I am off to Brussels for a conference on contested heritage in museum institutions. Taking place at the Maison des Arts, Campus of the Université Libre de Bruxelles as part of EUNAMUS.

NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND THE NEGOTIATIONS OF DIFFICULT PASTS

Contested objects

How have European discourses of ownership developed in national museums over the last century in relation to the possession of artefacts that are subject to restitution claims? Cases of contested objects in Europe can be related to contexts of colonial appropriations of material culture and post-colonial claims, to processes of secularisation of church property, to situations of war and plunder, to archaeological finds in territories where national frontiers have changed or are disputed. From a methodological point of view case studies will be privileged that go beyond legal aspects to examine the historical significance of using objects from the past as expressions of national identity.

Difficult pasts

What role do national museums play in handling historical issues that are socially and politically sensitive and liable to give rise to contestation? Particular attention will be given to individual or comparative cases related to the construction of national territories and to conflicting representations of “natural” and ethnic communities, which have become the subject of specific revisions in light of political and intellectual developments.
Furthermore, national museums are increasingly being called upon to provide forums for dealing with highly sensitive issues of traumatic past events – particularly those related to situations of political criminality. In light of the increasing importance of memory studies, this conference will examine how museums attempt to represent the “unspeakable” elements of the past.

It looks great, directly relevant to the new book I am writing, and I will reflect on some of the insights after the event.

I have been involved in the planning of Death: Southbank Centre’s Festival for the Living, which takes place 27 January — 29 January 2012.

The Ultimate Equalizer, The Grim Reaper, The Blessed Release. One thing is certain – we all have death in common and this January we defy taboos and take a look at this unknowable certainty from many angles.

Through music, workshops, literature and installations, and talking with everyone from philosophers to funeral workers, we examine our attitudes towards death and why we are so reticent to talk about it.

I will be speaking on the Political Lives of Dead Bodies from Jesus Christ to Gadaffi on the Saturday.

The piece is a head to head between Peter Davies – the Cultural Policy Advisor for Canterbury City Council – and myself, arguing for and against disposal of collections for financial purposes, in science museum collections. You can read it here.

The article is part of the publicity for a new book on disposal, that we have both contributed to, published by MuseumsEtc.

MUSEUMS AND THE DISPOSALS DEBATE

With collecting for perpetuity no longer necessarily the norm, and active disposals as much a part of collections management as accessioning, Museums and the Disposals Debate brings together international guidance, opinion, best practice and case studies in deaccessioning and disposal policies and practice.

How museums react to their changing role – from public collector to effective manager – and how they review the purpose and role of their collections, will shape the future of the museum sector. What are the issues in relation to disposals, and how can the benefits be weighed against the challenges and pitfalls?

This major book, over 600 pages, is a timely addition to current deaccessioning and disposals policies and programmes. Its intention is to be a valuable advocate, critical friend and information source for museum managers and collection specialists across the sector.

I was on the Today programme with Bidisha discussing the merits of and problems with contemporary political theatre. You can listen again here:

Article in the Independent

As sure as night follows day, shortly after a newsworthy event, a play tackling the issues raised will be staged. Most recently, three months after the riots during the summer, and three months before the official Government report on the events is due, was the Tricycle Theatre’s production, imaginatively titled The Riots. The piece examined what happened as described to the writer, Gillian Slovo, building a “real-time” representation of what took place, using tweets and interviews with police, victims, teachers, lawyers and community leaders.

Click here to read the article.

I have accepted an invitation to be the Culture Section Co-Editor, alongside Professor Tammy Anderson, of Sociology Compass (SOCO), a peer-reviewed journal that presents review articles surveying topics of interest within sociology. The journal strives to be readable, so that its contents will be of interest to undergraduate and graduate sociology students, as well as professionals. I welcome ideas for submissions that survey current thinking and seek to clarify contentious issues in cultural sociology.

The sustained critique by environmental activists, artists and parts of the art world, of the sponsorship of Tate by BP (and funding from other oil companies), looks like it might be having an impact. Certainly, a statement from Nick Serota of Tate gives the appearance of reconsidering this source of funding.

It would be deeply unfortunate if they severed the relationship. Tate, and the others who spend the oil shillings – the British Museum, Natural History Museum, London 2012 Cultural Olympiad, and National Portrait Gallery – should take the money and thank BP for their generosity. BP gives a substantial amount to a number of organisations and individuals which means they can create art work; that that art work is well promoted and the public gets to see it. One of my favourite annual exhibitions – the BP Portrait Award – would not be possible without it, and the lucky artist who wins gets a whopping £25,000.

The most recent critique is from Platform, Art Not Oil and Liberate Tate who have collaborated on Not If But When: Culture Beyond Oil, in which they ask, when – not if – will oil sponsorship of the arts end, arguing that accepting the money legitimises corporations that damage society and ecosystems. It’s certainly thorough, thoughtful and serious, it’s just that I disagree with them.

The arts have always been funded by people and organisations that you might have a problem with: the Pope, Medici, Borgias and private corporations; the powerful and the wealthy who have the money to do so, and the desire to improve their reputations, which has meant they will pay for good art work. In many cases this has been very successful – just look at the Renaissance.

And, whilst I don’t view oil companies with rose-tinted glasses – far from it – they are legitimate and legal companies that produce oil which is something we all need and use. Could they do it better? Yes. Do we need to find an alternative to fossil fuels? Yes. But pressure can be applied whilst also funding the arts.

It is a complex relationship, of course. It is very likely that all funders try to interfere, a bit, depending on what they can get away with and there is no doubt that this sponsorship is PR for the oil companies. Where and when they do try to interfere, this should be exposed and resisted, and where these companies warrant critique, this should continue, loudly.

As it happens, in the last decade, it is the publicly funded arms-length bodies that have supported some of the worst art with strong strings closely attached. There are too few critical voices of state imposed instrumentalism. For example, Philip Goff from Art Uncut, in Culture Beyond Oil, argues more public funding is a solution. Goff should rethink, for I cannot think of anything more controlling and stultifying. In these times of cuts and austerity, it is also unlikely.

I want the arts to be funded, for artists to be free to explore whatever idea they want, and for access for the public to be free or as cheap as possible. We need a mixed funding scheme to achieve this. The more funders from a diversity of sources the better, and that includes oil companies.

It’s the sort of behaviour that makes you think poets must be rolling in dosh. Two have pulled out of a major prize – the TS Eliot – which is not only prestigious, but pays out a decent £15,000.

Alice Oswald, who had been shortlisted for her book Memoriam – a reworking of Homer’s Iliad, and who won the TS Eliot award in 2002 for her collection Dart, said that she was withdrawing because of the sponsor. She explained: “I’m uncomfortable about the fact that Aurum Funds, an investment company which exclusively manages funds of hedge funds, is sponsoring the administration of the Eliot Prize.”

Following her lead John Kinsella, another nominee for his work Armour, is the second poet to withdraw from the award, set up by the banker and poet TS Eliot, in protest. “My politics and ethics are such that I can’t accept money from such a source.” He stated. “Hedge funds are at the very pointy end of capitalism, if I can put it that way.”

The other candidates must be pleased that their odds of winning have increased, but those of us that value this art form should not applaud these actions.

Aurum manages hedge funds. They signed a three-year sponsorship deal with the Poetry Book Society, which runs the prize, earlier this year. It is an important deal that has never been so necessary. The organisation recently lost the regular backing of the Arts Council in cuts so they really need this money. Not only is the cash essential, awards such as these are a way to promote poetry, to show a lead in valuing it more broadly. And let’s face it, poetry isn’t a profitable business or even that popular. Even the most successful writers don’t make a fortune. If many are to survive, let alone thrive, funding is needed. Unless we decide we don’t need them anymore.

Oswald has stated that “poetry should be questioning not endorsing such institutions”. But is this way the best way to encourage it to do so? The assumption would appear to be that artists are not free to do so if they are in the pay of such organisations. And instead the state – assumed to be neutral – should pick up the bill, allowing the creator the freedom to critique. But the state is not known, especially in recent times, for being non-interventionist. The DCMS won’t give something for nothing. And the Arts Council has a well-earned reputation for being controlling and directing, especially in relation to social outcomes and audiences. Of all the threats to artistic freedom, artists with experience tell me restrictions come less from the corporates who just want their shiny logo emblazoned everywhere and fancy receptions where they are flattered, and more from the strings from government or so-called ‘arms length bodies’.

We may not like it, but poets, sculptors and painters have always benefited from the sorts of people you wouldn’t want to spend a lot of time with: the powerful and wealthy, the church, kings and queens and various popes, because that way they can work. Most artists rely on others to fund their work because the market can’t. A mix of money from the corporate world, individuals and the state is the best way forward, because a diversity of sources means greater freedom and the possibility of the creation of a beautiful line or, indeed, questioning work, and that is why the more money the merrier, including the thousands of pounds from hedge funds.

Article on Guardian Culture Professionals.

I have written an article, in response to an article by Dave O’Brien, on Guardian Culture Professional. I argue that we must resist the temptation to appraise the arts in terms of pounds and pence created, and stick to our guns over quality. This continues our debate over how to value culture.

The appetite for monetising culture has developed in tandem with a breakdown in the consensus that art is good in and of itself and a rising relativism which refrains from adjudicating on what good is bad, in place of which we see a sad search for new commercial rationales.

Click here to read the article.