What's the point of this really?

To line your pockets as a professional artist, whilst exploiting issues that deeply affect people?

What's extra ordinary about burning an effigy of someone ffs!

get a grip

to parody mark mcgowan?

liam byrne is sending people out of this country to be killed. on march 21st tony blair said, 'what is happening in zimbabwe is appalling, disgraceful and utterly tragic for the people'.
so why is liam byrne/our government sending tendayi goneso back to a regime that wants to kill him?
its a death sentance.
what about the people being sent back to darfur..
iran
afghanistan
the congo...
we got given some money to do an art project lottery money, arts council money, birmingham city council money.
we couldnt think of any thing better than this...mark mcgowan

Give us your chuffin' Arts Council, Birmingham Shitty Council money so we can put a contract out on the fucker, to have him tarred and feathered.

Have you tried tarring and feathering yourself yet Mark?

It's gotta be worth a few quid mate :P

What a sickening round of comments. Makes me ashamed of indymedia to read these small minded bigoted remarks which suggest that artists should either a) just concentrate on producing meaningless crap or b) starve.

I think it's an amazing coup that you've got some of our money back (yes, commentators, it is OUR money, not the council's) to draw attention to this terrible, heart-breaking situation. Well done, and thank you.

I'm right behind you on this one.

I'm planning to dress up as a zapatista and sit in a bath of zapatista coffee for a week to expose the exploitative trade in coffee and raise awareness about chiapas.

I'm sure the zapatista solidarity groups in the uk will support me.

Do you know what, "meaningful artist", I bet you won't. I bet this is another cheap shot at people who actually get things produced and done. But if you do, good luck to you. I'm sure it would help, in fact.

I can't thank you enough for this one "a", you've just inspired me to dress up as mark mcgowan, with a mark mcgowan mask on, and crawl on my knees through birmingham city centre for a week with "FUND ME!" taped to my arse and a begging bowl attached to my back.

I'm also contemplating whether to dress as mark mcgowan, with a mask on again, and lock myself in a cage in Birmingham City Centre, where i'll slowly starve myself to death.

This will simultaneously draw attention to the plight of desperate artists who are at the mercy of funding institutions, corporate buyers, agents and rich congnoscenti who parasitically 'feed off' creatives and the kind of mocking insinuations reflected in the comments above.

everyone who publishes an article in their name is publicizing themselves, no doubt a lot of the articles on IMC UK have been put their by budding young writers who hope to make a career out of writing or have already done so.
So whats the difference with artists they also need to eat and pay their bills.
Good to encourage independent artists and writers, not all of them are funded or even want to be.
Funding is basically censorship, because you can't produce anything that the sponsors wouldn't approve of.
You find it in Holland, which is one of the most advanced systems of total control in Europe, lot of money available for artists who are prepared to tow the police state line.

good on yer Mark !

Good point about *some* writers, although it's frustrating that people often see indymedia as a means to furthering their own career. Sometimes these 'writers' will fleetingly get involved in an imc or post stuff up just so they have a portfolio on-line to show prospective employers.

Let's get one thing straight, Indymedia is run by volunteers who often work themselves stupid to provide a medium for radical social change for absolute nothing and they don't crave 'recognition'. So if you've got any capacity for empathy then you'll appreciate this can create very obvious tensions with other media activists who have different motivations and expectations of what this medium can provide.

Like the vast majority of activists we're not about self-publicising ourselves either. You're very unlikely to find a post about an issue or an action that seeks to promote an individual. Whereas in the so-called art-activist world, people are more than willing to promote themselves so they can build up their own portfolios, get more recognition and more funding opportunities. This creates friction and also contradicts our editorial giudelines, although I accept this is a 'grey area' in some cases.

Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:

Advertising : posts with personal or product promotions.

 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

If artists like yourself feel so strongly about issues, then why don't you at least liase with the people who are at the centre of your 'work', instead of promoting yourselves as the focus of your work.

Has this artist and the "comedian" contacted any of the people marginalised and targetted by liam byrne - I very much doubt it. And I'm probably right in saying they'll ditch this latest stunt at the drop of a hat to pursue another angle that they can get funding for.

Most of the comments on this thread are disappointingly narrow-minded and black and white.

Getting funding is not fundamentally ethically wrong as long as there is financial transparency.

Funding does not necessarily mean the project will be censored or toned down. A far higher profile and more effective event/action could be organised with funding than without it. So as long as it is not censored and not personally profited from (in financial or publicity terms) then it can only be a good thing.

Artists should not profit financially from their activism because it casts doubt on their motivations. It seems completely wrong to make money off the back of a tragic issue when that money could be spent improving the lives of those affected.

Those of us who do (unfunded) activism do so in our own spare time and out of our own pockets. But, the success of our activism is often limited by the time and money we can and want to devote to it.

If someone got funding for a longer-term activism project/event which it would not be possible to do in their spare time alone (i.e. it will be at least full time work), then I cannot see why they should not pay themselves a living wage for it. They certainly wouldn't have enough time to have a job as well, and people have to eat and pay the rent in the meantime!

So how about we suspend our judgement until Mark has answered this question:- Is the funding for this event to cover event costs, or are you financially profiting from this?

Mike D says,

"Getting funding is not fundamentally ethically wrong as long as there is financial transparency."

So, why on earth does something like indymedia (one of the biggest volunteer run organisations in the world) generally reject funding?

its funny you are all talking about this funding issue.
its very similar to the line taken by the sun newspaper.

whats important here
Mohammed Abdulhadi Ali???
or whether i get my train fare to birmingham paid

So presumably it's OK to work in a non-ethical company, and do unfunded activism (actually activism which is funded by the day job) on the side.

It's presumably more OK to work for an ethical company, and do similarly 'unfunded' activism on the side.

It's presumably even more OK to work paid & full-time for an activist campaign group which is funded by all sorts of people.

And it's presumably even better, judging by this thread, to stay on the dole (whose money's that then?) and do activism most of the time.

But get an artist actually getting of his arse and getting public funding to make a public statement against the government's appaling treatment of refugees, which most of the public would agree is abhorrent, and you all crawl out of the woodwork screaming hate.

Presumably he should just have saved up his JSA? Or mugged someone?

This is indeed a tragic sidelining of the main issue - the real people we are sending back to be tortured and killed. Well done, my Sun!

most artists when they're filling in a funding proposal decide to pay themselves between £150 and £200 a day

Well, most writers earn 5000 a year, which is a lot less than people who work for funded activist campaign groups.

And if "most artists" put in that sum for a day's pay (how do you know, out of interest?), do you think that in any way might reflect the fact that:
a) They might not earn anything for the rest of the year
b) They have no holiday pay/sick leave/pension plan
c) They are, like the rest of us, trying to feed families/look after parents/eat/pay rent etc etc

Of course they should be consigned to starve on the JSA, like the rest of us, but personally I think good on them. I'd rather my money went to paying artists to produce this kind of inflammatory revolutionary art, than into the expense accounts of councillors.

I think that comments a bit unfair. No-one's been sidelining the real issue here; the fate of tens of thousands of people who are deported back to unsavoury regimes on a daily basis, where they face incarceration, torture and possibly death.

I think you'll find some of us work pretty hard, whilst holding down jobs, supporting anti-deportation campaigns, visiting detainees, protesting at detention centres, reporting centres and challenging as many facets of the border regime as we can.

Will Mr. McGowan and Mr.Barshak, put their money where their mouths is so to speak, and get involved in a local noborders group or an anti-deportation campagin? Or is their political expression, if you can call it that, just confined to conjuring up stunts in the middle of Birmingham City Centre?

Although Mark's had quite a grilling on the comments above, I can't for the life of me find any political references to the so-called "comedian" Aaron Barshak even though he stood as a candidate in an election. So if anyone should get criticised for opportunism here, perhaps Mr. Barshak should answer some questions?

Just a couple more questions though...

Who apart from Birmingham's cognoscenti are really going to go along to this at 12:30am?

Are you going to exploit the stunt to get more people involved in challenging the injustices of the border regime, or is it just a stunt that might provoke a brief flash of controversy?

What are you going to do after this stunt? Another one?

And can you come along to a demo and repeat the stunt? :)

So people who stay anonymous on indymedia (yes! me!) are brave, noble non-publicity seekers, only there for the good of their souls, not their egos.

But artists who come out and make a huge public political statement like this one can be criticised for
a) Bolstering their egos/being publicity seekers
AND
b) Not doing it publicly enough/not reaching a wide enough audience/not having enough of a political track record already.

I don't get it. I so appreciate the people who visit centres, help refugees, get involved in No Borders etc. Thank you @. But presumably, you aren't an artist and don't have a public forum. What would you do if you were/did? Concentrate on producing safe mundane work, or nail your colours to the mast with a display like this one?

And if you decided on the latter, but hadn't been involved in any campaigns, but had read the news, and heard the stories, and researched the issue, and cared passionately about it, would that make what you did invalid?

Poltical awareness can be reached at any point in life, by anyone. Surely it's not up to anyone to dictate what they do with it - enter tyranny, otherwise, even among us noble anonymous souls...

the thing I find to be both confusing and offensive is that Aaron Barcheck is described as a comedian.

Can somebody please explain how this is possible.

Indymedia does not accept funding because it could be co-opted by another organisation who provide funding then threaten to pull the plug if they do not do X, Y or Z.

However, Indymedia is not a discrete event or action, but an ongoing organisation providing a service every day. This makes Indymedia far more vulnerable to censorship than say a discrete event or action; it would be impossible to censor such an event as the money would already have been spent, and there would be no way to threaten the withdrawal of funds.

To summarise, there are some circumstances where getting funding is likely to result in co-option and censorship and some where it is not. This depends on a.) Whether the funding organisation has a hands on or hands off approach, b.) whether a long or short term project is planned, and c.) what the contract says - I imagine that funding proposals state that x,y and z will be delivered and if they agree to that in the first place then they cannot really complain!

The following link is an interesting thread to read discussing the pros and cons of Indymedia being funded by the Ford Foundation, which (gladly) it wasn't.

 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-finance/2002-September/001475.html

There are very real problems associated with receiving funding, and often funding is an effective strategy used to co-opt radical political projects. So it's useful to understand funding as a process, as well as acknowledging it's effects.

Can you give us an example of a funded project or event that hasn't been co-opted in some way?

"There are very real problems associated with receiving funding".

Yes, I did mention what those were earlier (co-option and censorship) but this is not always the case. Someone I met approached the arts council for funding to run practical workshops for youth in deprived areas to educate them about them about global warming, peak oil, global oil politics, and sustainability. As far as I know it went pretty damn well and they were not asked to tone down their message at all. Do you think it would be better if this event had never happened? Better than sitting at home complaining about people getting funding for activism,surely?

There are some activist projects which can be funded and some which cannot be. For example, I cannot see the arts council agreeing to fund blockades of military installations as 'art' because it would result in arrests and a media shit storm for them. Where as something 'fluffy' (but no less radical) would appeal to them because it is different/alternative etc without causing them any problems.

If people are transparent about their basic living costs/expenses while undertaking a funded project (because they cannot work at the same time), and have genuine concern for their chosen cause (i.e. are not seeking publicity) then I cannot see any moral dilemma at all. And if there are people doing just those things then we are here to call them on it, right?

"Often funding is an effective strategy used to co-opt radical political projects."

Can you give examples of projects which were either co-opted or in danger of being co-opted (apart from the Indymedia one I provided of course) and examples of funding organisations who have sinister motives to subdue radical activism? The reason I ask is because you use the word 'often' as if this happens all the time, and I am pretty sure this is not the case. If anything, this is probably an underexploited avenue of accomplishing social change.

I think there's a lot of truth in the saying, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.

I was talking about the problems of funding in terms of radical political projects. I'm not sure that the project you mention fits that description.

Did that project involve mobilising people in those communities to stand up and fight the inequalities and injustices in their area?

Like i said it's useful to understand funding as a process, funding runs out, doesn't it? From what I know of arts council funded projects that overlap into activism, they don't last long and they won't really get funding from the same sources to do the same thing again. That's a bit problematic isn't it?

But hey, why are we arguing about the merits of funding and activism and whether funding co-opts it?

Before 'activists' got funding to do 'cool' arts/educational based initiatives, they used to do it themselves, DiY and people still do. DiY is a major part of our movement, and it doesn't involve getting funding. If everyone used funding as a model to engage in radical social change, where the fuck would we be?!

You ask for an example of an organisation that gives funding and has sinister motives to subdue radical activism?

Some people would argue the state, the secret state, corporations, and some ngo's do this pretty effectively.

You ask for another example of how funding can compromise a radical project, well, the indymedia example you provided is pretty good, and another good example is how funding bodies manage to co-opt much of the radicalism associated with Birmingham in 1980s.

There were really strong, militant, radical groups organised around fighting for racial equality and social justice in Birmingham at that time. Most of them have disappeared and some of those involved, now have careers in the ngos that came out of those struggles. They were pretty effectively co-opted if you ask me.

"I was talking about the problems of funding in terms of radical political projects. I'm not sure that the project you mention fits that description" ... "Did that project involve mobilising people in those communities to stand up and fight the inequalities and injustices in their area?"

This thread has been discussing funding and activism, at no point in this discussion thread has it been mentioned that this debate is confined to radical activism, so you are making this distinction now because you are struggling to justify your position. Not one person on this thread has suggested that it is a good idea to seek funding for direct action, since it would clearly yield negative results. That does not mean to say that funding for other worthwhile projects could not be sought without it being co-opted or censored. From the tone of your last reply (your rhetorical question) you seem to be snubbing any activism which you don't see as 'radical', however positive it might be. Most activist groups are small and struggle when it comes to numbers, so running workshops to radicalise people is a good thing.

"funding runs out, doesn't it? From what I know of arts council funded projects that overlap into activism, they don't last long and they won't really get funding from the same sources to do the same thing again. That's a bit problematic isn't it?"

This is not problematic. Some money is better than no money for finite projects, and as I mentioned earlier, funding for long term projects is a bad idea.

"Before 'activists' got funding to do 'cool' arts/educational based initiatives, they used to do it themselves, DiY and people still do. DiY is a major part of our movement, and it doesn't involve getting funding."

DIY culture has been the mainstay of our movement, but limitations on the participants spare time has always been the limiting factor in determining relative success. So there is not a problem with some people seeking to overcome those obstacles so they can devote more time and resources to their chosen cause, so long as their motives are not tainted with self promotion/monetary gain.

"If everyone used funding as a model to engage in radical social change, where the fuck would we be?!"

You are now putting words into people's mouths, no one has suggested funding should be used as a model for all activism and radical social change.

"You ask for an example of an organisation that gives funding and has sinister motives to subdue radical activism? Some people would argue the state, and the secret state plus some ngo's do this pretty effectively."

These are not examples, you lack to mention specifics.

"You ask for another example of how funding can compromise a radical project...There were really strong, militant, radical groups organised around fighting for racial equality and social justice in Birmingham at that time. Most of them have disappeared and some of those involved, now have careers in the ngos that came out of those struggles. They were pretty effectively co-opted if you ask me."

You still lack specifics so I am not convinced you know much about what you speak of, but what you have mentioned proves my point, all of these were long term projects (not finite ones for which funding is suitable), so it is hardly suprising (but sad nonetheless) that they were co-opted.

Anyway I digress, I don't want to repeat points I have already made.