Artists talking about CS Mk2

All been a bit quiet on the Creative Scotland front (and not just because their computer system crashed on the first day back after Hogmanay...) - there was a lot of talk about how CS Mk2 might be an improvement on Mk1. Many of the artists ('artists' in the CSstooshie sense means anyone from writers to musicians to film-makers) on the frontlines of the CS protests last year have been holding informal discussion sessions in the last week or so. Here are some notes from a session in Embra on 11th January (courtesy of Jen McGregor) - this is an open-access GoogleDoc that anyone can comment on - here
We've no idea if anyone from D+G has been at any of these sessions - would be great to hear from anyone who was about the general mood and direction of thinking..

Mandatory Tie-Wearing is one of the suggestions for CSMk2

Notes from Creative Scotland/Arts Policy follow-up meeting
Cumberland Bar, Edinburgh, 11 January 2013

Notes regarding ideology:

• Andrew Dixon’s departure makes no difference to policy. If there is to be change within Creative Scotland we should be looking at an alternative policy structure.
• Are we all talking about the same thing when we use the word “policy”? Discussion would be much more productive if we define the term.
• At what scale are we considering change? If this just about Creative Scotland? Should change take place at a national level?
• The Scottish Greens have been approached about examining existing cultural policy legislation to see where amendments could be made, but so far they do not seem to have responded with great enthusiasm to the idea.
• Current practice at Creative Scotland is part of a wider pattern of hostility towards public spending. A culture of box-ticking and adoption of market language is a form of control.
• How do we make sure that Creative Scotland’s board consults artists in a meaningful way regarding the appointment of the new Chief Executive and their plans for change?
• The Finnish example was brought up, where similar failings were blamed not just on specific CEOs but on neoliberalism itself, prompting meetings between politicians and practitioners. The problem with Creative Scotland runs deeper than one CEO, senior management team or organisation, and we need to be prepared to tackle the underlying ideological problems or we’ll run into the same issues again and again.
• What is our argument for subsidised arts? Artists individually claim the right to express themselves artistically, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that this should happen at public expense. We see ourselves being linked to tourism and used to sell an idea of “Scottishness” and many don’t like that. Should we be arguing that subsidised arts promote liberty? Collectively we need to get better at arguing the case for public funding so we can hold our own with Creative Scotland and politicians. Again, this will mean engaging with ideology.
• Many of us dislike (or worse) the term “investment” which has been adopted by Creative Scotland. It is market language and implies the expectation of a financial return. So what do we call it instead? Funding? Subsidy? Public money? Something else entirely?
• We notice that during CSstooshie there has been little input from those involved in film. It would be useful to know how they feel. Are they feeling left out of the discussion? Are they content with the way things are and don’t feel they have anything to speak up about? Have those who might otherwise have been quite vocal taken their work elsewhere in the wake of Scottish Screen’s demise?
• It would be useful to have some kind of public meeting or debate involving Creative Scotland, artists, the general public and politicians to discuss the role of the arts and why/how they should be funded. The Artists’ Open Space and Tramway World Café proved that open discussion has an important role to play in bringing about change. What model would work best for the next stage?

Notes regarding practicalities of funding:

• There have been many calls for the reinstatement of art form expertise within Creative Scotland. The challenge is to make sure that this does not lead to the exclusion of cross-platform and boundary-pushing work. How do we do this?
• Would some kind of jury system work as a means of making funding decisions? Random selection from a group of eligible people including artists and non-artists (perhaps subscribers to galleries/theatres/etc who could nominate themselves), ensuring regular rotation to avoid staleness, perhaps choosing from live pitches rather than simply forms.