no-growth’ economy, ensuring population survival, perhaps the biggest challenges facing our society today were not directly raised. Which perhaps illustrates the level of disengagement and disempowerment felt by some practitioners.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS / ACTIONS / SOLUTIONS:

4.1 The need for multi-disciplinary practitioners to identify solutions, policies and programmes, by collaborating and building lasting partnerships.
4.2 The need to call meetings of all relevant parties to discuss and redress perceived or actual imbalances.
4.3 The need for practitioners to elect or agree an individual(s) or body to represent their views at City/Region & Nation’s various decision making fora
4.4 The need to devise schemes in order to inspire, empower and creatively engage practitioners to collaborate, addressing local and global issues.

1. Example: Create a Multi-disciplinary Design Ideas Competition. Encouraging social designers, urban designers, environmental designers and creative artists/designers to collaboratively re-design a city area using sustainability as its guiding principle. With the proviso that they devise lexicon, iconography, genre and stylistic options for sustainable living.

4.5 The need to bring together all relevant agencies to ensure that multi-disciplinary schemes become the public and private sector procurement norm.
4.6 The need to engage all arts and design disciplines in similar endeavours, ensuring across the board arts / design participation and engagement.
4.7 The need to ensure that both universities actively engaged in the process and help deliver the City/Region’s and Global Cultural survival solutions.
4.8 The need to establish a multi-disciplinary Arts Research Funding Council or Academy, open to artist/designer lead practical design research programmes.
4.9 The need for a locally based multi-disciplinary practice based Design Institute to promote sustainable design best practice and training.
4.10 The need for a nexus to engage local people directly, ensuring that they select the most beneficial options, ultimately acting as the final arbiters for future arts and design productions.
_____________________________________________________________________
Next Debate - ‘ Finding a future for the Arts and Environment in Sheffield.
- 31st MAY 2007 6.30 – 8.30pm @ Sheffield Hallam University, Stoddart .
Building, Room 7138 . Marked at entrance.