The Same Old Song: the problem with NPO’s
‘The Same does not lead to the formation of antibodies’ (Han, 2016: 4).
The growing dominance of National Portfolio Organisations (NPO’s) is problematic for emerging artists, community arts, and arts companies attempting to develop work without acquiescing to a system that promotes guaranteed funding and support through institutional collaboration/supervision: for example, linking to a government endorsed venue or organisation. Much of the funding appears to be aimed at maintaining a steady state commodity that increasingly and intentionally negates the ‘Other’.
In his discourse surrounding the terror of the ‘same’, German philosopher, Byung-Chul Han, argues that ‘the time in which there was such a thing as the Other is over’. We can find a similar notion to Han’s expulsion of the Other captured in experimental dramaturg Andre Lepecki’s description of singularities, wherein ‘singularity is irreducible, and therefore, a bearer of strangeness’. The singularity of the Other resists categorisation and commodification, it does not seek to be ‘liked’ but instead arises from turbulence and precarity, ‘points of fusion, condensation, and boiling points of tears and joy, sickness and health, hope and anxiety, sensitive points’. Writing amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems to me that we are at an extremely sensitive point and, isolated in our homes, we are forced to consider how society might emerge from this corporeal and existential crisis. As an artist, I am compelled to ask, what will be the role of arts and culture as we attempt to rise from the ashes of COVID-19? Lepecki argues that ‘it has become clear that ‘cultural performance’ has fused with ‘organizational performance’ and that this fusion is central to neoliberal societies, their institutions and corporations’ and I assert that this is clearly the case in the UK. Now is the time to consider what possibilities might arise, or be forced to take shape, in response to the new epoch that is emerging, it is a historical moment, an important moment, where the need to encourage and seek out the singularity of the Other has never felt more prescient. Now, more than ever, there is an urgent need to introduce dialectical tension amidst the voices and institutions of UK arts, whose dominant trajectory perpetuates the same stale paradigms (no shifts) that have been failing to acknowledge, or articulate, a rapidly shifting socio-economic, political, and environmental landscape for many years.
We are in, and have been in for some time, an era of ‘positivity’ that is dominated by, and emblematised by, the culture of the ‘like’, endorsed by social media and ‘indoctrinating us with our own ideas’. There is no space for the Other or tolerance of so-called negativity (this might also be read as critique). Han argues that we are now dealing with a higher order of conformity brought about by the individual’s willingness to auto-exploit and I argue that artists present a particularly good model to illustrate the theme of auto-exploitation. Artists are now treated by funding bodies as entrepreneurs, ‘an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise’. We are presently in a state where the artists contribution to, and (in)corporation by, the cultural industry takes precedent. In the corporate space of the arts the artists usefulness in terms of financial and cultural capital must be clearly evidenced and on show, with the latter becoming particularly important as London and beyond becomes increasingly gentrified and geared towards cultural tourism. bell hooks suggests that such institutionalised cultural settings in the arts see value only in art that mimics the white, Western artistic continuum.Randy Martin expresses a similar sentiment when he warns against hegemonic institutional practices, asserting the need to ‘preserve a space where new formations germinate, to avoid assimilation and co-optation of the energies and demands that issue from social movements’
Amongst the scramble for artists to find the space to express themselves - outside of the ‘National’ perma-funded institutions - where we might include scratch performances, NPO’s, seed funding, project funding and other schemes that materialise periodically to give a glimmer of hope - it is interesting to note how the idea of ‘authenticity’ has been co-opted as an artistic aim, a value judgement, and a dominant criterion for funding. Yet, it is virtually impossible to define what authenticity means clearly and succinctly. However, in the context of the neoliberal business model that drives UK arts, Han’s description of authenticity as prescribing ‘that one must equal oneself and define oneself only through oneself – indeed, that one must be the author and creator of oneself becomes a useful and poignant reference point. Artists operating in the domain of UK arts are faced with a continual negotiation of agency and freedom of movement. The negotiation is both a corporeal and artistic one and agendas guided by ideas of socioeconomic governance choreograph the movement(s) of the arts. It is a system that promotes the illusion of the artist(s) guiding themselves, where supervised funding, allocated mentorships, emerging artist training programmes, and controlled access to performance spaces and events, achieve the sleight of hand that tells us we are the ‘authentic’ producer of ourselves.
Funding structures such as the NPO strategy are closely linked to the apparatus of the state ‘the said as much as the unsaid’. For example, the discourse of the arts in London increasingly focuses on cultural tourism. Evidencing such trajectories, the document Take a Closer Look: A Cultural Tourism Vision for London 2015–2017 set out a strategy to develop an increasingly intimate dialogue between tourism, art, and culture: dance and theatre were clearly highlighted, along with museums, exhibitions, and other attractions, for their potential to offer authentic ‘brag-able’ experiences for cultural tourists. The strategy of focussing on authentic ‘brag-able’ experiences for cultural tourists was still rolling forwards prior to COVID-19. As an example, we might look at the new East Bank cultural district in Stratford, East London (dominated by national artistic monoliths/cultural gatekeepers) which was destined to open in 2022 and which received a special mention within the Cultural Tourism Vision for London proposals. People living in the London borough of Newham suffered mass evictions to make way for the Olympic Village. The East Bank vision systematically capitalises on these events by ‘expanding the terrain of profitable activity’ compounding the assumption of commentators such as writer and editor Alex Cocotas that this large-scale project’s aim is economisation rather than revitalisation. Cocotas argues that the ‘primary beneficiaries [are] cultural tourists, major property holders, and the egos of public officials. Furthermore, the promised inclusion of affordable housing in East Bank is highly questionable at present, causing many people, including architects and artists, to voice fears over gentrification, social cleansing and London’s rapidly changing cultural landscape. These worries are partially directed at the national arts institutions that will supervise the cultural district, with some suggesting that East Bank is displacing artists through a consumer-led gentrification of London, where ‘the consumption of culture is driving the production of culture out of the city’. This argument implicates the national artistic institutions that will dominate the East Bank cultural district, in a context where they might be viewed as artistic gatekeepers, sustained by strategic policies of tourism and consumer-led artistic curation. NPO’s move within this same discourse, and the model extends beyond the boundaries of London.
Meanwhile, Tonya Nelson, an ex-corporate lawyer, who formerly worked under the Conservative health secretary and TV ‘Get Me Out of Here I’m a Celebrity’ star, Matt Hancock, is the Arts Council England London area director. Nelson’s body of work is impressive, but, as with many appointments I have come across within the governing of UK arts, I can identify possible conflicts of interest. Nelson is currently a Senior Associate with the arts consultation organisation AEA. AEA advertise themselves as ‘a global firm setting the standard in strategy and planning for the cultural and creative industries’ and these words alone, invoking concepts of monolithic international and national artistic values, are problematic for arts and culture: suggesting a dominant, Western, corporate driven paradigm. Furthermore, although AEA are purportedly known for their ‘candid and impartial advice’, I am inclined to question their level of impartiality. AEA’s model utilises a corporate driven approach that is hinted at in the services they provide such as ‘cultural master planning’ endorsed by a roster of staff that includes a former business manager at Disney, a Citigroup Investment Banking advisor, and a British Council creative economist. Deleuze wrote that 'we are taught that corporations have a soul, which is the most terrifying news in the world’ and Deleuze’s words ring true when I am greeted by glossy, smiling faces, emanating from corporate ‘people’ pages on websites declaring non-partisanship and impartiality as demonstrated by AEA for example.
Am I wrong to be suspicious? Am I the negative Other? What’s the problem, some might say? My reply would be in line with urban environment scholars Pugalis and Giddins when they propose that any investigation of the production of space ‘is as much about the assembly process as it is about the assembled product’. Here, I argue that the wider assemblage of space is intrinsically connected to the assembly and production of the arts. Therefore, I am inclined to ask what product is being assembled and why: ‘how, when and where it takes place and who is granted access to it and under what conditions?’. At present, the UK environment of funding and artistic supervision/consultancy feels a bit too endogamous and geared towards the continuation of the corporate (in)corporation of the arts. More worryingly, the key players are still very much male, and boards and councils appear to be dominated by a certain type of individual who carries the ‘corporate’ gene. Any concept or talk of diversifying the socio-economic and cultural representation within such governing voices in UK arts is certainly not materialising into ‘those present’. In fact, AEA’s own approach to multiculturalism might be deemed questionable, but you can look for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
But is it not also about a broader representation of thinking, a broader representation of imagining and doing, and not just the same old song devoid of progress, or a consideration of possibility and meaning, since the corporatisation of the arts absented the soul of arts. Funding prerogatives, prescribed at a national level, influence the development of the arts: where outputs are supervised to produce a clearly defined, marketable, product and this situation is not entirely new. Writing in the late 1990s, professor of tourism management, Howard Hughes, wrote about tourism’s effect on theatre, warning that the dominance of West End musicals might inhibit ‘the stimulation and survival of a more diverse, adventurous and innovative theatrical scene and of creative artistic talent’. Hughes discusses the standardised musical format that dominates the West End, and which familiarises audiences with the product via the marketing of celebrated plots, composers, and producers, making the product accessible to international audiences. However, he argues that to achieve this ‘both the tourist and arts industries have standardised their products, making them safe and predictable’. Presently, dominant pedagogical hierarchies can be seen at play in the UK through funding, mentoring and supervisory schemes that promote commercially proven processes and production values: bankable art/artists.
The growing number of NPO’s, often sitting within or linked to highly supervised institutional/organisational spaces, can therefore be considered problematic because of the inheritance of dominant processual paradigms that structure these spaces. The NPO strategy is highly contentious, extending across the UK with the aim of centralising the governance of the arts around major national organisations, ‘increasing investment to organisations that produce and present art of international significance, and that also contribute to tourism and the local economy’. The NPO strategy jeopardises free artistic expression in the UK by explicitly tying public money to governmental concerns and proposing a meritocracy based on national economic growth rather than the artistic or community voice. This strategic funding framework influences artists, communities, and art forms, forcing arts managers to make compromises when applying for funds in order to match the highly financialised criteria of national strategic arts funding. Furthermore, quadrennial funding reviews and cuts discipline NPO projects that stray from the contractual demands imposed by the Arts Council England’s investment: remember the gagging clause that ACE tried to impose on NPO’s in 2014?
In this climate, driven by financialised outputs, funding is often only awarded to end user institutions if their managers agree to conform with policies that encourage tourism and efforts to boost the local economy. However, tourism and economic gain are not traditionally allied to community arts or experimental work so, to obtain financial support from the state, NPO companies create work that maintains the steady artistic continuum. The funding NPO companies and artists presently receive is very much tied to the UK government’s cultural tourism strategies, distributed and supervised by organisations such as ACE, and supervised by ACE National Council. With Elisabeth Murdoch sitting on the National Council (an appointment which for obvious reasons of a conflict of interest, caused a backlash from arts professionals) the corporate interests that merge with ACE prerogatives are in plain sight.
Will these funding strategies and what Baudrillard referred to as the ‘perpetual engendering of the same by the same’ be changed through the events and discourse of COVID-19? I certainly hope so, but didn’t they need to change long before this moment? Yet, instead, they became increasingly fortified by the demands of the ‘industry’ with little care for community, empathy, or innovative thinking.
References
AEA Consulting (2020) AEA Consulting. Available at: https://aeaconsulting.com (Accessed: 27 April 2020).
Baudrillard, J. (1990) Fatal Strategies. Edited by J. Fleming, translated by W.G.J. Niesluchowski and Philip Beitchmann. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Cocotas, A. (2016) Design for the One Percent, Jacobin. Available at: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/zaha-hadid-architecture-gentrification-design-housing-gehry-urbanism/
Deleuze, G. (1992) ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control’, October, 59, pp. 3–7. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828?seq=1 (Accessed: 27 April 2020).
Deleuze, G. (1990) The Logic of Sense: European Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). The Confession of the Flesh, in C. Gordon (ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, pp. 194–228. This interview was conducted by a roundtable of historians.
Han, B. C. (2018) The Expulsion of the Other. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Han, B. C. (2017) Psycho-Politics. London & Brooklyn: Verso.
Han, B. C. (2015) The Burnout Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Heathcote, E. (2015) Where will London’s artists work, Apollo. Available at: http://www.apollo-magazine.com/where-will-londons-artists-work/ (Accessed: 17 June 2016).
Hill, L. (2014) Status quo preserved in Arts Council’s NPO funding round, Arts Professional. Available at: http://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/status-quo-preserved-arts-councils-npo-funding-round (Accessed: 13 August 2016).
Hooks, B. (2006) Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. 3rd edn. Oxon: Routledge.
Hughes, H. (1998) ‘Theatre in London and the inter-relationship with tourism’, Tourism Management, 19(5), pp. 445–452. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517798000417
Lepecki, A. (2016) Singularities: dance in the age of performance. Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Martin, R. (1998) Critical Moves: Dance Studies in Theory and Politics. Durham: Duke University Press.
Mayor of London (2015) Take a Closer Look: A Cultural Tourism Vision for London 2015-2017. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cultural_tourism_vision_for_london_low_res_version.pdf (Accessed: 10 January 2018).
Pugalis, L. and Giddins, B. (2011) A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry”, Northumbria Research Link. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2011.623785 (Accessed: 13 June 2018).