A Theatrical Critique of Resilience in Culture John Yves Pinder Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Performance and Cultural Industries and School of English November 2018
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ATheatricalCritiqueofResilienceinCulture
JohnYvesPinder
Submittedinaccordancewiththerequirementsforthedegreeof
DoctorofPhilosophy
TheUniversityofLeeds
SchoolofPerformanceandCulturalIndustries
and
SchoolofEnglish
November2018
2Thecandidateconfirmsthattheworksubmittedishisownandthatappropriate
credithasbeengivenwherereferencehasbeenmadetotheworkofothers.
Thiscopyhasbeensuppliedontheunderstandingthatitiscopyrightmaterialand
thatnoquotationfromthethesismaybepublishedwithoutproper
acknowledgement.
TherightofJohnYvesPindertobeidentifiedasAuthorofthisworkhasbeen
assertedbyJohnYvesPinderinaccordancewiththeCopyright,Designs,and
PatentsAct1988.
3
AcknowledgementsIthankthenumerouspeoplewhohelpedmedevelopand/orsupportedthis
projectindifferentwaysandatdifferentstagesofitsgestation.Theseinclude
SarahJaneBailes,SimonBayly,AnilBiltoo,SteveBottoms,JenHarvie,AdrianKear,
LouiseOwen,ParvathiRaman,AlanRead,TheronSchmidt,andNicholasWood.I
alsothankallofthestaffandstudentsatPCIandWorkshopTheatreforhaving
supportedmethroughout.Iwouldalsoliketothankallthepeoplewhotookpart
intheresearchandwithoutwhommyworkwouldnothavebeenpossible.Finally,
IwouldliketothankmysupervisorsTonyGardnerandLourdesOrozcofortheir
invaluableadvice,guidanceandpatienceaswellasAnnaFenemoreandCalvin
Taylor.Finally,Ithankmyfamily,friendsand,aboveallmypartner,Michelle
Outram,forherlovingsupportthroughout.
4AbstractDiscoursesofresiliencerosetoprominenceinthefieldofcultureinthewakeof
the2008financialcrisis.Inthisthesis,thehistoryofdiscoursesandpracticesof
resiliencewillbeexaminedinordertounderstandhowandwhyresiliencebecame
importantinthefield.Iwillarguethatresiliencediscoursesandpractices,which
concernthemanagementofcrisesandrisks,legitimiseandeffectthesubsumption
ofsemi-marketisedspheresofactivityandproduction,includingthatofculture.
Thehistoryofresilienceinculturewillalsorevealthatitsdiscoursesandpractices
bearacloserelationshiptoecologicalrationalesandenvironmentalconcerns.
Afterperformingacritiqueofdominantliberalresiliencediscoursesandpractices
inculturalpolicyandadministrationthroughareferencetoYúdice’sideaof
‘culture-as-resource’,Iexaminealternativeresiliencesinartandcultureusing
Balibar’snotionof‘civility’.Iarguethatthesealternativesaremoreexplicitly
concernedwithlimitingthereproductionofextremesofviolencetiedtoan
intensifiedsubsumptionofcultureandthedifferenthistoricalcrisesofcapitalism
(socio-economicandenvironmental).Finally,Iexploretheextenttowhichart
conceivedinapost-Adornoianfashionnegatesthesubsumptionthatresilience
discourseslegitimiseandthatresiliencepracticeseffect,onaccountofitscapacity
totheatricallypresentcapitalism’stransgressionofthesociallimitsofthemarket
(subsumption).Thisideaofartwillcomplementthediscussionofcivilityandwill
becontrastedtotheideologicallylegitimasingorwhatIcall,afterMarcuse,the
‘affirmative’rolethatartplaysinrelationtoeconomicandpoliticalpower.The
maincontributiontoknowledgeImakeinthisthesisistorecontextualisecurrent
critiquesofresilienceincultureandtoofferafield-specificframeworkforthis
critique,whichalsocontributestorecodifyrecentdebatesaboutart,performance
andneoliberalismintheUK,notablythroughanintegrationofenvironmental
perspectives.Finally,thisresearchalsocontributestoclarifyingthescopeof
practicalandculturalmaterialistmethodologyinperformanceresearch.Itdoesso
byofferingacritiqueofapolicyrationalethroughartandcriticismconceivedas
post-romanticandconceptualpractices.
5Tableofcontent
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................p.3
Abstract...................................................................................................................................................p.4
Tableofcontent..................................................................................................................................p.5
Listoffigures........................................................................................................................................p.8
Listofabreviations............................................................................................................................p.9
1.Introduction...............................................................................................................................p.10
1.1Abriefhistoryofresilienceandneoliberalism..........................................................p.10
1.1.1Thestoryoftheflood..........................................................................................................p.10
1.1.2Resilience,crisismanagementandecologicalrationality................................p.17
1.2Resilienceinculture................................................................................................................p.21
1.2.1Antecedents,researchgapandapproach.................................................................p.21
1.2.2Cultureastopicandresearchquestions...................................................................p.28
1.3Atheatricalcritique:betweencivilityandart............................................................p.35
1.3.1Critique,subsumption,creativedestruction,crisis..............................................p.35
1.3.2Violenceandcivility.............................................................................................................p.40
1.3.3Art.................................................................................................................................................p.42
1.4Cases,methodsandethics....................................................................................................p.46
1.4.1Design,rationaleandoutline..........................................................................................p.46
1.4.2Literature,participation,interviewsandethics....................................................p.51
2.Resilience,crisisandthechangingcultureofadministration................p.56
2.1Introduction................................................................................................................................p.56
2.2Pre-historiesofresilienceinculture...............................................................................p.59
2.2.1RethinkingculturalvalueandtheValuingCultureconference......................p.59
2.2.2MissionModelsMoneyandtheartoforganisationalresilience...................p.62
2.3Nationalpolicy,crisismanagementandresilience..................................................p.70
2.3.1Stability,recovery,thrive,sustain?..............................................................................p.70
2.3.2MarkRobinsonandnortherngrit.................................................................................p.73
2.3.3Thecutsandthecontainmentoftheflood...............................................................p.80
62.4Resilienceinpolicypractice...............................................................................................p.87
2.4.1Newenvironmentalpoliciesandeco-art..................................................................p.87
2.4.2Buildingresiliencethroughphilanthropyandfundraising.............................p.92
2.4.2.1Philanthropyinhistoricalperspective...................................................................p.92
2.4.2.2Catalyst..................................................................................................................................p.97
2.4.2.3Resiliencetraining.......................................................................................................p.104
2.4.3Alternativeresiliencesintheadministrationofculture................................p.112
2.4.3.1LiveArtphilanthropy..................................................................................................p.112
2.4.3.2Buildingresilienceandthe(in)civilitiesofculture.......................................p.119
2.5Conclusion................................................................................................................................p.132
3.TheLaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImaginationandC.R.A.S.H............p.136
3.1Introduction.............................................................................................................................p.136
3.2Trajectoriesandcontexts..................................................................................................p.140
3.2.1TheLaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination................................................p.140
3.2.2Imagine2020andTwoDegrees...............................................................................p.145
3.3C.R.A.S.H.....................................................................................................................................p.148
3.3.1Art,activismandpermaculture..................................................................................p.148
3.3.2Theethicsandprinciplesofpermaculture...........................................................p.154
3.3.3Strenghtsandambivalencesofart-activistresilienceandcivility............p.168
3.4Artandautonomy:aromanticinterruptionanddetour...................................p.173
3.4.1Thecrisisofartandtheartofcrisis.........................................................................p.173
3.4.2Benchmarksinpost-capitalism..................................................................................p.179
3.5Conclusion................................................................................................................................p.189
4.EmptyLotandDeadline...................................................................................p.191
4.1Introduction.............................................................................................................................p.191
4.2TheSouthBank,theTateandtheartists...................................................................p.196
4.2.1Culturaldistrictsandcreativecities........................................................................p.196
4.2.2TheTateModern...............................................................................................................p.201
4.2.3CruzvillegasandAuto-construcción,PlatformandDeadline........................p.207
4.3The(Non-)Site........................................................................................................................p.213
74.3.1EmptyLot:floatingislandsongiantscaffolds......................................................p.213
4.3.2Deadline..................................................................................................................................p.223
4.4Conclusion.................................................................................................................................p.230
5.HereToday…,VitaVitale,LivingSkinandPelt...........................................p.232
5.1Introduction.............................................................................................................................p.232
5.2Artists,curators,commissionersandsupporters..................................................p.236
5.2.1Ackroyd&Harvey.............................................................................................................p.236
5.2.2Artwise....................................................................................................................................p.240
5.2.3Thesupportersandcommissioners.........................................................................p.243
5.3.Art,extinction,conservationandaffirmativeculture.........................................p.246
5.3.1Theexhibitions...................................................................................................................p.246
5.3.2TheAliyevs,artandconservation.............................................................................p.252
5.3.3Thetroubledwater'sofidealofart..........................................................................p.259
5.4Pelt(AfterLivingSkin).........................................................................................................p.262
5.5Conclusion.................................................................................................................................p.264
6.Conclusion...........................................................................................................p.266
6.1Summaryofthesisandfindings.....................................................................................p.266
6.2Limitationsandfutureareasofwork..........................................................................p.275
6.3Originality,significanceandimplications..................................................................p.277
6.3.1Contributionstocriticaldiscourseaboutresilience.........................................p.277
6.3.2Contributiontoculturalandpracticalmaterialistdiscourse.......................p.279
7.Bibliography.......................................................................................................p.284
8.Appendix..............................................................................................................p.325
8
ListoffiguresFigure1.Theadaptivecycle......................................................................................................p.76
9
Listofabbreviations
AA ArtsAdmin
AFP ArtsFundraising&Philanthropy
ANT ActorNetworkTheory
ACE ArtsCouncilEngland
ACGB ArtsCouncilofGreatBritain
BA BritishAirways
BBC BritishBroadcastingCorporation
BP BritishPetroleum
CIRCA ClandestineInsurgentRebelClownArmy
C.R.A.S.H C.R.A.S.H–ApostcapitalistAtoZ
HLA HomeLiveArt
IUCN InternationalUnionforConservationofNature
Labofii TheLaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination
LADA LiveArtDevelopmentAgency
LGiU LocalGovernmentInformationUnit
MMM MissionModelsMoney
NPO NationalPortfolioOrganisation
NT TheNationalTheatre
OI OpenInnovation
RFO RegularlyFundedOrganisation
TTMR TaketheMoneyandRun?
WWF WorldWildlifeFund
10
1.Introduction
1.1Resilienceandneoliberalism:abriefhistory
1.1.1Thestoryoftheflood
AfterarrivingattheBritishLibrary,ImakemywaytotheBusiness&IPCentre.I
amlateforameetingconvenedforthelaunchofalocalauthoritydevelopmentand
innovationfund.Afterfindingtherightroom,Itakeaplaceonthelastrowof
chairs.Somethirtypeople,allfacingthefront,arescatteredacrossthespace.The
localauthorityrepresentativesstandinginfrontofawhiteboardhavestartedto
explainthechoiceofthisyear’stheme:buildingresilience.Thethemewaschosen
onaccountofthecurrentcrisisaffectingthelocalauthorityinthewakeofthe
budgetarycutsthatfollowedtheConservative–LiberalDemocratscoalition
governmentcomingtopowerin2010.AccordingtoCamdenCouncil(2010),the
council’sbudgetwastobecutby25%over4years,leavingagapofupto£100
millionpounds.Makingupforthisshortfallwouldinvolvecuttingjobs,
streamliningdepartments(a40%reductionintheadministrativecostsofthe
cultureandenvironmentdepartment)andreducingcostsofseniormanagement
by20%.Coreandperipheralserviceswouldalsobeaffected,includingthe
frequencyofstreetcleaning,libraryservices,youthservices,socialcareand
fundingtothird-sectororganisations.Duringthemeeting,wearetoldthat
resilience-buildingisoneofthesolutionstothecrisis.Inthemeeting,itisdefined
as‘empoweringpeopletohelpthemselves’,‘developingcommunitiesthatlookout
foreachother’,‘understandingrisksandchallenges’,‘adaptingtochangeand
11uncertainty’,‘understandingyourassets’and‘feelinglikeyouhavethe
means/skills/assets/connectionstochangesomething’(OI,2013,nopagination).
WritingfortheLocalGovernmentInformationUnit(LGiU),Walker(2015)
statesthatthetermresiliencehasbecomepopularwithpolicymakersresponding
tovariouskindsofcrisisandlong-termsocialproblems.Areport(2012)bythe
YoungFoundationarguesthatwithinsocialpolicytherearetwocommon
conceptionsofresilience.Thefirstis‘resilienceforsurvival’,definedasthe
mitigationofriskstiedtocrisis,shocks,andadversity,andthemaintenanceofcore
functionsinthefaceofwhatthereportsometimessimplyterms‘change’(Young
Foundation,2012,p.7).Withthis,theyalsoproposeanalternativeconceptionof
adaptiveresilienceinwhichagivencrisisorshockisconceivedasanopportunity
forthecommunitytoflourishthroughchange.
IntheCamdencaseboththeseconceptionsofresiliencewereatwork.The
localauthorityattemptedtorespondtoasuddenbudgetarycutbackthatwasa
directresultofpoliticaldecisionstakeninthewakeofthe2008financialcrisis.An
imageofafloodedfield,louringcloudsandrainwasusedaspartofthe
presentationgiventhatmorningduringthemeetinginordertoillustratethenot-
so-brightfuturethatlaidaheadofthelocality.RecoursetoBritishRedCross
definitionsofresilienceandthehumanitarianrhetoric,moregenerally,madethe
emergency-likecharacterofthecrisisallthemoresalient.Despitethegloomy
forecast,participantswerealsoinvitedtothinkaboutthesituationasan
opportunitytofindso-calledinnovativesolutionstothesocialproblemsofthe
borough.Theseincludednewandmoreefficientwaysofdeliveringservices
(digitally,forexample)ornewkindsofservices.Camden-basedorganisationssuch
astheAnnaFreudCentre,CleanBreakTheatreCompany,CoventGardenDragon
HallandLGBTForumreceivedsubstantialfundstodevelopprogrammesasdiverse
12aspeer-to-peerparentingprogrammesforparentslivingintemporary
accommodationandtrainingcoursestosupportvulnerablewomenatriskof
offending,aswellaspop-upLGBTprogrammesruninpartnershipwithlocal
organisations(CamdenCouncil,2016).Thelaunchalsoincludedaworkshop
focusedonscenarioplanningthataimedtohelpthird-sectororganisationsfind
newwaystocollectivelyself-managecommunityandorganisationalresources,
assetsandcollaborationsinordertominimisetheirrelianceonthestate.
ItisworthdelvingabitfurtherintotheYoungFoundation’saccountsof
resilienceinordertostartproblematisingtheterm.Inthesectionthataddresses
theideaofadaptiveresilience,thecityofMiddlesbroughispresentedas‘theleast
resilientplaceinBritain’onaccountofthefactthatafterthepost-industrial
economicdownturnthataffectedthecity,publicinvestmentwaspouredintothe
citytoregenerateits‘failingeconomy’(YoungFoundation,2012,p.16).According
tothereport,thecityistheleastresilientplaceinBritainbecauseithas‘become
unsustainablydependentonthegovernment’(2012,p.16).Furthermore,the
reportstatesthat‘itisnotdifficulttoseewhy,inthefaceofswingingpublicsector
cutbacks,thefutureforMiddlesbroughislessthancertain’(2012,p.16).Whileit
mightnotbedifficulttoseewhyMiddlesbroughhassufferedbadlyinthefaceof
publicsectorcutbacks,itisalsonotdifficulttounderstandwhatpresuppositions
lieattheheartofsuchassessments.Theybarelyconcealthesuggestionthatitis
primarilythroughprivatisationthatresilienceisbuiltinthefaceofamajor
economiccrisis.Thissamebiasisatworkinthecounterexampleprovided.The
reportcontrastsMiddlesbroughwithNewOrleans,whichwasravagedby
HurricaneKatrinain2005.Itarguesthatthecityisanexemplarofresilience
despitethe‘regionaleffectsofeconomicdownturn,governmentneglectand
entrencheddeprivation’(YoungFoundation,2012,p.17).Thelocalpopulation
13wouldhavecultivatedlocalsolutionstothecatastropheofKatrina,whichturned
outtobea‘catalystforresilient,innovativeandadaptivechange’(2012,p.17).Ido
notdoubtthatNewOrleanianslearnedveryfasthowtomakedointhefaceofsuch
adisaster.However,theverythincasestudyofthereportstandsatthepolar
oppositeofotherexistingcommentaryaboutpost-KatrinaNewOrleans.For
instance,thejournalistNaomiKlein(2007)viewspost-KatrinaNewOrleansasan
experimentindisastercapitalismbywhichshemeansthatpolicymakersusedthe
catastropheandcrisistoimplementveryparticularpoliticalagendasand
economicreforms.InthecaseofNewOrleans,theso-calledreformsresultedinthe
closingofthecity’spublicinfrastructuresuchasitshousingprojectsandschools
(Klein,2007).Asithappens,NewOrleanswasalsothesiteoftheproliferationof
resiliencediscourseswhich,accordingtoTierney(2015),wenthandinhandwith
theprivilegingoftechnocraticsolutionstodisastervulnerabilityandtheprivatised
managementofcollectiverisks.
TierneyandKleinunderstandthesepoliticalchoicesasneoliberal.Inorderto
understandwhethertheCamdencasecanbeunderstoodwithinthissameframeof
analysis,despiteitsdifferencesandparticularities,itisworthexaminingabit
furtherwhatthetermsignifies.‘Neoliberal’and‘neoliberalism’areoverusedand
vaguetermsthatposeproblemsofdefinition.Nevertheless,SusanWatkins(2010,
p.7)claimsthat‘sometermisneededtodescribethemacro-economicparadigm
thathaspredominatedfromtheendofthe1970suntil—atleast—2008’.She
claimsthatanumberoffeaturesdistinguishneoliberalismfrompreviousliberal
ideologiesandprogrammes:
First,itsAmericanness:fromCarteron,theneo-liberalprogrammehasbeen
developedandpropagatedbyUS-ledinstitutionsandpropoundedas
14internationalpolicybytheUSstate.Americanmultinationalsandfinancialgiants
havebeenamongitsprincipalbeneficiariesandithasbeenexperiencedinmany
partsoftheworldastheAmericanizationofeconomies,culturesandsocieties.
Second,itsenemies:thesocial-democraticpost-warsettlement,organizedlabour,
statesocialism.WhereasVictorian-eralaissez-fairetriedtoholdthelineagainsta
comingworldofprotectionism,thegeniusofneo-liberalismhaslaininthe
destructionandexpropriationofexistingstructuresandgoods:privatizationof
utilities,de-unionizationoflabour,means-testingofuniversalbenefits,removalof
tariffsandcapitalcontrols(Watkins,2010,p.7).
Othertermsareoftenusedinconnectiontoorinsteadofneoliberalism,whichfirst
andforemostdenotesadoctrine.Commonlyusedtermsincludefinancial
capitalismandpost-Fordistcapitalism,whichrefertoparticularregimesof
accumulationthatadmittedlyeachimplyslightlydifferenttemporalitiesand
geopoliticalscales.Thesedifferentnamesareinvariablyconnectedtothatof
globalisation,atermthatdenotesnotsomuchthebecoming-worldoftheeconomy
(capitalismhasexistedasaworldsystemforoverfourcenturiesatleast)asits
planetarisationaftertheFirstWorldwontheColdWar,andafterthetriumphof
whatBeck(2000)understandsastheideologyofglobalism:‘theviewthatthe
worldmarketsupplantspoliticalaction–thatistheideologyofrulebytheworld
market,theideologyofneo-liberalism’(p.9).
Inthisthesis,Iwillalsousethetermtransnationalfinancialcapitalismor
globalisedcapitalismtodenoteaglobalcapitalismdominatedbyfinance.Itis
importanttonotethatanumberofwritershaveshownthattheemergenceofthe
neoliberaldoctrineandfinancialisedcapitalismisconnectedtoalong-termcrisis
ofcapitalistaccumulationinitsoldcentres.Streeck(2014,2011)arguesthatthe
globaleconomiccrisisofthe1970s,whichsawthepost-warhigheconomicgrowth
15graduallydeclineinso-calleddevelopedcountriesandsawariseininflation
acrossmanyofitseconomies,ledtodisinflationistandrestrictivemonetary
policiesthataregenerallyassociatedwithneoliberaldoctrine.Thesepolicies
resultedinanacuteriseinunemployment,aweakeningoflabourandwere
accompaniedbyasoaringpublicdebt.AsFraser(2016)suggests,inso-called
developingcountries,whicharesometimesthoughtashavingprovidedthetesting
groundforneoliberalism,manyemergingpost-colonial,socialistandnon-aligned
statesweregraduallysubjectedtodraconianfinancialstricturesinwhichdebtalso
functionedasakeydisciplinarymechanismofgovernance.Althoughdifferently
subjecttothesetrends,developedcountrieswerenotexempt.Accordingto
Streeck(2014,2011),debtultimatelyledtothejustificationofpublicexpenditure
cutsfromthelate1980sonwards,furtherfinancialderegulationaswellasthe
privatisationofdebt(growthofconsumerandindividualdebt)neededtoshoreup
astillstagnantgrowth.Finally,thebailingoutofthefinancialsectorafterthe2008
crashledtopublicdebtrisingagain;thisdebtisusedbytheverysamefinancial
institutionstopressuregovernmentsintotakingnewandmoredraconian
‘austerity’measures.
ThecutstoCamden’slocalauthoritybudgetandtheemergenceofresilience
discoursesasdiscoursesofcrisismanagementshouldbeunderstoodwithinthis
largerhistoricalcontext.Forthelast30to40years,theUKpopulationhasbeen
programmaticallysubjectedtothekindofstricturesthatStreeck(2014,2011)and
Watson(2010)describe,with2008markingwhatappearstobethestartofanew
sequenceinthishistory.Since2010,accordingtoFullFact(2017),localauthorities
havehadtheirfundingfromcentralgovernmentcutbycloseto40%,whichhas
translatedintoanaverageof26%realcuttobudgets.Socialsecurity,including
housing,unemploymentanddisabilitybenefits,hasbeenoverhauledor
16considerablydiminishedbywhatDavies(2016,p.122)hascalledanewkindof
‘vindictive’policymaking.Finally,theentryfeesforhighereducationhavebeen
hikedupoverthelastdecadeandahalftomakeBritain’shighereducationoneof
themostexpensivetoaccessintheworld,accordingtothedailynewspaperThe
Independent(Kentish,2017).
Watkins(2010),Streeck(2014,2011)andDavies(2016),amongothers,
raisetheimportantquestionofwhetherthenewsequencethatstartedin2008
constitutesabreakfromtheneoliberalparadigm.WhileWatkins(2010)indicates
thatthegroundmaybeshiftinginthelongerterm,herreflectionssuggestthat
currenteventsandchangesinpoliticalprogrammesseemtobeonlyinflectionson
theexistingparadigm.Writingsevenyearslater,afterTrump’selection,theBrexit
referendumandthemountingofpopularresentmentagainstpoliticalelites,
Streeck(2017)makesasomewhatdifferentassessment.Heclaims,afterGramsci,
thatweareatthestartofan‘interregnum’,definedas‘aperiodofuncertain
durationinwhichanoldorderisdyingbutanewonecannotyetbeborn’(2017,
p.14).Famously,Gramsciclaimedthatinthiskindofveryinsecureanduncertain
period‘agreatvarietyofmorbidsymptomsappear’thataretheexpressionofthe
anomieandfrictionproducedbyadyingorderorsystem(Gramsci,1971,p.276).
Althoughimportant,thisdebateaboutthestatusofneoliberalismis
somewhatsecondaryforthediscussionofthisthesis.Whatremainsclearisthe
currentcontradictionsand,ifwefollowStreeck’s(2014,2011)view,long-term
crisisofcapitalism,themultidimensionalcharacterofwhichlatersectionsexplore
inmoredetail,areasyetunresolved.Itiswiththiscontextandcrisisinmindthat
thenotionofresilience,thehistoryofwhichcoincideswiththatofneoliberalism,
shouldbeanalysedandunderstood.Thenextsectionexploresthehistoryof
resilienceinmoredetail.
17
1.1.2Resilience,crisismanagementandecologicalrationality
WalkerandCooper(2011)claimthattheideaofresiliencefindsitsoriginsinthe
post-warsecondwaveofcybernetictheory,whichlaterformedthebasisforthe
developmentofcomplexityandsystemstheory.Theyclaimthatitisinthefieldof
ecosystemmanagement,atthehandofscholarsinterestedincomplexitytheory,
thatinfluentialconceptionsofresilienceandriskmanagementdevelopedinthe
mid1970s.Accordingtotheconceptionofecosystemmanagementpromotedby
thescientistC.S.Holling(1973),throughwhichhechallengedtheoriesof
maximumsustainableyieldinthesphereofagriculture,agivenenvironmentwas
tobeunderstoodasemergentandpath-dependentinsteadofstable.Thus,Walker
andCooper(2011)claim,Hollingdevelopedaconceptionofresiliencethatcould
accountforanecosystem’scapacity‘toremaincohesiveevenwhileundergoing
extremeperturbations’(p.146).
WalkerandCooperarguethatresiliencediscoursesandtheecological
rationalityofriskmanagementthatthesediscoursespresupposespreadto
differentfieldsonaccountoftheir‘ideologicalfit’withneoliberaleconomic
discourse(2011,p.154).Inparticular,theyarguethataspectsoftheneoliberal
economictheoryofHayekarecharacterisedbyasimilarkindofrationalisationof
unpredictabilityunderstoodasanaturalandbeneficialfeatureofeconomic
markets.Inpractice,theauthorstracehow,inaUScontext,thenotionofresilience
gainedgroundwhenClinton’sadministrationwassellingoffitspublicassets,
suggestingthattheemergenceoftheterminadministrationwassymptomatic,just
likeinBritaintoday,ofthegovernment’sanxietiesovertheperformanceofan
increasinglyprivatisedinfrastructure.Finally,theauthorstracethesubsequent
spreadofthetermandabroadereco-socialrationalityofriskmanagementtoa
18numberofotherspheres,includingdisasterandnaturalassetmanagement,
urbanismandurbanplanning,securityandanti-terrorismafter11thSeptember
2001andtheLondonterrorattacksof2005,internationaldevelopment,and
financialriskmanagementafterthe2008crash.
Anumberofothercriticsalsohavenotedtheincreasingubiquityofresilience
acrossanumberofdevelopmentandsecurity-relatedinstitutions.Neocleous
(2013)arguesthatresiliencehasbecome‘oneofthekeypoliticalcategoriesofour
time’andisfast‘subsumingandsurpassingthelogicofsecurity’infieldsasdiverse
asdomesticsecurityandcounter-terrorism,emergencymanagementaswellas
finance(2013,p.3).Accordingtohim,typing‘resilience’intotheInternational
MonetaryFund’ssearchboxgeneratesanincredible2,000hits,andanother1,730
hitsareallegedlygeneratedwhentheterm‘resilient’isused.Theideaappearsto
benothinglessthananewpolicyobsessionoftheinstitutionsthathave,overthe
years,playedacrucialroleinmaintainingtheneoliberalparadigminplace.And
suchanobsessiontodaymaywellexpress,asNeocleous(2013)suggests,an
anxietyoverthesurvivalofthesysteminatimewhenideasandpossibilitiesfor
changehavefailedtogainground.
EvansandReid(2014)rejointhisanalysisinanimportantbook-length
critiqueofresilience,usefulforthemannerinwhichitspecifiesthehistorical
relationbetweenresilience,ontheonehand,anddiscoursesofglobalsustainable
developmentandclimatechange,ontheother.Theiranalysisbringsoutthe
multidimensionalcrisisofthecapitalistsystemandsuggeststhattheubiquityof
resilienceingreyliteratureandpolicyispartlytiedtothehistoricalco-optationof
sustainabledevelopmentdiscoursesfromthe1990sonwards.Environmental
discourseswereoncekeytoformingthebasisofprogressive(anti-capitalist)
conceptionsofsustainability.However,theyarguethat,asthequestionof
19sustainabilitybecameincreasinglyunderstoodasresolvablewithintheboundaries
ofcapitalism,environmentalsustainabilitypracticesanddiscoursesalsobecame
increasinglycompatiblewiththebasictenetsofcapitalism.Intheageofclimate
crisisandneoliberalcapitalism,theauthorsalsoarguethatresilience,whichbears
acloserelationtosustainabilitydiscourses,hasreplacedthegoalofachieving
securitywiththeinjunctiontoembraceuncertainty.
Finally,Chandler(2013)placesresiliencewithinthehistoryofwhathe
terms,inaratherungainlyfashion,the‘societalisationofsecurity’(p.210),which
healsorelatestotheecologicalcharacterofthediscourse.Chandlerstatesinaco-
authoredbookthatthese‘newformsofneoliberalgovernanceappearaswaysof
“empowering”,“capability-building”[…]enablingneoliberalsubjectstotake
societalresponsibilityuponthemselvesandtheircommunities’(Chandlerand
Reid,2016,p.11).Elsewhere,hestatesthat‘thisproactiveengagementis
understoodtobepreventive,notinthesenseofpreventingfuturedisasteror
catastrophebutinpreventingthedisruptiveordestabilizingeffectsofsuchan
event.Inthissense,thekeytosecurityprogramsofresilienceisthecoping
capacitiesofcitizens,theabilityofcitizenstorespond,oradapt,tosecuritycrises.
Thesubjectoragentofsecuritytherebyshiftsfromthestatetosocietyandtothe
individualsconstitutiveofit’(Chandler,2013,p.210).Thisanalysisresonatesboth
withtherhetoricIencounteredinCamdenandwiththetechnocraticpragmaticism
thatseemedtodefineitsresilienceprogramme.Despitethevaluableinsightsthat
suchananalysisoffers,itshouldbenotedthatparticipatorymanagement,riskand
crisisprevention,empowerment,cross-sectorialcatalysationanddecentralisation
ofgovernment,competitionandcooperationinprocessesoftenderingforthe
deliveryofservicesareneithernewnorspecifictoresilience(Osborneand
Gaebler,1992).Whatmakesresiliencedistinct,accordingtomanyofthese
20authors,isitsecologicalcharacterandgenealogy,whichfeedsanewkindofsocial
Darwinismandlegitimationofcapitalism(theecologicalimperativetoadapt).This
emphasisplacedonecologyisworthcontextualisingabitfurther.
Thiscommonthesis,whichonlyNeocleous(2013)doesnotappearto
reproducesoexplicitly,buildsonMichelFoucault’s(2008,2007)workonbio-
power.Foucault(2007)developedthethesisthatfromthelateeighteenthcentury
onwardsanewkindofconceptionofpoliticalpoweremerged,whichwaspartly
groundedintheeconomicthinkingofthetime.Incontrasttoprecedingformsof
sovereignpower,politicalpowerbecameconcernedwithachievingthesecurityof
itssubjectsandpopulations.Securitywasnottobeachievedthroughthe
preventionoftroubles,crisesanddisastersbutthroughtheadequatemanagement
ofthesedisastersthroughmarketmechanisms.Politicsconceivedintermsof
securityalsocoincidedwithanincreasingconcernforthemanagementof
populationsenabledthroughvariousinstitutionalknowledgesandpolicies(public
health,forexample)thatdefinedpoliticalsubjectsinsocio-biologicalterms.Sucha
conceptionofbio-poweriscloselyrelatedtotheideaof‘governmentality’,which
featuresintheworkoftheauthorsdiscussedabove(Rabinow,1997,pp.88–90).
Moderngovernmentality,Foucaultclaimed,ischaracterisedbyaconcernforthe
controlofhowindividuals,groupsandpopulationscontroltheirownbehaviours
throughdifferentinstitutionalmeans.Inthiscase,controldoesnotmean
repression.Rather,modernliberalgovernmentalityprovidesamultiplicityof
framesthroughwhichsocialagentsareabletoactandshapetheirownbehaviour.
WalkerandCooper’s,EvansandReid’saswellasChandler’scritiquesofresilience
mixindifferentwaysthisepistemologicalconcernforthecritiqueofecolo-
economicrationalityandbio-powerwithaconcernforunderstandingresilience
21practicesintermsofgovernmentality(forexample,bottom-upcapacitybuilding
anddevelopmentdiscourses).
Thereisnodoubtthattheseideasarerelevanttothediscussionofthe
Camdencase,whichdisplaysmanyofthecharacteristicsdescribedhere.These
termsandcharacteristicswillalsorecurtimeandagainthroughoutthediscussion.
However,inthenextsection,Iproposetoshifttheframesomewhat,whilebuilding
onthisinitialhistory,inordertodefinetheproblemofresilienceinculturalterms
thatarepropertomyfieldofstudy.Thenextsectionstartswithabriefoverviewof
thekindsofliteraturethataddressresilienceintheartsandhumanities,whichwill
leadintoadiscussionoftheresearchgapthatthisthesisproposestofill.Iwillthen
goontopresentmyquestionsanddefinecultureasatopic.
1.2Resilienceinculture
1.2.1Antecedents,researchgapandapproach
Whilediscussionsofresiliencearenotasubiquitousanddevelopedinartsand
humanitiesscholarship,adiscourseaboutthetermexists.Mydiscussionof
existingscholarlydiscoursesaboutresilienceinthisareawillnotbeexhaustive.
However,itisworthpointingoutthatdiscussionsofthetermareparticularly
prevalentintheappliedarts,mostprobablyonaccountoftheirproximitytosocial
policy.Inanumberofbooksdedicatedtorefugeeperformanceeditedorco-
writtenbytheatrescholarMichaelBalfour(2015,2013),onecanfindadetailed
discussionofthedifferenthistoricalconceptionsofpsychologicalresilience,their
advantagesandtheirdisadvantagesaswellastheirpresuppositionsand
22limitations.1ThejournalEngage,publishedbyavisualartsadvocacyandtraining
networkbearingthesamename,dedicatedanissuetoresiliencethatincluded
articlesonresilienceinmuseumandgalleryeducationaswellasartsmanagement
andEuropeanculturalpolicy(Dougan,2015).Elsewhere,thenotionofresilienceis
foundinresearchmoredirectlyconcernedwithenvironmentalissues.For
example,thetheatrescholarSteveBottoms(2016)givesanaccountofarecent
AHRC-fundedcollaborationwiththeEnvironmentalAgencythatinvolvedartists
andlocalresidentsofBristolandShipley.Theprojectaimedtoimproveflood
preventionstrategiesandbuildcommunityresilienceintheseareas.
Theotherareawherethenotionhasbeendiscussedisculturalpolicy,whichI
defineastheadministrationofculture,andmorespecificallywhatgovernmentsdo
anddonotdoinordertoorganiseactivityandpracticeintheareaofculture(Bell
andOakley,2015).Thisliteratureisthemostrelevantforthisthesisasthenext
chapter,inparticular,focusesonadiscussionofresilienceinculturalpolicy,which
willbefoundationalintermsoftheissues,casesandgroupsIwillgoontoexamine
intherestofthethesis.Intheatreandperformancestudies,JenHarvie(2015,
2013)hasmadeakeycontributiontoreviewingandcritiquingresilienceinthe
not-forprofitUKartsfield,wherethetermisprimarily,butnotonly,linkedtoa
drivetoprivatisesupportstructuresforartandculturalactivityaswellas
promoteamoreentrepreneurialmodeloforganisationandmanagement.What
Harvie’sresearchconfirms,contracurrentFoucault-inspiredanalysesofresilience,
isthatthetypesofpracticesthatresiliencepromotesinculturalpolicyand
managementarenot,forthemostpart,new.Whatisnew,asHarvie(2013)shows,
1Ihaveengagedmoredirectlywithsomeaspectsofthisliteratureinarecentlypublished
article(Pinder,2018).
23isprimarilytheintensificationofthisprocess.Myownresearchwillalsoshowthat
thewayinwhichthesepracticesarelegitimateddiscursively(notablythrougha
referencetoecology)isalsorelativelynovel.
MyresearchisdifferentfromHarvie’sinanumberofrespects.2Herrecent
workincludesadetailedanalysisofculturalpolicyprogrammesthatIwillbe
discussing.However,thereisbarelyadiscussionofresilienceasaterminher
work.Bycontrast,myresearchoffersamorethoroughdiscussionandcodification
ofresilienceinthefieldofculture.Harviealsoignorestheenvironmental
dimensionofresiliencediscourseandpractice,whichremainscentralfor
understandingresilienceinthefieldatthelevelofdiscoursebutalsonon-
discursivepractice.Consideringthisenvironmentaldimensionwillbekeyinthe
critiqueoftheideologicalappealofresilience,whichhasdiffuseditselfacross
differentpolicyandacademicfieldsinasimilarfashiontotheequallydubious
termsof‘sustainability’or‘sustainabledevelopment’(Reghezza-ZittandRufat,
2015).
Itisworthpointingoutthatabroaderbodyofliteratureisemergingabout
resilienceintheartsandculturalpolicy,mostofwhichwaspublishedtowardsthe
endofmydoctoralstudy.Alotofthisliteraturerelatestonon-UKlocalities,
questionsofregionaldevelopmentaswellasculturaleconomiesdefinedin
broadertermsthaninthisthesis.Themostrelevantarticle,authoredbyAndy
Pratt(2017),isneverthelessworthdiscussingbrieflyinordertoframemyown
researchinrelationtothelatestresearchaboutresilience.
2Theworkofanumberofothermaterialist/Marxistscholarsinperformanceresearchhas
informedmyown,whichalsobuildsimplicitlyonanumberofrecenteditedcollectionsin
thefield(ZarouliaandHager,2015;NielsenandYbarra,2012;Wickstrom,2012).
24LikeHarvie,Pratt’sresearchconfirmsthatresilienceislinkedtoso-called
austeritypoliticsinculturalpolicy.Prattreprisesthedistinctionbetweenwhatthe
YoungFoundationterms‘survivalist’and‘adaptive’resilienceinordertoargue
thatwhilegovernmentsimposesurvivalistconceptionsofresilience(whatPratt
callsresilienceas‘stance’(Pratt,2017,p.128))throughpolicy,theUK’scultural
economyhasprovedadaptiveinthefaceofthecrisisanddeepcutstosubsidies.
Hearguesthatthisispartlyduetothediverseanddynamiccharacterofthefield.
Despitethisobservation,heexploressomeofthedangersandriskslinkedto
resilienceandthecutstoculture,whichincludelabourexploitation,the
legitimationofeconomicpowerbyculturethroughprivateinvestment,andthe
lossofcoordinatingcapacityofpublicagencies.Theauthoralsoattemptstothink
beyondresilienceandtheideaofeconomicself-sufficiencyinculture,whichhe
doesbydiscussingnewpublicformsofsupportandcapacitybuildingforthefield.
MycriticalaccountofresilienceissimilaranddifferenttoPratt’sona
numberoflevels.First,mydiscussionofresilienceinculturewillbeprimarily
restrictedtothenot-forprofitartstotheexclusionofthewider‘creativeeconomy’
orthecoreculturalindustriesasdefinedbyHesmondhalgh(2013).The
boundariesbetween‘not-forprofit’activityand‘forprofit’areblurredmorethan
ever.Nonetheless,thesecondchapterofthisresearchfocusesonresiliencein
nationalculturalpolicy,andmorespecificallyonthediscoursesandpracticesof
theArtsCouncilEngland(ACE),whichisoneofthenon-departmental
governmentalinstitutionsresponsiblefortheadministrationofpubliclysubsided
artisticandculturalactivityinEngland.Itispartlyonaccountofthisdifferent
focus,thereasonsforwhichIreturntointhemethodologysection,thatIwilluse
theterm‘field’whenspeakingofculturalactivityandproduction.Iusetheterm
‘field’primarilybecauseIpreferit,asanon-technicalterm,to‘sector’and/or
25‘industry’sincepubliclysubsidised,not-forprofitart,inmyview,cannotbe
consideredtobeanindustryinthestrictsenseoftheterm(Beech,2015).3
Second,mydiscussionofpolicywillbemorepessimisticandcriticalthan
Pratt’s.AsfarasIhavebeenabletoascertainthedistinctionthatPrattmakes
betweenthetwoconceptionsofresiliencehaslittlebasisinactualculturalpolicy
discourseorpractice.4Infact,myresearchwillshowthattheideaofadaptation
andadaptiveresiliencepredominatesinnationalculturalpolicy,contrarytowhat
Prattseemstosuggest.Myaccountofthecutsonthenot-forprofitsectionofthe
fieldwillalsobemuchmoredetailedandcomprehensivethanhisanalysis,which
remainsfairlycursoryand,attimes,partialinitstreatmentadassessmentofdata.
Nevertheless,myresearchcanbeunderstoodtobuildonhisworkinone
fundamentalway.Pratt(2017)’sdiscussionofresilienceintermsofcrisisandrisk
managementaswellashisdiscussionoftherisksanddangerslinkedtoresilience
confirmmyownfindingsandthesis,whichoffersadetaileddiscussionofthese
problemsthroughcases.Furthermore,Iwouldliketostressthattheoriginalityof
myapproachcannotbegraspedwithoutunderstandinghowmyproblematisation
ofresiliencedoesnotjust‘fill’agapleftbyPrattorHarvie.Insteadmythesisoffers
aconceptualframeworkforunderstandingresilienceinspecificallyculturalterms,
whilealsoexpandingand/ormovingawayfromthemodesofpolicycritique
employedbytheauthorsdiscussedabove.Iexplainthislastpointbelow,before
goingontoexploretheresearchquestionsandconceptualframeworkofthis
thesis.
3IexplainlaterinthediscussionhowIusetheterm‘industry’technically.4ItisnotentirelyclearfromwherePrattderiveshisdefinitionsofresilience.
26Amongstotherthings,conductingthisresearchonresiliencehasledmeto
questiontheplacethatcategoriesandconceptsusedfortheanalysisofpolicy
shouldbegivenandwhethertheseconceptsandtheirobjectsshouldformthe
ultimatehorizonofmaterialistresearch.Intheatreandperformanceresearch,
Harvieisoneofthescholarstohaveintegratedpolicyinthematerialiststudyof
art,performanceandtheatre.Lately,shehasdonesothroughtheFoucaultdian
notionof‘governmentality’,whichIdiscussedearlier.Indoingso,andmore
recentlybyintegratingaspectsofLatourianActorNetworkTheory(ANT),her
researchimplicitlyfollowsinthetracksofTonyBennett,oneofthepioneersof
criticalculturalpolicystudies.Thereisnodoubtthatherapproachhasyielded
valuableresults,fromwhichIhavelearnedagreatdeal.However,thedisciplinary
andtheoreticalimplicationsofsuchamoveremainunderexploredinherworkand
inthefieldmorebroadly,wheredebatesabouttheplaceofpolicyarearguablya
minorityconcern.BrandonWoolf’s(2015)recentprovocationtitled‘PuttingPolicy
intoPerformanceStudies?’reprisesaquestionaskedtwentyyearspriorbyTony
Bennettinthecontextofculturalstudies,whichformedthebasisofapolemic
abouttheproperobjectsandendsofthediscipline.Askingthesamequestion20
yearslater,however,doesnothavethesamepolemicalvalue,evenifthecontextis
different.Policyhasinformedperformanceandtheatreresearchforalongtime
now,andamorepertinentquestionmighthavebeentoaskhowtointegratepolicy
andpolicy-relatedconceptsinperformanceandtheatreresearchwhenoneisnot
primarilyacriticalpolicystudiesscholar.Iproposetoanswerthisquestionby
continuingtodiscussHarvie’swork,whichprovidesagoodmodel.
InHarvie’srecentwork,‘governmentality’hasthestatusofwhatMiekeBal
(2002)wouldhavecalledanon-disciplinaryspecific,‘travelling’conceptthat
organisesadiscussionofpolicyandart.Anumberofothersuchconceptsare
27deployedinHarvie’swork,including‘neoliberalism’,‘labour’,‘art’and
‘performance’.Myworkfollowsthisapproach.BythisImeanthatmydiscussion
andcritiquewillbeorganisedbycross-disciplinarygeneralitiesthatwillbe
contextualisedandembeddedinadisciplinary-andfield-specificexplorationofa
situatedproblem.However,bycontrasttoherwork,myresearchpresupposesthat
anarts-basedcritiqueofresilienceshould,forthepurposesofcritique,giveequal
weighttoconceptsandcategoriesthatarepropertoart,whilenotignoring
conceptsthathelptothinkpolicyorevenmediatediscussionsofpolicyandart.In
myview,thisisnotthecaseinherrecentworkwheretheconceptofart,letalone
performance,doesnothavethesamelevelofcross-disciplinarygeneralityas
‘governmentality’or‘neoliberalism’.Theconceptsandcategoriesofartthatshe
deploysaredefinedatamuchlowerlevelofgenerality,beingprimarilyart-
historicalorcuratorialconcepts(‘sociallyengagedart’,‘relationalaesthetics’).They
arenottheoreticalorphilosophicalconcepts.Suchadifferencehasimportant
epistemologicalandphilosophicalconsequences.For,theconceptswithmuch
higherlevelsofgeneralitywillplayadeterminingroleintheorganisationofthe
discussion.So,theprimacygiventopolicyviathenotionof‘governmentality’
makes,wittinglyornot,adiscussionofpolicy-makingandpolicy-solutions,thejust
orunjustadministration,useormisuseandmanagementofresourcesintothe
ultimatehorizonofmaterialistresearch.Attheendoftheconclusionofthisthesis,
Iexplorefurtherhowmyownapproachtocriticismprovidesmewithawayto
reflexivelygo‘beyondresilience’.Next,Ipresentmyresearchquestionsandstart
discussingtheminlightofthenotionof‘culture’,whichisthegeneralnotionthat
definesthetoposformythesisandwillorganisemydiscussion.
281.2.2Cultureastopicandresearchquestions
Buildingonthediscussionoftheprevioussection,Ipresentbelowtheresearch
questions,whichareorganisedaroundthenotionof‘culture’fromwhichIalso
derivethekeycategoriesandcross-disciplinaryconceptsofthisthesis.
Q.1a.Whatarethehistoriesofresiliencediscoursesandpractices?
Q.1b.Howandwhydidresiliencebecomeakeynotionincultural
administrationintheUKinthecontextofthemostrecenteconomiccrisis?
Q.2a.Whatarethescopeandambivalencesofdifferentresiliencediscourses
andpracticesincultureinthefieldofcultureintheUK?
Q.2b.Howcanthenotionofculture-as-resourcehelptoclarifythescopeand
ambivalencesofdominantresiliencediscoursesandpracticesinthiscontext?
Q.2c.Howcanthenotionofcivilityhelptoclarifythescopeandambivalences
ofalternativeresiliencediscoursesandpracticesinthiscontext?
Q.3a.Beyondalternativeresiliences,whatotherwayscanartandcriticismbe
understoodtoperformacriticalnegationofthedominantrationalesof
resilience?
Q.3b.Whatalternativescanartandcriticismoffertoareconciledaffirmative
culture?
Ihavealreadystartedtoexploreinthisintroductionthehistoriesofresilience
insideandoutsideofthefield(Q.1).However,IneedtodefinemorefullywhatI
meanby‘culture’.Indoingso,Iwillalsodefinethenotionsof‘culture-as-resource’
(Q.2b)and‘affirmativeculture’(Q.3b),twovariantsoftheideaofculturethrough
whichIwillbediscussingdominantresiliencepracticesanddiscoursesaswellas
theireffects.Thenextpartdefinestheconceptsofcivilityandart.Withinthe
29framesofthisthesis,thesenotionswillallowmetomapoutthedifferentproblems
andeffectsofdominantresiliencediscoursesandpracticesinculture,alongside
thevariousformsandculturalpracticesthatcriticallydivergefromthisdominant
model.Afterthedefinitions,whichwillalsogivemetheopportunitytoexplain
otherkeytermsofmytitle.Inpart1.4ofthisintroduction,Ipresentwhereand
howIwillanswertheseresearchquestions.
Thiscritiqueofresilienceisinscribedwithinthewidertopicofculture,
understoodasacommonplacesharedbyanumberofsocialactors,including
artists,artandculturalcritics,andpolicymakers.Thiscommonplaceisnotonly
madeupoffield-specificinstitutions,howeverbroadlydefined.Itincludestypical
historicalproblemsandanumberofsub-topics,whichalsodefinethese
institutionsandthediscoursesofsocialactorsthatinhabittheseinstitutions.The
sub-topicstypicallylinkedtocultureincludethatofcultureandcommodification;
cultureandpolitics;culture,continuity(heritage)orseverance(loss);cultureand
regeneration.AstheliterarycriticFrancisMulhernargues,atopicallowsfor
variationwithinagivendiscourse,definedasastructurethatdrivesandregulates
‘theutterancesoftheindividualswhoinhabitit’,andwhich‘assignsthemdefinite
positionsinthefieldofmeaningitdelimits’(Mulhern,2000,p.xiv).Before
presentinghowresiliencecanbeconsideredasavariationonsub-topicsofculture,
Ipresentthemoregeneralandestablishedtermsoftreatmentofcultureasatopic.
AsRaymondWilliamsandothershaveargued,culturehassincethe
romanticsatleastbeenthoughtofastherepositoryofalternativevaluestothe
utilitarianvaluesdrivingthehistoricalemergenceofcapitalism.Williamsstates:
30Thewordthathadindicatedaprocessoftrainingwithinamoreassuredsociety
becameinthenineteenthcenturythefocusofadeeplysignificantresponsetoa
societyinthethroesofaradicalandpainfulchange(Williams,1953,p.244).
Thehistoricalformationofcapitalismispresentedinthispassageasasocialand
epochalcrisisthatisthehistoricalconditionofpossibilityofculturebutalso
alwaysathreattoit.AsMulhern(2000)explains,itisforthisreasonthatcultural
criticism,whetherconservativeorprogressive,isoftenconcernedwiththe
preservationofthevaluesofculture(cultureasprinciple)inthefaceofa
threateningmodernity(variouslytermedcommercialism,massculture,butalso
massdemocraticpolitics).Inthisdiscourse,thehumanistidealofculture,as
embodimentofanunfulfilledorrepressedpotentialandalternative(emancipated
humanity),hasacriticalandethico-politicalcontentinasmuchasitreminds
societyofwhatitcouldbeinprinciple.However,anumberofauthorsincluding
Williamshavealsotracedthemannerinwhichtheredemptiveidealofculturefed
intoaconservativeformofclasscontainmentthathedescribesas‘aratificationof
valuesagainstsocialinvolvementandsocialchange’(1970,p.368).Theselast
wordsaretakenfromWilliams’reviewofHerbertMarcuse’sNegations,which
couldbeconsideredasanantecedenttoWilliams’ownworkonculture.Marcuse
defineswhathecalls‘affirmativeculture’inthefollowingmanner:
Byaffirmativecultureismeantthatcultureofthebourgeoisepochwhichled
inthecourseofitsowndevelopmenttothesegregationfromcivilizationof
thementalandspiritualworldasanindependentrealmofvaluethatisalso
consideredsuperiortocivilization(Marcuse,2009,p.70).
31Herealso,therarefied,separatedobjectofculture(highart)figuresasanormof
judgementandalternativeto‘society’or‘civilisation’(twonamesofthehistorical
conditionofexistenceofculture).Butheretoo,artisunderstoodtolegitimateand
embeddominationbybecoming‘compatiblewiththebadpresent,despiteand
withinwhichitcanaffordhappiness’(p.87).5
Needlesstosay,sinceMarcuseandWilliamswrotetheirseminalhistoriesof
theterm,deepmutationshaveaffectedrelationsbetween‘culture’and‘society’.In
alandmarkessayaboutpostmodernism,FredricJameson(1984)registersa
profoundmutationintheideaofculture–amutationwhich,accordingtohim,was
causedbyartandculture’sfullerimbricationincapitalistsocialrelationsof
production,circulationandconsumption.Onaccountofculture’scentralityto
capitalisminanagedominatedbyinformationandknowledgeproduction
(finance,advertisementandmarketing,massandpopularculture,printand
electronicpublishing,andtheinternet),culture’shumanistandtranscendent
idealitythatwasconsequentuponitscriticaldistancefromeconomicrelations
had,accordingtoJameson,waned.AnumberofotherMarxistthinkersandart
criticshave,overtheyears,echoedaspectsofJameson’sthesis,notingacloser
integrationbetweencapitalismandculture.Forinstance,MarinaVishmidt(2016,
p.38)hasrecentlyrestatedtheideathat‘artnowentersmuchmoredirectlyinto
circuitsofvalorisation,beitinluxurymanufacturing,brandenhancement,the
experienceeconomy,tourism,orgentrification’.BoltanskiandEsquerre(2016)as
wellasChin-taoWu(2017)alsoargueartiscentraltoglobaleconomies
5TheparallelthatIamdrawingbetweenWilliamsandMarcuseissuggestedbyJones
(2004)andMulhern(2007).JonesmakesabroaderparallelbetweentheworkofWilliams
andtheFrankfurtSchool,whichIdevelopinmyownwayinthisthesis.
32dominatedbythelogicsofrareness,uniqueness,historyandprovenance,including
limited-editionluxurygoods,fashion,nationalpatrimoniesandheritage,
intellectualpatents,copyrightsandotherformsofmonopolyrent.The
regenerationandgentrificationofpost-industrialcitiesinwhichmuseumsbuiltby
celebrityarchitectshavebecomeglobaltouristattractionsareacaseinpoint.This
trendalsoconnectstohowpolicymakersandnon-governmentalactorsatalllevels
alsoviewcultureasaresourceinthemanagementofeconomicandsociopolitical
problemsofthesystem,rangingfromtheregenerationofrun-downareastothe
managementofthedelinquencyofdispossessedandvulnerableclassesandgroups
aswitnessedinCamden.
Itisworthdelvingintothislastissueabitfurtherasitconnectsmostdirectly
tothediscussionofresilienceinCamdenandwillprovideawayinto
understandinghowresilienceconstitutesanovelvariationofexistingcultural
topics.Inabookpublishedaspartofaseriesco-editedbyJameson,culturalpolicy
scholarGeorge(2003,p.1)usestheexpression‘culture-as-resource’todenotethe
centralityaswellassociopoliticalandeconomicinstrumentalisationofculturein
theeraofglobalisation,andthedominanceofinstrumentallogicsofresource
managementmoregenerally.Hearguesthatinthelatetwentiethcenturyand
earlytwenty-firstcenturytheissueathandinaculturalisedpoliticalandeconomic
sphere‘becomesthemanagementofresources,knowledges,technologies,andthe
risksentailedthereof,definedinamyriadofways’(2003,p.1).Interestingly,
Yúdicealsomakesaparallelbetweentheinstrumentalisationofculture,whichhe
thinksashavingbeenemptiedofitstranscendentideality,andthemanagementof
naturalresources.
Inmyview,theCamdencaseexemplifiesperfectlythelogicof‘culture-as-
resource’.Ontheonehand,thecaseillustratedhowbuildingresiliencewasabout
33themanagementoforganisationalandfinancialrisksforcultureandthethird
sectorinthewakeofthecrisis.Ontheother,itwasalsoaboutthemanagement,
throughculture,ofrisksforthewidersocialbodyposedbybudgetarycutbacks.
Thisinstrumentalisationofcultureisallthemoreappealingasartandcultureare
generallythoughtofasofferingcheapandcheerfulsolutionstosocialillsaswellas
providingasocialmodelforliberalself-entrepreneurshipandindividualisedrisk-
taking(creativityandinnovation),asBishop(2012)hasrestated.
Itshouldalsobenotedthattherearevastdifferencesbetweentheidealof
cultureatworkinCamdenandtheonedescribedbyWilliamsandMarcuse,
between‘culture-as-resource’and‘affirmativeculture’.IntheCamdencase,the
gapanddiscrepancybetweentheidealanddebasedhistoricalconditionsof
existence,betweenthepromiseoffuturehappinessandthebadpresent,appears
tohavewell-nighcollapsed.Utilitarianism,nomoreofathreattoculture’sideality,
nowdominatestheprincipleofculture,reducingtheredemptivechargeofculture
toaformofsolution-orientatedproblemsolving.
Iwillbearguingthatliberalvarietiesof‘culture-as-resource’defineagood
number,ifnotall,ofthedominant(predominantlystateorstate-orientated)
resiliencediscoursesandpracticesexaminedinthisthesis,whichconcernthe
managementofcrisesandrisksrelatedtothesecrises(economicand
environmental)(Q.2a-b).Thislogicisautilitarianone,whichconstitutesthe
inseparableandreconciledcontraryofcultureasa(dominated)principle.The
latter,whiledominated,willplayasimilarlyambivalentroletotheoneidentified
byWilliamsandMarcuse,albeitintheserviceofeconomicallyandpolitically
expedientcrisismanagementrationales.Howeverweightedorcombined,this
unityofcontrarieswillbeshowntocontributetotherhetoricalappealofthe
discourse.Initsdifferentvariants,resiliencewillappearaspragmaticand
34solution-orientatedyetholistic,managerialyetorganic,aparagonofso-called
realismthatisneverthelessimbuedwitharesidualredemptivepromiseeven
whencatastrophistintone(theimperativetoadaptisagoodexampleofthis
paradoxicalstructure).Thispairingwillbeshowntoaccommodatedifferent
contents,atthelevelofdiscourseandpractice.Inthenextchapter,forexample,I
examinehowthenotionof‘culture-as-resource’canhelptoaccountforthe
relativelynewenvironmentaldiscoursesandpracticeslinkedtoresilience
agendas,whichalthoughmore‘progressive’intermsoftheiragendaswillbe
showntofunctioninasimilarlyambivalentway(Q.2b).
Inthisthesis,Iwillalsoexplorehow,alternativeresiliencepractices,
includingartisticones,whichconformtothelogicsof‘culture-as-resource’,donot
alwayslegitimiseliberalsolutionstothemanagementofrisksandcrisis.Most
notably,Iwillexaminearangeofcasesthatdepartfromthedominantrationalesof
‘culture-as-resource’throughBalibar’snotionof‘civility’,aconceptthatwillalso
helpmemediatediscussionsofresilienceinpolicyandart.Thenotionofcivility
willenablemetoproblematisehowthesocialisationofrisksandcrisisperformed
bydominantresiliencepracticesanddiscourses,asdescribedbyPratt(2017),is
linkedtothereproductionofextremesofviolenceonothergeopoliticalscenes.
Civilitywillalsoframemydiscussionofhowalternativeresiliencediscoursesand
practicesaimtolimitanddistanceindifferentwaysandindifferentcontextsthe
reproductionof‘civilised’andculturedviolence(Q.2c)..Finally,Iwillshowthatthe
riseofresilienceisnotsynonymouswiththedeathofaffirmativecultureandart
thatlegitimiseseconomicandpoliticalpowerinacontextwhereprivate
investmentisnormalised.Thisanalysiswillbepairedwithadiscussionthatbuilds
onthepenultimateresearchquestion,whichwillexaminehowartisalsonot
condemnedtoplayingthisaffirmativerole(Q3a-b).
35Inthepreviouspartsandsections,Ihavegonesomewaytowardsclarifying
therationaleandkeytermsunderpinningsomeoftheresearchquestions.Thenext
partcontinuestounpackthekeytermsofthethesistitleaswellastheproblems
thatunderpinthelastthreequestions.
1.3Atheatricalcritique:betweencivilityandart
1.3.1Critique,subsumption,creativedestruction,crisis
Toinauguratethisnewpart,itisworthclarifyinghowIconceiveofcritique,asmy
roleasanalystandcriticwillnotonlybetorenderresiliencediscoursesand
practicesinculturemoreintelligible.Atriskofsoundingabitpretentious,Iwould
neverthelesssaythatmyaimistoemulatesomethingofthespiritofBrechtand
Benjamin,who,planningtolaunchajournalcalledKrisisundKritik,wantedto
imagine,accordingtoDaddarioandSchmidt(2018),‘therolethataesthetic
“shock”mightplayinexposingthediscontinuityofhistory,inimaginingthingsa
differentway–perhapsanalternativekindof“shockdoctrine”’(p.2).Inthis
context,thedominantshockdoctrine(anallusiontoKlein’sbookaboutdisaster
capitalismreferredtoearlier),assuggestedearlier,isresilienceascommonly
foundinpolicy.Metaphoricallyspeaking,critiqueandartwillalsofeatureas
alternativeshockdoctrines.Inordertounderstandinabitmoredetailhowart,in
particular,canbegivensuchafunction,Iintroducetwoterms,formalandreal
subsumption,whichwillhelpframethediscussioninsocio-historicaltermsaswell
ashelpmeunpackhowthecategoriesandconceptspresentedin1.2.2canbe
relatedtoeachotherinthepresent.
InMarx’svocabulary,formalsubsumptioncorrespondstothehistorical
integrationofpre-capitalistformsofsocialrelationsandproductionintocapitalist
productionandeconomicprocessesthroughoftenviolentprocessesofspoliation
36andcoercion(seeMarx,1990,pp.871–940andpp.1019–1023).Formany
Marxists,formalsubsumptioncorrespondstothepre-historicalstageof
capitalism–roughlyfromthesixteenthcenturytotheeighteenthcentury–in
which,accordingtoVercellone(2007,p.15),‘therelationofcapital/labouris
markedbythehegemonyoftheknowledgeofcraftsmenandofworkerswitha
trade,andbythepre-eminenceofthemechanismsofaccumulationofamercantile
andfinancialtype’.AccordingtoMarx,artandothereconomicallynon-productive
activitiesweretobeconsideredasonlyjustformallysubsumedbycapitalism,
beingexceptionsandanomalies(seeMarx,1990,p.1044).WhileWilliamsand
Marcuse’sdiscussionofculturedoesnotalludetothetermdirectly,theirconcept
ofcultureimpliestheideaofformalsubsumption.Thisisthecasebecause,without
beingformallysubsumed,artwouldnotbeabletostand,howeverambivalently,at
acriticaldistancefromsocietyinordertoembodyanalternativetocapitalist
utilitarianism.
Incontrast,realsubsumptiondenotesthereorganisationofproduction
accordingtoaspecificallycapitalist(industrial)modeofproductionforthe
purposesofaccumulation(Marx,1990,p.1023–1038).Therealsubsumptionof
culturehasbeenimplicitlyequatedbyAdornoandHorkheimer(1997)withthe
cultureindustry,whichtheyunderstandas‘rigorouslysubsumed’inoppositionto
anautonomousculture(AdornoandHorkheimer,1997,p.104).AlthoughIshare
withculturalindustriesscholarsMiège(1989)andHesmondhalgh(2013)acertain
wearinessaboutaspectsofAdorno’scritiqueofthecultureindustryqua
instrumentalrationality,itshouldneverthelessberestatedthatAdornowaswell
awarethatmassculturewasnotentirelyindustrialised.Whatwasimportantfor
him,asLütticken(2016)restates,wasthatinthecultureindustrytheprofitmotive
dominatedartatthepointofproductionandforthisreasonitsemancipatory-cum-
37criticalchargewasreduced.WhileitmaybetruethatAdorno’scritiqueofthe
cultureindustrywasnoteconomicenough(Beech,2015),mythesiswill
appropriatethetermsandbasicschema(art-cultureindustry)ofAdorno’sanalysis
forthepurposeofanideologicalandphilosophicalcritiqueofresilienceinculture.
Tomarkthisalignment,Icontinuetousetheterms‘cultureindustry’and‘culture
industries’astechnicalconceptsunlessIamreferringtospecificpoliciesor
differenttraditionsofscholarship(culturalindustries,forexample).
Intheworkdiscussedpreviously,Jameson(1991),alongsideother
contemporaryMarxists,appearstoextendandgeneralisethisthesisonreal
subsumptiontodescribeathirdphaseofglobalisedcapitalisminwhichthesphere
ofproductionandreproduction,productivelabourandnon-productiveworkand
life(includingartandnature)wouldbetotallysubsumedandcolonisedby
economicrationality.Ineffect,itcouldbearguedthatthisisalsowhatYúdice
(2003)describeswithhisideaof‘culture-as-resource’,althoughthetermsofhis
analysisaresomewhatdifferent.6Thesetheoriesoftotalsubsumptionhavemany
strengthsandelementsthatIwilldrawon.Forone,theymakesenseofhow
culturehasbecomemorethoroughlyintegratedintocapitalistcircuitsof
productionandreproduction.However,insteadofseeinginthischangean
invalidationofWilliamsandMarcuse’sthesis,Iunderstandthisshift,drawingon
theworkofOsborne(2006)butalsoVishmidt(2016),asadeephistorical
mutationwithintheformalsubsumptionofculture,whichhasbeensteadily
realignedtotheprofitmotiveandformsofsocialmanagementthatembed
marketisedsocialrelations.Thecrucialdifferencebetweenmypositionandthatof
theoristswhoholdthatweliveinatotallysubsumedsocietyisthatItakethistobe
6IdrawhereontheOsborne’s(2006)reviewofYúdice’swork.
38anunequaltendencyandunevendevelopmentwithinglobalisedcapitalism,andby
nomeansahistoricalgiven.Thisisalsothecaseinthefieldofculturewherenot-
forprofitandamateuractivitycoexistsincomplexways,sometimes
complementaryandsometimescontradictory,withprofit-orientatedactivity.
Inrelationtoresilience,andasalreadypartiallyannounced,mythesiswillbe
thatdominantresiliencediscourses,whileinternallydiverse,tendtolegitimatea
historicallyintensifiedprocessofsubsumption,bywhichcultureandartare
realignedtomarketlogicsandmodesoforganisationaswellasintegratedmore
closelyintoprocessesofcapitalistvalorisation.Resiliencediscoursesandpractices
willbeshowntobepracticalpolicyinstrumentsforeffectingthisrealignment.As
alreadydiscussedinrelationtotheworkofPratt,thisrealignmentaimsto
socialiseriskslinkedtotheeconomiccrisisthroughmarketisationand
entrepreneurialismaswellasprivatisation.WhileIwillbeaccountingforthenew
kindsofsocialrelationsthatthesechanges‘create’–anditshouldbenotedthat
theydocreatenewformsofsocialrelations–thisthesisisalsoconcernedwith
figuringthedestructiveeffectsofandresistancestothisprocess.For,asStreeck
(2017)arguesdrawingontheworkofPolanyi(2001),themoregeneral
subsumptionofwhathecalls‘fictitiouscommodities’alsothreatensthesystem
withself-destruction(2017,p.50).7NancyFraser(2016,2014)suggeststhatthisis
duetothefactthatasthecapitalisteconomicsystemexpandsperiodicallyinorder
toguaranteeitsownreproduction,theeconomicsphereencroachesonthesemi-
7Thedefinitionofafictitiouscommodityisasfollows:‘aresourcetowhichthelawsof
supplyanddemandapplyonlypartiallyandawkwardlyifatall;itcanthereforeonlybe
treatedasacommodityinacarefullycircumscribed,regulatedway,sincecomplete
commodificationwilldestroyitormakeitunusable’(Streeck,2017,pp.50-51).
39autonomousspheresoflifeandactivity(welfare,education,socialcareandnatural
resources)thatitdependson.Thisexpandedcycleofreproduction,whichrequires
subsumptiontoberepeated(suggestingthatformalsubsumptionisnotmerelya
periodicconcept),reproducesaformofunevenandunequaldevelopmentthat
alsogeneratescontradictionsandresistancesofitsown,astherenegotiationof
boundariesbetweenthespheresofproductionandreproductionareoften
contested.Fraser(2014,2013),whoalsodrawsontheworkofPolanyi(2001),
showsthatcapitalism’sunderminingofitsownconditionsofexistenceiswhythis
currentcrisisofcapitalismisnotonlyeconomicbutalsoenvironmental
(capitalismcommodifiesanddestroystheweboflifethatpermitsreproduction)
andsociopolitical(capitalismdestroysthewelfarefunctionsofthenationalsocial
stateaswellasitspoliticalauthorityandpower).8
Thus,theideaofsubsumptionisnotonlyusefultounify,throughasingle
name,discussionsofprivatisationandmarketisation,twokeyaspectsofresilience
policy.Italsohelpstoconceivewhyandhowresiliencediscoursesandpracticesin
policyarenotpurelyeconomicorfinancialinscopebuttendtotriangulate,astotal
discoursesofcrisismanagement,differentdimensionsofriskmanagement.Thus,
oneoftheproblemsandparadoxesthatthisthesisaimstopresentandunpickis
themannerinwhichthesediscoursesarepreventative(aimingtosocialisethe
riskslinkedtocrises)butalsoendupbeingactiveagentsintheunderminingofthe
conditionsofexistenceofhumansocietyandlife.
Finally,theideaofsubsumptionhasbeenchosenoverotherpossiblenotions
astheanalysiswillrevealthatthenotionintroducesspatialandtemporal
8AcomparableanalysisisdevelopedbyMoore(2015),whichfocusesmoredirectlyon
ecology.
40considerations,whichwillbekeyforthediscussionofpolicyandart.Thespatial
dimensionsofthenotionhavebeenintroducedthroughtheideaofuneven
development.However,itshouldbenotedthatsubsumptionalsoimpliesamixed
temporalitybywhichtheprocessofdestructionofoldsocialrelationsandtheir
recreationinamarketisedformisnotsynonymouswithaFaustianannihilationof
oldersocio-historicaltemporalitiesbutratherwiththeirrefunctioningand
restructuration.
Thenextsectioncontinuestolookattheproblemofviolenceanddestruction
bytakingacloserlookatthenotionofcivility.
1.3.2Violenceandcivility
ThesociologistNorbertElias(1978)hasarguedthatcivility,definedasa
manneredwayofbeinginsociety,hassinceErasmusbeentiedtotheideaof
disciplinedcultivationand,consequently,tothatofculture(‘trainingwithina
moreassuredsociety’,asinWilliams’definitionquotedearlier).Iturntothe
notiontorendermoreintelligiblethequestionofviolenceanddestructionin
relationtothequestionofsubsumption.Inhisrecentreworkingofthetermin
ViolenceandCivility(2015),whichIdrawon,Balibaralsotiesthenotionofcivility
totheproblemofviolenceinthecontextofourglobalised,transnationalpresent.9
Balibarnotes,amongstotherthings,thataseconomicinstitutionssuchasthe
markethaveglobalised,sohastheproductionandreproductionofextremesof
violence.Withincertaintraditionsofmodernphilosophicalthinking,whichBalibar
re-examines,historicalconflictsandviolencearethoughttotransformorconvert
9AlanReadeditedanissueofPerformanceResearchtitledOnCivility(2004).However,I
donotdrawonthiseditedissuehere.
41themselveswithtimeintonewformsofsocialityandinstitution.Inotherwords,
violencebecomessocialised.However,Balibar,drawingontheworkofWalter
Benjaminamongstothers,isconcernedwiththinkinghowviolenceisnotalways
socialised,provingtobeincertaininstances‘inconvertible’(pp.63-92).
Theproblemofviolenceisacrucialsocialandpoliticalquestionbecauseitis
asocialfactthatthreatensinstitutionalisedsociallifewhilealsobeinganintegral
partofit.Inthiscontext,apoliticsofcivilityisnotstrictlyspeakingapoliticsof
non-violence.Whileitmayincludenon-violentstruggles,practicesofcivilityare
morebroadlyconcernedwiththelimitingordisplacingofextremesofviolence.
Thus,theGandhiananti-imperialstruggleinallitsambivalenceisakindofpolitics
ofcivility;soisthebirthofwelfareinWesternEuropeintheaftermathofthe
crueltiesofSecondWorldWar.
Seemingly,thesubsumptionofcultureintheUKdoesnotgivebirthto
extremesofviolence,evenifextremeviolenceistobeconsideredqualitativelyand
withnopre-establishedlimitorthresholdtomeasureitagainst.However,ideasof
violenceandcivilitywillbeusefultoexplore,amongstotherthings,howthe
intensifiedre-alignmentofculturetothecultureindustry,orwhatIwillcallafter
Balibarculture’s‘internalcolonization’(2015,p.154),goeshandinhandwiththe
production(orriskofproduction)ofextremesofviolenceondifferentgeopolitical
scenes,notablybecauseofhowculturecomestoplayalegitimasingfunctionwith
regardstoprivateinvestors,whichincludemultinationalcorporationsresponsible
forglobalwarmingorwar.Inthecontextofthisthesis,practicesofcivility,whichI
willexplorethroughcasespresentedasalternativeresiliencepracticesand
discourses(seeQ.2c),willacknowledgeandgiveformtotheproblemofviolence
whilealsoambivalentlydistancinganddisplacingitsextremesthroughculture,.
42RecontextualisingBalibar’sdiscussionofthetermwillalsoenablemeto
developitdifferently.ConnectingBalibar’sdiscussionofcivilitymoredirectlyto
culturewillenablemetorevisitsomeoftheproblemsdevelopedbyLloydand
Thomas(1998)intheiranalysisoftherelationbetweencultureandthe‘ethical’
state.Inchapter2and3,Iwillbediscussingcivilityinrelationtopracticesthatare
eitherartisticandtheatricalpracticesorpolicy-relatedeventsthathavetaken
placeintheatres.WhileIwillnotinsistonthetheatricaldimensionthatBalibar
givesthenotionofcivility,thisrecontextualisationwillgiveitamaterialbasis.
1.3.3Art
Itwillalsobemyargumentthatadiscussionofalternativeresiliencesthroughthe
prismofcivilityisinsufficientforacompletecritique.Thisisinpartbecausethese
alternativeswillalsobeshowntobeambivalent.But,alsobecauseIbelievethat
criticismshouldaccountforresourcesforcritiquethatartpossesses,whicharenot
reducibletopolicyorart’spoliticiseduses.Importantly,thislastelementofthe
discussionwillenablemetothinkalternativestoaffirmativeculturethrougha
philosophicallydeterminedconceptofart,asannouncedpreviously.Thisinquiry
relatestothethirdresearchquestion(s)andwilloccupymeinthesecondpartof
thethesis.Inthispartofthethesis,anexplicitdiscussionofresiliencediscourses
willbeforsakeninfavourofdiscussinghowartcanbepositionedcriticallyina
socialandhistoricalcontextinwhichprivateinvestmentinculture,legitimatedand
effectedbyresiliencepolicies,hasbecomenormalised.
ForthisinvestigationIhaveturnedtothelateworkofAdornoandpost-
Adornoiandiscourse.Inthisdiscourse,autonomousartasformallysubsumed
activity,althoughpoliticallypowerlessinrealterms,isunderstoodtohavea
criticalpowerbecauseofitsanomalousstatus(seeAdorno,1997,p.29,p.107).The
43advantageofAdorno’stheoryofautonomousartisthat,contrarytoanaffirmative
imageofredemptioncritiquedbyMarcuse,itoffersanegativeone.Artstillasserts
thediscrepancybetweentheidealandthehistoricalconditionsofexistenceof
culturebutdoesnotsoftenreality’sasperities.Ratheritretainssocial
contradictionsatthelevelofitsform‘pureanduncompromised’,whereideology
tendstoreconcileandresolvethesecontradictionsbyobfuscatingthem(Adorno,
1981,p.32).Autonomousartthusconceivedcanremainadissonantindexofour
contemporaryunfreedominsteadofbecomingapositiveimageofsweetnessand
lightthatsoftenstheharshnessofcapitalistreality.Indoingso,Vishmidtnotes
thatartcanbe‘bothaprotestagainstthebrutalityoftheworldandaconfirmation
thatthisbrutalityhaslimits,preservinghope,akintotheroleofreligion:
redemptiveinitsnegation’(2016,p.36).Thispossibilitywillbekeyin
understandinghowartiscapableofpresentingthedestructionandviolence
legitimatedbyresiliencediscoursesandpracticesinstatepolicy.
Itshouldalsobenotedthattheautonomyofartisdeterminedbyitscapacity
toresistitsfunctionasabearerofexchangevalue,whichisoneaspectofthe
commodityinMarxisttheory.Iexplorethispointbriefly.Acommodityis
understoodtohaveadual,antagonisticformthatderivesfromitsexchangevalue
andusevalue.Theusevalueofacommodity,whichisqualitative,isitsutilityin
fulfillingspecificneedsandwants.Incontrast,theexchangevalueofacommodity,
whichdominatesincapitalistsocieties,isnotdeterminedbyitsutilitybutrather
bythequantityofcrystallisedlabouritcontains.Thelabourinquestion,here,is
notconcretelabour,whichdenotestheparticularactivityandskillsrequiredto
produceaspecifickindofobjectwithaspecificuse.Rather,thecrystallised
quantityoflabourthatmakesuptheexchangevalueofthecommodityisa
quantityofsociallynecessaryabstractlabour,whichreferstoagenericand
44averagequantityofhumanlabour-powerexpendedfortheproductionofagiven
commodity.Itisonlywhenlabour,understoodasacommodity(labourpower)to
beboughtandsold,isreducedtosuchanabstraction(fromuse)thattheproducts
oflabour(commodities)becomerationallyexchangeablequacommodities(Marx,
1990).Theworkofartmaybeanexceptiontothislabourlawofvalue,according
toclassicalandMarxisttheory(Beech,2015).However,asnotedpreviouslyart
nonethelessentersmoreandmore,asananomalousor‘fictitious’commodity,into
processesofvalorisation.Forthisreason,Iretaintheterm.
Aparadoxshouldalsobenoted:Whilethisconditionofbearerofexchange
value,whichresiliencepoliticsreinforces,threatensanddestroysart’sautonomy,it
isalsotheconditionofpossibilityofachievingautonomyasfictitiouscommodity.
Forthisreason,inthispost-romanticphilosophyofart,artceasestobedefinedas
amedium.Instead,artisdefinedintermsofsocialontology.Thatis,itisdefinedby
itsimmanentrelationtonon-art,includingitsalwayssocio-historicalinstitutional
conditionsandrelationsofproduction.Thesedonotjustprovideanexternal
‘context’butareinsteadanimmanentandmaterialaspectoftheartwork,as
autonomyisonlyevertheappearanceofautonomy,whichisfactsocially
determinedorheteronomous(Adorno,1997).
Theontologicalasopposedtomedium-specificdefinitionofartrelatestothe
questionoftheatricalityinmythesis.Beyondthespecificworks,eventsandplaces
thatIexamineorincludeinmydiscussion,thetheatricalcharacterofthiscritique
refersprimarilytowhatPeterOsborne(2013)viewsasthenon-mediumspecific
characterofcontemporaryart,orwhatJameson(2015)hasdescribedasits‘de-
differentiation’(p.107).Todenotethis,Ire-appropriatetheterm‘theatrical’from
MichaelFried’s(1995)famousGreenbergiancritiqueofminimalism.WhenFried
critiquedminimalistartasbeing‘theatrical’,theartcriticwasamongstotherthings
45grapplingwiththequestionofthecreativedestructionofpropermediumsinart.It
isapredicamentthatFried,defendingamedium-specificGreenbergianconception
ofmodernityinart,decried.Thisde-differentiation,however,willbeunderstood
tobeoneoftheformaleffectsofthedialecticoftheautonomousworkofart,
consequentupontheartwork’sresistancetoitsstatusasbearerofexchange
value.Thisresistanceisunderstoodtodriveart’ssingularisation(itsbecoming
moreandmoreuncategorisable)orwhatAdorno(1997)viewedasart’sincreasing
‘nominalism’(p.199).Thisprocessofde-differentiationbutalsosingularisationof
thework,whichbestowsupontheartworkauniquenessaswellasacertain
event-likethereness,iswhatIwillcalltheartwork’stheatricalityorindexicality.
Thistheatricalitywillbethephenomenologicalandtemporalmarkerofart’s
alternative‘shockdoctrine’,art’scapacitytoantagonisticallyfigureandpresentthe
socialtruthofsubsumption(destructionandviolence),whilealsoembodyinga
future-boundopeningandalternative.Inasmuchasarthasthecapacitytofigure
thesocialtruthofsubsumption,whichislegitimisedandeffectedbyresilience
discoursesandpractices,theartdiscussedinthisthesiswillalsobeshownto
reproducethemixedtemporalitiesthatIannouncedasbeingconstitutiveof
subsumption.
AstheliteraryandartcriticDavidCunningham(2016)notes,thepost-
mediumconditionortransdisciplinarityofartdiscussedaboveisalsosubjectto
discipline-specificdynamicsthatcomplicatetheclaimsthatmodernand
contemporaryartisentirelygenericorde-differentiatedatthelevelofmediums.
Differencesexistinpracticeandontologicalsitesofpracticebetween
contemporaryartandliteraturebutalsobetweencontemporaryartorliterature
andtheatre,forinstance.Thisthesisforthemostpartexcludesadiscussionof
theatre-basedanddramaticworks.Instead,myanalysisconcentratesonformsof
46(post-)conceptualart:Performanceandtime-basedart,institutionalcritiqueand
art-activismaswellaspedagogicalprojects.Iacknowledgethatthishascertain
implicationsforhowIpositionthisresearchwithinthefieldoftheatreand
performanceresearch.Whilethischoicewasnotpremeditated,Icametothe
conclusionthatincludinganextensivediscussionofdramaticandtheatreforms
wouldhavecompromisedtheunityofthediscussion.Theproblemsandtopicsthat
Igrapplewithinthisthesiswouldinvariablytakeadifferentformwhendiscussing
dramaandtheatre,whicharedefinedbydifferentsitesofproduction,circulation
andreceptionaswellaspracticesandhistories.
InthissectionIhavegivenanoutlineofthetwoconcepts,artandcivility,
whichformthebasisofthelastthreeresearchquestions.Althoughthese
conceptionsofartandcivilityarerelatedandwillinteractinthisthesis,notably
throughtheideaofculture’ssubsumption,differentchapterswilltendtofocuson
oneortheother.Thenextsectionincludesanoutlineofthechaptersandpresents
thedesignofmyresearch.
1.4Cases,methodsandethics
1.4.1Design,rationaleandoutline
Inordertoanswertheresearchquestions,Iusedmixedqualitativemethodsand
centeredtheinvestigationoncasestudies.AccordingtoStake(2005),thestudyof
casescanprovideinsightsintoanissuewiththeaimofdrawingageneralisation
aboutaparticularphenomenon.Myusesofthecasesare,inthissense,
instrumentalalthoughnotsimplyillustrative.However,contrarytowhatStake
(2005)claims,thisinstrumentaluseofcasestudiesdoesnotmeanthatIhave
favouredconcernsthatareexternaltotheworksthemselves.Nonetheless,an
organisationofthecasestudiesaccordingtotheaimsandendsofmyown
47researchwasnecessaryandhasenabledmetolookintowhatFlyvbjerg(2011)
calls‘paradigmaticcases’(dominantliberalconceptionsofresilienceinnational
culturalpolicy)aswellasvariations(alternativeresiliencepracticesand/or
discourses)anddeviancefromornegationofthephenomena(p.307).
Inthefirsttwochapters,whichincludethisintroduction,Iaddressthe
historyofresilienceinpolicyandaddresshowandwhyresiliencebecameakey
notioninculturaladministrationintheUK(Q.1a,b).Inordertoprovideamore
completeanswertothesequestionsinchapter2,Itracethehistoryofresiliencein
nationalculturalpolicy,concentratingonthediscoursesandpracticesofACE,
whereresiliencehasbecomeakeyterm.Thisfocusisjustifiedonanumberof
levels.First,itisinnationalculturalpolicythatIencounteredarangeofresilience
discoursesandpracticesinculture,whichhaveenabledmetoexplorethethesis
thatresiliencediscoursesandpracticesintheirvariousformsconcernthe
managementandsocialisationofcrisesandtheirrisks(Q.2a-b).WhileIcouldhave
foundcasesoutsideofthiscontext,thereseemedtometobeawealthofmaterial
inthisarea,whichhadtheadditionalattractionofrelatinginastricterwayto
culturalpolicythancasesofculturalandartisticactivityformingpartoflarger
socialprogrammes.
Thenationalscaleiskeyfortwootherreasons.First,nationalculturalpolicy
stillplaysakeyfunctioninthesupportingofnot-forprofitartisticpracticesand
institutions,whichfeatureheavilyinthisthesis.Second,Ifoundthatanxieties
aboutthedangersandrisksrelatingtoresiliencepracticeswereveryvisibleatthis
level,avisibilitythatismostprobablylinkedtoanxietiesabouttheprogressive
demiseofwelfarismintheUKinthecontextofglobalisation.Forthisreason,
nationalculturalpolicywasalsoaninterestingsitefordiscussingtheambivalences
ofresilienceanditsexpendientrationaleofresourcemanagement(Q2.b).
48ThehistoricaldemiseispartlywhatleadsPratt(2017)toclaimthatthe
institutionsandstructuresforthesupportoftraditional,not-forprofitartare
residual.Writingaboutthe‘traditional’roleandplaceoftheartsandculture,he
writes:
Thetraditionalrolehasbeenminimizedtothepointofobliteration:idealist
supportforthehumanisticvaluesofculture,andthesoftpowerofparticular
valuesthatsustainspecificideasofthenationstate.Theseargumentswere
previouslymobilizedbyphilanthropists,andthedesignersofthewelfare
state,tounderpintheallocationofresourcestoculture(Pratt,2017,p.134).
Whileitmaybetruethatthetraditionalroleofculturehasmutatedandbeen
displaced,myargumentwillbethattalkofitsobliterationorevenminimisationis
somewhatmisleading.Humanisticvaluesofculture,softpower,anduplifting
nationalimaginationswillremainatalllevelskeyconsiderationsinmydiscussion,
whichwillrevealhowexpedientrationalesofresourcemanagement,whatever
theirform,cannotdispensewithmoreidealisticideologicalsupplements(Q.2b).
Afteralongdiscussionofvariantsofresiliencediscourseandpracticein
nationalpolicy,Chapter2willendwiththediscussionofTakeTheMoneyandRun?
(TTMR).ItisthecasethroughwhichIwillopentheinvestigationintodiscourses
andpracticesthatdeviatefromthedominantlogicofresilience(Q.2c).Itisinthis
discussionthatthequestionofcivilityandviolencewillbeintroducedinrelation
toadiscussionoftherisksanddangerslinkedtothesubsumptionofculture.Itis
alsothecaseoutofwhichalltheotherchaptersandcasesemanate.
TTMRwasaseriesofeventsorganisedbyaconsortiumofcultural
organisationsandart-activistorganisationPlatform,whichaimedtoprobethe
49sociopoliticalandenvironmentalconsequencesofthefinancialcutsandpromotion
ofprivateinvestmentaspartofACE’sresilience-buildingprogrammescalled
Catalyst.Inasmuchastheinitiativewastiedtotheseprogrammes,itcanbe
consideredasinstanceofresiliencepractice,evenifthediscourseproduced
aroundtheeventswasnotalwaysexplicitly‘about’resilienceorreproducingthe
typicalproceduresandtropesofresiliencediscourse.Throughtheanalysisof
TTMR,Iwillalsobeprovidingacasethatisnotincludedinexistingevaluationsof
resilienceprogrammes.
Beforemovingon,itisworthmentioningthatIexcludedanextensive
discussionofBrexit.WhiletheeffectsofBrexithavealreadybeenfeltonvarious
levels,policy-relateddatathatIhaveengagedwithpertainsmostlytoaperiodof
15years,startingfrom2003andgoingupto2018.Thisengagementwithpolicy
servesacritiqueofresilienceanddoesnotaimtoassesstheeffects(realor
potential)ofBrexitonthefieldofcultureoritsadministration.Withthisinmind,
myviewisthatBrexit,whichasIwritehasstillnothappened,changesverylittleof
theessentialtheoreticalshapeofmywork.However,Ialsoacknowledgethatthe
detailofmyargumentandinterpretationofdatawillhavetoberevisitedinlightof
whatwilloccurinthecomingyears.
InChapter3,Icontinuetoinvestigatealternativevariantsofresilience
discoursesandpracticesthroughtheprismoftheconceptofcivilitybyfocusingon
theart-activismoftheLaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination(Labofii)and
theirprojectC.R.A.S.H–ApostcapitalistAtoZ(hereaftershortenedtoC.R.A.S.H
(2009)).Theprojectwasproducedaspartofthefirst2DegreesFestivalatArts
AdmininLondonandpartlyfundedbytheEuropeanUnionFundforCulture.
ThiscasestudywaschosenonthebasisthatIfoundinthegroup’s
appropriationofresilienceaclearinstanceofaradicalleft-wingresilience
50discourseandbyextensionpractice,whichcontrastedwithdominantpolicyuses
ofresilience,whileneverthelesshavingsimilardiscursivefeatures.Labofiiwas
foundedbyaPlatformmember,soincludingadiscussionoftheirreappropriation
ofresiliencediscoursesalsoprovidedthemeanstodeepenanengagementwith
thealternativesimaginedbythesocialformationsalreadyencounteredinchapter
2.Throughthecase,Iwillcontinuetoconfirmthatculturalvarietiesofresilience
discourseareconcernedwiththemanagementofcrisesandrisks.Nevertheless,
thereisnodoubtthatinthiscasethesocialimaginationofresilienceis
significantlydifferenttotheonefoundindominantpolicydiscourses,whichshows
thatresiliencediscoursescanbeputtoradicallydifferentuses.Thus,likeinthe
discussionofTTMR,Iwillexplorehowthesediscoursesandtheirambivalences
canbemadeintelligiblethroughthenotionofcivility(Q.2c).Chapter3willalsolay
thefoundationsforthethirdpartofthediscussion(Q.3),providingamidpointfor
thethesis.Theanalysisofthecasewillenablemetospecifyonapreliminarybasis
how(post-)conceptualartcanbethoughttonegatetherationalesofresilience.
Twoshorterchaptersendthethesis,andtogetherconstitutethesecondpart
ofthecritique,whichanswersQ.3aandQ.3b.Todoso,Ireturntoconcerns
presentedinchapter2,namely,tothequestionoftherisksanddangerslinkedto
privateinvestmentlegitimatedandeffectedbyresilienceagendas.However,this
time,Iwillbediscussingtherisksanddangersforandeffectsonart.Iwill
examinemorecloselyhowartisrenderedaffirmativebyplayingalegitimisingrole
vis-à-viscorporateandpoliticalpower,whichusescultureasaneconomic
resourcebutalsoasaresourcetomanagereputations.Thefirstcase,situatedat
TateModern,focusesontheworkofAbrahamCruzvillegastitledEmptyLot
(2015a)andtheDeadlineFestival(2015a)organisedbyPlatformagainsttheoil
sponsorshipofthegallery.ThiscasehasbeenincludedasTatehasbecomea
51paradigmaticexampleoftheproblemstiedtocorporatesponsorshipinaUK
context.Thecasewillalsoenabletothinkabouthowartdoesnotnecessarilyneed
tobeaffirmative(Q.3a).Iwillexplorethispossibilitybydevelopingtheconception
ofartpresentedattheendofchapter3.
Inchapter5,Idiscussatransnationalexhibitionaboutspeciesextinctionand
conservation,whichwasmadeinsupportoftheIUCNcharity.Thiscasewas
presentedanddiscussedaspartoftheTTMRevent.TwoBritishartists,Ackroyd
andHarvey,withdrewfromtheexhibitionaftertheyfoundoutthatitwasfunded
byanAzerioiltycoonlinkedtoBP.Thiscaseisincludedasameansofproviding
additionalevidenceoftherisksofprivateinvestmentincultureaswellasofthe
becomingaffirmativeofartanditsalternatives(Q3a-b).Thiscaseisalso
interestingbecauseitismorecomplexbutalsolesswell-knownthantheTatecase.
Theissuesofurbanityandregenerationinchapter4andconservationinchapter5
willalsofeatureascase-specificsub-topicsthatseemedtomeimportanttoinclude
becauseofthemannerinwhichtheyinflectconsiderationsofprivateinvestment
aswellasthediscussionofaffirmativecultureandnegativelyautonomousart.
1.4.2Literature,participation,interviewsandethics
Insection1.2.1and1.2.2butalsoinpart1.3,Iintroducedthecross-disciplinary
conceptsandgeneralitiesthatwillorganisethediscussionofthecasesandthe
reasonswhysuchanapproachandsetofconceptswereselected.Inthepreceding
section,Ipresentedthecasesandrationaleforselectingthese.Anumberof
additionalmethodologicalpointsneedclarification,notablyrelatingtothe
selectionandinvestigationofliteratureaswellastheinvestigationofdifferent
cases.
52MyengagementwithpolicydiscoursefollowswhatGray(2010)understands
tobeaninterpretivistapproach.However,Ihavenotlimitedmyselftothe
interpretationoftextsasIendeavouredtounderstandresiliencepolicyasa
practice(BellandOakley,2015).Engagingwithapreliminarybodyofpolicy
papersandpublicationsledmetoconsiderawiderbodyofliteraturepublishedby
variousthinktanks,quangos,adhocraciesandconsultantsthatappearedtohave
playedakeyroleinthehistoricaldevelopmentoftheterm.Ispentaninitialperiod
oftimeexaminingthisprimarybodyofliterature(publishedpre-2012)aswellas
alltherelevantArtsCouncilpublicationsrelatingtoresilience(pre-2012).Ina
laterphaseoftheresearchproject,Ireturnedtoprimarypolicyliterature,butthis
timetotheevaluationsofprogrammesrelatingtoresilience(2012-2018),which
werepublishedgradually.Ialsousedanumberofwebsitesrelatingtothe
programmesIwaswritingaboutwhereIfoundusefulvideodocumentationof
events.
WhileIengagedwithabroaderbodyofsecondaryliteratureaboutresilience
programmesordiscoursesinsideandoutsidethefieldofculture,Ilimitedmy
engagementwithsecondaryliteraturerelatingtoresiliencepracticesand
discoursesoutsideofthefieldas,accordingtoNeocleous(2013),resiliencehas
fastbecomethesubjectofamini-academicindustry.Nevertheless,intheinitial
stagesoftheresearch,Iengagedwithkeyarticlesaboutthehistoryoftheterm;
book-lengthcriticaltheoriesofresilience;literaturethathelpstoclarifythe
conceptionsofresilienceindifferentfields(genealogies,critiquesoftheuseand
abuses);andliteratureabout(orcitedin)resilienceinartandhumanities
scholarship.
Inordertoinvestigatepolicyaspractice,Ialsousedothermethods,including
participatoryobservation.Itookpartinanumberofevents,lecturesand
53workshopsthatwereeitherrelatedtothekeyprogrammesIstudiedortocertain
keyactorsIwaswritingabout.Whileusingobservationenabledmetotriangulate
certainfindingsrelatingtotheseprogrammes(Yin,2013),meetingpolicy
practitionersandgoingtotheseeventswasmainlyawaytofamiliarisemyself,asa
neophyte,withthecultureofculturalpolicy,sotospeak(Descombe,2010).I
participatedinatleastoneeventrelatedtothekeypolicyprogrammesIdiscuss.
Notesaswellasofficialdocumentationoftheevents(audiovisualandwritten)
wereusedafterwards.Finally,Iattendedotherlectures,workshopsandevents
throughtheUniversityofLeeds.TheUniversityofLeedsisalsoapartnerforoneof
thetrainingprogrammesIamconcernedwith,whichgavemetheopportunityto
conductahalf-day,in-situobservation.
Iinterviewed20individualsrelatedtotheartcasesorpoliciesIdecidedto
writeaboutusingasemi-structuredinterviewprocess.Theindividuals
interviewedwerekeyparticipantsinthedifferentcases.3interviewswere
performedwithgroupsof2interviewees.Thiswasthecasefororganisationsor
groupsinwhichtherewasdualleadershiporacollaborationbetweentwoartists.
So,intotal,Iperformed17interviews.6ofthesewereconductedwithpolicy
consultants,policyactorsortheheadsoforganisationsIwaswritingaboutin
chapter2(largelyinrelationtotheTTMRcase).Another6interviewswere
conductedwithartistsandcuratorsrelatedtoothercases.5interviewswere
conductedwithartistsoraboutworksthatIdidnotendupwritingaboutinthe
finalthesismainlybecausetheyweretheatreartistsandIcametotheviewthat
majordiscussionsoftheatrehadtoexcludedonaccountoftheemergingdesignof
theresearch.Someinterviewscoveredbothquestionsofpolicyandart,suchasan
interviewImaderelatingtoDeadlinewithamemberofPlatform.Theonlycasefor
whichIdidnotconductaninterviewwasCruzvillegas’EmptyLot.Ihadproblems
54accessingpeopleinvolvedontheproject.However,plentyofotherinterview
materialanddocumentationexistsrelatingtotheworkandtheartist.Irefered
myselftothisbodyofwork.
Therationaleforconductingtheinterviewsalsoevolvedsignificantly.I
initiallythoughtthatinterviewswouldhelpmetriangulatemyfindings.Ialso
thoughtthatIwouldensureconstructvaliditybyperformingmultipleinterviews
foreachcase.Thisideawasbasedonamoresocialscienceapproachtothe
critiqueofresilience,whichwouldhaveinvolvedanin-depthinvestigationof
certainorganisations.Duringmysecondyear,inparticular,Imovedawayfrom
thismodelandtheideathattheinterviewswouldprovideamajorbasisforthe
discussion.However,liketheobservations,theindividualised,semi-structured
interviewsofferedameansforimmersingmyselfinmyobjectofstudy,meeting
peopleandproducingafinerunderstandingoftheprocessesandpractices
discussed(Descombe,2010).Thisapproachisalsoinlinewithamaterialist
approachadvocatedintheatreandperformancestudies(Knowles,2004).I
performedfewerinterviewsthanIanticipated(Ioriginallyprojectedtodo20-25),
althoughtheratiobetweeninterviewsdedicatedtopolicyissuesandartstayed
roughlythesame.
Finally,whilemyworkistheoreticallyinflected,Ihaveusedclose
interpretationfortheanalysisofartworks.Thisapproachpresupposesan
ontological,thatis,bothsocio-historicalandaestheticconceptionofartthatI
presentedinsection1.3.3.Inpractice,Iengagedwithaprimarybodyofliterature
thatisrelevanttoeachworkandartistIengagedwith.Ialsoendeavouredto
performanobservationoftheworksatleasttwice,althoughnotallcomponentsof
sometimescomplexcasestudieswereobservedtwice.Likethisintroduction,most
ofthechapterscontainmomentsofperformanceanalysisoraccountsofworksand
55encounters,whichofferadifferenttexturetotheotherkindsofdiscoursesusedin
thisthesis,oftenbecausetheyarefirst-personnarrativeswritteninthepresent
tense.SomeworksIneverencounteredlivebutonlythroughdocumentationthat
informantsprovidedorthatisavailableonline.Thedocumentationisunderstood
tobeanextensionoftheworksthatexistthroughdifferentiterationsandforms
(events,texts,images,oralaccountsandmyownaccounts).
Theprojectfollowedtheconventionalethicalcodesofacademicresearch.
Foreachinterview,Isecuredinformedconsent,avoideddeceivingorharmingthe
subjectsofstudy,andobservedrulesofconfidentialityanddataaccuracy
(Christians,2005,pp.139–164).WhileIdidnotalwaysdiscussmyownposition
andviewswithinformants,Ididnotnecessarilyhidethemeither,ifasked.There
wereanumberofreasonsforthis.ThefirstisthatIbelievethatthereisnosuch
thingasvalue-freeresearch.Ifollowtheviewthatthe‘verypurposeofallhuman
researchistoraiseourconsciousnessregardingethicallysuspectarrangements
embeddedinthestructureofoursocial-culturalworld’(Soltis,1989,p.128).
However,thisalsoimpliesthattheresearchershouldnotmaketheirinformants
feelliketheyarebeingused.Partofthisinvolvedcirculatingsomeofthewritingto
intervieweesincasesthatIthoughtwerenecessary.
56
2.Resilience,crisisandthechangingcultureofadministration
2.1Introduction
Inthischapter,Icontinuetheinquiryintothehistoriesofresilience(Q.1.a-b)and
resilienceunderstoodintermsof‘culture-as-resource’(Q.2.a-b).Suchaninquiry
willtakethediscussionbacktenyearstoNewLabour’ssecondterminpowerin
ordertounderstandhowandwhythetermresilienceemergedinthefieldof
cultureandrosetoprominence(Q.1b).
NewLabourcametopowerin1997withacentrist,social-liberalprogramme
knownastheThirdWay.Giddens(1998)claimsthattheThirdWaywasa
balancedideologythatcombinesaliberaleconomicoutlookwiththesocial
consciousnessthatthepoliticsofThatcherandhergovernmentlacked.However,
manyofitscriticsseeintheThirdWayavariantofliberalideology(Steinbergand
Johnson,2004).Shaw(2008)hasshownthatprivate–publicpartnershipsforthe
financingofinfrastructureandcapitalprojectsswelledunderNewLabour.
Elsewhere,Wilks-Heeg(2009)arguesthattheso-calledmodernisationofEnglish
localgovernmentunderNewLabourresultedingreaterprivatesector
involvementinhousingandeducation.Thiswasalsothecaseforhighereducation
asuniversitiesbecamefee-payingforstudentsforthefirsttimesince1962
(Anderson,2016).Finally,newpublicauditingsystemsthatwereinitiatedby
Thatcherasameanstosubjectpublicsectorculturetothenormsoftheprivate
sectorweresystematisedbyNewLabourintoacomprehensiveformofauditing
andperformancemeasurement(Lapsley,2009).
WhiletheartsbenefitedfromextrapublicfundingthroughoutNewLabour’s
terminpower(Hesmondhalghetal.,2014),NewLabour’ssupportforculturewas
57arguablyreflectiveoftheparty’sparticularbrandofsocial-liberalismandtheethos
ofwhatWucalls‘thecorporatewelfarestate’(2002,p.278).AccordingtoOakley
(2004),culturewascentraltoapartykeentoplaceBritainatthevanguardofnew
ITandinformation-relatedeconomies.However,asshownbyHesmondhalghetal.
(2014),thischampioningofculturecamewithanumberofstringsattached,
includingtheneedtojustifypublicsupportforcultureinnon-intrinsicterms
(economic,social),atendencythatthesameculturalindustriesscholarsinterpret
asoneofthemostneoliberalcharacteristicsofNewLabour’sculturalpolicies
(Hesmondhalghetal.,2015).Intermsofthevocabularyusedinthesis,thistrendis
connectedtowhatIhavetermedtheintensifiedsubsumptionofculture,whichin
policytermsboreanumberofnames,includingthe‘creativeindustries’andthe
‘creativeeconomy’(BellandOakley,2015;DCMS,2001).
Inthefirstpartofthischapter,Ipresenthowthetermresiliencesedimented
itselfanddevelopedinthefieldofcultureinthishistoricalcontextaspartof
discoursesthatwereconcernedbytheinternalcolonisationofthestatebyovertly
economicrationalities.Thishistorywillconfirmthatanecologicalrationaleand
poeticswasakeycomponentoftheterm’sdevelopmentaspartofapolicy
counter-discourseaimingtochallengetheinstrumentalistturnofNewLabour
policies.Thiscounter-discoursewillbeshowntoconformtotheculturalist
proceduresidentifiedintheintroduction.Theanalysiswillsegueintoamore
generalaccountofhowresiliencediscoursedevelopsduringtheendofNew
Labour’stimeinpoweratthehandsofthinktanksandotherpolicyinterest
groups.Bydoingso,theanalysisaimstogiveasenseofhow,followingPeckand
Theodore(2010),thediscoursesandpracticesofresilience‘mutateandmorph
duringtheirjourneys’(p.170),whilestillconformingtothelogicsof‘culture-as-
resource’.Infact,itisbymutatingandmorphingthatresiliencewillbeshownto
58comeintoitsownas‘culture-as-resource’rationale,afterhavingbegunaspartofa
counter-discoursethataimedtoopposeinstrumentalisation.Inthisrespect,
resilienceinculturewillbeshowntofollowasimilarevolutiontotheoneof
ecologicalresiliencetheorydiscussedinthepreviouschapteranddescribedby
WalkerandCooper(2011,p.157)ashaving‘movedfromapositionofcritique
(againstthedestructiveconsequencesoforthodoxresourceeconomics)tooneof
collusionwithanagendaofresourcemanagementthatcollapsesecologicalcrisis
intothecreativedestructionofatrulyHayekianfinancialorder’.
AfterdiscussingsomeoftheantecedentstoresilienceinACEprogrammes
anddiscourseaswellasreviewingthecurrentcutstoculture,thesecondpartof
thechapterwillalsooutlineACE’scurrentstrategicvisioninwhichresilience
holdsacentralplace.Thethirdpartofthechapterconcentratesonreviewing
actualpolicyprogrammes.ThereviewstartswithACE’snovelenvironmental
policies,whichdivergefromtheaimsandobjectivesofotherresilience
programmes.Theothersectionsofthethirdpartwillbededicatedtoareviewof
ACEprogrammesthataimtobuildthesector’sfinancialresiliencethroughaturn
tophilanthropyandprivateinvestment.Thechapterfinisheswithananalysisofa
casestudy,whichwasnotincludedintheofficialACEevaluations,butwhichwill
providetheopportunitytodiscusstheproblemofviolenceandcivilityinrelation
toresilienceinculture(Q.2c).Atdifferentpointsinthechapter,Idiscussorinclude
instancesofadministrationart,includingpolicypoetry,thatis,poetrycomposed
orusedbypolicy-makersbutalsoartistsconcernedwithpolicyandthe
administrationofculture.ThisinclusionalsosupportsawiderdiscussionofwhatI
willcall,afterMcGuigan,the‘rhetorics’ofresilienceinpolicy(2004,p.92).
592.2Pre-historiesofresilienceinculture
2.2.1RethinkingculturalvalueandtheValuingCultureconference
Icannotknowforcertainwhethertheideaofresilienceappearedincultural
discoursebeforethe2003NationalTheatre(NT)conferenceonculturalvalue.
However,itisinthiscontextthatIfirstfoundthenotionbeingused.Hewison
(2014)hasdescribedtheNTconferencetitledValuingCultureasformingpartof
anemergingcounter-discoursethatopposedwhatwasperceivedamongstcertain
leadersinthefieldasthedamagingmanagerialismofNewLabour’scultural
policies.Againstreductiveeconomicandsocial-instrumentalvaluationsofculture,
theconference(co-organisedbythecentre-leftthinktankDemos)aimed,
accordingtooneofitsorganisers,toforgealanguagecapableof‘reflecting,
recognisingandcapturingthefullrangeofvaluesexpressedthroughculture’
(Holden,2004,p.9).Manyhigh-profilespeakers,includingNTdirectorNicholas
HytnerandthethensecretaryofcultureTessaJowell,setouttorespondtothis
challenge.ItisinJohnHolden’sownresponsetothisinquiry,whichheformulated
intheessayCapturingCulturalValue(2004),thatIfoundthefirsttraceableuseof
theterm.
Theideaofculturalvalueisinpartareworkingofpublicvaluediscourses
popularisedbyareportco-authoredbycivilservantsworkingwiththeex-head
andfounderofthethinktankDemos,GeoffMulgan(Kellyetal.,2002).According
toLeeetal.(2011)theideaofpublicvaluefacilitatedthinkingabouthow‘the
workingpracticesofpublicservantsmightcontributetoparticularsortsof
benefitsfoundonlyinpublicservices’(p.290).Inhisownpamphlet,Holden(2004)
arguesthatculturalorganisations,incollaborationwithinstitutionsandtheir
constituencies,neededtoarticulatethehigher-order,non-economicpublicgoods
(fairnessandequality,communalhealthandprosperity)thattheypromotein
60ordertogroundtheirorganisation’sworkinidealsthattheyandtheir
constituencies,aswellaspolicymakers,recognisedandlegitimate.Thiswould
help,amongstotherthings,encourageself-determinationinthesectorandhelp
avoidinstrumentalismandmission-creepconsequentuponpoliticallyexpedient
usesofculture.
Theassertionofadiscrepancybetweencultureasprincipleanditshistorical
realityisalreadyvisibleintheadvocacyoftheprotectionofhigherordervalues
againstmanagerialinstrumentalism.However,Holdenalsodrewonecological
discoursesinordertorethinkthebalancebetweeninstrumentalismandnon-
instrumentalism,drawingparallelsbetweensustainabilityincultureandecology
thatechowithYúdice’s(2003)notionofculture-as-resource.Inhisdiscussion,he
usestheepithet‘resilient’inthecontextofadiscussionaboutthenecessityof
diversityinculturalprovision.Hewrites:
Inahomeostaticsystem,individualswillcompeteandcooperatebutwillmaintainan
overallsystemicbalancethroughprocessesofcomplexadaptation.Intheworldof
culture,analogousargumentscanbemadeabouttheneedfordiversityinfunding.
[…]Thebroaderanddeepertheoverallcultural‘system’themoreresilientitwillbe
inadaptingtothechangingneedsofthesocietywhichitbothformsandreflects
(Holden,2004,p.38).
BeyondHolden’spersonalaffinitywiththislexicon,theturntoecologyappearsto
havebeenofitstimeandcertainlyinvogueatDemos.10Ifoundinstancesofthis
10InanemailexchangethatIhadwithHolden,heexplainedthathebecamepersonally
interestedinenvironmentalquestionsthankstohistraining.Hewasalsoinfluencedby
61turntoecologicalvocabulariesinaDemospublicationpublishedaroundthesame
time,whichwastitledTheAdaptiveState(2003)andsubtitledStrategiesfor
PersonalisingthePublicRealm(BentleyandWilsdon,2003).Asitstitlessuggest,
thedocumentaimedtorethinkthedeliveryofpublicservicesinthewakeoftheir
increasedprivatisation.Lookingfurther,tracesofthisecologicaldiscoursecanalso
befoundinthewritingsofMulgan,theco-founderofDemos.Thewritingsofthe
youngMulgantranslatedsimilarconcernsbutwerepublishedaspartofMarxism
Today,areviewco-editedbyMartinJacquesandStuartHallduringthe1980s.In
anarticletitledThePoweroftheWeak(1989),Mulganusesbiologicaland
naturalistmetaphorsof‘emergence’,‘uncertainty’,‘variety’and‘systemstheory’to
critiquetop-downinstrumentalisminpolitics.Althoughthereisnodirect
correlationbetweenMulgan’swritingsandHolden’s,thislongerviewsuggeststhat
thedebatesthattookplaceattheNTformedpartofalonger-termattemptto
rethinkthepaternalistandwelfaristfunctionofthestateinthecontextofthe
shiftingrelationsbetweenthepublicandprivatesector.Anumberof
commentators,includingFinlayson(2001)andbeforehimShivanandan(1990),
alsoarguedthatthiskindofthinkingandthelaterworkofMarxismToday
constitutedashifttothecentrethatprefiguredthepoliticsofNewLabour.The
workofDemos,co-foundedbyMartinJacques,canbeunderstoodasformingpart
ofthisshifttothecentreinpolitics,astheriseofthinktanksinpolitics
accompaniedade-democratisationofthepoliticalsphere,whichtheplaywright
Throsby’seconomicworks,whichdeployasimilarecologicalandeconomicrationale
(Holden,2015).
62SteveWaters(2004),alsoastudentofDavidEdgar,dramatisedinaplayonthe
issue(Waters,2005).11
Whatshouldalsobenotedisthatthediscursiveproceduresunderpinning
thisturntoecologyandbiologyareundoubtedlyculturalist.Talkofdiversityand
systemsthinkingmayhaveitsrootsinthenaturalsciences,buttheshadowsof
Herderianculturalanthropology(diversityofculturesagainstimperialist
civilisation)andsociologicalholismareneververyfarintheworkofthese
authors.Furthermore,inbothMulganandHolden’swork,politicsisequatedwitha
formofinstrumentalityandauthoritythatculturemustchallengeandriseagainst
inordertoestablishitsownkindofsocialauthority:moreorganic,lessmechanic
(environmentaldiscoursesherereinforcetheculturalistclaimtoauthority).
Havingsaidthat,thisdiscourseisalsounderpinnedbyaclaimtodirectpolitical
relevance.Asthenextsectionexplores,thispragmatismformsakeycomponentin
thedevelopmentofresilience.
2.2.2MissionModelsMoneyandtheartoforganisationalresilience
Thisnextsectioncontinuestotracktheevolutionoftheterm‘resilience’andwhat
Lecercle(2006,p.156)callsits‘metaphoricaldrift’atthehandsofothercultural
policyactors.Bydoingso,theanalysiswillshowhowthenotionbecomesmore
precise,whilenotentirelysheddingitsmetaphoricalappealandplasticity.
11WatersisalsooneoftheUKwriterstohaveaddressed,inaprescientway,thepoliticsof
resilienceinhiswork.TheplayResiliencewaspartofadiptychthatpremieredattheBush
Theatrein2009(Waters,2015).
63Accordingtomyfindings,theadhocracyMissionModelsMoney(MMM)
contributedinamajorwaytothedevelopmentofthenotion.12Inhisrecentbook,
RobertHewisontreatsMMMasformingpartofthesamecounter-discourseasthe
NTdebateonculturalvalue:accordingtohim(hewasoneoftheorganisersofthe
NTconference),ClareCooperandRoanDods,whofoundedMMMin2004,both
attendedtheNTconferenceandhadtheirinitialdiscussionsaboutthefuturework
ofMMMattheconference(Hewison,2015).Asanadhocracy,MMMaimedto
address,throughanumberofaction-researchprojectsandpublicengagement
activities,whatitsfoundersperceivedtobetheunsustainabilityofafinancially
vulnerablenon-profitsector(Joss,2008).Consequently,itinvestigatedhowamore
sustainabletriangulationofmission(programmedevelopment),innovative
businessmodelsandincomegenerationcouldbeachievedbypioneering
alternativemodesoforganisationandusesofresources(MMM,2007).Thiswasto
beachievedbythesectoradoptingamoreentrepreneurialmindset.Thisapproach
appearstodepartsignificantlyfromthekindsofdebatesthatanimatedtheNT
conference.However,MMM’sargumentwasthatsuchrealignment,whichshifts
thetermsofthediscrepancystructuringculturaldiscoursetowardsitsutilitarian
end,wasnecessaryforthefieldanditsleaderstorealisethevalueofculture.
Whileecologicalmetaphorsandtheterm‘resilience’werealreadyusedina
numberofearlytextscommissionedbyMMM,thenotionofresilienceisnot
prominentintheearlywritingsofMMM(Knell,2007).Itisonlyaftertheeconomic
crashthattheconceptofresiliencegainedmorevisibilityaswellasprecision.For
12Anadhocracyisatypeoforganisationdefinedbyitslackofformalstructureand
bureaucracy.Itisthoughttodrawinspirationfromopensourcesoftware(Wikipedia,
2018a).
64instance,inThePeopleTheme(2010),resiliencebecomesatermthatisusedas
partofatheorisationoftheattributesandcompetencies,qualitiesandbehaviours
neededfororganisationstothriveintheuncertaintyofapost-recessioncontext.
Aswellasillustratingtheideaofriskmanagementthroughcapacitybuilding,the
reportreproducestheusualecologicallexiconassociatedwithresiliencediscourse
(uncertainty,complexity,systemsanddiversity).Theirdefinitionof‘thriving’also
appearstotranslateavariantoftheideaofresilience:
Adaptingtochangingconditionsinalife-friendlywaytopeopleandplanetin
ordertomaintainthefunctionofmakinggreatworkhappen(Dodsand
Andrews,2010,p.12).
Thereferencetopeopleandplanetmaybesurprisinginthiscontext.However,
overtheyearstheadhocracydevelopedaprogrammeofworkdedicatedto
environmentalissues,whichwasunderstoodtoformakeycomponentofthe
currentcivilisationalcrisisaswellassolutionstoit.
ItisCapitalMatters(2010),oneofMMM’smajorreports,thatreallydistils
MMM’sideaofresilience.Thereportdiagnosesthestateoftheresilienceof
medium-sizedorganisations(orlackof)andmakesacaseforbuildingit.Itdefines
organisationalresilienceasfollows:
Thecapacitytowithstandfinancialshocks,suchasthelossofamajordonor,
andtoadapt,inpursuitoftheirmission,toacomplexandrapidlychanging
operatingenvironment(Boltonetal.,2010,p.9).
65Anumberoffactorshinderthebuildingofresilienceinartsorganisations,
accordingtothereport.First,artsorganisationstendtosufferfrompoorequity
balance(differencebetweentotalassetsandliabilities)andlowreserves.The
reportalsoclaimsthatartsorganisationssufferfromrevenueconcentration,
claiming(andechoingtheYoungFoundationreportreviewedintheprevious
chapter)thatthesectoris‘dependentonpublicfunding,whichmakesuparound
42%ofsectorincome’(Boltonetal.,2010,p.22).Additionally,theserevenuesare
oftenuncertainorrestrictedtospecificactivities.MMMalsoclaimsthatpublicand
privatefundersoftenpenaliseorganisationswithgoodreservesthatcouldbeused
toinvestintheorganisationinordertomaximiseitsincome-generationpotential.
AccordingtoMMM,medium-sizedorganisationsmaystrugglefinancially,but
theyareoftenrichinotherformsofcapitalincludingintangibleassetssuchas
brandvalueandreputation(symboliccapital),relations(socialcapital),andskills
andknowledge(humancapital).Whileartsorganisationsmayalreadybeefficient
andgoodatgeneratingmission-relatedincome,MMM’sargumentisthatassets
withinthefieldremain,onthewhole,underdevelopedandunderused.Inorderto
changethis,organisationsneedto‘shiftawayfromasubsidymindsettoan
investmentmindset’(Boltonetal.,2010,p.3).Tofacilitatethischangenewfunding
schemeswouldneedtobepiloted,alongsidejointfundraisingschemes,cost
cuttingandresourcepoolingschemes,andjointcommercialventureswithsocial
enterprises.Additionally,thereportalsostatesthatorganisationsneedastrong
focusontheir‘audienceormarket’sothattheycandevelopproductstailoredto
demand(Boltonetal.,2010,p.18).Onthewhole,anorganisationneedstobuildan
entrepreneurial,flexibleandcollaborativeculturethatisendorsedatalllevelsof
theorganisation,includingtheboard.
66Whilenooneformulafitsallmodels,accordingtothereport,asset
maximisationcanbeachievedby‘increasingspendpervisitor/audiencemember
incafé/shop’,bywinning‘additionalpublicservicecontracts’(Boltonetal.,2010,
p.17),andbydevelopingnewservices(trainingandeducationprogrammes).
Consultancyexpertiseandthelicensingofproductsaswellastheownershipof
buildingsarealsocitedasmeanstogeneraterevenue.ThereportcitesNewcastle-
basedLiveTheatreturningitshandsuccessfullytopropertydevelopmentandreal
estateafterlosing70%ofitslocalauthorityincomeintheyearsfollowingthe
crash.Sincethen,withloansfromthecouncilandEuropeanfundsaswellasgrants
fromACE,LiveTheatrehasbeenbuildinganofficeblocktorent,transformingan
almshouseintoachildren’sliterarycentreandbuildinganoutdoortheatreaswell
asapark(Higgins,2014).
Thedifferentmeansofbuildingresilienceandsustainabilityadvocatedinthe
reportmayappeartobegoodmanagementpractice.Ineffect,cafesandshopsare
anordinaryfeatureofvenuesthesedays.Asthereportsuggests,thenon-building-
basedNationalTheatreofWaleshasdemonstratedthevalueofflexibilityaswell
ascollaborativeandpartnershipworking.Vyingforpublicservicecontractsis
equallycommon,astheCamdenexampledemonstrated.Thereportalsoshows
howorganisationssuchasBatterseaArtsCentrehavemadegooduseoftheir
buildingsanddevelopedmission-specific,marketableproductsby,forexample,
playinghosttoweddingpartiesdeliveredbytheirpooloftheatricalartists.
Increasinguserengagementbyusingmorevolunteersandinternsisequallyavery
commonwayofdoingmoreforless.ThereportcitestheMuseumofEastAnglian
Lifeasanexampleofanorganisationthatuseshundredsofvolunteers.Finally,
havinghealthyreservesisnodoubtanimportantasset(Boltonetal.,2010).For
instance,RedLadderTheatreCompanylostitscorefundingin2015.However,it
67survived,inpart,thankstoitsreservesaccumulatedoverthelongyearsofits
existence(Dixon,2015).Itssupportbasealsoplayedakeyroleinitscontinuing
existenceasthecompanyranaverysuccessfulcrowdfundingcampaign(Red
LadderTheatreCompany,2015).Inthisrespect,andalthoughthecompanyisonly
small(notmedium-sized),thecompanyappearstobeanexampleofresilience,as
Gardnersuggests(2013).
Whilethesemeasurescanhelporganisationsmanagerisks,surviveandeven
dowell,theseideasareinnowayvalueneutralorunambivalent.MMMlegitimate
andadvocateagreateralignmentofthenon-profittotheprofitmotiveanddoso
bypresentingtherecenteconomiccrisisandthepoliticalchoicestakeninits
aftermathasinevitable,aneventtobeplacedonparwiththeissuesofclimate
changeandresourcescarcity.Inawaythatisbynowfamiliar,thereportmobilises
theideathatacrisisorshockisanopportunityforchange,whilenaturalisingthese
eventsthroughanenvironmentalcatastrophismthatEvansandReid(2014)
suggestischaracteristicofresiliencediscourse.Despitethegloomyforecast,MMM
appearstothinkthatawalkthroughastilllushforestofcommoditieswillprovide
awaytotranscendthesituationandprovidethemeanstorealisethevalue(s)of
cultureinthefaceofitsimpendingdoom.
However,eventakenontheirownterms,thisexpedientthinkingpresentsa
numberofproblemsandlimitations.Mostofthecasestudiesthatthereport
presentsareoforganisationswithturnoverswellabovehalfamillionpounds
(Boltonetal.,2010).Consequently,someofthesolutionsdiscussedmaynotbe
appropriateformanysmaller,evenmedium-sized,artsorganisations.Reporting
onasymposiumorganisedbyasmallconsortiumofvisualartsorganisations,
RebeccaGordon-Nesbitt(2012)writesthatthevaluethatsmallervisualarts
organisationsproduceisextremelydifficulttocapture,recoupormaximisein
68economictermsoronanindividualbasisastherealisationofvalueisdeferredand
diffusedacrossalargerchainofproduction.Smallerorganisationscouldpool
togethertotrytobettertrackthevaluetheyaddtolargerorganisations(whichare
dependentonsmallerorganisationsfortheirownworkandprogrammes).
However,thedangeristhatthiswouldfosteranethosofcompetitionand
suspicionbetweensmallerorganisationsandtheirlargercounterparts.Duringthe
symposium,itwasassertedthatthereshouldbeabetteracknowledgementand
understandingofthespecificityofthecontributionofsmallerorganisationstothe
sectorandabettersystemofchampioningbylargerorganisations,whichshould
differfromthequantitativesystemsofmeasurementsemployedbyorganisations
withlargercapacitiesandresources.Thisexamplesuggeststhatthepromiseof
self-sufficiencyandsustainabilitythatcomeswiththedrivetomaximiseone’s
resourcesandconvertnon-economicassetsintoeconomicvalueisshotthrough
withinequalities,whichwillmorelikelythannotplayinfavouroflarger
organisations.
Asimilarproblemcharacterisesthecalltouseunpaidlabour,internsand
volunteersasmeanstoaugmentorganisationalcapacity.AccordingtoEdwards
writingforDemos(2009),volunteeringisoneofthekeystonesforbuilding
resilienceandcapacityincommunities.However,inanartssectorthatisvery
oftenreliantonunpaidorbadlypaidwork,astheWarwickCommissionreport
(2015)hasrecentlyreasserted,aswellasshortcontractsandlowlevelsofunion
membership,encouragingvolunteeringandtheuseofunpaidlabourisvery
problematic.
Anowfamouscaseillustratesthisproblem.Theartactivistgroupthe
PrecariousWorkersBrigade(2014a)wroteanopenlettertoFACT(Foundationfor
ArtandCreativeTechnology)astheyhadnoticedthatanadvertisementfor
69volunteergalleryinvigilatorswentuparoundthesametimeastheorganisation
hostedanexhibitionaboutthemutationsinworkinglife.FACThaddecidedto
makeanumberofitscasualstaffredundantandbuildapoolof70volunteersto
runitsfreeexhibitionsincollaborationwithpaidfront-of-housestaff.The
rationaleFACTgaveforitsdecisionwassimilartotherationaleadvancedby
MMM.Aswellasmakingitexplicitthattheselosses,alongsideotherstaff
redundancies,wereaconsequenceofthecuts,theyalsostatedthat‘whenwe
reviewedourFrontofHousestructurewefeltthatitwasnolongerdeliveringthe
accesstoexperienceandopportunitiesthatweknewithadthepotentialto
do’(PrecariousWorkersBrigade,2014b,nopagination).Inotherwords,theshift
providedawayofmaximisingassetsandresourcesinordertosaveincomeand
expandFACT’soperations.Whilesomeofthesevolunteersmighthavebeenold-
agepensioners,thereisalsoaverygoodchancethatagoodportionwillhavebeen
peoplelookingforaninroadintoemploymentinthesector.Intheletter,FACT
statesthatnearlyhalfofitscurrentlyemployedstaffstartedoutasvolunteersor
front-of-housestaff.Whilethisfiguremaybetakenasproofthatvolunteeringisa
pathwayintoemployment,italsosuggeststhatvolunteeringischeaperthan
payingforaninternandhastheaddedadvantageofcoveringlabourexploitation
withamoralveneer.
Thesemantichistoryofthetermpresentedaboverevealsthatresilienceisa
notionthathasdevelopedatthehandsofanumberofpolicyactorsalltiedtothe
debatesonculturalvaluethattookplaceinreactiontowhatelementsofthe
leadershipinthefieldperceivedasanabusiveinstrumentalisationofculture.
MMM’sworkwasshowntoconstituteareversalofanarguablymoreidealist
discourseoftheNTconference.Yet,IalsoarguedthatMMM’sformof
pragmaticismemanatedfromthesameplaceastheNTdiscourseandisdefinedby
70thesameproblems:theorganisationandmanagementofcultureunderstoodas
resource.Thedifferencebetweenbothsub-discoursesisthat,inthecaseofMMM,
thecrisisofcultureisnotbroughtaboutbythe‘internalcolonisation’ofthestate
andculture.Rather,cultureisfoundtobeinacriticalstateonaccountofitswant
ofeconomicresources.Thispositionimpliesthatthecrisisofculture,which
becamemoreacuteby2010,isresolvablethroughfurthersubsumption.
IfthishistoryalreadyconfirmsthepatternandshiftidentifiedbyWalkerand
Cooper(2011)anddiscussedintheintroductionofthischapter,italsoconfirms
theperculiarcharacteristicofresilienceinculturethatIdiscussedinthe
introductionofthisthesis.Namely,resilienceconformstoYúdice’s(2003)ideaof
culture-as-resource.However,contrarytoYúdice’sclaim,resilience,eveninits
morepragmaticvariants,doesnotsheditsculturalistidealitycompletely,which
functionsasitsideologicalsupplement.Rather,itsutilitarianrationaleappearsto
composeaunityofcontrarieswithitsopposite(thecultureprinciple),whichit
neverthelessdominates.Iwillbeshowingthatthisisakeyfeatureofresiliencein
thediscourseofculturaladministration;afeaturethatisimportanttothesuccess
ofitslegitimising,thatis,ideologicalfunctionandappeal.
2.3NationalPolicy,crisismanagementandresilience
2.3.1Stability,recovery,thrive,sustain?
Thissectionstartstoexaminetheantecedentsofresiliencediscoursesand
practicesinactualnationalpolicy.Aspartofthis,theanalysiswillcontinuean
inquiryintotheambivalencesofmarket-orientatedpolicyrationales,byexamining
howinterventionsfromthestatehaveconsistentlypalliatedformarket
deficiencies,whilealsohelpingtoembedmarketisedrationalitieswithinthe
culturalsphere.Asecondsectionwilldeveloptheinquiryoftheprecedingparta
71littlefurtherbylookingattheworkofanMMMassociatewhoplayedakeyrolein
thedevelopmentofthenotionofresilience,whilethelastsectionofthispartwill
examinethecutsinmoredetail.
StabilityandRecoveryaswellastheirfollow-upprogrammeThrivealltook
placebetweenthemid1990sandthelate2000s.Afteralongperiodduringwhich,
accordingtotheevaluationofStabilityandRecovery(ACE,2008a),government
investmentinculturehadfalleninrealterms,manyorganisationsstruggledtostay
afloat.Arelaxationofhowlotterymoneywasusedfornon-capitalprojectsmeant
thatsomemoneywasallocatedtodeviseschemesthatwoulddevelopthelong-
termsustainabilityofstrugglingartsorganisations(ACE,2008a).13Alargeportion
ofthefundswereusedintheinitialyearsofthefundassubsidyforthearts
generallyincreasedunderNewLabour.Accordingtotheevaluation(2008a),outof
the15organisationspartakingintheStabilityprogramme,12enteredwith
deficits,whichasanaccumulatedsumequalled£11.4millionofdebt.Accordingto
theACEevaluation(2008a),over40%ofthemoneyallocatedduringthepilotwas
simplyusedtomitigatethisdebtaswellastofund‘infrastructureenhancement,
oneoffchangecosts(e.g.redundancy)’and‘increasecorefundingorearnedor
developmentincome’(2008a,p.8).Tosuccessfullycompletetheprogramme,
participantswererequiredtoreviewtheirorganisationalproblemsandthen
deviseabusinessplanforchange,whichwastobedeliveredgradually.These
programmeswerefollowedin2007byOrganisationalDevelopment–Thrive!,
whichwaslaunchedinthewakeofACE’scontroversialreviewofthefundingof
13TheNationalLotterywasinauguratedbyMajor’sgovernment.However,itwasunder
NewLabourthatitsuseasameansoffundingculturewasinaugurated,expanding
considerablyduringitstenureinpower(Hesmondhalghetal.,2014).
72theirRegularlyFundedOrganisations(RFOs).Theoverallaimoftheprogramme,
whichinvolved22organisations,cameclosetotheideaofbuildingresilience.The
evaluationstatesthattheprogrammeaimedtodevelop‘asystematicapproachto
developingorganisationalperformanceinordertobuildcapacitytorespondto
andinfluencearapidlychangingenvironment’(ACE,2008b,p.2).Itsfive
programmeaimswere‘tosupportthedevelopmentofartsorganisationswhich
areflexible,adaptableandfitforpurpose’,‘toprovideartsorganisationswitha
uniqueopportunitytodevelopandchange’,‘toimprovedecisionmakingand
leadershipwithinthesector’,‘toenabletheartsinfrastructuretocontinuously
improve’,and‘tostrengthentheartssector’(ACE,2008b,p.2).Resilience,
however,onlyfeaturedprominentlyinthethirdprogrammeworthmentioning
here,whichwasinitiatedinthewakeoftheeconomiccrisis.Sustainwaslaunched
aroundthetimeofthefirstwaveofcutsduringNewLabour’sfinalyearin
government.AccordingtoHewison(2014),AlistairDarlingcut£20millionpounds
fromtheDepartmentofCulture,MediaandSport’s2010/2011allocation,which
resultedina£4millioncuttotheACEbudget.Withthecoalitiongovernment
comingintopowerinMay2010,anotherwaveofcutswasimmediatelyannounced
bythechancelloroftheexchequer,GeorgeOsborne.ACE’sannualreview(2010)
statesafurther£88millionwascutfromtheDCMSbudgetandafurther£19
millionwascutfromACE’sbudget.Sustain,whichwasmeantto‘buildresiliencein
toughtimes’(ACE,2010,p.12),wasnotdissimilartotheStabilityandRecovery
programmesinasmuchasthefunds(£46.9milliondistributedto146
organisations)aimedtostabilisefinanciallystrugglingorganisationsexperiencing
debtandlossofincomeduetothecrisisorpoormanagement.Theorganisations
thatbenefitedfromthefund,accordingtothejournalistLynGardner,includedthe
RoyalPhilharmoniaOrchestra[sic],theRoyalOperaHouseandtheICAinLondon
73(Gardner,2009a).AccordingtoEdemariam(2010),theICAwassavedfrom
imminentclosure,causedbywhatsomeunderstoodasitsrecklessturnto
corporatesponsorship(Charlesworth,2010).Theseprogrammesinorganisational
riskandcrisismanagement,whichwerecriticisedfortheirlackoftransparency
andforbenefitingthehighandmighty(Gardner,2009b),aredifferentfromeach
other.However,theyshareincommonsomethingthatWu(2002)identifieswhen
writingaboutprivate–publicpartnerships(PPP).Namely:
InthecomfortableworldofPPP[…]institutionscanalwaystakecomfortfrom
knowingthatingooddaysprivateenterprisewillbefreetoreapprofits,while
inthebaddaysthepubliccanbecountedupontocometotheirrescue(Wu,
2002,p.279).
Thisrationalewillbeshowntobeakeyelementofresiliencediscoursesand
practicesincurrentnationalculturalpolicyaswell.
2.3.2MarkRobinsonandnortherngrit
Itisaroundthecomingtopowerofthecoalitiongovernmentandwhenthecrisis
wasinfullswingthatMarkRobinson,anMMMassociateandformerchief
executiveoftheArtsCouncilNorthEast,wroteacoupleofpapersaboutresilience,
whichwerepublishedbytheArtsCouncil(ACE,2011,2010).WhileIhavefound
nohardevidencetosuggestthatorganisationssuchasMMMhadadirectinfluence
74ontheformationofresiliencepoliciesortheuptakeofthetermingovernmental
discourse,MarkRobinson’sworkshowsthatthereisalink.14
TheNorthEasthadundergonealongperiodoflarge-scale,culture-led
regenerationofareassuchasGateshead,whichwasfuelledbycapitalinvestment
aswellasthepresenceoftheNorthernRockFoundation,thephilanthropicwingof
thebankthatfirstranintotroublein2007(CTPositiveSolutions,2012).Already
feelingtheeffectsofthecrisisandanticipatingthechangeinthefundingclimate,
Robinsonthoughtitwasimportanttothinkmoreseriouslyaboutquestionsof
financialsustainabilityandhowbesttosupportregularlyfundedorganisations.
However,theterm‘sustainability’hadbecomeproblematicforhimasitbecamea
notiontowhichorganisationsmerelypaidlipserviceto.So,heturnedtotheidea
ofresilience,whichsoundedmorepositiveandproactive(CTPositiveSolutions,
2012).
InasimilarwaytoMMM,Robinson’s(2010)workonfinancialresilienceis
concernedwiththesocialisationoftheriskstiedtotheeconomiccrisisandthe
field.Hearguesforagreaterdifferentiationbetweenfinancialsupportforbuilding
developmentalcapacityofculturalorganisationsandgrantsforbuyingactivityso
astoalloworganisationstobecomemoreresilientandself-reliant.Robinsonalso
arguesthatabetterunderstandingofthedifferentinvestmentmechanisms(other
thanphilanthropy)needstoemergeinordertomoveawayfromdependenceon
diminishingpublicfunds.Someoftheseideasdonotappeartohavebeentakenup
byinstitutions,asthenewcoalitiongovernmentpreferredtoturntophilanthropy,
individualgivingandcorporatesponsorshiptoplugtheholeleftbythecuts.
14ArecentblogbyaseniormemberoftheACEatthetimealsosuggeststhis(Sinclair,
2017).
75Nevertheless,Robinson’sworkonresiliencehasprovedpopularwiththeUK’s
policyactors.Hisdefinitionofadaptiveresilienceisthefollowing:
Thecapacitytoremainproductiveandtruetocorepurposeandidentity
whilstabsorbingdisturbanceandadaptingwithintegrityinresponseto
changingcircumstances(2010,p.14).
Thecharacteristicsofaresilientorganisation,whicharebynowfamiliarfromthe
discussionofMMM’swork,includeasharedpurpose(strongidentity);financial
resources;beingwellconnected;havingmanyassets;acapacitytoadaptandbe
flexible;strongleadership;andhavingsituationalawareness,whichincludesa
strongawarenessofdevelopmentsinthefieldaswellasofone’sown
vulnerabilities.
ItisalsonoteworthythatRobinson’saccountofresiliencealsodrawsonthe
ecologicaldiscourseidentifiedbyWalkerandCooper(2011)intheirgenealogyof
theterm.Robinson(2010)takesinspirationfromtheworkofC.S.Holling,which
WalkerandCooper(2011)singleoutasbeingofparticularimportanceinthe
developmentofcontemporaryunderstandingsofresilience.Hollingrepresented
histheoryofecosystemicchangeandtheresilienceofecosystemsthroughan
adaptivecyclethatfollowsfourphases:
76
Figure1.TheAdaptiveCycle(WalkerandCooper,2011,p.148).
Thefigureshowsthepointsatwhichanenvironmentmayflipintoadifferentstate
(betweenkappaandgamma)butalsohowitreorganisesandgrowsagainthanks
toitsresilience(gammatoalpha).Robinson(2010)proposedthatthismodelis
particularlypertinenttounderstandingcyclesofchangeinthe‘artsecology’
(p.23),wheresourcesofdisruptionandmotivesforreorganisationcouldbeas
diverseasakeymemberofstaffleaving,alossofasourceoffunding,a‘flop’or
evenamajorartisticsuccess.Thegrowthphasedenotesorganisationalbeginnings,
whichmightbehighlyinnovativebutremainunstable.Conservation,whichhe
renamed‘consolidation’(Robinson,2010,p.5),denotesthemomentwhenan
organisationestablishesitselfasalastingactorwithinitsownfieldandisableto
produceandreplicateinnovativeproductsthatarebothdistinctiveandattractive.
Furthermore,thisadaptivecyclecanbeunderstoodtofunctiononamicro-
organisationalscaleaswellasonlargerscales,includingonthescaleofthefieldas
awhole.
Itisalsoworthnotingthatresilienceresearcherscomparetheadaptivecycle
toSchumpeteriancyclesofinnovation-drivenchangeandnottoHayek’stheories,
asWalkerandCooperargue(GundersonandHolling,2002).Schumpeter(2010)
77arguesthatcapitalismissubjecttoperiodicinnovation-drivencyclesofchangeand
crisiscommonlyknownascyclesof‘creativedestruction’.Theinventionofthe
internetisaparadigmaticexampleofsuchaninnovation-drivencycleandisalso
oneoftheexamplesusedbyresilienceresearcherstoillustratetheideaofthe
adaptivecycleinasocialcontext(GundersonandHolling,2002).15
Robinson’sturntotheseideasshouldbeplacedinthecontextofawider
advocacyforacloserintegrationbetweenwhatFlemingandErskine(2011)
understandasthesubsidisedartsecologiesandtheprofit-drivencreative
economy.Aroundthesametime,policyconsultantssuchasJohnHowkinswere
publishingbookstitledCreativeEcologies(2012),inwhichmetaphorssuchas
thoseofadaptation,path-dependentevolutionandthemodelsofSchumpeterian
innovationwerecentralinrhetoricallyaligningtheartstothelargercreative
economy.Robinson’sthinkingconstitutesaslightlydifferentvariantofthis
discourseand,insomerespects,amorepoliticallyprogressiveone.Robinson
appearstounderstandtheconnectionbetweenthemodelsofresiliencehe
promotesandliberalideology,whileaffirmingthatresiliencecanberefunctioned.
InhiscontributiontotheissueofthejournalEngagededicatedtoresilience,he
statesthefollowing:
Thereisavalidcritiqueofhowresiliencehasbecomebothabuzzwordanda
policypriorityatatimewhenthegovernmentintheUKisintentonshrinking
thestateandpublicspending,andwhenglobalisationandinternational
15IwillnotdiscusstheSchumpeteriantheoryofinnovationindetail,whichisnotcentral
tothisthesis.However,Harvie(2013)andBoyle(2016)havediscusseditinrelationto
theideaof‘creativedestruction’.
78capitalismisintentonwhatit’salwaysbeenintenton,makingtherichricher.
Lookingforwaysinwhichyoucanmaximisereturnfromyourwork,your
intellectualproperty,yourearnedincome,andsoon,couldtosomeextentgo
withthatflowofmarketisationandprivatisationwhichissodamaginginso
manyways.However,inthewordsofJimBeirne,whendescribingLive
Theatre’sapproachtoincomegenerationtoTheGuardian’sCharlotteHiggins.
‘It’sjustatooltodeliverwhatwedo.Ofcourse,wehavetoberobustabout
whatwestandforandwhatourvaluesare.Ifwedidn’tdothis,whatthefuck
elsewouldwedo?’(Robinson,2015,nopagination).
Robinson(2015)goesontoarguethattheconceptionofresiliencethathe
advocatesisinkeepingwiththetraditionofworking-classself-organisation.Asthe
nextchapterexplores,ideasofradicalself-organisationandresiliencearenot
incompatible.However,IamnotsurehisownworkforACEisreallyconcerned
withthis.ThementionofLiveTheatreintheNorthEast,itselfanexemplarof
entrepreneurialdynamism,accordingtoMMM,isinfactmorerevealing.Itbears
littlerelationtothehistoryofcooperativesortradeunionism.Onthecontrary,its
directorappearstorespondtoresilience’spoliticalinjunctionto‘adaptorperish’
(Rufat,2015,p.196).
Tohiscredit,though,Robinsondoesnotchoosetoignorethedestruction
thatistheflipsideofcyclesofcreativeinnovation.Afigurationofdestructionat
theheartofprocessesofregenerationisfoundinhispoetry(Robinsonisa
publishedpoet),whichstrikesaverydifferenttonetohispolicywriting.Inhis
poem‘DunnoElegies’–areferencetothe‘DuinoElegies’bytheneo-romanticpoet
Rilke–inspiredbyTeesdaleinMiddlesbrough,Robinsonwrites:
79Towalkthiswildernessyoumustcommit
tothepast,totakingevidence
fromthefuture.Youmuststandprepared
tostaredowndemonsthatdrawstrengthfromdirt
thedifficulttoleavebehinddirt.
HeadWrightsonspiltbloodhere,ranitoff
intotheriverandcalleditrust,ormoney.
Thesecallcentresexist.Buttheyareblank
asacetateslaidoveramapinamuseum,
blankasmindsofreluctantstudents.
Bombscouldfallandnoadrenalinwouldflow
(Robinson,2013,p.19).
Thepoem,whichreferstoThatcher’siconicwalkthroughTeesside’sdevastated
industriallandscapeintheearly1980s,doesindeedcapturethecreative
destructionofcapitalisminaplacethatthattheYoungFoundationviewedasone
ofthemostunresilientlocalitiesintheUK.Thepoetcontinues:
Theymadethingshere.Theshe-devilwalkedhere
Clutchingherhandbagandnearlysaidsorry.
SuicidesontheDurhambankoftheriver
BroughtmorethanthosesoulswashedupinYorkshire.
Becomingangelslefttheirheadsbloated.
Thestreetsaredottedwithstudentshuntingapub.
Therevolutionwillnotbetelevised.
Thereisnosongtothisplace,norhythm,
Itisallstraightlinesandambientbackwash
(Robinson,2013,p.19).
80Thepoem’sinquiryintothedestitutionoftime,itsexistentiallamentationand
angstaswellasitsyearningforsalvationthatisnotofthisworldappearstobein
keepingwithRilke’soriginalpoems.Iwillbereturningtothetruthofthe
experiencethatthepoemcapturesinchapter3and4.Fornow,becauseofthe
referencetoRilke’spoem,IamtemptedtoextendAdorno’scritiqueof‘thejargon
ofauthenticity’toRobinson’swritingaboutresilience,whichappearsinaquite
differentguiseinthispoem(Adorno,1973,p.5).16Thejargonofauthenticityorthe
presentationof‘sub-languageassuperiorlanguage’(Adorno,1973,p.6),ofwhich,
accordingtoAdorno,Rilkewasoneoftheprecursors,elevateshistoricalformsof
consciousnessthatmystifydomination.Notexactlyaloftyideal,resilience
nonethelessappearsinthepolicywritingofRobinsontoofferthepromiseofa
bettercollectivedestiny,whichthecannymanageroftheLiveTheatresummarises
withhisdown-to-earthretort,‘Ifwedidn’tdothis,whatthefuckelsewouldwe
do?’(Higgins,2014).
2.3.3Thecutsandthecontainmentoftheflood
JimBearne’sreactionandquestionareindeedlegitimateandspeaktruthaboutthe
constrainedcharacterofsuchdecisions.Thereisnodoubtthat50%cutsto
Newcastle’slocalauthority’sartsandculturebudgetcontributedtoshaping
Bearne’sview(Higgins,2014),asdidthewiderpoliticaldecisionstakenbythe
incomingcoalitiongovernment.InOctober2010,thechancellorannouncedthat
theDCMSbudgetwouldbereducedby25%by2014/2015.Aspartofthe
settlementACEreceiveda29%cut.Thecouncilwasexpectedtocutits
administrativebudgetbyhalfandpassonnomorethan15%cutstotheir
16ThisanalysisisinspiredbytheanalysisofNeocleous(2011).
81regularlyfundedorganisations,soontoberebrandedtheNationalPortfolio
Organisations(NPOs)(BBC,2010).Nationalmuseumssuffereda15%cutaswell,
whileEnglishHeritagereceivedamoresignificantcutof32%(Hewison,2014).In
addition,since2007,asignificantamountoflotterymoney,aportionofwhichis
traditionallyallocatedtothearts,hadbeendivertedfromitsusualpurposetofund
theLondonOlympicsin2012(Harvie,2015).TheOctober2010cutswerejustthe
firsttohittheDCMSanditsnon-departmentalgovernmentbodies.Attheendof
2012,furthercutstoDCMSbudgetswereannouncedandpassedontoACE.These
translatedintoa£3.9millioncuttoACE’sbudgetin2013/2014anda£7.7million
cutin2014/2015,bothpassedontoartsorganisations(Brown,2012).InJune
2013,anotherroundofcutstotheDCMSbudget(7%)andtoACE(5%for
2015/2016)werewelcomedbymanyleadersinthefieldas‘agoodresult’(BBC,
2013,nopagination).Finally,inDecember2013,theDCMSbudgetwascutfurther,
anda1%cutpassedontotheArtsCouncil,whichpasseditontoitsfunded
organisationsfor2014/15and2015/2016(Smith,2013).AspartoftheWhitehall
in-yearbudgetreviewfor2015/2016,thenewlyelectedconservativegovernment
announcedafurther£30millioncuttoDCMSanditsnon-departmentalpublic
bodiesforthesamefinancialyear,althoughACEconfirmedthatthecutswouldnot
affectthegrantsofitsfundedorganisationsforthatyear(Sullivan,2015).While
muchlargercutswereexpectedforthecomprehensivespendingreviewof2015,
DCMSendedupsufferingonlyanother5%cutwhileACEwastoldthatitwould
receiveacashincreasebetween2015and2020(BBC,2015).
Theothermajorblowtopublicly-fundedculturewasthedraconiancutsto
localauthoritybudgets.Figuresandmodesofcalculationdiffer,butACEclaims
thatlocalauthorityfundingforNPOsbetween2010and2015fellby£236million
or17%(Harvey,2016).Nevertheless,stillaccordingtoHarvey(2016),NPOshave
82increasedtheiroverallbudgetsby17%thankstoself-generatedrevenueand
fundraisingoverthesameperiod,althoughitsresearchconfirmedthatthisisnot
validforsmallerorganisationsandnon-London-basedorganisations.This
differencemaybeunderstoodtoreflectahistoricalimbalanceinthefunding
distributionbetweenthemetropolisandtheregionsbutalsobetweenthefew
largestartsorganisationsinEnglandandtherest.AccordingtoHarvie(2015),the
largestartsorganisationsreceive30%ofthecouncil’stotalfunding,andStarket
el.(2013)estimatethatDCMSandACEexpenditureperheadis15timeshigherin
London(£68.99perhead)thanintheregions(£4.58).
InMarch2011,110neworganisationswereaddedtothenationalportfolio,
while206artsorganisationslosttheircorefunding(Higgins,2011).Accordingto
Harvie(2015),thisincluded38theatrecompanies.Morecutswereimposedon
fundedorganisationsfor2015–2018.Still,accordingtoHarvie(2015),thisledto
another58organisationslosingtheirfunding.Inaddition,criticshavelamented
theeffectsofsuchcutsoncultureasawhole.Formany,theaccelerated
realignmentofnon-commercialculturetocommercialimperativeshasledtothe
deathofwhattheonlinemagazineMutecalls‘genuinediversityandantagonism’
(vanMourikBroekman,2011,nopagination).The100%cuttoMutemagazinein
2012,oneofthevisual-arts-basedpublishingorganisationsconsistentlyproducing
anonlinecriticalculture,couldbeinitselfunderstoodtobeameasureofthisnew
conformism(vanMourikBroekman,2011).
Itisworthexaminingbrieflywhetherandhowthisdestructionis(orrather
not)registeredinACEpolicyrhetoric,whichwillprovidetheopportunitytoreturn
toadiscussionoftheideologicalfunctionofthehumanistidealofcultureandits
accompanyingecologicalrhetoric.ThepublicrelationsvideosthatACEhas
producedsincetheeconomiccrashareagoodplacetostartforthis.
83AvideotitledOurFundingEcology(2014)aimstoillustrateACE’sapproach
tofunding.Itstartswiththedepictionofanimaginaryyellowislandrepresenting
England.Theislandgraduallyfillsupwithwaterthatrisesthroughthe‘bedrock’of
fundingthatgivesbirthtostreams,lakes,flowersandtuftsofgrass.Fantastical
creatures,rangingfromwalrusesdressedintophats,togiantsnakes,greenand
redpharaohs,monkeysandbutterflies,existsidebysidewiththelandmarksthat
aremeanttodefinethenation:Gormley’sAngeloftheNorth,Shropshire’sIron
Bridge,theLakeDistrict.AtthecentreofthisentirebustleistheArtsCouncil,
representedasawatermill.Thedifferentcharactersexistonthesiteofcitiesthe
namesofwhichappearatthecentreofwaterpointsirrigatedbystreamsof
fundingthatstartatthewatermillbuttravelthecountrythroughanintricate
mechanicalsystemofpiping.Flyingwateringcansthatpourcoinsontoalandof
plentyflyovertheisland,propelled,asifbymagic,byzeppelin-likehelium
balloons(ArtsCouncilEngland,2014).
Nocatastrophismorfloodedfieldhere.Instead,thenostalgicidealoforganic
fulnessreturnsinstyletoreassertthegapbetweentheprincipleofcultureandits
badpresent,whichtheformerembellishesandsoftens.Hathereley(2016)
observesthatcontemporarynostalgia,asfoundintherevampedandrepackaged
warpropaganda‘keepcalmandcarryon’posters,recaststhepastandits
ideologiesofausterityinordertohidetheviolenceofthepresent.Thisanimation
isnodifferent.Itsaestheticsarenotonlythoseof‘LittleBritain’,theoppositeyet
complementofimperialBritannia.TheyarealsoreminiscentoftherhetoricofThe
GloryoftheGarden,theten-yearstrategicdocumentpreviouslypublishedbythe
ArtsCouncilduringThatcher’ssecondterminpower(ACGB,1984).Itwasthefirst
suchdocumenttoopenlypromotetheparadigmofmixedpublic–privatefunding
(althoughthistooksometimetotakeeffect,accordingtoWu(2002))atatimethat
84sawtheriseoforganisationssuchasArts&Business–MMM’sClareCooper
workedasheadofdevelopmentatArts&Businessforanumberofyears–which
weredirectlyfundedbythegovernmentandACEtopromoteprivateinvestmentin
thearts(Wu,2002).TheGloryoftheGardenwasnamedsobythethenchairmanof
theorganisation,WilliamRees-Mogg,afterapoemwrittenbythecapablebut
equallyconservativepoetRudyardKipling:
OurEnglandisagarden,andsuchgardensarenotmade
BySinging–‘Oh,howbeautiful,’andsittingintheshade
Whilebettermenthanwegooutandstarttheirworkinglives
Atgrubbingweedsfromgravel-pathswithbrokendinner-knives.
There’snotapairoflegssothin,there’snotaheadsothick,
There’snotahandsoweakandwhite,noryetaheartsosick
Butitcanfindsomeneedfuljobthat’scryingtobedone,
FortheGloryoftheGardenglorifietheveryone
(Kipling,2013,nopagination).
AsKipling’sversesuggestswhatisatstakethenasnowiswhatcouldbecalled,
afteroneofthechaptersofTheCountryandtheCity(Williams,1973,p.60),the
fashioningofa‘moralityofimprovement’thataimstorealignnon-commercialor
semi-commercialisedculturetoanentrepreneurialethos.Thisso-calledprocessof
modernisation,however,goeshandinhandwithitsopposite:astructureof
retrospect,whichnostalgicallyelevatesthegloriousidealofcultureandnature
overitsrathermoreviolentconditionofhistoricalexistence.
Anothervideo(2013)presentstheinterrelatedaimsofACE’snewten-year
strategyintheformofaseriesofideograms,imagesandwordsthatmorph
85accordingtothedifferentlogicsofcolour,narrativeandrhythm.Theideograms
startwiththeideaofcreatingexcellenceinartforeveryone,includingyoung
people,andgoontopresenttheideaofafinanciallyresilientandenvironmentally
sustainablefieldwiththerightskillsanddiversity.Theideogramrepresenting
resilienceisadark-greenumbrellathatopensupoverthewords‘arts
organisations’,‘museums’and‘libraries’,withtheword‘artists’huddledunderthe
umbrella,asiftakingshelterfromtherain.Theimagechangesseamlesslyintoa
coin-like,dark-greeniconappearingonalight-greenbackgroundthatannounces
theorganisation’sthirdoverarchingaim:resilienceandsustainability.Theicon
changesintotherecognisable,three-arrowedlogoofenvironmentalsustainability,
whichtransformsagainintoacollectionofcoinsthatamassinneatpilesto
connotethriftinessandbusinessacumen.Theseamlessanimationevokes
‘unboundedpossibilityandthepowerofreinvention’throughitsmixoffamiliar
andfantasticalsigns(LashandLury,p.88).Itillustrateshow‘wecanauthorour
modernity,notonlysurvivetheshocksbutrunaheadofthem’(Klein,2000,pp.36–
37).
ThevideodepictshowthegoalofresilienceinACE’sten-yearstrategic
documentGreatArtforEveryone(2013)underpins,alongsidethatof
sustainability,whatChartrandandMcCaughey(1989)understandtobethe
traditionalReithiangoalofpromotingexcellenceinthearts.Accordingtothe
strategicdocument,resiliencewouldbe‘thevisionandcapacityoforganisationsto
anticipateandadapttoeconomic,environmentalandsocialchangebyseizing
opportunities,identifyingandmitigatingrisks,anddeployingresourceseffectively
inordertocontinuedeliveringqualityworkinlinewiththeirmission’(ACE,2013,
p.31).Thisneutral,technocraticlanguagemixeselementsofthedifferent
definitionsofresilienceencounteredthusfar,whilealsoexemplifyingthelogicsof
86‘culture-as-resource’.Theemphasisonkeepingtruetoone’smissionandvalues
whileadaptingtochangeresonateswithMarkRobinson’sdefinitionwhilealso
reachingovertoincludeenvironmentalandsocialconcernsinawaythat
exemplifieswhatNeocleousviewsasresilience’s‘jargonoftotalglobal
management’(2015,nopagination).
Thenextpartgoesontodiscussenvironment-andeconomic-relatedpolicies,
forsakingthesomewhatmorenebuloussocialdimensionofresiliencepolicies
evokedinthedefinitionabove,ofwhichIwillneverthelesssayaword.
Unsurprisingly,thissocialdimensionappearstodrawrhetoricallyonthepublic
valuedebatesandresearchthattheinstitutionconductedintopublicvalue.The
documentstatesthatthe‘demonstrationofthepublicvalueofartsandculture’
willbeachieved‘bybuildingthesocialcapitalofcommunalrelationships’,whichin
turn,itisassumed,shouldbuildcommunityresilience(ACE,2013,p.32).This
rhetoric,however,appearstobenothingmorethanhotairinawateringcan-
bearingzeppelinballoon.Gray(2008)hasalreadyunpickedtheproblemswith
ACE’sappropriationofthenotioninthewakeofthedebatesonculturalvalue,
suggestingthattheresearchconductedbytheinstitutionfailedtoengagewiththe
significanceandvalueoftheartstothenon-artusinggeneralpublic.More
recently,Jancovich(2015)hasarguedthattheidealofparticipation,which
underpinstheidealofgreatartforeveryone,remainsequallymythicalin
character.Sheclaimsthatastrongcorrelationbetweenparticipationincultural
activityandsocio-economicprivilegepersists,whichconfirmsdeepinequalitiesin
thedistributionofculturalandsocialcapital.Shearguesthatparticipationin
decision-makingandbudgetingalsoremainselitistandcontrolledbyvested
interests,confirmingtheclaimthatculture,ashistoricallyexistingand
institutionalideal,legitimatesalackofsocialinvolvementandsocialchange.
87Intheprecedingpart,Iestablishedhowresiliencehasbecomeakey
componentofthediscourseandimaginationoftheinstitutionofculture.Ialso
establishedhowtheriseofresilienceininstitutionaldiscoursecoincidedwith
significantbudgetarycutswhich,astheanalysisofthethirdpartwillshow,have
beenaccompaniedbythepromotionofprivateinvestmentinthefield.The
precedinganalysisalsoconfirmedthat,asinmanyotherfields,theecological
characterofthediscourseisanimportantelementinitsappealorwhatNeocleous
viewsasresilience’sattempted‘colonisationofthepoliticalimagination’(2013,
p.4).ThroughtheanalysisofthePRvideos,inparticular,Iwasabletoshowthat
ecologyalsopartakesintheidealofculture,whichassupplementtoexpedient
logicsofculture-as-resource,blocksoutandsoftenstheharsherrealityof
subsumption.Thenextsectiongoesbeyondadiscussionofdiscoursetoexamine
someofthepolicypracticesthatarelinkedtoresilience.Itsstartswithareviewof
itsenvironmentalpolicies,whichwillconfirmthatecologyplaysanambivalent
rolewhilealsosuggestingthatthegreentoneofACE’slateststrategicdocumentis
notentirelyharmonious.
2.4Resilienceinpolicypractice
2.4.1Newenvironmentalpoliciesandeco-art
In2012,ACEclaimedtohavebecomethefirstartsfundingbodyintheworldto
embedlegallybindingenvironmentalpoliciesaspartofitsagreementswith
fundedorganisations.TheinstitutionworksinpartnershipwithJulie’sBicycle,an
environmentalcharitydedicatedtopromotingenvironmentalsustainabilityinthe
creativeandculturalindustries.Since2012,officeandbuilding-based
organisationsarerequiredtodraftanenvironmentalpolicyandactionplanto
reducetheircarbonemissions,predominantlymeasuredthroughgasand
88electricitybutalsowater(Julie’sBicycle,2015),aspartofadrivetowards
managingtheriskslinkedtoclimatechange.
Thehistoriesoftheseenvironmentalpoliciesareinterestinginthemselvesas
theyrevealacontestedhistorythatcomplicatepurelynegativeassessmentsof
resilience.AnumberofpeopleIspoketoinaninterviewcontextandmore
informally(Pinder,2016a,2016b),confirmedthattheArtsCouncil’s
environmentalpoliciescameintoexistenceafterasmallgroup,gatheredbyJames
MarriottfromtheactivistorganisationPlatform,exertedpressureonACEto
developitsenvironmentalpoliciesfollowingtherealisationthat,ofthesmallgroup
oforganisationsthatheldenvironmentalagendasattheheartoftheiractivity,
nonewereincludedintheNPOportfolioin2012.Thisloosecoalitionof
mainstreamorganisationswentontoholdtalkswiththeArtsCouncil,which
resultedinthelatterannouncingitsnewenvironmentalpoliciesin2012.
Thepoliciesarerelativelymainstreamintermsoftheirscope,while
nonethelessconstitutingasignificantgain.Theaimofthecollaborationbetween
ACEandJulie’sBicycleisto‘trackenvironmentalimpactsfromenergyandwater
use,ascarbonfootprints,fortheartscommunity’aswellas‘inspireorganisations
tobemoreenvironmentallysustainable’(Julie’sBicycle,2015,p.4).Theseaims
remainedthesamefor2015–2018withanaddedemphasisonhelpingarts
organisationsmeettherequiredreductions(Julie’sBicycle,2017).By2015,nearly
alloftheportfoliowasengagedintheprogrammeandovertwo-thirdsofthe
portfolio(mostlybuilding-basedorganisations)wereactivelyreportingontheir
carbonfootprint(Julie’sBicycle,2015).By2017,thenumberoforganisations
reportingontheircarbonfootprinthadincreasedfrom469to623(Julie’sBicycle,
2017).In2015,90%oftheportfoliohadanenvironmentalpolicy,86%an
environmentalactionplan,and40%oftheportfoliowentbeyondwhatwas
89requiredbytheirfundingagreements(Julie’sBicycle,2015,p.15).From
2012/2013,Julie’sBicyclehastrackeda5%averagedecreaseinenergyuse
emissions,whichthereportclaimsare‘wellwithinnationalandinternational
emissionsreductiontargets’(Julie’sBicycle,2017,p.5).Theirreportsindicatethat,
duetoreduceduseofenergy,thefieldhasbecomemoreenergyefficientand
financiallyresilient:thesavingsinenergyanduseofmoresustainablemeansof
productionwouldhaveamountedtoan£11millionsavingbetween2012and
2015(Julie’sBicycle,2015).Julie’sBicyclealsoreportsthatthesepoliciesoften
boost‘teammorale’inthefieldandproduce‘reputational’benefitsfor
organisations(Julie’sBicycle,2015,p.28).
Theworkonenvironmentalsustainabilitygoesbeyondreportingonenergy
andwaterconsumption.Manybuilding-basedorganisationshavebeenworking
towardsmakingtheiroperationsgreeneratalllevels.Forexample,since2007,the
London-basedArcolaTheatrehasbeenrunningitsArcolaEnergyProject.Aspart
ofthis,thetheatrehasinstalled24squaremetresofsolarpanels,whichareused
bythetheatreandfedbackintothenationalgridtoearnextraincome.Solar
thermalpanelsareusedtoheatwater,whilethebuildingisheatedthrougha
carbon-neutralTherminatorboiler.Bricksandtimber,amongstothermaterials,
were‘upcycled’(thereuseofmaterials)fortherenovationofthenewbuilding.The
organisationproudlyclaimsthatthisprocesssavedthetheatre£13,000(Arcola
Theatre,2018).Similarsuchapproacheshavebeenadoptedusinginfrastructural
capitalinvestmentsbyvariousorganisations,suchastheBushTheatreandthe
LiveTheatreinNewcastle(Masso,2017).
Thesepracticesextendtoproductionsaswell.Themostinterestingamong
theseproductionsarethoseinwhichnewperformanceconventionsarebeing
experimentedwith.Forinstance,theAustraliandesignerTanjaBeer,oneofJulie’s
90Bicycle’scollaborators,developedtheconceptofeco-scenography.Sheco-devised
andco-createdTheLivingStage(2011),whichcombinesstagedesign,
permaculture(analternativeagriculturalpracticethataimstobuildmoreresilient
livingandgrowingsystems)andcommunityengagementtocreateperformance
spacesthatarebiodegradableormulti-functional(functioningas,forexample,
performancespace,communityspaceandediblegarden).Effectively,these
collaborativecommunityworksgivearadicallydifferentmeaningtotheideaof
thegarden–lessaprocessofenclosureandmoreofaprocessofcommoningand
communing(Beer,2015).
Finally,thisworkonenvironmentalissuesextendstoadvocacythrough
networksofvenuesandorganisationsinterestedindevelopingcultureasa
resourceagainstclimatechange.TheseincludetheEuropeannetworkImagine
2020andTippingPoint,aswellasEmergenceinWales(Gingold,2016;Allenet.Al,
2014).AsImagine2020willbediscussedinthenextchapter,itisworth
presentingTippingPointbriefly.OneoftheaimsofTippingPoint,setupin2007
byPeterGingold,wastobringclimatescientistsandartiststogetherinorderto
createbridgesbetweendisciplinesandpracticesaswellbroadentheperspectives
ofboth.TippingPointhasheldeventsattractinghighnumbersofspeakersand
participantsfromallaroundtheworld,includingNewYork,Brussels,Montpellier,
CapeTown,Australia,OxfordandNewcastle,whereACElauncheditsnew
environmentalpolicies.Since2009,TippingPointhasalsosupportedthecreation
ofnewworks,throughanopenapplicationprocess.Manyofthesecommissions
weretheatreorperformance-based,althoughothercommissionswerecentredon
musicandwriting.Notunsurprisingly,thewritingcommissionsproducedtheir
veryownstrainsofpolicypoetrybasedonreportsfromtheIntergovernmental
PanelonClimateChange(Butleretal.,2017).
91Onthewhole,thediscoursesandpracticesofthesesocialactors,whicharein
largepartandindifferentwaysconcernedwithcultureasresource,aremore
progressivethanmostoftheresiliencediscoursesandpracticesreviewedthusfar.
Theseorganisationshaveopenedacollectivespacewithinwhichtodiscussand
addresstheenvironmentaldimensionofthecurrentcrisisofcapitalismaswellas
aspacewithinwhichacritiqueofcapitalismcanbearticulatedfromanecological
perspective.Inartisticterms,thisformationisatitsbestwhenitproduces
interdisciplinaryknowledgeexchangebutalsonewconventionsofworkandforms
ofconsciousness,havingmadeitsowntheideathatcultureiscentraltoeffecting
socialchange.
Despitethesestrengths,anumberofproblemscharacterisethisformationas
well.Forexample,onemaywonderhowmuchtheproductionofplaysandgrand
spectaclesaboutthecatastropheofclimatechangewill,inthegreaterschemeof
things,effectmorefundamentalsocialchange.Inaddition,thelaunchofan
environmentalpolicyatatimeoflarge-scalepublicfundingcutbacks,while
laudable,isalsoarguablyveryconvenientforaninstitutionwantinglegitimacy.
Theinstitutionappearstoberecyclingitselfbygivingsomesubstancetoitsgreen
nostalgiaandbyappealingtoaredemptiveenvironmental-cum-culturalidealthat
givestheappearanceofwholenesstoanevermorefragmentedinstitutionof
culture,helplessor,worse,complicitinfaceofamoregeneralchangeinpolitical
climate.
Beforemovingontothenextsection,Iwouldliketoreiteratehowthepolicy
programmesdescribedaboverelatetothesecondquestionofthisresearch,which
interrogatesthescope(endsanddiversity)ofresiliencepractices.Ontheone
hand,theenvironmentalscopeofthesepoliciesappearstoconfirmthethesis
famouslydevelopedbyBennett(1997)thatcultureis:
92
Apluralizedanddispersedfieldofgovernment,whichfarfrommediatingthe
relationsbetweencivilsocietyandthestateorconnectingthedifferentlevels
ofasocialformation,operatesthrough,betweenandacrosstheseininscribing
culturalresourcesintoadiversityofprogrammesaimedatdirectingthe
conductofindividualstowardsavarietyofdifferentends,foravarietyof
purposes,andbyapluralityofmeans(1997,p.77).
Suchpoliciestestifytotheexistenceofapluralityofpotentiallycontradictory
policyaimsaswellastopotentialinternalconflictswithinthelogicsof‘culture-as-
resource’.However,assuggestedintheprecedingparagraph,myviewisthatthese
environmentalpoliciesandtheculturalistdiscoursethatenvelopthemcontribute
totheconstructionofanappearanceofunityandreconciledcoherencewhich,
howeverfictive,bolstersthelegitimacyofthestateanditsinstitutionsineffecting
thesocialisationofcrisisanddestructionalongliberallines.Inthissense,these
policieshaveakeymediatingfunctionintimesofchangeandcrisis,anargument
thatIwillrevisittowardstheendofthischapterthroughacasethatdisplays
similarcharacteristics.Fornow,Iturntoadiscussionoftheprogrammesthat
aimedtobuildfinancialresilienceinthewakeofthecuts.
2.4.2Buildingresiliencethroughphilanthropyandfundraising
2.4.2.1Philanthropyinhistoricalperspective
WhenACE’sbudgetwascutby£100million,thecoalitiongovernmentannounced
apushtowardsafundingmodelpromotingprivateinvestmentthataimed,
accordingtothesecretaryforcultureatthetime,‘tocombinethebestofUS-style
philanthropicsupportwiththebestofEuropean-stylepublicsupport’(Hunt,2010,
93nopagination).TheworkofWu(2002)andHarvie(2013)alsosuggeststhatthis
trend,whichhasgainedgroundoverthelast40years,canbeconsideredtobean
AmericanisationofaBritishpolicymodel.ThisAmericanisationisthereforealsoa
neoliberalistionofitspolicymodel,iftheneoliberalparadigmisunderstood,after
Watkins(2010),tobeanAmericanparadigm.Whilethisisundoubtedlytrue,Ialso
thinkthatitwouldbevaluabletoplacethishistoricalshiftwithinamuchlonger
historyofAnglo-liberalthinking,whichMulhern(1996)andmorerecently
Upchurch(2016)haveshownfindsitsrootsinVictorianculturalistdiscourses.
Upchurch(2016),forinstance,showsthatwhiletherearemarkeddifferences
betweentheAmerican,CanadianandBritishphilosophiesofartspatronage,many
ofthephilanthropistsandintellectualswhoshapedthesedifferentmodels
influencedeachother.ThefamousAmericanphilanthropistCarnegie,anaverred
SocialDarwinist,wasalsoapersonalfriendofBritishcritic,poetandsocialthinker
MatthewArnold;whileMassey,thediplomatandphilanthropistwhoisdeemedto
haveplayedakeyroleintheestablishmentoftheCanadaCouncil,mixedsocially
withJohnMaynardKeynes,oneofthearchitectsoftheArtsCouncil.Beyondthese
immediatefigures,theartandthoughtoftheBloomsburygroupofwhichKeynes
wasaparttestifiestohowdeeplyrootedtheassociationofartandphilanthropyis
amongBritishintellectuals.AsMulhern(2000)remindsus,thepainterCliveBell,
thehusbandofVirginiaWoolf’ssister,maintainedinoneofhismajoressaysthat
civilisation(inthiscontextsynonymouswithcultureasprinciple)wasdependent
ontheexistenceofaleisuredclass,aminoritycapableofdevelopingpoliciesthat
couldintegratethelabouringclassesintoacivilisingprocessinwhichclass
struggle,assuch,hadnoplace.InE.M.Forster’snovelHowardsEnd(2013),which
Mulhern(2015)argueswaswrittenasanexerciseincommitted(Arnoldian)
culturalcriticism,culturefindsitselfreconciledwiththeutilitarianismofcapitalist
94societyinthepersonaofMargaretSchlegel.Sheisthecharacterofthenovelwho
attemptsto‘seelifesteadilyandseeitwhole’,accordingtotheArnoldianadage,
claimingthat‘ourbusinessisnottocontrastthetwo,buttoreconcilethem’
(Forster,2013,p.111).The‘two’herereferstowhatshecallsthe‘seen’and‘the
unseen’(Forster,2013,p.111),thatis,moneyandspirit,capitalistpragmatismand
culture,thetwoconstitutivepartsoftheunityofcontrariesthat,Iamarguing,is
alsoconstitutiveofresilienceinculture.Bymarryingtheheadofthephilistine
Wilcoxesshe,whochosetoseelifewhole,canbeunitedwithsomeonewhoseesit
steadily.Meanwhile,sheandhersisterdotheirbestasphilanthropiststoguidethe
aspiringworkingclasses,figuredinthenovelbythepersonofMr.Bast,intothe
realmofso-called‘sweetnessandlight’.Unfortunately,Mr.Bastendsupbeing
crushedandkilledbyabookshelf,suggestingthatcultureis,afterall,notthe
preserveoftheworkingclasseswhoseaspirationstoaccessitcanonlyproduce
onething–catastrophe.
Themoralandmottoofthenovelisneverthelessaculturalistone–‘only
connect’(2013,p.198).17Themotto,asMulhern(2000)pointsout,servedasthe
titleofaseriesoflecturesbythethendirectorgeneralofUNESCORichardHoggart
(1972).Theseconnectionsmayseemsomewhatanecdotalandbesidethepoint.
However,Imentionthemhereas,inmyview,theyrevealhowpost-warcritical
liberalismandwelfarecultureishistoricallytiedtoaformofthinkingthatis
germanetotheliberalphilosophiesofphilanthropy.Italsosuggeststhatifweare
17‘Onlyconnect!Thatwasthewholeofhersermon.Onlyconnecttheproseandthe
passion,andbothwillbeexalted,andhumanlovewillbeseenatitsheight.Livein
fragmentsnolonger.Onlyconnectandthebeastandthemonk,robbedoftheisolation
thatislifetoeither,willdie’(Forster,2013,p.198).
95toaccepttheideathatthepromotionofphilanthropyandprivateinvestmentin
cultureconstitutesaneoliberalisationofthefieldofculture,thenthisprocess
shouldalsobeunderstoodtoreactualiseideologiesthatpredatewelfarismbut
whichBritishwelfaristculturewasnonethelesspartlybuildonandinspiredby.
Actualsocio-economicdataappearstoconfirmthatphilanthropyandprivate
investmentisaformofcorporatisedwelfareforanageofexacerbatedinequalities,
whichis,despitevastdifferences,perhapsnotunlikethatinwhichMargaret
Schlegelissupposedtohavelived.Alvaredoetal.(2013)haveshownthatthe
shareofincomeofthetop1%roseby105pointsbetween1980and2007inthe
UK,fromaround5%ofthetotalincometoabove15%,whichwasthelevel
attainedbeforetheSecondWorldWar.Thissharerosejustassignificantlyunder
NewLabourasundertheConservatives.AmongstAnglophonecountries,thisrise
isthesecondlargestaftertheUS.Topmarginalincometaxrates,whichhadbeen
consistentlyhigherthan70%betweenthemid1930sandearly1980sintheUK,
wereslashedunderThatcher’sgovernment,droppingto40%bytheendofthe
1980s,thelevelatwhichtheywerenotlongafterE.M.Forstercompletedhisnovel
in1910.TheselevelsremainedunderNewLabour,indicatingthatnothingwas
donetoreversethistrend.Whilecorrelationdoesnotamounttocausation,the
dataneverthelessstronglysuggeststhatthereisarelationbetweentaxcutsforthe
richandtheriseofprivateinvestmentinthearts.Privateinvestment(amixof
individualgiving,trustsandfoundationsandbusinesssponsorship)inculture,
rosefrom£600,000in1976to£686.6millionin2007/2008intheUKaswhole,
accordingtoHesmondhalghetal.(2014)whorefertoArts&Businessfigures.
What’smore,Wu(2002)showshowthisshiftwasachievedthroughgovernment
interventionthatheavilyincentivisedprivategivingintheartsthroughvarious
schemesaswellasaliberalisationoftaxation.ThistrendcontinuedduringNew
96Labour’stenureinpower,withprivateinvestmentincultureincreasingly
significantlysincetheearly2000s(Mermiri,2010).
WhenHunt,aidedbythechancelloroftheexchequerwhoannouncedaseries
oftaxbreaks(Harvie,2013),proclaimedthat2011wasgoingtobe‘TheYearof
CorporatePhilanthropy’,hewasbuildingonthistrend(Hunt,2010,no
pagination).However,despitethegrandannouncement,2011wasnotasuccess
fromthepointofviewofphilanthropicgiving.Aftertwoyearsofcontractionin
privateinvestmentinthearts,2011wastheyearwhenprivateinvestment
returnedtoits2008levels(withoutaccountingfora2%yearlyinflationrate).This
suggeststhatthetotalprivateinvestmentintheartsin2011wasstilllowerthanin
2008.Thesupportoftrustsandfoundationsdidincreaseduringthatyear.
However,in2011,over60%oftrustsandfoundationsincomewenttoLondon-
basedorganisations,whichhardlyredressesthelong-standinginequalitiesinthe
distributionofwaningpublicfundsforculture(Arts&Business,2011).18This
policyfloparguablyturnedHunt’sdeclarationintowhatlinguistMarie-Dominique
Perrotcallsan‘anti-performative’,thatis,whentheperformative(declarative)
formofastatementiscancelledbyitscontent(2002,p.220).
TheCatalystprogrammeswerethemainvehicleforeffectingHunt’sagenda.
Theiranalysis,inthenextsection,willinflectthediscussionofresource
managementperformedthusfartowardsthequestionofthegarneringprivatised
‘infrastructuralsupports’(Woolf,2015,p.108).
18ThesurveyonprivateinvestmentdonebyArts&Businesswasdiscontinuedafter2012.
ACEhasrecentlystartedthesurveyagain,althoughwithdifferentcriteria(ACE,2016).
972.4.2.2Catalyst
ForthefirstCatalystprogramme,launchedin2012,£55millionwasdistributedby
ACE,DCMSandHeritageLotteryFund(HLF)toatotalof18artsorganisationsand
museumsinordertobuildendowments(ACE,2015a).Endowmentsaresumsof
moneythatorganisationsfructifyoverhalfacenturyinordertobuildup
additionalsourcesofincomethroughtheinterestgenerated.Mostofthe18
organisationsthatreceivedpartofthe£30.5millionfromACE(HLFdistributed
fundsto16museums(Harvie,2013))weremusicorganisationsandhalfofthem
werebasedinLondon.Another£30millionwasallocatedtoasecondtier
consistingof173organisations.Thesereceivedgrantsofbetween£120,000and
£240,000toconsolidatetheirfundraisingexperienceandbuildtheircapacity.
Finally,£7millionwentto62consortiumsthatbroughttogether217organisations
withlittleornoexperienceoffundraisinginordertobuildcapacityinthisarea
(ACE,2015a).
TheresultsofthisfirstCatalystprogrammewere,accordingtoRichens
(2015),verymixed.AlthoughACEreportsdownplaythefailures,Tier1
organisationsunder-performedconsiderably.Insteadofraisingthe£54.5million
theywereaskedtoraise,the18organisationsmanagedtoraise£29.7million,
whichunlockedonly£19.5millioninmatchfundingfromACE.Thismeantthat
nearly£12millionoftheoriginal£30.5millionoriginallyallocatedtotheTier1
programmewasnotdistributed.Only50%oftheorganisationsontheprogramme
managedtomeettheirtargets.TheSerpentineGallery,whichwasgranted£3
million,failedtoraiseanyeligiblefunds.Threeofthe18chosenorganisations
failedtoachieve50%oftheirtargets.Amongotherthings,ACEevaluation’s(2015)
suggeststhatraisingmoneyforendowmentsisacomplexandtime-consuming
processasendowmentsarealess-establishedformoffundraisingintheUK.Thisis
98anindicationthattheAmericanisationofart’sinfrastructureisanidealmore
difficulttoachievethanHuntwouldhavedesired.
Incomparison,Tier2organisations,aquarterofwhichwereLondonbased,
weremoresuccessful.Richens(2015)claimsthat85%oftheorganisationsmet
theirtargets,andcloseto£20millionwasraised.Theover-performanceof
London-basedorganisationswasalsolesspronounced(althoughsignificant
differencebetweenLondon/SouthEastandtherestremain),withfundsbeing
raisedmoreequallyacrossregions(ACE,2017).Thegoodpracticesthatthefinal
Catalystreportcitesascontributingtothissuccessinclude‘designingacompelling
caseforsupport’,‘developingamissionandvisionledfundraisingstrategy’and
‘identifyingfundraisingassets’(ACE,2017,p.8),aswellashavingclarityaboutthe
valueoftheorganisationanditsdistinctcontributiontothewiderlandscape.The
reportalsomentionstheimportanceof‘developingfit-for-purposegovernance’
and‘establishingacultureoffundraisingwithintheorganisation’(ACE,2017,p.7).
Finally,aswellasunderstandingthemotivationsofthedonors,goodpractice
includestheuseof‘consistentandeffectivemessaging’ormarketing,whichmight
alsoincludetheconsolidationoftheorganisation’sbrandorevenre-branding
(ACE,2017,p.7).Thereportdiscussesanumberofsuccessfulcases,including
WatermillTheatre,whichafteritrevampeditsfundraisingcampaign,engaged
over500newdonors,including230members.NewWritingNorthreported
leveragingsupport,includingthroughacrowdfundingcampaign,byfocusingits
campaignonitsyoungwriters’programmesaswellasonthesettingupofanew
writer’saward.
Thereport,inlinewithresiliencediscourse,suggeststhatsuccesscomesto
thosewithentrepreneurialandbusinessflair.ItcitesVictoriaPommery,headof
theTurnerContemporary,statingthatCatalystresultedin‘arealculturalshift
99towardsbecominganincomegeneratingandentrepreneurialorganisationthatis
runlikeabusinessandisnotafraidtomaketheask’(ACE,2017,p.49).Thereport
showcasesotherexamplesofentrepreneurialism,withtheMinistryofStories
makingforaparticularlyinterestingcase.Thecreativewritingandmentoring
centrewasestablishedtosupportyoungpeoplebasedinHackneybypairingthem
upwithprofessionalwriterswhovolunteertheirtime.Whilethevenueisnon-
ticketed,itpartnerswithashopcalledMonsterSupplies.Theorganisation,
includingitsshop,hasastrongidentitythatdrawsonfantasyworldsreminiscent
ofHarryPotterandtheRoaldDahlnovels.ACE’sreportstatesthattheorganisation
aimedtorelyonpublicfundingfornotmorethan25%ofitsincome,whichis
considerablylessthantheaverageforapubliclyfundedorganisation.Tomeetthis
target,ithasattractedmanyhigh-profiledonors,hasdevelopedathree-year
corporatepartnershipwithPenguinRandomHouse,withwhomithosts
fundraisingevents,andhasdevelopedpayrollgivingschemes,whichisapparently
rareforaliteratureorganisation.19Theorganisation,whichismakingplansto
expandbeyondLondon,hasadatabaseofnofewerthan300–400volunteers,
whichincludesmentorsbutalsovolunteershopkeepers(ACE,2017).
Despiteallofthis,theMinistryofStorieshasstressedthatitsexpansionhas
beenslowerthanplannedasfundsfromindividualgivingaswellastrustsand
foundationshavebecomehardertoraise,duetothefiercecompetitioninthefield
(ACE,2017).Thishasbeenwidelyreportedbyotherorganisationsinrelationto
trustsandfoundationfunds,inparticular.Raisingfundshasbeenmadeharderby
19Wu(2002)detailshowpayrollgiving,whichcomprisesmoneytakenoutofan
employee’spayoradonor’sdonationpriortotax,becamemorepopularduringthe1980s,
thedecadewhenBritain’staxsystemwasprogressivelybutsystematicallyoverhauled.
100thefactthat,whilemanyofthepracticesthatwereencouragedbyCatalystwere
continuedbymoreconfidentorganisations,organisationsalsofounditharderto
fundraiseoncematchfundingofferedbytheArtsCouncilstoppedbeingavailable
(ACE,2017).Thisfactconfirmsthatthecorporatewelfarestatecontinuestoplaya
fundamentalroleintheprivatisationofculture.Inotherwords,subsumptionis
notamatterofspontaneous‘emergence’.
InorderfinishthissectiononCatalyst,Idiscussafinalcase,whichwill
providetheopportunitytofurtherunpickthelimitstothesocialisationofcrisis
thatresilienceprogrammespurporttoperform.
AkademiSouthAsianDanceUKisanorganisationthatwaspartofthesecond
tier.Onthebasisoftheirpastsuccesseswithphilanthropy,theydecidedto
experimentwithindividualgiving.Theydidsothroughvariousmeans,including
crowdfundingcampaignsandfundraisingeventshostedbyoneoftheirboard
members,thebenefitsofwhichwerealsomaximisedbytheuseofdatabasesof
potentialdonors(ACE,2017).However,theyusedtheirparticipationonthe
programmeasanopportunitytoorganisetheirfirstfundraisinggala,hostedinthe
nine-hectarepropertyofIndianconstructionmogulH.S.Narulaandhiswife
Surina,whoactedasahostessandpatrontoAkademi.Fortheoccasion,Akademi
decidedtostageapromenadeperformance,whichrecreatedtheworldofUmrao
Jaan(1981),afamousHindifilm.Thefilmisbasedonthefirstnovelinmodern
Urdu,whichbearsthesametitle.Thefilmandnoveltellofthelifeofacourtesan
(UmraoJaan)whoperformsinthecourtofthelastnawab(noble)ofLucknow,
WajidAliShah,beforethefirstgreatstruggleforindependencein1857,whichled
tothedissolutionoftheEastIndiaCompanyandIndiacomingunderdirectBritish
administrativerule.
101ThechoiceofUmraoJaanasathemeforthegalawasinitselfacraftybitof
producing.Courtesansin1850sLucknowhadaveryhighstatusandwereprized
aswomenoflettersandart(dance,poetryandsong).Youngnobleswouldbesent
tothemtolearnadabotahzeeb(refinementandetiquette)aswellastolearnthe
artofseductionandlove.There-creationof1850sLucknowthroughapromenade
performanceinwhichthegoodandthegreatoftheexpatandBritishAsian
communitywereinvitedtakepart(inperiodcostume)wasapersuasivewayof
reassertingtheimportanceandneedforcultureinhardtimes.TheLucknowof
WajidAliShahwasalsoknown,trulyorfalsely,foritslicentiousness,andthe
characterofUmraoJaanbecamesomethingofametaphorforanationthatattracts
exploitativesuitors(Wikipedia,2018b).Consequently,underlyingthechoiceof
thisparticularfilmwasalsoagentlecritiqueofthepatronagethecompanywas
seekingtoattract,allthewhilegivingthewould-bemodern-dayaristocratsa
beguilingexperience.Theperformancealsoprovidesanaptmetaphorforthis
thesis:UmraoJaanissetinatimeofgreatsocio-economicandpoliticalchange,a
timewhenthekingdomofOudh,thecapitalofwhichwasLucknow,lostitsall-but-
nominalautonomybybeingannexedbytheBritish.20Theperformancealsogives
substancetoKipling’sgarden:periodcostumesandjewellerywereprovidedby
designerboutiquestoadornalargeteamofperformersandstaffembodyingthe
sumptuousnessandsplendourofpre-1857Lucknow.Thisfantasyworldinturn
adornedthegardensandheritagepropertyoftheconstructionmogulsand
20Adepictionofthesupposedlicentiousnessofmid-centuryLucknowaswellasthose
particularhistoricaleventsisfoundinSatyajeetRay’sfilmTheChessplayers(1977),which
isbasedonashortstorybyPremchand.Myaccount,whichisbynomeansthatofa
historian,drawsprimarilyontheseresourcesaswellasmyknowledgeoftheoriginalfilm.
102philanthropists.Inexchange,thepatronsoftheeveningpromotedtheartof
AkademiasheritagethatembodiedaSouthAsianculturalquidditythattranscends
theworldofinterestandmoney,andthusisjustasworthyofsupportasreligion
orcharityforthedisenfranchised.AsMrs.Narulaherselfsaid,addressingthe
congregation:‘Iftherewasnodanceandnomusic,Iwouldhavediedlongago’
(ZeeTV,2015).Artisnothinglessthanlifeitself.Forthisreasononly,itdeserves
saving.
Finesentimentsforafinenightofnostalgicculturalentertainmentmadeall
themoredelightful,accordingtoanotherillustrious‘community’figureG.P
Hinduja,bythenotableabsenceoftheIndianpoliticalclasses(ZeeTV,2015).But
allthisrefinementcameataheftycost–economic,socialandemotional–forthe
company.Forthe£9,000raisedontheevening,Akademispent£25,000,which,for
anorganisationofitssize,constitutesaconsiderableloss(ACE,2017).21The
report(2017)statesthatdespitethisloss,oneofthebenefitsofthegalaresidedin
theorganisation’sabilitytoraiseitsprofile,whichweshouldassumeis
synonymouswithsocialcapitalthatshouldbeconvertibleintoeconomiccapitalin
thefuture.However,thereportalsostatesthatthestaff,mostofwhomwere
involvedintheproduction,weredrainedbytheexperienceandthattheevent
distractedthecompanyfromdeliveringitscoreprogramme,althoughthematch
withtheNarulas,aspatrons,wasgood.Additionally,itisclearthattheintangible
benefitsthatAkademihasgained(profile,contacts)arelesssecureandwilltake
moreworktopossiblyconvertintotangiblebenefits.Forthisreason,Iconclude
thatAkademiembodiesalltoowellthevulnerableeponymouscharacterofthe
21AlthoughIhavenotascertainedthis,Iassumethatpartoftheloss,atleast,waspalliated
throughtheprogramme.
103filmandnovelittookinspirationfrom.Thecourtesan’smostfamouspleatoher
aristocraticpatronssummarisessomethingofAkademi’splightandtheemotional
labourperformedinsuchcircumstances:
Whatisaheart?Pleasetakemylife
Justthisonce,acceptmyword
Youhavereturntothisgatheringagainandagain
Sopleaseacquaintyourselfwiththewallsanddoorsofthehouse[…]
Askedkindly,I’llbringtheskydowntoearth
Nothingisdifficult,ifperformedwithresolve
(Ramay,2012)[J.YPinder’stranslation].
Thesacrificeofthetalentedbutvulnerablecourtesanhasawiderresonance.While
itdoesnotusetheseterms,theACEreports(2017,2015)nonethelesssuggestthat
anxietyanduncertaintyaboutwhatthefutureholdshavebeenwidelyfeltinspite
ofthevirtuosoactsofcommunicationandthefirmresolveshownbymost.Being
adaptiveandresilientappearsindeedtobeatiringbusinessandinthelongrunit
maywellprovetobemoresustainableforsomethanotherswithlessresourcesto
surviveinthisbraveneworder.Over-relianceonphilanthropy,trustsand
foundations,andtheexhaustionproducedbytheimperativestodiversifystreams
ofincome,areallthingsthatMMMandRobinsonwarnedagainst.Givensuchvery
unequalresults,theyappeartohaveprovedright.
In2016,ACElaunchedCatalyst:Evolve,whichwasthesecondinstalmentof
Catalyst.Italsomorerecentlylaunchedasmallgrantsprogramme.Aspartofthe
former,thesourcesofpossiblerevenuehavebeenexpandedtoincludecorporate
sponsorship,whichearlierprogrammesdidnot(ACE,2018).Iwillnotreview
104thesehereasthefinalevaluationshavenotbeenpublished.InsteadIturnmy
attentiontothetrainingthatsupportsthevariousresilienceprogrammes,which
willconfirmafactalreadyemerging:buildingamorefinanciallyresilientfield,like
buildingamoreenvironmentallysustainableone,doesnotcomenaturallylikea
gardenflower.Onthecontrary,thepathtoresilienceispavedbythejuggernautof
thestateanditssocialpartners.22
2.4.2.3Resiliencetraining
Thefirst£2milliontrainingprogramme,whichIwillnotdiscussindetailhere,was
ArtsFundraising&Philanthropy(AFP).Itraninpartnershipwithanumberof
organisations,includingtheUniversityofLeeds.Aspartoftheprogramme,149
trainingsessionswerehosted,whichwereattendedbysome2,500delegates.As
partoftheprogrammeafundraisingfellowshipschemefor65graduateswasalso
launched(WalmsleyandHarrop,2016).Twenty-nineorganisationstookplacein
another,less-advertisedpilottrainingschemetitledDevelopingCulturalSector
Resilience,whichranin2014and2015(ACE,2015b).Thispilotprogramme
appearstohaveprovidedthetemplateforACE’smostrecent£2milliontraining
programmebeingdeliveredbyfourexternalorganisationseachresponsiblefora
differentstrand,includingonededicatedtodiversityandentrepreneurship,and
anotheronededicatedtofundraisingandrevenuediversification(Boosting
Resilience,2017a).
Thesevarioustrainingprogrammesprovideopportunitiestobuildskillsfor
the‘newnormal’,asthetaglineadvertisedonthewebsiteofoneofthesenew
trainingprogrammes,BoostingResilience,suggests.However,frommyperspective
22ThetermhasmorerecentlybecomepartofDCMSdiscourseaswell(DCMS,2016).
105atleast,theseprogrammescanalsobeunderstoodasformingpartofthe
apparatusthatproducesthedisciplines(mindsets,attitudes,etc.)bywhichthe
newnormalbecomesanorm.Thecountlessevaluationsofthevarious
programmesprovideagoodexampleofthenormativecharacterofthetraining.
Throughtheproductionofconsensualnarratives,anyresistancetoadoptingan
entrepreneurialapproach,whetherfromtheboardorpractitioners,tendtobe
showninanegativelight.InAFP’sfinalreport,wereadthat‘theartssectorhas
beenslowtoadoptinnovativeapproachesandpractices’(WalmsleyandHarrop,
2016,p.7).Abitfurtheralongistheclaimthat‘whilsttherearecertainlynascent
indicationsofamoreentrepreneurialfundraisingcultureinthearts,alongsidea
desiretofocusonindividualgiving,muchmoreworkremainstobedoneinthese
areas’(WalmsleyandHarrop,2016,p.14).Readersaretoldthat‘thissuggeststhat
theartssectorneedsanotherinterventionsuchastheAFPprogrammemorethan
ever’(WalmsleyandHarrop,2016,p.14).However,inthereportitisconcluded
thatdespitetheunderstandingthatthefieldremainsslowontheuptake,‘arts
fundraisingisdevelopingandmaturingasbothaprofessionalpracticeandan
emergingacademicdiscipline,anditisslowlychallengingperniciousperceptions
ofcommercialism,illegitimacyandamateurism’(WalmsleyandHarrop,2016,
p.13).Here,adiscrepancystillstructuresthediscourseandculturalvalueasan
alternativestillfeatures(moneyforvalueiswhatsuchfundraisingpracticesaimto
produce),butthetermshavebeeninvertedinanotdissimilarfashiontohowthey
wereinvertedinMMM’swork.Suchevaluations,whichmaynotreflecttheviews
oftheirauthors,alsomakepalpableaninstitutionalanxietyaboutthewillingness
ofthesectorto‘adapt’,whichmaynotcomenaturallytomany.Inowdiscusstwo
residentialworkshopsfromCultureCapitalExchange’strainingBoosting
Resilience,whichisongoingandforwhichtheonlinedocumentationisextensive,
106inordertounderstandsomeofthesepointsoftensionandstressaswellasto
continuetheinvestigationintoresilienceunderstoodintermsofthelogicsof
‘culture-as-resource’.
Theseworkshopswerenotfocusedonfundraisingbutinsteadwere
dedicatedtoexpandingtheparticipants’thinkingabouttheuseoftheir
organisationalassets,aproblemthatreturnsmyanalysistoMMMterritory.One
session,deliveredbyAndrewTowell,exploredtherelationbetweenthe
exploitationofassetsandinnovation.Towelldefinesinnovationastheproduction
ofanoveltythataddssocialandeconomicvaluetothefieldbybeingreplicableand
producingimpactthroughdissemination(BoostingResilience,2017b).Towellis
sensitivetothefactthatcultureisnotdrivenbyprofit.Nevertheless,theendgoal
ofthesessionistoexplorehowinnovationintheartsandculturecouldbeturned
intoprofit.Thus,hispresentationdiscussestheprocessesbywhichaproductor
assetcanbethoughtofascontrollable(vialegalmeanssuchascopyrightor
intellectualpropertyrights(IP))andreplicable.Healsoexploreshowtangibleor
intangibleproductscanbeabstractedandseparatedofffromotherproductsor
structuresinordertobeturnedintoassets,whichmightrangefromorganisational
dataaboutaudiences(ticketedandnon-ticketed)andtheirreactionstoparticular
shows,toapieceofchoreographyorevenacollectionofimages(Boosting
Resilience,2017b).
Thisshortlistmakesclearthatthelocusofvalueproductioninthese
instancesisnotlabourasconventionallyunderstood.Rather,economicvalueis
hereproducedbya‘non-productive’formofwork(choreographyoraudience
data,forexample)beingcaptured,exploitedandrentedout.Oritisproducedbya
collectionofimages,which,combinedwithacertainkindofexpertiseandbrand
(saythatoftheRoyalShakespeareCompany),producesaheritagecollectioninthe
107formofacollectivememory.Inthisway,assetsareshowntoconsistofbundlesof
elementsthatformanewexploitableunit.Iftheseinnovationshavealargeimpact,
theycan,followingtheprincipleofcreativedestruction,revolutioniseanentire
field.Forthisreason,itisalsonecessarytohavesituationalawareness,which
facilitateswherepossiblethetransferenceorwhatTowelltermsthe‘stealing’of
otherpeople’sinnovations(BoostingResilience,2017b).
Thisdiscussionshowsinaveryconcretewayhowresilience,viathenotion
ofasset,namestherealignmentofculturalproductiontotheprofitmotivebyway
ofstate-fundedprogrammes.Otherevidencefromthesessionpointstowardsthis.
Thesessionfinishedwithacollectiveexerciseinwhichparticipantswereaskedto
writerapid-fireresponsestoanumberofincompletesentencessuchas‘Money
is…’,‘Profitis…’and‘Exploitationis…’.Thethreepeoplewhomhepickedcame
backwithresponsesthatillustratethemoralityofimprovementinaction:
‘Exploitationisrife’,then‘Exploitationissensible’,then‘Exploitationisnotadirty
word’.Afteradiscussionduringwhichthemeaningsoftheterm‘exploitation’
werediscussedandcontested,thefacilitatorconcludedthat,whiletheBritishare
awareofthecognitivedissonancebetweenindustryandculture,theyaremore
capableofworkingaroundandwithit.Incontrast,hestatedthatincertain
culturalandartisticcontextsinBrazil,forinstance,sayingculturalentrepreneuror
creativeindustriesisasstrangeassaying‘bananaanddinosaur’(Boosting
Resilience,2017b).Icannotvouchfortheveracityofsuchastatement.Rather,
whatinterestsmehereiswhatthisstatementsaysaboutresiliencetraininginthe
UK.Tounderstandthis,Ifinishwithmyaccount:inresponse,oneofthe
participantsunderlinedhowthismaybethecaseamongtheelitebutnotamong
theBrazilianworkingclasseswhomorereadilyexploittheirassetstosurvive.In
effect,thepeopleTowellmixedwithinBrazilwereuniversity-basedandrana
108localtheatreforwhichtheyhadnotbeenpaidforsixmonths.Thiswouldmake
onethinkthattheymighthavewantedtoembraceamoreentrepreneurial
approachtosolvetheircashflowproblems.Althoughnotstatedexplicitly,the
exchangecouldbetakentoimplythattheprivilegedclassesshouldchallengetheir
privilegebytakingaleaffromthebookofstrugglingfaveladwellers,resilient
subjectsifeverthereareany.Thedifference,ofcourse,isthatTowellwasspeaking
toaroomofrepresentativesfromestablishedandoftenlargeorganisations
(includingCatalystTier1organisations)aboutIPandso-calledhigh-growth
culturalenterprise,notstreet-sidevending(BoostingResilience,2017b).This
sleightofhandbywhichadiscussionofclassdistinctionsinanelsewherefarfrom
BritainareusedimplicitlytolegitimateaculturalshiftinBritainappearstobelie
ananxietyaboutdissensuswithintheassemblyofpeoplegatheredintheroom,a
fewofwhich–judgingbythediscussionoftheterm‘exploitation’–maywell
identifywiththeoverlycommittedBraziliantheatreamateursandmanagers.The
comparisonalsosuggeststhatthesubsumptionofculturereliesonandproduces
whatTomba(2012)identifiesasacontemporaryformofunevendevelopment,
withoutwhichtheproductionofcompetitiveadvantage,theproductionorstealing
ofinnovationwithin,anditstransferencebetweensectors,placesandevennations
(Brazil–Britain)wouldbeimpossible.Theseinequalitiesarevisiblegeographically
inthenorth–southdivideintheUK(TeesideandtheNorth-Eastarecertainlynot
theBritishIsle’sversionoftheChileofPinochetbuttheyremainoneofthe
historicallaboratoriesofneoliberalreformaswellasoneoftheincubatorsofthe
‘jargonofauthenticity’),aswellasthedividebetweenthemetropolitancentreand
theperipheries,thecityandthecountry.However,thisunevendevelopmentis
alsoreflecteddiscursivelyinhowthefieldofcultureintheUKappearsatthe
vanguardofglobalentrepreneurialinnovation–notonlysurvivingtheshocksof
109modernitybutalsoresilientlyrunningaheadofthem–whilealsolaggingbehind
itsowndevelopment–neverquiteinnovative,entrepreneurialanddeveloped
enough.Infact,thisallochronicpatternbearssomesimilaritytowhatI
encounteredinCamden:animageofafloodedcountrysidefieldasmetaphorfor
communityemergencybutalsofailedcommunitydevelopmentattheheartof
King’sCross,nowoneofthemost‘developed’areasofthecapital.
Goingbacktothediscussionofthetraining,Iwouldarguethatitispossible
toviewthisdevelopmentorlackofinlinear,nottosayDarwinianandevolutionist,
terms.Theartsandculturewouldthenappeartobehandicappedbytheirown
anachronisticandobduratesuperstitionsdatingback,itispresumed,toanalmost
forgottenpre-Thatcherera.Itismyview,however,thattheseanachronisms,these
multiple,coevaltemporalitiesofsocialexperienceneednotbepresentedlinearly
inthefirstplace.Rather,temporallinearityandthephilosophiesofevolutionthat
thislinearityimpliesplayaroleinthelegitimationofprocessesofinternal
colonisationrepackagedasdevelopmentandinnovation.Iturntothewritingof
Harootunian(2007)which,aswiththereferencetoTomba’sworkabove,mightjar
somewhatwiththesubjectathand.Nevertheless,hisworkprovidesauseful
commentaryonthespatio-temporalstructurebeingdiscussedintermsthatare
alsogermanetothelanguageofmythesis.Hewrites:
Capitalismhasalwaysbeensuffusedwithremaindersofother,priormodesof
productionandthattheincidenceofwhatMarxdescribedasformal
subsumption—thepartialsubordinationoflabortocapital—wouldcontinue
tocoexistwiththeprocessofrealsubsumptionandthefinalachievementof
thecommodityform,untilthelastinstance.[…]Itisthisspecter—inthefigure
ofnoncontemporaneouscontemporaneity—thathascomebacktohauntthe
110presentintheincarnateformofexplosivefundamentalismsfusingthearchaic
andthemodern,thepastandthepresent,recallingforushistoricaldéjavu
andweldingtogetherdifferentmodesofexistenceaimedatovercomingthe
unevennessoflivesendlesslyreproduced(Harootunian,2007,p.475).
NoreligiousfanaticismpresentinACE-providedresiliencetraining.However,my
nextanalysissuggeststhatthefigureofnon-contemporaneouscontemporaneity
recursinadifferentyetnolessrelevantguise.Inasessionthataimedtointroduce
IPtoparticipants,theartistNadiaAnneRickettsdiscussedhowshedevelopeda
companythatproduceswoventextilesoutofmusic,whichistranslatedintoa
uniquesetofpatternsusingbespokesoftware(BoostingResilience,2017c).The
textilesthatRickettsmakesareaperfectexampleoftheallochronicsynchronicity
ofexperiencementionedabove.Herpracticeweavestogethertheloomanddigital
software,theskillofhandicraftandtheexpertiseoftheknowledgeeconomy,the
cottageindustryandthecreativeeconomy,cultureandthe21st-centurydigital
industry.However,theaccountofherworksuggeststhat,whilethisdevelopment
andinnovationappearstohavesilverlinings,itisfarfromseamless.Ricketts
statesthatshepaysherselfawagefromherbusiness(itisnotclearhowmuch).
However,sheconfesses,whenaskedaboutresilienceandwhethershecanmakea
livingfromherbusiness,thatittookherthreeorfouryearstostartseeingsome
financialbenefit.Whileherpracticeisinspiringandappearstobeasuccess,itis
alsolegitimatetoaskhowmanysuchcasesofsuccess,ifsuccessitis,therearein
comparisontowhatmaybecalled,afterthetitleofoneofGregSholette’sbooks
(2010),‘darkmatter’,so-calledfailedartistswhocannotmakeorbarelymakea
livinginthebravenewworldofthecreativeindustries.Howdotheweaversofthe
digitalage,whoappearsuccessful,managetopalliatetheheftycostsofstartingin
111business?Thisdoesnotappeartohavebeendiscussedinthepresentation.
However,Iassumethatsheeitherreceivedsupportfromelsewhere(savings,
partners,parentsetc.)orthatsheworkedseveral(precarious)jobsatthesame
time(andmaybestilldoes).Idonotwanttotakeanythingawayfromher
achievements.However,heraccountshowsthatsubsumptionisnotsynonymous
withseamlessdevelopmentandprogress(BoostingResilience,2017c).
Tosummarisethespiritofthisdiscussion,Ifinishwithanaccountofwhat
oneoftheorganisationsdeliveringthecurrenttrainingcalls,inoneofitsonline
modules,‘aggressivemarketing’(ArtsManagerInternational,2017).Accordingto
thepresidentofArtsManagerInternational,BrettEgan,aggressivemarketingis
madeupofprogrammaticandinstitutionalmarketing.Thelatterconsistsin
persuadingpotentialaudiencesthatyourorganisationhasavaluebeyondspecific
productions.Theresultsofaggressivemarketingare,accordingtothetheory,
attractiveforanyorganisation:itproducesa‘family’(ArtsManagerInternational,
2017),thatis,agroupofpeoplewhowillbuyintoyourorganisationandprovidea
sourceofeconomicsupport(potentialmembers,donors,etc.).Thisidea,probably
asoldasmarketingitself,appearstobeanothervariantoftheideadevelopedby
MMMthatsocialcapitalshouldbeconvertibleintoeconomiccapital,audiences
intodonors,ifyoutryhardenoughandusetherightstrategies.However
metaphoric,theideathataggressivemarketingproducesfamilies,andthatyour
family,likeyourflatorspareroom,canprovidethemeanstoincreaseyour
income,suggestsyetagainthatweliveinaneconomyinwhichtheboundaries
betweenreproductionandproductionareblurringandbeingrenegotiated.
Resiliencetraining,then,appearstoprovidethemeanstoharnessthis
renegotiationandmakethemostofit.
112Givenaggressivemarketing’sparticularlyevocativename,itisalsotempting
inconclusiontorevivetheoldFreudian(1958)culturalistthesisbywhichthe
refinementofcultureandcivilisationisunderstoodtoprovidethemeansto
sublimateandcontaintheaggressive,uncivildrivesoftheindividual.Themalaise
anddiscontentsofcivilization,however,appeartodaytobequitethereverse:the
aggressivecapitalistdriveisnottobecontainedbytheinstitutionbut,instead,
unleashedinordertoproduceanewformofasocialitythatrealisesthevalueof
culture.Theoldwelfaristandpaternalistmottoofmoneyforvalueandthenew
post-crisisrenditionofthesamemottomediatedby40yearsofnewmanagement
practiceremainsyntacticallythesame,but,semantically,theycouldnotbemore
different.
2.4.3Alternativeresiliencesintheadministrationofculture
2.4.3.1LiveArtphilanthropy
Inthelastlegoftheanalysis,whichmaywellbethechapter’stestofresiliencefor
thereader,Iformallyestablishthepossibilityofalternativeresiliencepractices,
andindoingsostarttoinvestigatemorefullyquestionQ.2c.
Theselastsub-sectionsalsoneedtobeincludedinthischapterastheybring
togetherthevariouselementsofthediscussionelaboratedthusfar.This
discussionwillalsobuildontheprecedingdiscussionoftraininginorderto
analysehowculture’sinternalcolonisationhasalsofedformsofresistances,which
problematisetheambivalentsocialisationofriskthatresiliencediscoursesand
practicespartakein.Thiswillleadmetothethesisthatresilienceincultureis
directlyrelatedtothereproductionofextremesofviolenceandincivilitythatare
notpossibletosocialiseandembedsoeasily,whichIwillexplorethroughtheidea
ofcivility.
113ThecaseinquestionisaTier3consortiummadeupofArtsAdmin(AA),
HomeLiveArt(HLA)andLiveArtDevelopmentAgency(LADA).Thesethree
organisationsareconsiderablydifferentinbothsizeandraisond’être.However,
theyallholdincommonasharedinterestinLiveArtandexperimental
performancepractices.Theirexperimentswithfundraisingarethefirstelement
worthdiscussing.LikeAkademi’sart,theseexperimentsreproducethelogicsof
resilienceunderstoodintermsofculture-as-resource.However,manyoftheir
experimentscombinedwhatACEprobablyconsiderstobesuccesswithahealthy
doseofcriticalsuspicion,ifnotreluctance,towardstheprogrammeinwhichthey
wereparticipating.Forexample,HLAproduced,incollaborationwiththeartist
RichardDeDomenici,aLiveArtAidcrowdfundingcampaigninwhichDeDomenici
andahostofUK-basedliveartistsre-createdthevideoforthefamoussongWeare
theWorld(DeDomenici,2015).Theoriginalcompositionwaswrittenin1985by
LionelRichieandMichaelJacksonforLiveAidAfricainsupportoftheeffortsto
alleviatethefamineinEthiopia(Kamikatze07,2008).Thesongwasperformedina
studiocontextbyastellarensembleofUS-basedsingers.There-creationofthe
famousvideosubverteditsformandincludedthefollowingverses:
Don’twanttohavetomovetoEasternEuropeyet
Butfiveyearsofausterityscarsme
Ourartiststudiosarebeingturnedintoluxuryflats
Everyneighbourhoodwetouch,wegentrify
Nursesarecrucial,weagree
Government-leddichotomies
CruelBritannia,culturalcoldspots
Growinginsideourhearts
It’snoteasytoplanahead
114Whenyoucan’twriteabusinessplan
NarcissisticPersonalityDisorder
Trickytomanagewhenyou’redyslexic
(DeDomenici,2015).
Thentherefrainandkeymessage:
SaveLiveArt
Thisonce-thrivingsectorisnowsubmerging
Butwecanchangethiswithyoururging
(DeDomenici,2015).
Thesmall-scalecampaignwassignificantlylesssuccessfulthantheoriginalLive
Aidappeal.Nevertheless,itsvirtueresidedinthemannerinwhichtheproject,
whichotherwiseexemplifiesthelogicsof‘culture-as-resource’,turnedan
experimentinfundraisingintoacriticalcommentaryonthesubsumptionof
cultureinwhichthetermsofthediscussionaboutdevelopmentpresentedearlier
reappear.Here,theartistsrepresentbothperipheryandcentre,‘third-world’
starvingculturalworkersand‘first-world’megastarsoftheinformationand
creativeindustries,whichtheartistsinaveryBritishLiveArtkindofwayfailto
embody.
Theconsortiumdidnotmerelyproduceironiccritiquesofthe
entrepreneurialfundraisingimperativesthatsuggest,onceagain,thatcross-
culturalpolicytransferralfromtheUSisamorecomplicatedaffairthanbothHunt
andDr.Eganwouldhavewishedfor.Theconsortiumalsoproducedvery
successfulfundraisingevents,whichweresupportedbytheorganisation’sown
communityofinterest,includingLiveArtfans,artists,culturalworkersand
115educators.LADA,forinstance,organisedafundraisinggalaforits15thanniversary
attheVauxhallTavern,agayvenuelocatedsouthofVauxhallbridgeinLondon.In
comparisontotheGradeII-listedHertfordshiremansionsofIndianconstruction
moguls,thechoiceofthelesssalubriousGradeII-listedgayhaunt,whichisfamous
foritscabaretclubnights,wasreflectiveoftheorientationoftheconstituenciesof
anorganisationdedicatedtothedevelopmentofartthatisoftensociallyand
politicallycommitted.Thefundraiserdidverywellthankstothetombolaand
auctionatwhichmemorabiliafromliveperformancesweresold(Paterson,2015).
Throughsuchanevent,LADAdidindeedmanagetoturnitssocialcapitaland
connectionsintoeconomiccapitalbysellingobjects(materialassets)belongingto
alonglistofworld-famousandestablishedartists.However,itmanagedtodoso
whileremainingtruetoitsconstituencies,identityandvalues,asRobinson(2010)
appearstoadvocate.Thegaladidnotdownplaythecompany’santi-establishment
critique,suggestingthatahealthysuspicionofcommercialismandamateur
auctioneeringcanparadoxicallygoalongwayinfundraising.Thegeneralspiritof
communityandcontestationwassummarisedbythehostoftheevening,drag
performanceartistDavidHoyle:
ThegovernmentandtheArtsCouncilofEnglandwantustoreachouttothe
rich(pause)sothattheywillsaveourculture…(laughs).I’mgoingtoleave
thatwithyou…(LADA-LiveOnline,2014).
Whichledtothequestion:
Andthenwhywouldarichpersonwanttopayforartthatisallabouttheir
demise?(LADA-LiveOnline,2014).
116
Thiscommentarywascomplementedbyfundraisingappealsfromthecompere
andotherartiststhatwouldhavemadetheproponentsofaggressivemarketing
appearasmastersofunderstatement.Afterremindinghisaudiencethatlifeisnot
eternal,HoyleorderedthattheaudiencerewritetheirwillsinordertomakeLADA
thebenefactoroftheirlegacies.ThiswastoppedbythepetiteHawaiian
performanceartistStaceyMakishidrawingthefollowingconclusionafterbeing
sweptoffherfeetbyaFrench-kissinggreen-leavedcabbage:
Natureisjustnotnatural
Unlessyourproducecanreproduce
Thankyou…andgivegenerouslytotheseguys
(Pleading)Please,youfuckers…
(Stampingherfoot)GIVEUSALLYOURMONEY!!!
(Leavingthestage)Thankyou…Thankyou…
(LADA-LiveOnline,2014).
Thefundraisingtourdeforce,however,camewiththeArtholeCockleMedalfor
LiveArtPhilanthropy(2015),createdbytheartistJoshuaSofaer,theauctioneeron
thenightofthegala.InsteadofactingasarespondentevaluatortoLADA’sproject,
Sofaerdecidedtoseeifhecouldraisemoneyforadifficult-to-fund£10,000artist
awardwithnopressureofoutcomes.Forthis,hetookatriptoCabourgin
Normandy,wherehefoundthebitofcoastlinethatprovidedthemodelforthe
beachinProust’sInSearchofLostTime,which,amongotherthings,depictswitha
comicpanachethehypocrisy,pretentiousness,dishonestyandgreedofthebelle
époquebourgeoisie.ProustwasnotpartoftheBloomsburyset.However,as
Anderson(2018)hasrecentlyrestated,hewasalateFrenchromanticwholivedat
117endofacenturyinauguratedwithChateaubriand(andprefiguredbyRousseau),
whoselifeasanartistwassubsidisedbyprivatewealthandinheritance.Inthelast
volumeofhisfamouswork,thefollowingstatementaboutartcanbefoundthat
translatesinlyricalProustianprosesomethingoftheculturalrationale
underpinningHoyle’slegacyappealsjustasmuchasthecultofartpromulgatedby
theeldestoftheSchlegelsistersandMrs.Narula:
Thecruellawofartisthatpeopledieandweourselvesdieafterexhausting
everyformofsuffering,sothatoverourheadsmaygrowthegrassnotof
oblivionbutofeternallife,thevigorousandluxuriantgrowthofatrueworkof
art,andsothatthither,gailyandwithoutthoughtforthosewhoaresleeping
beneaththem,futuregenerationsmaycometoenjoytheirdéjeunersurl’herbe
(Proust,2010,p.438).
MakingProustintohismuse,Sofaercamebackwithacockleshellthathecastin
bronzethreetimes.Twoofthecastswereplatedinsilverandgold.Together,the
threecastsmadeuptheartholecocklemedals,asexualwordplaythatalsoalludes
tothefundingholecreatedbythefinancialcuts.Themedalswereworth£5,000,
£3,000and£2,000forgold,silverandbronze,respectively.Theplanwastoinvite
individualdonorstodinneratSofaer’shomeinordertopresentacasefor
supportingLiveArt.GaryCarter,atelevisionexecutiveknowntoLADA,wasthe
firstprospecttobehostedbytheartistandchefDanielWichett.Carterendedup
giving£10,000forthegoldawardandmadethesuggestionthatthisbemadeinto
anannualendeavourforwhichthepatron,artistandchefshouldnamecandidates
totakeovertheprocessthenextyear.Thetwoothermedalsweredulycastback
whencetheycame,attheThamesestuary(Sofaer,2018).
118Otherexperimentsinadministration(live)artwouldbeworthexploringat
length,includingScottee’sDoubleYourMoney(2015),forwhichtheartistbought
£1,000worthoflotteryticketstoseeifhecouldwinthejackpotforLADA.Oreven
KimNoble,whomobilisedwhatSarahJaneBailes(2011)identifiesasananti-
capitalistaestheticsoffailuretomakehiscutebutcluelesssnot-eatingsonstarina
ratherunderwhelmingcrowdfundingvideo(LADA,2014a).Withoutexhausting
thisdiscussion,itisneverthelesspossibletoconcludethatLADAandthe
consortiumembodiedsomethingofthedefinitionofresilienceadvancedby
Robinson(2010).Bydoingso,theirworkmaynotappeartobealternativeatall.
Whilethismaybethecase,Iwouldarguethattheyneverthelessrespondedtothe
injunctiontoadaptbyretainingwhatthemagazineMutecalled‘genuinediversity
andantagonism’(vanMourikBroekman,2011,nopagination).23
Thelastsectionofthischapteraimstoextendtheanalysistotheresearchthe
consortiumconductedonmoneyandtheethicsoffundraisinginculture.This
analysiswillalsoprovidetheopportunitytotiediscussionsofecologyand
economytogetherastheformerwaslargelyabsentfromCatalyst-related
programmesexceptasametaphoriclanguageglorifyingthegardenofnew
resourcemanagement.Thissectionwillraisethestakesoftheanalysisbyshowing
howcapitalembeddedbythecorporatewelfarestatealsoappears,asinits
historicalbeginningsdescribedbyMarx(1990),‘drippingfromheadtotoe,from
everypore,withbloodanddirt’(p.926).Thisbloodanddirtwillbeshowntodo,
unfortunately,worsethingsthanmakethelifeofstrugglingweaversharderor
evenblemishthefaceofculture.
23ItshouldbenotedthatArtsAdmin,whichproduceditsownfundraisingart,also
collaboratedwithTowellonaudienceresearch(BoostingResilience,2017b).
1192.4.3.2Buildingresilienceandthe(in)civilitiesofculture
IamsittinginadarkenedToynbeeHallatAAinEastLondonduringTakethe
MoneyandRun?(TTMR)(LADA,ArtsAdmin,HomeLiveArtandPlatform,2015).
Theeventisthefinaleofathree-yearresearchprogrammethattheconsortiumran
onmoneyinthearts.IamlisteningtoCJMitchell,co-directorofLADA.Heis
standingatalecternspeakingabouttheconsortium’sresearchintoethicalpolicies
forfundraising.Theconsortiumwantedtoensurethatitsapproachtofundraising
wouldbealignedtoitsrespective‘mission’and‘values’(Mitchell,2015,p.2).
Mitchellacknowledgesthecomplexityofassessingwhethertheaimsofagiven
trust,companyorindividualareatallcompatiblewiththoseoftheorganisation.
Despitethisdifficulty,herecountshowLADAdecidedthatitwouldnotreceiveany
fundingfromorganisationsdirectlyinvolvedwith‘animaltesting’;‘thefurtrade’;
‘fossilfuelsorpetrochemicalswhichdamagetheenvironment’;‘humanrights
abuses’;‘manufactureofhazardousproductsorchemicals’;‘militarycontracts’;
‘ozonedepletingchemicalproduction’;and‘tobacco’(LADA,2014b,p.1).
Theprocessofdevisingethicalpoliciesforfundraisingwasdeemed
importantasitiswidelyacceptedthattherearecertainreputationalandbusiness
benefitsthatcomefrombeingassociatedwithculturalbrands(hencetheir
importanceasanassettoculturalorganisations).Donorsreceivesymbolic
(reputationandstatus)andsocial(networksandrelations)capitalinexchangeof
economiccapitalgiventoartsorganisations.Wu(2002)claims,onthebasisofher
ownandotherdata,that:
Atvariancewithorthodoxmanagementtheory,accordingtowhichsenior
management’sinvolvementshouldincreaseordecreaseinproportiontothe
relativescaleofexpenditure,topmanagerstakeadisproportionateinterestin
120artssponsorship,regardlessofthesmallsumsinvolvedinrelationtoa
company’sannualbudget(2002,p.31).
AsWu(2002)explains,anassociationwithartprovidestopexecutiveswitha
senseofdistinction,anauraofexclusivitythatmarksthemoutaselite.Italso
providesthemeanstoreproducetheirelitecircles,asocialtrendthatBourdieu,
withartistHansHaacke,exploresinFreeExchange(1995).Corporatebrand
managementthroughanassociationwithcultureisallthemorenecessaryforoil
orarmscorporations,forinstance,whichmaintainafavourablebusiness
environmentbyupholdingwhatinmarketingjargoniscalleda‘sociallicenseto
operate’(Boutilieretal.,2011,p.2).Asociallicensetooperatehas,accordingtoits
theorists,fourlevels.Thelowest,whichposesthehighestriskforacompany,is
whenthesociallicenseis‘withdrawn’,thatis,whenthecompanydoesnothave
publicacceptability(Boutilieretal.,2011,p.2).Theotherthreelevelsare
‘acceptability’,‘approval’and‘psychologicalidentification’,whichimpliestrust
(Boutilieretal.,2011,p.2).Thislicenseiscrucialforarmscompaniesdirectly
involvedinthemanufacturingofglobalwarfareorthepetro-chemicalindustries,
which,asthejournalistDuncanClark(2013)hasrecentlyreiterated,are
historicallyresponsiblefortheproductionofamajorityofgreenhousegases.A
sociallicenseisallthemorenecessarywhenanyofthesecompaniesarefacedwith
acrisis,suchasDeepwaterHorizon,which,accordingtotheCEOofBritish
Petroleum(BP),broughtthecompanywithinthreedaysofbankruptcy(Hughes
andMarriott,2015).ItisforthisreasonthatcompaniessuchasBPorShellhave
sponsoredandstillsponsormajorinstitutionssuchastheTate,theBritish
Museum,theNationalPortraitGalleryandtheRoyalShakespeareCompany
(Evans,2015;Trowell,2013).
121Thissocialphenomenon,theobjectivemechanismofwhichIhavejust
described,replicatesthelogicsof‘culture-as-resource’(cultureasresourceforthe
managementofbrands).However,asthispreliminarydiscussionsuggests,the
logicsof‘culture-as-resource’donotannouncethewaningofBourdieusian
distinction,asYúdice(2003)claimed.Thisre-confirmsapointfirstmadeanumber
oftimesnowthattheexpedientrationalityofresilienceismadeupofaunityof
contraries,whichincludesadeeplyambivalentideologicalsupplement(culture),
whichmakescultureattractivetocorporatesponsorsinneedoflegitimacyand
whichmakesmoretolerablethedestructionandviolencelinkedtoprocessesof
subsumption.Itistheambivalenceofthisidealthattheethicalpoliciesofthe
consortiumaimedtograpplewithandthatIproposetoexploremoredeeply
throughtheconceptofcivility.
Asthediscussionaboveintimates,thequestionofviolenceanditsextremes
isparticularlyrelevanttothediscussionofprivateinvestmentandcorporate
sponsorship.Thenotionofcivility,however,mayrequiresomefurther
explanation.InViolenceandCivility(2015),Balibardefinescivilityas:‘thewhole
setofpoliticalstrategies[…]thatrespondtothefactthatviolence,initsvarious
forms,exceedsnormality’(2015,p.65).Thus,practicesofcivilitycanbe
understoodaspracticesofanti-violenceinacontemporary,globalisedworld
characterisedbytheexistenceofextremesofviolenceanddomination.More
specifically,practicesofanti-violenceorcivilityrespondtoextremesofviolencein
ordertodisplaceorlimitthese.Balibaridentifiesanumberofstrategiesofcivility,
includinghegemonic(liberal-pluralist)strategiesaswellasrevolutionary
(majoritarian)ones.Inbothofthese,theinstitutionsofcivilsocietyarekeytothe
elaborationofstrategiesofcivilityastheformerareatthecentreofthesocio-
politicalreproductionofviolenceandprovidesiteswhereinan‘internalresponse’
122toor‘displacement’ofviolencecanbeproduced(Balibar,2015,p.22).Inthisvain,
theresearchandworkthattheconsortiumproducedisconcerned,inpartatleast,
withrespondingtotherolethatculturalinstitutionsplayinthereproductionof
extremesofviolenceandinjustice,whichare‘inconvertible’,thatis,whichresists
socialisation(Balibar,2015,p.63).Thesadirony,ofcourse,isthattheseethical
policiescomeasasupplementtogovernmentalpractices,whichaimtosocialise
theviolenceofthecuts,butwhichalsoindirectlypartakeinthereproductionof
otherkindsofviolence.
ItisworthunpackingBalibar’sanalysisofextremeviolenceinorderto
understandfurtherhowthesepoliciesrelatetothequestionof‘extremes’.
AccordingtoBalibar’sanalysis,therearetwopolesofextremeviolence:
‘ultrasubjective’and‘ultraobjective’(2015,p.52).Subjectiveviolence‘requiresthat
individualsandgroupsberepresentedasincarnationsofevil,[…]thatthreatenthe
subjectfromwithinandhavetobeeliminatedatallcosts’(Balibar,2015,p.52).
Subjectiveformsofviolenceincludevariousformsofracism,actsofmassmurder,
exterminationandgenocidesbutalsopatriarchalandstateviolence(Balibar,2015,
p.76).Objectiveviolencecauseshumanbeingstobeturnedinto‘thingsoruseless
remnants’(Balibar,2015,p.52).Itincludesphenomenaasdiverseaseconomic
exploitationandecologicaldisastersthatareoftennaturaliseddespitetheir
varioussocialcauses.Balibararguesthatsubjective/objectiveformsofviolence,
whichveryoftenreinforceeachother,areproducedbydifferentkindsofpractices
thatfindaunityinhistory.Henamesthepassagebetweenthetwoextremesof
violence‘cruelty’(Balibar,2015,p.53).Racism,forexample,couldbeconsideredas
paradigmaticofthisoscillation,socouldthedestructionandviolenceofthepetro-
chemicalindustry.Nolessthananormalisedkindofcivilisationalwreckage,this
violenceiseconomicandecological(spoliationofnatureandhumanhabitats,
123over-exploitationofnaturalandhuman‘resources’)butalsosubjectivein
character:globalwarmingistiedtoastructuralkindofenvironmentalracism,
whichmakespoorerpopulationsandnon-whitepeopleslivingintheeconomic
peripheriesoftheglobalorderorintheeconomicperipheriesoftheGlobalNorth
thefirstvictims(Evans,2015).
SocialanthropologistsaswellastheperformancescholarssuchasRichard
Schechner(2003)haveshownthatso-calledtraditionalsocietieshadandstillhave
amoreacuteconsciousnessoftheinconvertibilityofcertainformsofsocial
violence,whichthesesocietiesregulateorsublimatethroughvariousformsof
ritual(carnivalbeingonethatiscommontoso-calledmodernsocietiesaswell).
Althoughverydifferenttotraditionalritualsorritesofpassage,ethicalfundraising
policiescouldbeunderstoodaswhatBourdieu(1991,p.117)mighthavecalled
performative‘ritesofinstitution’throughwhichtheorganisationsinquestion
definetheirinstitutionalidentitiesandproduceaformofsymbolicorderingand
distancingthattakestheviolenceofitsowninstitutionsasobjectofreflectionand
practice.Atfirstglance,then,theethicalpoliciesappearasanotherwayoflimiting
theviolencebroughtaboutbyreinforcementofthepowerandlegitimacyof
privatecorporations.24Thisprocessappearstomobilisefamiliarculturalideals,
notablythroughthereassertionofanidealbestself,anArnoldiannotion,which,
accordingtoLloydandThomas(1998),denotesahumanistdis-interestednessof
judgementthatshouldbecounterposedtotheordinaryselfthatrepresents
particularistandantagonisticinterests.Thenameofthisbestselfis,inthiscase,
24Iambynomeanssuggestingthatpaternalistwelfarismisnotproblematic.Itis.
However,itremainshistoricallytiedtorealsocialandpublicgains(Beech,2015).Asmuch
cannotbesaidofitshistoricalprivatisation.
124ethics.Thementionofethicsandbestselvesgivesmetheopportunitytorelatethe
notionofcivilitytothatofculturemoredirectlyinordertolocatetheambivalence
oftheparticularconceptionofcivilitypresentedhere.
LloydandThomas(1998)arguethattheinstitutionsofculture,as
repositoriesofalternativevaluesdedicatedtothedevelopmentandeducational
upliftmentofthepopulation(Bildung,aGermantermthatbindsthenotionsof
cultureandself-development(Beiser,2006)),occupyakey‘spacebetweenthe
individualandthestate’intheformationof‘thecitizenasethical“bestself”’(Lloyd
andThomas,1998,p.10).Throughculturalandaestheticeducation,thecitizen–
subjectlearnstoabandontheirpartialinterestsbydevelopingthecapacityfor
‘disinterestedreflection’thatfindsitsfulfilmentinanidentificationwithand
integrationintherepresentativeinstitutionsofthestate,whichhaveanessentially
normativefunction(LloydandThomas,1998,p.147).
LloydandThomas’(1998)theorisationofthestateandculture,which
describeshowbothplayafundamentalroleinembeddingcapitalisteconomic
relations,overlapswithwhatBalibarnamesthe‘hegemonicstrategy’ofcivility
(2015,p.107).BalibarfindsthemodelofthisstrategyinHegel’stheoryofthestate
(developedinThePhilosophyofRight)andhisnotionofSittlichkeit,sometimes
translatedasethicallifeorethicitybutwhichLloydandThomascallthe‘ethical
state’(1998,p.115).Inthisliberaltheory,accordingtoBalibar,conflictsand
contradictionsinternaltosocietyaretoberesolvedthroughaplayof
identificationsanddisidentificationsthatissetinmotionbetweenthevarious
differentiatedbutinterdependentsectionsofsociety(family-civilsociety-state).
Theseconflictsareultimatelymediatedandreconciledintheinstitutionand
universalityofthestate,whichtranscendstheparticularisticinterestsofeach
(civilsocietyandmarketrelations/familyandkinship)whilebestowing
125recognitiononthesethroughwhatLloydandThomascallthe‘educing’
(developmentandrealisation)ofcitizens(1998,p.7).Inturnthestatefindsincivil
societyandthefamilyitsowngroundorsubjectiveembodimentbywhichits
powerbecomesakindofhabitusor‘secondnature’.25
Contrarytotheinitialassessment,theethicalpoliciesoftheconsortium,
then,canbeunderstoodashavinganembeddingandreconciliatingrole,the
successofwhichreliesonaplayofcollective(organisationalandinstitutional)and
individualprocessesofidentificationanddisidentificationwiththestate
institutionsofculturebutalsocivilsociety,includingtransnationalprivateactors
suchasphilanthropists,andcorporations.Inthislight,thepoliciesappeartobe
fundamentallyambivalent.For,ontheonehand,theyappeartomobilisearesidual
kindofwelfarism,notunlikethatofHolden’s,tocontestandprobethepowerof
particularcorporateinterests.Indoingsotheyalsoprobethecollective
predicamentofaculturalfieldturnedintoacollectiveavataroftheGoodPersonof
Szchewan(1994)dramatisedbyBrecht:ayoungprostitutewhostrivestolivea
goodmorallifebutfindsherselfobligedtoinventanalter-egotoprotecther
(selfish)interest.Ontheotherhand,itcouldbearguedthattheethicalpolicies
producethesamekindofreconciledor‘well-tempered’subjectivitythatblendsthe
ethicsandvaluesoftheinstitutionsofcultureandthestatewithanevermore
dominanteconomicrationality(Miller,1993,p.ix).
DuringthefinaleventofTTMR,JaneTrowell,whoisoneofthepeoplewho
helpedtheorganisationsfromtheconsortiumdeveloptheirethicalpoliciesand
25TheroleofBildungisnotreallydiscussedatanygreatlengthinBalibar’s(2015)
exegesisofHegel’swork.However,adiscussionofitsplaceintheHegeliantheoryof
SittlichkeitcanbefoundinLefebvreandMacherey(1984).
126thinkingaboutethics,facilitatedanexerciseonstagethatillustratessomethingof
thisambivalencethroughactualpractice.Iwillnotdiscussitindetail.However,it
interestingtomentionastheapparatusofthetheatrewillgivematerialitytoa
discussionoftheprocessesofrepresentationthroughwhichthesocialindividualis
educedintotheethicalstate(LADA,ArtsAdmin,HomeLiveArtandPlatform,
2015).ToynbeeStudiosanditstheatrewasallthemoresymbolicallysuitedfor
thisexerciseasthebuildingwasestablishedintheearly1880sbyreformerswho
werepioneersofthesettlementmovement.Thegoalofthemovementwastobring
therichandtheMr.andMrs.Bastsofthisworldclosertogetherthroughthe
alleviationofpovertybutalsothrougheducationandtheimpartingofknowledge
andculturebyvolunteerOxfordandCambridgestudents(Wikipedia,2018c).
Fortheexercise,participantsfromtheaudiencewereinvitedonstageto
decidewhetherandexplainwhytheywouldacceptornotmoneyfromvarious
trustsandfoundationsaswellascompanies.Theaimwastoprovidethespacein
whichonecoulddebateandexamineone’sassumptionsaboutdifferenttrusts,
foundationsandcorporations,andunderstandwhichofthesemightbecompatible
orincontradictionwithourownorganisationalandculturalvalues.However,in
theQ&Athattookplaceafterwards,oneaudiencememberunderlined,asIhave
beendoing,thattheexerciseappearedtomediatethepoliticalimperativeof
embracingprivateinvestmentinthearts.Anotheraudiencememberraiseda
numberofquestionsrelatingtothedefinitionsofethicsbeingused(ArtsAdminUK,
2015).Theperformanceofethicsstagedinthehallappearedtobeoverly
pragmatic.Insteadofbeingconceivedinuniversalterms,ethicswasbeing
conceivedofinrelativisticterms,asanecosystemofdifferentsocialand
organisationalvalues,thepluralityofwhichguaranteedthefunctioningand
127resilienceofthewholesector,inamannerthatisreminiscentofHolden’s
discourse.
Iconclude,formypart,thattheproblematicambivalencelayspartlyina
culturalistconceptionof‘ethics’.Ifoundconfirmationoftheculturalistcharacterof
thisambivalenceinMonbiot’s(2013)reflectionsondisinvestmentforwhichthe
authordrawsonthefigureofJulienBenda,theearly20thcenturyFrench
intellectualwhowroteTheTreasonoftheIntellectuals(2006).Inthiswork,which
is,accordingtoMulhern(2000),aFrenchvariantofkulturkritik,Bendacondemns
theintellectualsofhistimeforceasingtoprovideamoralandethicalcheckon
politicaldomination,self-interestandthepopulistpassionsofthemasses.
However,whatMonbiotdoesnotsayisthatinBenda’suniversalistconceptionof
thedisinterestedintellectual,protectorof‘theideal’,renounces‘allindividualor
groupself-assertion’orpassionategroupcommitment(Mulhern,2000,p.8).In
otherwords,whileitmaybeuniversalist,itisalsoaprofoundlyunpoliticalideal.
WhileIamnotsayingthisistheidealTrowellandtheconsortiumaspireto,Ihave
littledoubtthattheirconceptionofcivilityandethicscarriessomeofits
ambivalences.
Thepreviousanalysis,however,needstobeimmediatelycomplicatedby
returningtothequestionofconflictwhich,Iwillargue,isnotreducibletoa
questionofethicswithinthecontextoftheeventdiscussedorthewiderresearch
programme.For,whilereconciliationwithinfrastructuralchangesbroughtabout
bythecutswasoneoftheobjectivefunctionsoftheconsortium’sresearch
programmeandethicalpolicies,itwasbynomeansitsonlyfunctionoraim.This
alternativetrainingwithinalessassuredsociety(toinvertWilliams’definitionof
civilityquotedintheintroduction)veryoftenpresentedtheinstitutionofculture
andthestatetobeinconflictwitheconomicimperatives.Thisfact,whichIwill
128explorefurtherthroughafinalaccountofthefinaleventoftheprogramme,
complicatesthedirectrelationofidentificationthatLloydandThomas(1998)
establishbetweenthedisinterested-cumethicalrealmofcultureandthepolitical
rationalesoftherepresentativeliberalstate.Theprogramme,onthecontrary,
suggeststhatsomethingisawryinprocessof‘educing’andself-development.
Passionateconflictsdoinfactexistontheplaneofculturefromwherethesubject
emergesintoself-consciousness,conflictswhicharenotaseasilyresolvableas
LloydandThomassuggest.Interestingly,theseconflictshavebeenproducedby
theverysameinstitutionalandpoliticalinjunctionstoadaptorperishthat
legitimiseandeffectsubsumption.However,themaladaptedandnotsowell-
temperedsubjectsoftheinstitutionsummonedbythesuper-egoicinjunctionof
thestatetofollowandfulfilthenewnormdonotappeartobeanimatedanymore
byadesiretoadaptbutratherbyadesiretosubverttheinstitutionasitexists.
Crucially,thisdiscontentstemsfromtheperceivedviolenceofnewstate-
sanctionedincivilities,whichsuggeststhatitisnot‘recognition’ofparticular
interestsoridentitiesfromthestatethatconcernsthesecitizen–subjectsbut
justice,atopictowhichInowturn.
Thisprocessofdisidentificationwasvisibleduringthefinaleevent,which
wasusedbyPlatformasanexerciseinbuildingconsensusaroundtheissuesofoil
sponsorshipinthearts,aspartofawidercampaignwhoseprimesitewas,infact,
nottheinstitutionsofthestatebutsocialmovements,orwhatBalibaralsonames
‘majoritarian’movements(2015,p.115).Theeventhadthevirtueofgoingbeyond
adiscussionofsectorialinterestsand‘ethics’inordertopresenthowthe
subsumptionofcultureathomeisnotonlyconnectedtothereproductionof
extremesofviolencebutalsototransnationalstrugglesagainstinjustice.Selina
Nwulu,commissionedbyTippingPoint,recallsthedestructionoftheNigerdelta
129causedbyoilextractionsupportedbyLondonbasedculturalorganisationsinthe
followingwords:
Homeisahostilelover
Rememberwhenourdeltawaterswereclean
Howwewashedourfacesinrivers
Howwechasedfishwithourbarehands
BeforeDeltahaditsthroatslit
Andbleditsoilypipesintosoil
Howwehummedwordsintowater
Anditwouldlaughandsingback
(Rupiah,2015).
Poets,speakersandgroupsfromtheArtNotOilcoalitiontookthestagetoexplore
thesocio-political,ecologicalandeconomicissuestiedtosponsorshipbeyondits
Nigeriancontext.AckroydandHarveygaveatalkaboutpullingoutofanexhibition
aboutspeciesextinctionsponsoredbymembersoftheAzerioiloligarchy.
JournalistRachelSpencealsospokeaboutGulfLabour,acampaignfightingagainst
thecontemporaryuseofindenturedlabourfortheconstructionofthenewcultural
infrastructureintheGulf.ErielDeranger,thechiefexecutiveofIndigenousClimate
ActioninCanada,contributedremotelytotheevent.IndigenousClimateActionis
anindigenous-ledorganisationthatworkstowardsclimatejustice,notablyfor
communitiesinAlbertadirectlyaffectedbytheexploitationofthetarsands
situatedonindigenousterritory(IndigenousClimateAction).Aswellasspelling
certaincatastropheforhumanityandlifeasawhole,ifexploiteddurably,the
extractionoftarsandcrude,whichcriticsviewasaformofresourcecolonisation
(ParsonandRay,2016),hashadalreadyanoverwhelminglydestructiveimpacton
130thehealthofhumans,aquaticspeciesandwildlifeinAlberta(LADA,ArtsAdmin,
HomeLiveArtandPlatform,2015).
Theeventprovidedtheoccasiontobringtogethersomeofthedifferent
socio-historicalandpoliticalexperiencesthatmakeupourcapitalistpresent,
whichdespiteseemingdisparateareinfactinterconnected.Figuringthishistorical
totalitythroughfragmentsoffilmmontages,skypevideotalks,images,live
discussionsanddebateswasawayofpresentinghowdifferentformsof
destructivedevelopment,butalsopoliticaloppression,areinterconnectedand
reinforceeachother,whilealsocreatingamomentaryspaceforfiguringcommon
pointsofstruggle.Inthisway,thetalksalsofocusedonhowculturecanbe,ifnot
alwaysapoliticisedresourceforsocialmovements,atleastalignedtothese
movementsinordertostopthereproductionofextremesofviolence.Thepastiche
Shakespeareanversespokenonstagebyoneofthefemalebardsfromthegroup
BPorNotBP?summarisestheanti-affirmativestructureofthoughtandfeeling:
Whatcountry,friends,isthis
Wherethewordsofourmostprizedpoet
Canbeboughttobeautify
ApatronasunnaturalasBritishPetroleum?
(ArtsAdminUK,2015).
Thediscussionswerenotlimitedtothequestionofoilsponsorship.JenHarvie
heldatalkaboutthecutsandpoliticalalternativestoit(anew‘newdeal’for
culture).ClaraPallardalsospokeasarepresentativefortheunionPCS,whose
memberswereabouttogoona100-daystrikeattheNationalGalleryinorderto
opposetheprivatisationofvisitorservices.Theaudiencealsoheardaboutthe
131boycottoftheSydneyBiennale,whichwasfundedbyTransfieldHoldings,a
contractorforAustralia’snetworkofimmigrationdetentioncentres.Finally,the
stageplayedhosttoartistandcriticDaveBeechwhoquestionedthelimitationsof
single-issueboycottsofbiennalesororganisations.Inhisprovocation,he
questionedthevalueofboycottsconductedonthebasisofsingle-issuecampaigns
(environmental,humanitarian,etc.).Beechassertedthattheideaofethical
sponsorshipappearsto(falsely)suggestthatsomemoneymightbecleanand
othermoneydirty,somemoneyethicalandothermoneyunethical.Instead,what
shouldbeopposedisprivatisationassuch(ArtsAdminUK,2015;LADA,Arts
Admin,HomeLiveArtandPlatform,2015).
Withoutwantingtoromanticiseoroverinflatetheimportanceofthese
momentsofgatheringanddebate,theeventcanneverthelessbeunderstoodto
havebroughttogetheractorsthatpersonifythemeansthroughwhichsocial
movementsaim,throughdiversemeans,toresistandtransformtheviolenceof
globalisedcapitalism.Inthissense,theeventandwiderrationaleguidingthe
researchprogrammewasnotonlyethical,itwaspoliticised.Itwasguidedbythe
questionofvalueaswayoflifeororganisation.However,elementsofthe
programmeswereconcernedwithhowtore-work‘valueasdemand’inorderto
politicise‘practicesofidentityandrepresentation,thepatterningsofaffinityand
aversionthatmakeupculturalcomplexes’(Mulhern,2002,p.103).
Thereisnoplacetounpicktheambivalencesofeachofthesemeansof
politicalorganisationanddemands,whichcanalsobeunderstoodtosustain
capitalismjustasmuchaschallengeit,asBeech’sprovocationunderlines.Instead,
Iwouldliketoarguethattheeventduringwhichtheincivilityofculturewasbe
probedandalternativesmomentarilyexplored,constitutedsomethinglikea
micro-spaceofcivility.Itwasatheatricalspacethatstagedthepotentialsaswellas
132thecontradictionsandlimitationsofalternativestocrueltythatcultural
institutionsandsocialmovements,intheirdifferentways,haveahandin
reproducing.Indoingso,theeventandthewiderprogramme,despiteits
ambivalences,itconstitutedanattempttomakesenseofthespecificoppressions
ourpresentandenvisagetheirtransformation.
2.5Conclusion
Thischapternarratedthehistoryofresiliencediscoursesandpracticesinnational
culturalpolicyandtheadministrationofculture,accountingforhowandwhyit
rosetoprominence(Q.1).Whileculturedidnotappeartobeatoolforsocial
managementinthecasesandphenomenadiscussed,thequestionsofthe
managementofresourcesforthesocialisationofrisksanddangerslinkedtothe
economicandenvironmentalcrisesthathavesocio-economicandpolitical
consequencesbeyondthefieldremainedcentral(Q.2).
Itracedthefirstsignificantusesofthetermbacktothedebatesabout
culturalvalue.Theanalysisshowedthatwhileitsearlyuses,asopposedtothe
laterusesofthetermbyMMM,formedpartofacounter-discoursethatcontested
themanagerialismofNewLabour,italsoestablishedthatresilience,asadiscourse,
wasveryquicklyinflectedtowardstheutilitarianandpragmatictermoftheunity
ofcontraries(culture-as-resource)thatdefinesit.AlthoughIalsoarguedthatthis
historicalevolutionwasnotsynonymouswithacompletewaningoftheidealityof
cultureasprinciple,thisevolutionmirroredhistoricaltrendsthatWalkerand
Cooper(2011)identifyinotherfields.IntheworkofMMManditscollaborators,
thequestionbecamelesshowtoresistthecurrentsubsumptionofcultureand
morehowtoturntheeconomiccrisisandcutsintoanopportunitytothinkanew
themanagementofculturalresourcesandinfrastructures.MMM’sanswerwasthat
133thiswouldbeachievedbybuildingone’sresilienceandself-sufficiency,orinother
words,affirmingone’seconomicautonomyfromthestatethroughentrepreneurial
marketisation.
Afteranalysingsomeofthepracticalambivalencesofthisexpedientresource
managementrationaleandhavingtracedtheantecedentsofresilienceinACE
policyandprogrammes,theanalysiswentontogiveanoverviewofresiliencein
currentnationalpolicydiscourse.Thisincludedananalysisoftheinfluentialwork
ofRobinsonaswellasadiscussionofthestrategicvisionofACEanditsgreen
rhetoricviaanexaminationofmaterialstakenfromitsPRcampaigns.Thiswasan
opportunitytounpickanaspectoftherhetoricalambivalenceofresilience
discourses,whichIproposedinQ.2btounpickviathenotionof‘culture-as-
resource’.Theanalysisshowedthatthedestructiveeffectsofexpedientandliberal
logicsofresourcemanagementweresoftenedbyaromanticandnostalgic
greenness,whichonceagainfunctionsasakindofideologicalsupplement.
Thethirdandlongestpartoftheanalysisexaminedactuallyexisting
resilienceprogrammes.TheanalysisstartedwithadiscussionofACE'scurrent
environmentalpolicies.Throughananalysisofthehistoriesofthesepoliciesas
wellastheactualprogrammesandassociatedorganisations,Istartedto
demonstratethatresiliencepracticesanddiscourses,whileconformingtothe
logicsof‘culture-as-resource’,candiffersubstantiallyintermsoftheirscopeand
orientation(Q.2a).Despiteidentifyinganumberofprogressiveartisticand
political/policyinnovations,Ialsoarguedthatthesepoliciesaremarkedbysimilar
ambivalencesasthegreenrhetoricoftheinstitution:theyenhancethelegitimacy
ofaninstitutionincrisis,whichallthewhilerollsoutausteritypolitics-related
programmes.
134Afterexploringhowthecurrentturntoprivateinvestmentinthearts
constitutesanegationandrecapitulationofthelegaciesofpost-warwelfarism,the
reviewofthefirstsetofCatalystprogrammesshowedthattheresultsofthis
politicsofinfrastructuralsupportwereprofoundlymixedintermsofcrisisand
riskmanagement.Amongotherthings,Idiscussedanumberofproblemsandrisks
relatingtothepushtowardsdiversificationofincome,someofwhicharealso
discussedbyPratt(2017).Theserisksanddangersincludemuchahigher
competitionforfunds,exhaustion,uncertainty,lossofincomeandsacrificial
labourpracticesaswellasadifficultytoraisefundswithoutthesupportofthe
state.
Theanalysisalsoconfirmedthatthecurrentpushtowardsprivate
investmentrequiresheavystateintervention,whichIexploredfurtherthrougha
discussionofresiliencetrainingprogrammes.Thediscussionofthetrainingwas
anopportunitytouncoveratemporalpatternpropertoprocessesofsubsumption
intheageofglobalised,transnationalcapitalism(thecontemporaneityofthenon-
contemporaneous)thatwillrecuratdifferentpointsinthisthesisandbywhich,in
thischapter,theculturalsectorappearedtobebothattheforefrontofso-called
modernisationandalwayslaggingbehinditsowndevelopment.
Inthefinalsubsection,Iexaminedaconsortiumcasefromthethird-tierthat
counterbalancedagenerallynegativeevaluationofCatalyst.Afteradiscussionof
HLA,LADAandAA’soverallsuccessfulexperimentswithfundraising,Iexamined
theirresearchonmoneyandfundraisinginthearts.Theethicalpolicieswere
showntobeprofoundlyambivalentinasmuchastheyaimedtoembedandmediate
currentinfrastructuralchangesinthefield.However,thestrengthofthisresearch
andtrainingprogrammelayalsointhemannerinwhichitproblematisedthe
mannerinwhichdominantpracticesofresiliencecondoneindirectlythe
135reproductionofextremesofviolence(economic,ecological,socio-political)on
othergeo-politicalscenes.IdevelopedtheseissueswithreferencetoBalibar
(2015)’snotionof‘civility’(Q.2c),whichIreworkedthroughtheconceptofculture
andareferencetotheworkofLloydandThomas(1998).Thediscussionof
‘civility’buildonthediscussionof‘culture-as-resource’inasmuchasitconcerned
culturalandresiliencepracticesthatproblematisedthesomeoftheambivalences
ofthesocialisationofriskandcrisisperformedbydominantresiliencepractices.
TTMR,asformoftrainingandthinkinginalessassuredsociety,wasintheend
moreinterestingthanmanyoftheotherstate-sanctionedformsoftrainingforthe
simplereasonthatinfaceoftheincivilityofthepresent,itopenedaspaceandtime
totakestockofthepoliticalpossibilitiesbutalsocontradictions,limitationsand
failuresofthedifferentalternativesinculturetothe‘creative’destructionofthe
present.
136
3.TheLaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImaginationandC.R.A.S.H
3.1Introduction
Thischapterbuildsontheprecedingonebydeepeninganinvestigationintohow
thenotionofcivilitycanhelptoclarifythescopeandambivalencesofalternative
resiliencediscoursesandpractices(Q.2c),whilealsoprovidingatransitioninto
thethirdareaofinquiryofthethesis.Inthischapter,Ifocusontheworkofa
EuropeangroupofartactivistscalledTheLaboratoryofInsurrectionary
Imagination(Labofii)andtheirprojecttitledC.R.A.S.H(2009a)commissionedby
ArtsAdminin2009.Thetwo-weeklongtraining-cum-artsprogrammeformeda
centralpartofArtsAdmin(AA)’sfirstTwoDegreesfestival,dedicatedtoartand
climatechange.Theproject’sfourstrandsincludedatrainingcoursethat
culminatedinafinalperformance,aswellascommissionsandtalks.Allofthe
strandsoftheprojectwereinformedbyafictionalutopian–dystopianframework
ofpost-capitalist,post-crisisliving.Ideasofresilience-buildingwereacentralpart
ofthisconceptualandpracticalframework,whichcrossedart,activismand
permaculture,anagriculturalpracticethataimstoproducemoreresilient
environmentsandecosystems(ArtsAdmin,2009a).
Thereisnodirectcomparisonfromthepointofviewofmeansandscope
betweenthiscaseandthepreviousdiscussionofresilienceinpolicy.Butthisis
preciselywhythiscasehasbeenincludedinthisthesis,playingapivotalrolein
joiningthefirstpartoftheinvestigation(chapter1and2)andthesecondpart(4
and5).Whileithaslittletodowithculturalpolicy,Labofii’sreappropriationof
resiliencediscourseswillparallelthediscoursesofresiliencefoundinpolicy
contexts.Notably,IwillshowthatLabofii’sdiscoursesandpracticeshavethe
137socialisationoftherisksrelatedtothemulti-dimensionalcrisesofcapitalismas
theirgoal.However,contrarytotechnocraticvarietiesofresiliencediscoursesand
practices,Labofii’sartisticworkbelongstoaleft-libertariantraditionofsocial
movements.Consequently,theirdiscourseandpracticearemoreantagonisticto
thestatethanthediscoursesandpracticesreviewedinthepreviouschapter
includingthatofTTMR,whichsharedaconcernforandresistancetothe‘internal
colonisation’ofculture,butwhichformedpartofagovernmentalprogramme.
Thus,examiningthiscasewillalsoprovideawayofexploringhowthesocial
imaginationofresilienceasartoforganisationandmanagementinthefaceof
crisiscanbesignificantlydifferenttothatofdominantpolicydiscoursesoreven
TTMR.
Beyondtheparallelsanddifferencesinthenatureofthediscourse,itisalso
worthhighlightingtheoverlapsandpointsofconnectionsbetweenthepositions
occupiedbythegroupsbeingdiscussedthusfar.Labofii’sworkbearsarelationto
thoseothercasesbyvirtueofthefactthatoneofthefoundersofLabofiiwasalso
afounderofPlatformandtheformer’sworkhasbeensupportedovertheyearsby
culturalorganisationssuchasLADAandAA(MűvelődésiSzint,2018).Inthissense,
adiscussionofLabofii’sreappropriationwasincludedtoaccount,assuggestedin
thepreviousparagraph,foralternativesthattakerootinnon-governmentaland
‘community’contextsand,byextension,helptoaccountforvariancesinculturalist
reappropriationsofresilience.TTMR’sdiscourseaboutresiliencewastoacertain
extentsecondaryincomparisontothepractice.Inthiscase,thebalancebetweena
discussionofdiscourseandpracticewillbeinverted,withtheformerbeing
foregroundedasameanstoaccountmorefullyforalternativeimaginationsof
resilienceinculturelinkedtosocialmovements.
138Byfocusingonthisproject,Ibringtoaclosetheinquirythatformsthebasis
ofthesecondresearchquestionaboutthescopeandambivalencesofresiliencein
culture,whichmovedfromadiscussionof‘culture-as-resource’toadiscussionof
‘civility’,twoconceptsthroughwhichIhaveaimedtoaccountfortherationaleof
resilienceinculturaldiscourseandpractice.Bytheendofthechapter,Iwillnot
haveexhaustedadiscussionoftherangeofdifferentresiliencediscoursesand
practices.However,Iwillhaveaccountedforsignificantvarianceswithinresilience
discoursesandpractices.
Importantly,though,byfocusingontheLabofiicase,Iwillbealsoopeninga
thirdareaofinquirythatexploreshowart,conceptuallyandinpractice,producesa
negationofresiliencediscoursesandpractices.ThisisaquestionthatIexplorein
subsequentchaptersinrelationtotheproblemofprivateinvestmentand
corporatesponsorship.However,Iwilllaythefoundationsforthisexplorationin
thethirdpartofthischapterthroughtheanalysisofapartofC.R.A.S.H.
Beforemovingontothatthirdareaofinvestigationthough,theideaofcivility
willstillguidetheanalysisofLabofii’swork.Itisworthdiscussingina
preliminaryfashionhowIwillbeinflectingtheideaofcivilitythroughadiscussion
ofart.Inordertodoso,Iproposetoturntotherecentandinfluentialworkof
performancescholarShannonJackson,whichinmyunderstandingoverlapswith
theworkofBalibaroncivility.Itisthroughthenotionsof‘contingency’and
‘system’,aswellas‘heteronomy’,whichareallcentraltermsinJackson’srecent
discussionofsociallyengagedart(2011,pp.4–5,p.15),thatIwouldliketostart
consideringtherelationbetweenartandcivilitybeyondpolicy.26
26Sociallyengagedartgenerallyinvolvescollaboration,engagementwithorparticipation
ofpeopleandcommunities(Harvie,2013;Jackson,2011).
139WhileIamnotabsolutelycertainofthis,Istronglysuspectthattheterm
contingencyisborrowedfromthethree-waydiscussionbetweenButler,Laclauand
Žižekintheco-authoredbookContingency,HegemonyandUniversality(2000)in
whichcontingenciesareunderstoodtobethesocio-culturalgroundinrelationto
whichandoutofwhichpolitics,asahegemonicpractice,definesitself.Butler
associatessocio-culturalcontingencieswiththeHegeliannotionofSittlichkeit,
encounteredinthepreviouschapter,whenshewrites:
Thesphereof‘Sittlichkeit'thatisformulatedinbothThePhenomenologyof
SpiritandThePhilosophyofRightdesignatesthesharedsetofnorms,
conventionsandvaluesthatconstitutetheculturalhorizoninwhichthe
subjectemergesintoself-consciousness–thatis,aculturalrealmwhichboth
constitutesandmediatesthesubject'srelationtoitself.[…]Thesenormsdo
nottakeany'necessary'forms,fortheynotonlysucceedeachotherintime,
butregularlycomeintocrisiswhichcompeltheirrearticulation(Butler,2000,
p.172).
AlthoughJacksonneverreferstotheconceptofSittlichkeit,Iwouldarguethather
theoryofsociallyengagedartreplicatesandenlargesthetermsofthedefinition
givenabove.Thisreplicationisvisibleinherdefinitionofsociallyengagedart,in
whichartisgivenasimilarpositiontotheonegiventothesubjectofpoliticsin
Butler’sdefinition:
Itismycontentionthatsomesociallyengagedartcanbedistinguishedfrom
othersbythedegreetowhichtheyprovokereflectiononthecontingent
systemsthatsupportthemanagementoflife(Jackson,2011,p.29).
140Artappearstoinhabithereasimilarpositiontothecitizen–subject:atoncepartof
thecontingentsystemsthatsupportthe‘managementoflife’,yetalsotranscending
thesebybecomingpartofthestate.Thisidearejoinsthetermsoftheanalysisof
TTMRandtheongoingdiscussionofresilienceandcivility.However,inthis
chapter,IwillbeinterestedinexaminingtheextenttowhichtheartofLabofiiand
theirpracticeofresiliencebringsintoviewtheviolenceofsocialnormswhilealso
shapingandrearticulatingtheseaspartofleft-libertarianculturalpolitics.Balibar
(2015)callsthesestrategies‘minoritarian’formsofcivility(p.115),thetheoretical
modelofwhichispartlyfoundintheworkofFoucault.Minoritarianformsof
civilityareassociatedtoamorelibertariantypeofpoliticsbutalsoartinthework
ofBalibar.
AfterexploringLabofii’scollectivebackgroundandpastprojects,Iwillalso
introducethecontextinwhichC.R.A.S.H(2009a)wasproduced.Thesecondpart
willconcentrateondetailinghowthecollectiveappropriatedtheprinciples
associatedwithpermaculture.Iwillthengoontodiscussthestrengthsand
ambivalencesoftheirre-appropriationofresilience.Finally,thelastpartofthe
chapterwillshiftthefocustothethirdareaofinquiryofthisthesis.
1413.2Trajectoriesandcontexts
3.2.1TheLaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination
Labofiiwasfoundedin2004byIsabelleFrémeaux,JohnJordanandJames
Ledbitter.FrémeauxisaneducatorwhousedtoworkasalecturerintheSchoolof
MediaatBirkbeck,UniversityofLondon.Shehasbeeninvolvedinfeministand
ecologicalsocialmovementsformanyyears(FrémeauxandJordan,2012).Jordan
isanartistwhowasoriginallydrawntobodyartbeforefindinginculturalactivism
awayofmarryinghisconcernsforsocialchangeandart(Jordan,1998).WhileI
willdrawextensivelyonthetalksandaccountsgivenbyFrémeaux,myaccountof
thetrajectoryofthegroupwillrefertoJordan’searlyexperiencesinactivism,
whicharewelldocumented.
Jordanwaspartofthesocialandprotestmovementssometimesreferredto
asDoItYourself(DIY)thatemergedinthe1990s.McKay(1998),ascholarand
historianofthesemovements,hasarguedthattheybuiltontheethosofpost-
Thatchercounter-culturalmovements,suchasthepunkmovementandthe
GreenhamCommon’sWomenPeaceCamp.Inspiredbyanarchismandlibertarian
utopianism,DIYcounter-culturesoftenadvocatednon-violentdirectactionaspart
ofstrugglesandcampaignscoveringarangeofissues,includingecologicalones.
JordanwasinvolvedinReclaimtheStreets,amovementthataimedtocounterthe
privatisationofroadsandmotorcar-dominatedpublicspacesthroughthe
organisationofroadblocksandimpromptustreetparties,mixingstreettheatre
withcarnivalprotest(Blanco,2013).AccordingtoFrémeaux,duringoneoftheir
biggestactions,whichconsistedoftheoccupationoftheM41nearShepherd’s
BushinLondon,onetonneofsandwastransportedanddumpedontothe
motorwaytomakeagiantsandpitforchildren.Inthemidstoftheparty,dancers
onstiltswearinggiantballooneddresseshidenvironmentalactivistsdrillingholes
142intothetarmacinordertoplanttrees(ESASaint-LucBruxelles,2017).Thiskindof
carnivalesquepracticefindspartofitsinspirationintheworkoftheGuyDebord
andtheSituationists.Debordandhiscollaboratorsareknownforconstructing
theatricalsituationsasmeansofchanginginamomentarywaythefunctionof
everydaypublicspacesaswellasawayofshapingthelessclearlyrecognised
socialdesiresburiedunderthefacadeofnormalcy(Knabb,2004).WhileLabofii’s
practiceisclearlyindebtedtotheSituationists,theirpracticecanalsoberelatedto
thenotionofcivilityinanumberofways.ReclaimtheStreets,forexample,mixed
politicsandartinordertocreateritualisedandcarnivalesquespacesoffreedom
(howevertemporary)thatbroughtattentiontotheviolenceembeddedinthe
contingentsetofpracticesthatmakeupsocietyandtheeveryday.Takenin
isolation,thesocialviolenceofthenormthatthesepracticesaimtohighlightmight
notappeartobenecessarilyextreme.However,itcanbeconsideredsowhen
viewedsystemicallyandbeyondthephenomenologicalmomentofviolence’s
eruption.Inparticular,Iamthinkingofhowsomeofthesemovementsarticulated
atheoreticalandpracticalcritiqueofcapitalism’secologicalandeconomicviolence
withacritiqueofthestate’simpotencetoaddressthisobjective/infrastructural
violence,whichthediscussionofTTMRalsorevealedhasastrong
subjective/ideologicaldimension(environmentalracism).
JordanandLabofiihaveconsistentlyusedtheheightenedexperienceofart
toperformanavowalofviolenceembeddedinsocietalandpoliticalnorms
(Jackson,2011).TherenownedClandestineInsurgentRebelClownArmy(CIRCA),
whichLabofiiplayedakeyroleincreating,providesanothergoodexampleofthis
usageofart(ESASaint-LucBruxelles,2017).CIRCAwasformedinthewakeofthe
AfghanandIraqwarasaresponsetowhattheactivistsperceivedtobetheabsurd
violenceofwarandglobalcapitalism(KelptoandUpEvil,2006).Whiletheclowns
143mixedtheatricalinterventionwithpoliticalprotest,CIRCAwasnotjustanother
carnivalprotesttactic.Twoclownsclaimthat‘themethodologyofrebelclowning
wasdevelopedasawayoftryingtoovercomewhatweperceivedassomeofthe
deeperproblemsinthewaywebehaveasradicalstowardseachother,ourselves
andourworld’(KelptoandUpEvil,2006,p.245).AccordingtoVerson(2007),
‘clownbattants’aretrainedintheartofclowninginordertointerveneindifferent
protestcontexts,usingtheirskills,propsandpersonaetoridicule,parodyand
confrontthepolice.Theirsimpleimprovisedroutines,informedbywhatRoutledge
(2012)calls‘clownlogic’(p.434),aimedtoreconfigurehabitualformsof
perceptionandidentificationencounteredinprotestsituationsbyconfounding
expectationsandforgingformsof‘sensuoussolidarity’betweenprotestors
throughlaughterandhumour(Routledge,2012,p.428).Thisstrategyofcivilityis
minoritarianbecauseitisleft-libertarian.ItaimstocounterwhatBalibarcalls
subjectivekindsofviolence–mostnotably,perhaps,theauthoritarianism
embeddedinthestate(police)andsocialmovements–whilealsobeinganactive
forcein‘majoritarian’strugglestocounterimperialistwarmongeringand
economicdomination.Inthetermsofthisthesis,whichfindanechointhegroup’s
owndiscourse,thisisachievedbyhighlightingadiscrepancybetweenwhat
protestcouldbeandshouldbe(anaestheticandsensuousexperience),ontheone
hand,anditslessinteresting(deadening)historicalconditionsofexistence,onthe
other(ESASaint-LucBruxelles,2017).
TheworkofLabofiiischaracterisedbysimilarproceduresandconcerns.
Overtheyears,theywentontocreateanumberofprojectsinthecontextof
climatechangesummits.FortheCOP15ClimateChangesummitinCopenhagenin
2009,thegroupwasinvolvedinthecreativere-engineeringofdisusedbicyclesfor
thepurposesofprotest.There-engineeredbikes,somewherebetweenmodern
144warchariotsandcircusprops,wereprototypedattheArnolfiniinBristolwhere,
accordingtoTJDemos(2016),theLabofiiwasinvitedtoparticipateintheCOP.In
Copenhagen,thegroupworkedincollaborationwithlocalsocialcentresand
networksofactiviststocreatehundredsofvehiclesthatweremeanttobeusedas
propsforprotest.FortheParissummitin2015,Labofiiplayedakeypartin
organisingTheClimateGamesthattookplaceduringthetwoweeksofthesummit.
TheClimateGamesinvolved124participatingteamsthatconducted214creative
andrebelliousactionsonlineandinsitu.HarnessingthespiritofSurrealismand
Situationism,actionsrangedfromplayfulslogansgraffitiedonriverbanksand
surrealencounterswithrefugeepolarbearsontheundergroundtooccupationsof
coaltransportationsites(ClimateGames,2016).
TheanalysisofthesecondpartwillshowthatC.R.A.S.H(2009a)reproduces
theethosexploredthroughoutthissection.Beforedoingso,thenextsection
introducesthecontextinwhichtheprojectwasproduced.
3.2.2Imagine2020andTwoDegrees
Overtheyears,Labofii’sworkhasbeensupportedbyImagine2020,anetworkof
venuesofficiallycreatedin2010.LikeTippingPoint,thenetwork,fundedbythe
EuropeanUnion,isaculturalalliancededicatedtothinkingaboutquestionsof
climatechangeinthefieldofculture.AccordingtoTheresavonWuthenau(2015),
thenetworkcoordinator,sixdifferentEuropeanperformingartsorganisations
startedtoworktogetherunderthebannerYear2020,beforeexpandingthe
networktoanothersixorganisations.Theorganisationnowspansninedifferent
Europeancountries:Belgium,Croatia,France,Germany,Latvia,theNetherlands,
Portugal,SloveniaandtheUK.2020referstotheyearafterwhichclimatechange
willbeirreversibleandthetitlereferstothepossibilityofenvisaging‘thechanges
145necessarytostabilisetheclimateandsecureasustainablefuture’(vonWuthenau,
2015,p.26).Themembersofthenetworkfeltthatartcouldprovideaspace‘to
createpositiveenergyandamomentumforchangethroughasenseofcommon
purposeandhope’(2015,p.28).Thischangewasfirstconceivedasinternaltothe
fieldofculturewiththeallianceaimingtomakeclimate-relatedissuesmorevisible
withinit.However,manyoftheworksandprojectscommissionedhadanelement
ofpublicengagement,sothechangebecameincreasinglyconceivedashappening
throughcultureanditsinstitutions.By2015,thenetworkhadcollaboratedwith
approximately500artistswhohadeithermadeartinresponsetothefocusofthe
networkorhadparticipatedintherelatedeventsorprogrammesorganisedbythe
network(vonWuthenau,2015).
Byplacingcultureattheforefrontofchange,Imagine2020,liketheclowns
andculturalactivismmorebroadly,remobilisestheproceduresthatIidentifiedas
beingpropertoculture.Itmobilisesanethicalidealof(cultural)bestselfinorder
tohighlightahistoricalcrisisbutalsototranscendthiscrisis.Thenetworkaimsto
createspacesinwhichcontemporaryformsofincivilityandculture’simplication
intheirreproductioncanbecriticallyprobedanddisplacedthroughart,
conversation,pedagogyandtraining.Thisprobingofcontemporaryformsof
incivilitybearslittlerelationtoactualpoliticalpractice.However,thenetwork
aimstoopenupaculturalspaceofpedagogyandcreationinwhichdifferentforms
ofexpertiseandpracticecanbebroughttogethertoreflecton,processand
potentiallyactonviolencethatemanatesfromourpoliticalandeconomic
institutions,butwhichparadoxicallythreatenstheexistenceoftheseverysame
institutions.Unliketheminoritarianstrategiesdiscussedabove,however,the
networkanditsinstitutionsmightbeconceivedintermsofaliberal-pluralistkind
ofcivilitybyvirtueofexistingatthejunctionofcivilsocietyandthenationalstates
146andsupra-nationalentitiessuchastheEuropeanUnionthatfundthenetwork.The
networkhasovertheyearsbroughttogetherapluralityofgroupsandpersons,
rangingfromtheradicaltothemorereformist.
TwoDegreesexemplifiesthismixedethos.Thefirstiterationofthebi-annual
festival,fundedbytheEuropeanUnion’sCultureProgramme,tookplacein2009.
AlongsidecommissioningLabofii’sproject,thefestivalcommissionedRichard
DeDomenici’sPlaneFoodCafé(2009),aresponsetothechefMarcusWareing’s
statementthatBritishpubfoodisnowworsethanairplanefood.Accordingto
DeDomenici’sresearch,pressurisedaircraftcabinsandtheirlowhumiditydeaden
thetastebudsandsenseofsmell.Withtheideathatplanefoodshouldtaste
spectacularontheground(andrenderedasart),theartistcreatedatemporary
cafemadeoutoffittingsprocuredfromanairplanereclamationyardinwhich
genuineairplanefoodcouldbeconsumedongroundlevel.Theartistclaimedthat
hisworkwouldhelpdiscouragetheenvironmentallyconsciousfromflyingand
help95%ofpeopleintheworldwhohaveneverflowntoexperienceaviation
cuisine(ArtsAdmin,2009a).
Thenextiterationofthefestivalhadanadditionalfocusontheongoing
welfarecuts(ArtsAdmin,2011).Thefestival’sresidentartist,EllieHarrison,
createdanumberofworksinresponsetothisdualfocus.Accordingtoanaccount
foundinLucyNeal’sPlayingforTime(2015),eventsincludedaworldrecord-
settingattempttobringtogetherthemostself-employedworkerstogetherinthe
sameplaceatthesametimeduringanormal9-to-5day.Theprojectaimedto
createaspaceinwhichtheproblemsthatcharacteriseself-employedworkcould
benoticedanddiscussed.Suchaspacepresenteditselfasasiteforreflectingon
notonlythemoreorlesschangingnormsoflabour(theprogressiveshiftto
precariousself-employmentandself-entrepreneurshipinthelabourmarket
147generally)butalsotheviolenceofthisnewnormalintheinstitutionofcultureand
beyond.Theresidencyalsoledtheartisttoreflectonthekindsofenvironmentally
unsustainablebehavioursandnormsshereproducesinordertoembodytheideal
ofthesuccessfulartist.Onthisbasis,sheformulatedherfirstartistenvironmental
policywithsectionsondiet,energy,transportation,recyclingandreuse,and
banking.Aconsistentbreachofthetransportationsectionofherpolicyledherto
conductaprojecttitledTheGlasgowEffect,duringwhichsheinvestigatedthe
consequencesofnotleavingGreaterGlasgowforaperiodofoneyear(BBC,2017).
Thefestivalsin2013and2015continuedtofeatureactivistworks.Anew
performanceinterventionbytheInstitutefortheArtandPracticeofDissentat
Homewascommissioned.ThefestivalalsofeaturedLabofii’spreparationforCOP
21.Finally,asite-specificpiecemadebyPlatformwasalsocommissioned(Arts
Admin,2015,2013).Thefestivalalsofeaturednewplaysandtheatreworksabout
climatechangebySarahWoodsandSteveWatersaswellaspublicworks.
WorkshopscontinuedbeingacentralpartofthefestivalwithUS-basedartist–
activistBrettBloomrunningafive-dayworkshop.The2017festival,which
continuedtofeatureinstallationsandperformancesbyarangeofmoreorless
establishedartists,alsocontinuedtointegratetalksandworkshopsintothe
programme,includingacafeconversationbetweenartistandtheatre-maker
ZoëSvendsenandaneconomistwhodiscussedtogetherthebesteconomicsystem
forrespondingtoclimatechange(ArtsAdmin,2017).
ThisbriefoverviewofthedifferentTwoDegreesfestivalsshowshowthebi-
annualeventmixedpedagogyandtraining,talks,publicinstallationsofvarious
kinds,theatreandperformanceinordertocreateaspaceofculturalengagement
butalso,viewedthroughtheprismofthisdiscussion,aspacecivilitythatfacilitates
148andisfacilitatedbytheperformanceofa‘bestself’.InowturntoC.R.A.S.H(2009a),
whichwillbeshown,inpart,toemulatethissamespirit.
3.3C.R.A.S.H
3.3.1Art,activismandpermaculture
C.R.A.S.H(2009a)wasframedasanexperimentinimaginingapost-capitalist,post-
crisisfuture.Bybeingframedinsuchawaytheprojectplayedwiththeideasof
utopiaanddystopia,aquestionthatinterestedLabofii,whichhadembarkedona
journeytomakeabookandfilmaboututopiancommunitiesaroundEuropesome
timebeforehostingtheprojectatAA.AccordingtoFrémeaux,thefilmtooplays
withasimilartemporalmodality,suggestingthatthepresentofthecommunities
andlivesfilmedweresituatedinasomewhatdystopianpost-crisis,post-capitalist
future(FondationCopernic,2012a).Neithertheideaofutopia,northeideaof
dystopiarelatedirectlytoBalibar’sdiscussionofcivility.However,Iwouldargue
thattheycanalonglinesalreadypartiallyexplored.Caloz-Tschopp(2008),inher
discussionofBalibar’sideaofcivility,proposesthetermdystopianutopia,which
sheclaims:
Integratesandcombinesthedialecticbetweenadesireforemancipationand
justicewiththedystopianmemoryoftheexpansionisthistoryofcapitalist
modernityanditsutilitarianphilosophy,whichisalsoaphilosophyofdestruction
andobliteration(2008,p.1)[J.YPinder’stranslation].
IwouldliketosuggestandexplorehowC.R.A.S.H(2009a)didjustthisbyopeninga
spacethroughwhichcontemporarydestructionandobliterationcouldbecritically
interrogatedthroughart,whichalsowasthoughtasofferingpotentialwaysof
149displacingandlimitingthisdestruction.Indoingso,C.R.A.S.H(2009a)canbe
understoodasprovidinganalternativetraininginalessassuredsociety.
Thetraininghadfourstrandsofactivity,whichtookplaceoverthefirstthree
weeksofJune2009.Accordingtotheprojectplanner,theC.R.A.S.HCourseandthe
C.R.A.S.HConversationswereheldduringthefirsttwoweeksoftheproject(Arts
Admin,2009b).Thepublicconversations,whichfocusedonpermaculture,artand
activism,punctuatedthemaintrainingcourseinwhich,accordingtoproject
documentation,30participantsandanumberofactivists,artists,architectsand
permaculturaliststookpart(ArtsAdmin,2009c).Theinitialweekoftraining
formedthebasisforasecondweekdedicatedtothedevisingofaperformance
intervention:C.R.A.S.HContingency,performedonthelastweekendofJune.Finally,
C.R.A.S.HCultureconsistedofanumberofcommissions,whichtookplaceduring
thefinalweekendoftheprojectaswell.
AccordingtoFrémeaux(2015),Labofiihadrunmanytrainingsessionsin
artandactivismbefore.However,itwasthefirsttimethatpermaculture,which
accordingtoher‘bringsapowerfulethicalframeworktothenotionofartsand
activism’(2015,p.35),informedtheirtrainingworksoexplicitly.Jordanstatesin
aninterviewthatpermacultureisapracticethatismainlyconcernedwiththe
creationof‘sustainable,resilientproductivehumancultures’(Kawkkenbos,2011).
IntheirbookLessentiersdel’utopie[TrailsofUtopia](2012),Frémeauxand
Jordandefinepermacultureas‘aradicalapproachtodesigningsustainablelife
systems,whichmarriestraditionalwisdomandcontemporaryecologicalscience’
(2012,p.55).Theystatethat:
Attheheartofthepermaculture’spreceptsistheideathatitisbyobserving
thewayinwhichecosystemswork,e.gforestsorprairies,thatwecanlearn
150howtoconstructhumanhabitats,whichareenergeticallyefficient,resilient,
verydiverseandveryproductive(FrémeauxandJordan,2012,p.55)[J.Y
Pinder’stranslation].
Theinventorsofpermaculture,BillMollisonandDavidHolmgren,foundthat
agriculturalsystemsdesignedaccordingtotheethicsandprinciplesof
permacultureweremoresustainableandresilientthanthoseofindustrial
agriculture.InabookauthoredbyHolmgren,onecanfindthefollowingdefinition
ofresilience,whichdespiteitsdifferentapplicationrejoinsmanyofthedefinitions
andconceptionspreviouslyexamined:
Resilienceinecosystemsisthecontinuityofbasicsystemfunctionsand
criticalelements,despitethefluctuationsintheirenvironmentalconditions
andeventhebalanceofspeciespopulations.Thewaysinwhichspecies,
ecosystemsandwholelandscapesdevelopresiliencetotheselarger
destructiveforcesisacentralissueinecology,andbyconsciousdesign,in
permaculture(Holmgren,2002,p.242).
Theprinciplesofpermacultureandtheideaofbuildingresilientsystemshave
beenextendedfromagriculturetothedesignofallkindsofsystems,including
urbanandworkenvironments.Inthecontextoftheproject,theapplicationofthe
principlesofpermaculturetoartandactivismcouldbeunderstoodasactualising
whatFoucaultcallsa‘prescriptionofmodelsforliving’or‘techniquesofexistence’,
techniquesthataimtoopenupspacesofcollectivefreedomagainstpotentially
crushingformsofdominationordestruction(1997,p.88).Thesemodelsofliving,
whicharetheorisedbyBalibar(2015)viatheideaofminoritarianstrategiesof
civility,constitutewaysofembodyingandperformingacreativecritiqueofone’s
151time,itsnorms,itsvaluesanditspractices.Thiscritiqueisnotjustreflective.
Instead,itapproacheswhatcouldbecalled,afterJackson(2015,p.276),‘life
politics/lifeaesthetics’,oreven‘livingas[artistic]form’(Thompson,2012,p.18),
expressionsthatappeartorefertoFoucault’slateaestheticism,which
accompaniedhisturntoethics.Thisaestheticismissummarisedbythequestion
‘Pourquoilavienepeut-ellepasêtreunart?’(Whycan’tlifebeanart?),whichis
usedbyFrémeauxtoconcludeoneofhertalksaboutthegroup’spractice(ESA
Saint-LucBruxelles,2017).Thedandyismunderpinningsuchaquestion(thework
ofBaudelairewasareferenceinFoucault’sinquiry)hidesaveryrealconcernfor
elaboratingandmouldingnewculturalandsociopoliticalformsoflifeand
collectiveidentitiesinthefaceofdomination.
Speakingmoredirectlyaboutpermacultureasapracticeofresilienceand
crisis,atextpublishedaspartoftheworkshopsummarisesthedifferencebetween
themoretechnocraticvarietiesofresiliencediscourseandthevariantbeing
discussedhere.Contrastingpermaculturewithneoliberaldoctrine,thetextstates
that:
NeoliberaleconomistMiltonFriedman,oneofthearchitectsofthecollapse,
oncesaid:“Onlyacrisisproducesrealchange.Whenthatcrisisoccurs,the
actionsthataretakendependontheideasthatarelyingaround.”
Permacultureisoneofthemanypostcapitalistideasemergingfromthe
margins:it’sarevolutiondisguisedasgardening(Laboratoryof
InsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,nopagination).
ThepassagesuggestsLabofii’sappropriationofpermacultureaspirestobean
alternative‘shockdoctrine’,onethataimstoproduceadifferentkindofcivilisation
152anddevelopment,offeredbyapracticethatallegedlycombinesindigenous
knowledgeswithscientificones.Adiagramcreatedfortheprojectgivesanoutline
ofthisalternativeshockdoctrine.Igiveanaccountofthisdiagraminordertogive
anoverviewofhowpermaculturewasthoughtofinrelationtoartandpolitics.I
willthengoontodiscussthiscombinedethosinmoredetail.
Thediagramconsistsofagianttriangle,thethreecornersofwhichhavebeen
joinedbyadottedcircle.Eachcornerisnamedafteroneofthethreecomponents
ofthecourse(art,permacultureandpoliticalactivism).Thetrianglehasbeen
subdividedintosmallertrianglesinwhichthethreedifferentpracticesare
presentedinmoredetail.Thethreespacesbetweenthegianttriangleandthe
dottedcircleexploretheconnectionsbetweenthedifferentpractices.Finally,a
centraltriangle,lodgedatthecentreofthegiantandsmallertriangles,bringsallof
thedifferentareastogether.Together,thethreepracticesappeartomakeupseven
overlappingareasofintelligenceandskill.Theareasincludeimaginationand
creation;thecapacitytocreateaccessibleandattractiveplay;thecapacityto
observeinterconnectionsintheworldandthinkholistically;theabilitytoplanand
designeffectivelyaswellastomobilisewithurgencyandpassion;acapacityfor
non-linearthoughtandaction;thepowertogeneratenewideas;andawillto
fosterparticipation.Thepracticalformsofintelligencethatareparticularly
associatedwithpermaculturearethecapacitytoobserveinterconnectionsand
thinkholisticallyaswellasthecapacitytodesigneffectivelysoastomakesystems
moresustainableandresistanttoshock(wanderingseed,2011).
Nothavingparticipatedinthetrainingprogrammeitisnotpossibleformeto
knowindetailhowthisrationalewasputintopracticeinthedifferentcourse
components.However,documentationsuggeststhatthefirstweekconsistedof
differentactivitiestouchingonpermacultureandartactivism.Thefirstdayofthe
153workshopincludedasessiononconsensusdecisionmakingandanintroductionto
permaculturewithafood-growingpractical,aswellasanintroductiontoart
activism.Duringthemorningofthesecondday,atriptoEppingForesttookplace,
whichformedthebasisofasessiontitledPatternsinNature.Theafternoon
includedavisittotheOrganicLeacooperativeandafurtherstudyofpermaculture
principles.Duringtheeveningsofthesefirstdays,atalkaboutpermaculturewas
held,andthegroupalsowenttoseeafilmonpermacultureatPassingClouds,a
squatandsocialcentreinDalston,London.Thenexttwodaysweremorefocused
onartactivism,withminisessionsontheprinciplesofnon-violentdirectaction
andbuildingnarrativesforcampaigning,aswellasanintroductiontothedevising
processthatthegroupwasgoingtoembarkoninweektwo.Thefourthday
includedasessionwithJamesMarriottfromPlatform,whichexploredthecityasa
canvasforthecreationofinterventions.Theafternoonincludedanothersession
focusedonfoodandcommunitybuildingwithNicoleFerrisandClairePatey.
Finally,thelastdayofthefirstweekconsistedofamorningsessiononshelter-
building,whichformedpartofthegroupperformance,andanafternoon
preparatorysessionfocusedontheperformancethatwasgoingtotakeplacethe
followingweek.OntheFriday,anothertalktookplace,thistimeaboutart(Arts
Admin,2009b).
Buildingonthisinitialpresentationoftheproject,thenextsectionproceeds
toexploretheprinciplesandattitudesunderpinningpermacultureinmoredetail.
Itisthroughthediscussionoftheseattitudesandprinciplesthattheexplorationof
possibledivergencesofmeansandscopeofresiliencepracticeanddiscoursewill
begivenmoresubstance(Q.2a-c).Thepermacultureattitudesandprinciples
underdiscussionwerefoundina42-pagepublicationtitledThinkLikeAForestAct
LikeAMeadow(2009b),whichwasproducedaspartoftheproject.Throughout
154thediscussion,Iwillrefertothedifferentelementsoftheprojectasawholein
ordertorelatetheattitudesandprinciplesfoundinthebooklettopracticeandthe
project.First,Iturntotheethicsunderpinningpermaculture.
3.3.2Theethicsandprinciplesofpermaculture
ThinkLikeAForestActLikeaMeadow(2009b)islaidoutonaseriesofindividual
khakislim-cardsprintedrecto–verso,whichweredesignedandmadebythe
ItaliangraphicdesignerSimonaStaniscia,anartcollectivefoundedinBelgrade
calledSkart,andUK-basedcompanyT-Raid.Itiscomposedoftexts,diagrams,
illustrationsandart,whichdetailandillustratethefour‘ethics’aswellasthe13
‘attitudes’and‘principles’attheheartofpermaculture(Laboratoryof
InsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,nopagination).The4ethicsareasfollows:
1. LivingwithinLimits
2. PeopleCare
3. EarthCare
4. FairShare
(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,nopagination)
Theideaoflivingwithinlimitsunderpinstheother3precepts.Whilenotexplicitly
ornecessarilyanti-capitalist,theideaoflivingwithinlimitsisnevertheless
directedagainsttheideaofunlimitedeconomicgrowthandthetransgressionof
thesociallimitsofthemarket.Ahandwrittentextintheformofaspiralthat
appearsononeofthecardssummarisesthisalternativerationale:
155Attheheartofpermacultureethicsistherecognitionthateconomicandsocial
systemsareonlysustainableiftheybenefitthenaturalcommunitiesupon
whichtheyarebased(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,no
pagination).
Asthefragmentofconcretepoetrysuggests,theideaoflivingwithinlimitsaffirms
theinterdependenceofsystemsandtheneedtogobeyondthedominationofnon-
economicspheresofactivityandlifebyeconomicrationalityandpractice.The
otherthreeethicsflowfromthefirstandareexploredthroughcognitivemaps,
whichappearonindividualcards.‘Earthcare’ispremisedontheideathathuman
survivalandwellbeingdependsontheearthandthemaintenanceofresilient
ecologicalsystems(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,no
pagination).Itplacesimportanceonincreasingland‘productivity’throughnon-
industrial,sustainablemeansandalsovaluesthepreservationoflandandlife
(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,nopagination).‘Peoplecare’
holdsnecessarythatthe‘biblical’needsofhumanbeingsaremet,whichinclude
foodandwater,adequateclothing,housing,educationandthemeanstosustain
one’slivelihood.Peoplecarealsocallsforare-organisationofsocietyalong
participatory,democraticanddecentralisedlinestofacilitatethere-skillingand
collectiveself-educationofgroupsandpeople(LaboratoryofInsurrectionary
Imagination,2009b,nopagination).Finally,‘fairshare’complementstheprevious
threeethicsbydenotinganequitabledistributionofresourcesandwealthinorder
tomoveawayfromtheuseofnon-renewableenergies(Laboratoryof
InsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,nopagination).Whiletheideaoffairness
mightseemvague,thefourthethic,alongwiththeotherthree,canbeunderstood
asbeingkeytotherecalibratingofthesocio-economicapparatusofproduction
156awayfromthedominanceofexchangevalueandprofittowardswhatKovelcalls
‘theenhancementofuse-values’forsocialandpersonalpurposes(2002,p.237).As
Löwy(2011)argues,thisimpliesaqualitativeconceptionofsocialdevelopment,
whichinturnimpliesnothinglessthananewcivilisationorcivility.
Thislastideaismadeexplicitinoneoftheearlytextsfoundinthebooklet
thattakesinspirationfromoneofPlato’sdialogues.Inthedialogue,Socratesis
askedbyPhaedruswhyhedoesnotventureoutsideofthecitywalls.Socrates
repliesthathedoesnotventureintothecountrybecauseonlymen(foundin
cities)canteachhimsomething.Inthebooklet,thefollowingconclusionisdrawn:
Thesoundtrackofwestern‘civilisation’isthenoiseofthebookofnature
beingslammedshutandtherumbleofwarmachinesapproaching.Weare
toldthatNatureismute,ithasnothingtoteachus,exceptthatitisabattlefield
ofallagainstall.Butasthewaragainstourclimateandecosystemstipsthe
physiologyoftheplanetintochaos,themyththatNatureisjust‘redintooth
andclaw’,isunravelling(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,
nopagination).
Thispassageexemplifiesthecivilisationalcritiquethatisembeddedwithinthe
ethicsofpermacultureandLabofii’spractice.Itisanethicsandpracticeoflimits
concernedwithupholdingtheconditionsofpossibilityofsocialandcollectivelife.
Whilethisdiscourseresonateswithsomeoftheecologicaldiscoursesdiscussedin
thepreviouschapter,itsuggestsaverydifferentoutlooktotheall-out
entrepreneurialismfoundintheworkofMMM,forinstance,whichimplicitly
viewedthecurrenteconomicandecologicalcrisisasresolvablewithinthe
boundariesofcapitalism.
157The4ethicsconstitutethebasisof13principlesandattitudestowhichInow
turn.The13attitudesandprinciplesthatthebookletpresentsareasfollows:
1. Observe,ConnectandInteract
2. UnderstandandApplyNature’sPatterns
3. TheProblemistheSolution
4. DesignfromtheWholetotheParticular,fromPatterntoDetail
5. LeastChangeforGreatestEffect
6. Seek,UseandEncourageDiversity
7. UseEdgesandValuetheMarginal
8. EachImportantFunctionSupportedbyManyElements
9. EachElementHasManyFunctions
10. ObtainaYield
11. ProduceNoWaste
12. StartSmallandLearnfromChange
13. ApplySelf-RegulationandAcceptFeedback
(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,nopagination)
Thefirstprinciple,‘observe,connectandinteract’,isreminiscentoftheattitudes
listedinRobinson’s(2010)accountofresilientandadaptiveorganisations.
However,inpermaculture,itisoriginallytiedtothedesignofactualforest
gardens.AccordingtoTomasRemiarz,thepermaculturalistwhoco-designedthe
trainingcourse,forestgardensarepremisedonaseven-layermodelofculture
derivedfromtheobservationoftropicalforests(CawrCoventryUniversity,2015).
Thismodelofculturehasbeenshowntoproduceahighlevelofecological
functionalityandresilienceforsoil,water,plantsandwildlife,whichfulfilsthe
earthcareethic.Forestgardensarealsoallegedlyself-maintaining,requiringlow
158levelsofmaintenance.However,theyareskillintensive,demandinglongperiods
ofobservationanddesignbeforetheproductionstage.Thisexplainstheneedfor
prolongedobservationofnature’spatternsaswellasamulti-perspectival,cross-
disciplinarystudyofagivenenvironment.
Beyondthedesignofforestgardens,thefirstprinciplerelatestothecapacity
toobservetheworldwithcareandindetail,whichareskillsandapproachesthat
FrémeauxandJordanalsoassociatewithartisticsensibilitiesandprocesses,and
withaestheticsingeneral.InaninterviewJohnJordanstatesthefollowing:
Forme,aestheticsareaboutthecapacitytoreallyfeeltheworld,tosenseit
withourbodies,tobedeeplyaware.Whichbringsustothequestionofpaying
attention,reallybeing‘in’theworldbyobservingit,whichisoneofthekeysin
permaculture.Forme,artissimplypayingattention.InBuddhismonemight
callitmindfulness,neuroscientistscallitdirectexperience,Christiansmight
callitcontemplation.It’saboutbeinginthepresent,aplaceofabsolute
freedom,anddoingeverythinginthebestwaywecan.That’stheaesthetic
andethic!(Kwakkenbos,2011,nopagination).
So,thisfirstprinciple,whichpartakesintheaesthetico-ethicalidealityofartand
culturebeingdiscussedinthisthesis,presentsitselfinthediscourseasanantidote
totheunthinking,crisis-orientatedurgencyofactivistsbutalsomodern
civilisation.Instead,ithelpstofosterattentionandconsideration,qualitiesthatare
commontobothpermacultureandart(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,
2009b).
Thesecondprinciple(understandandapplynature’spatterns)isinmany
waysthecomplementofthefirst,althoughitappearstohave,beyondits
applicationtotheobservationofecosystemsandurbangardeningpractised
159duringtheworkshop,alargelymetaphoricalvalue,whichratherromantically
alignsthetechniqueofpermaculturetotheidealofnatureasopposedtoman-
mademodernity.Apassageoftextthatexplainstheprincipleillustratesthis
familiarrationaleverywell:
Waterpulsesandflowsinspirals(watchitgoingdowntheplughole),yetour
cultureignoresitspatterns,putsitintocanalsandwastepipes,enclosesit
behindleveesanddams.Wateralwayswantstomeander,ithatesstraight
lines.Ignoringthiscanhavedevastatingconsequences;ifnature’spatterns
hadbeenappliedtothebuildingofNewOrleanstherewouldhavebeenno
leveestobreak(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,no
pagination).
Thealreadyfamiliarcontrastbetweentherepressivecharacterofinstrumental
man-madeenvironments,ontheonehand,andthefreedomofnature,onthe
other,couldnotbestatedmoreclearly.Thisproceduretestifiestoacertain
proximitybetweenthisdiscourseofresilienceandtheonesreviewedinthe
previouschapter.Inparticular,thisvariantofresiliencediscourseandpractice
showsitsculturalistcoloursbyreproducingthesearchfororganicityasanidealto
beopposedtothebaserealityofmodernity.Nonetheless,keydifferencesare
notable.First,NewOrleansisnotpresentedasanexemplarofresilienceasithad
beeninthink-tankreportsdiscussedinchapter1.Second,NewOrleansbecomes,
inthepassageabove,thesiteforrethinkingtheideaofdevelopmentawayfroma
capitalistmodel,whichultimatelymadepost-KatrinaNewOrleansappearlikea
‘ThirdWorld’countryinthemidstofthemostpowerfuldominionintheworld,as
Harootuniansuggests(2007,p.475).Instead,permacultureasapracticethat
160resultsfromanencounterbetweenindigenousandscientific,pre-modernand
modernknowledges,ispresentedasbeingcapableofcounteringwhatEco-
Marxistscallthe‘metabolicrift’betweenhumansocietiesandotherformsoflife
(Foster,2000).Inthisrespect,theworkofthegroupcouldbeunderstoodto
embodythespiritofwhatRidout(2013,p.6)terms‘romanticanti-capitalism’,a
notionthatthetheatrescholarborrowsfromtheworkofLöwyandSayre(1984).
Ridoutstatesthat:
Romanticanti-capitalismnamesaresistancetoindustrialcapitalism,
articulatedonbehalfofvalues,practices,andexperiences,oftenthoseofa
premodern,preindustrial,rurallife,thatindustrialcapitalismseemed
determinedtodestroy(2013,p.6).
Thewageroftheromanticanti-capitalistis,asTomba(2012)hasrecentlystated,
that‘thereissomethingofthefutureencapsulatedinthepastthatcanbefreed
fromthecontemporaneityofthearchaic’(Tomba,2012,p.175).Initsownway,by
reinventinganon-contemporaneousformofagriculturalpracticeforthepresent,
permaculturedoesjustthis.
Inordertoexplainthethirdprinciple(theproblemisthesolution),the
bookletquotesBillMollisonwhosaid,‘youdon’thaveaslugproblem,youhavea
duckdeficiency’(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,2009b,no
pagination).Theprincipledemonstratesthatwhilepermaculturemaybebasedon
scientificresearch,itcanberelatedtocommon-sense,pragmaticformsofthinking
thatareperhapsnotalwaysvaluedorpermittedincommodity-dominated
societiesinwhichthesolutionstoyourproblemsareveryoftensoldtoyou(ifyou
canaffordtobuythem).Forexample,documentationoftheprojectshowsthat
161participantstookpartinskip-divinginordertorecoverwastedfoodand
sandwiches(theproblem)fromalocalfoodchainthatthrowsfoodawaydaily(Le
XavierdeYouTube,2009a).Thevideodocumentationalsosuggeststhatother
wastematerialsweresourcedandreusedforthepurposesoftheprojectandthe
performancesaspartoftheproject’sethosofpost-capitalist,post-crisisliving(Le
XavierdeYouTube,2009b).Thisexampleoftheapplicationofthethirdprinciple
withinthecontextoftheprojectalsovalidatestheeleventhprinciple,whichIwill
returntolateronintheanalysis.
Principlesfour(designfromthewholetotheparticular,frompatternto
detail),five(leastchangeforgreatesteffect),six(seek,useandencourage
diversity),eight(eachimportantfunctionsupportedbymanyelements)andnine
(eachelementhasmanyfunctions)canbeillustratedthroughadiscussionof
C.R.A.S.HContingency(2009)andthepermaculturemobilestructurethatthe
participantsconstructedfortheperformance.IpresentC.R.A.S.HContingency
brieflybeforereturningtoadiscussionoftheprinciples.
Afterspendingaweeklearningdifferentskills,thegroupsetouttodesign
theirperformanceinterventionfollowingthedystopian-utopianimageryandethos
oftheproject.Theperformancewasbilledasapost-capitalistvoyagetoutopia.
Theideaofcontingency,whichagainechoespreviousresiliencediscourses,was
definedonthepagededicatedtotheprojectonAA’swebsiteas‘afutureeventor
circumstancethatispossiblebutcannotbepredictedwithcertaintyaswellasa
provisionforsuchevents’(ArtsAdmin,nodate).C.R.A.S.HContingencywas
performedoverfournights.Adescriptionofoneoftheperformancecanbefound
onthewebsiteofArtistsProjectEarth:
162Theaudienceenteredasapieceofexperimentaltheatreappearedtobegin–
butafterfiveminutesthelightswentup,andtheaudiencebecamepartofan
activeparticipatoryexperience,learningbasicversionsofsomeoftheskills
sharedinthecourse,includingconsensus-baseddecisionmaking.Thenthe
audienceusedconsensustodecidetogetherwhethertoendtheevening
inside,inthetheatre,ortogooutsideintothestreetsand,withoutseeking
permission,setupthemobilepermaculturestructureinaspaceintheCityof
London.Everynighttheaudiencedecidedtogooutside,twicesettingupcamp
underthenewofficebuildingsaroundSpitalfieldsmarket,onceintheback
lanesbytheGherkin,andfinallyatSpitalfieldsCityFarm.Eachnightpassers-
byjoinedtheaudience,sharedfoodandteaandcontinuedinthewider
distributionofskillsandideasfromtheC.R.A.S.HCourse(APE,2011,no
pagination).
Theprojectdocumentationsuggeststhatbeyondthenightoftheperformancesthe
groupspenttheentiretyofthesecondweekconsensuallydecidingthedesignof
themobilepermaculturestructureaswellasthedistributionofrolesandshapeof
theperformance(ArtsAdmin,2009b;LeXavierdeYouTube,2009c).Thefourth
principleofpermaculture(holisticdesign)informedtheconstructionandbuilding
phasewhich,accordingtotheschedule,includedaperiodofadjustmentbeforea
reviewwasheldattheendoftheweek,andtheprojectfinalisedtheweekafter.
Projectdocumentationalsosuggeststhatthemobilestructureexemplifiedthefifth
principleofpermaculture(leastchangeforgreatesteffect).TheC.R.A.S.HCourse
(2009)participantsused20wheelbarrowsandasetofothermaterialsinorderto
constructwhatresembledakindofmobilehome,whichcouldbeusedbythe48
peoplewhoparticipatedonthenightsoftheperformances.Thewheelbarrows
wereusedtocarrythefoodandplantsandmaterialstomaketemporarytent-like
163sheltersforwhichthewheelbarrowswerealsoused.Finally,wheelbarrowswere
usedtocreatewater-collectingreservoirsthatcouldbeusedtowaterplantsand
showerhumanswith.Thevideosoftheprocessindicatethatthedesigns
demandedminimumalterationofthedifferentmaterials(LeXavierdeYouTube,
2009d).Thus,thenumerouswheelbarrowsandserialityofthematerialsusedalso
embodiedtheprincipleofredundancyandmulti-functionalityofobjectsand
resources(LeXavierdeYouTube,2009d).Thisprocessofmakingalsoillustrates
thesixthprinciple(seek,useandencouragediversity).Theconstructionofthe
mobilestructurerequired,liketheconstructionofaforestgarden,adiversityof
skillsandtrainingsthattheparticipantsreceivedaswellasbroughttotheproject.
Askillsauditoccurredonthethirddayofthefirstweekofthetraining(Arts
Admin,2009b).Someoftheseprinciplesarecommontootherresilience
discourses(redundancy,multi-functionality,diversity).However,inthisvariantof
thediscourse,theprinciplesaremovedawayfromtechnocraticrationalityin
ordertobereconnectedtoaparticipatoryconceptionofthesocialthroughaform
oflivingsculpturethatprovidesacounterpointtoexistingsystemsofreproduction
andmaintenance.
Twootherprinciples,whicharealsointegraltotheideaofbuilding
resilience,findanillustrationinRebeccaBeinart’scommissiontitledGisfor
Gluttony(2009a),whichtookplaceduringthesamefourdaysasC.R.A.S.H
Contingency.BeinartconductedaforagingfieldtripintheSquareMileofLondon
overfourdaysusingathree-wheeledbikefittedwithaparasolandatrailermade
outofasetofolddrawersthatcontainedamobilekitchenandstoragespacefor
whateversheforaged(Beinart,2009b;LeXavierdeYouTube,2009e).Attheendof
eachday,duringwhichshetravelledindifferentdirectionsfromMoorgatetube
station,shewouldcookdishesfromtheplantssheforaged,whichsheofferedupto
164observersandpassers-by.Contrarytoherexpectations,oneoftheworld’s
financiallyrichestdistrictsalsocontainedanabundanceofedibleflora,whichwas
readytobepicked(aconfirmationofthethirdandfifthprinciple).Itisworth
quotingtherecordofherdailyculinaryinventionstogetameasureofwhatshe
foundandmade.Onthefirstday,shecooked‘mallowleafsoupseasonedwith
foragedherbs;asaladoflimeleaves,wintercress,chickweed,plantain,fathen,
fennel,strawberries,mallowflowers,deadnettleflowers&borageflowers’and
madelimeflowertea.Onthesecondday,shecooked‘limeLeafwrapsfilledwith
Nettle,Yarrow,Chickweed,Chive&Plantain;ElderflowerfritterswithJuneberry
sauce;Mugworttea’.Onthethirdday,‘nettle,yarrowandlimeleafburgers,
seasonedwithdriedsealettuce&seapurslane’.Withthisshemadea‘saladoflime
leaves,fathen,wildrocket,mustardleaf,garlicmustard,mallow,borageand
marigoldflowers’aswellas‘gingko,rosemaryandminttea’.Onthelastday,she
cooked‘mallowleafsoup’aswellasa‘saladoflimeleaves,fathen,fennel,red
clover,borageflowers’alongwith‘chamomiletea’and‘elderflowerfritters’
(Beinart,2009b,nopagination).
Isuspect(althoughImaywellbewrong)thatacupofmugwortteaismore
appealingaspartofalistdocumentinganartprojectthaninreality.Nevertheless,
Beinart’sinvestigationillustrates,amongmanyotherprinciples,theprinciplesof
observationandvaluingofthemarginalaswellastheprincipleofobtainingayield
byobservingandinteractingwithwhatisalreadythereandplayingwiththe
expectationsassociatedwithaplace,itsidentityanditsfunction.Beinart’sproject
illustratesinitsowndiscreetkindofwaytheideaofatechniqueofexistencethat
crossesartandhorticulturalscience.Itfunctionedaccordingtocertainprinciples
andrulesofinvestigation,which,withinthecontextoftheproject,present
themselvesasasymbolicmeansofthwartingfearsaboutacatastrophicfuture.Her
165practiceappearstoembodyacertainformofstoicismthatisaimedatcivilising
civilisation(theCityanditsbankers)whilealsocounteringourready-madeideas
andidentificationsaboutaplacethatonereadilyassociateswithcapitalistic
functionalityandstandardisation.Yet,herpracticealsoappearstoproducea
generouskindofsociality,whichisanythingbutindividualistic.Instead,the
foragingofplantsmakesthepedagogicalethosofthewiderprojectmeetamedical
one,thatis,anethosof‘care’andattentiontowardsoneself,othersandthe
environment.
Theeleventhprinciple(producenowaste)findsanadditionalillustrationin
anotherofthecommissions.DanielJenatschandAnjaKanngieserledaworkshop
thatinvitedparticipantstolearnhowtobuildFMmicrotransmitters,AM
transmittersandreceiversoutofdiscardedwaste(LeXavierdeYouTube,2009b).
Theworkshopwasbasedonthewiderprojectprincipleoffosteringformsofpost-
capitalistcommunication.Beyondtheconceitoftheproject,theworkshopaimed
toempowerparticipantstoproducetheirownformofpubliccommunicationand
gobeyondthefeelingthattheyareincapableofdoingsuchathingbecauseofa
lackofskillorknowledge.Indoingso,theparticipantspracticedamicroformof
communisminwhich,asWilliams(2005,p.57)suggests,the‘divisionoflabour
withinthemodeofproductionofcommunicationitself’isended,andinwhich
individualsthathavecontrolovermeansofcommunicationcancommunicatewith
eachotherasfullysocialisedhumanbeings.Thisisachievedbyactualisingoneof
theprinciplesthatJennyHughesalsoidentifiesasformingpartofwhatshecallsa
‘theatrecommons’–butwhichIwillcallthecommonsofcommunication–that
166makesthe‘resourcesofacommonsdefeated’(discardedwaste)intoresourcesfor
afuturestruggle(Hughes,2015,nopagination).27
Finally,thelastprincipleIwilldiscussinginthissection,whichisthetwelfth
inthelist(startsmallandlearnfromchange),bringsusbacktotheparticular
ethosandcivilityofLabofii’spractice.Thetwelfthprincipleisexplainedbythe
ideathatsocialchangestartssmallandgoesfromthebottomup.Itmentionsthe
ZapatistauprisinginMexicoagainsttheNAFTAfreetradeagreementasan
exampleofthisprinciple:
TheZapatistasastheycallthemselvesdon’twanttotakeoverstatepowerbut
‘constructpower’frombelow,theycallfor‘oneworldmadeofmanyworlds’,a
multitudeofrebellionslocallyspecificyetgloballyinterconnected.Starting
smallisn’tjustbeautiful,itcanbeunimaginablysuccessfulwhenwelearn
fromourmistakesandtakeonestepatatime(LaboratoryofInsurrectionary
Imagination,2009b,nopagination).
Thisideaechoesmypreviousdiscussionofthespatiallyandtemporally
differentiatedcharacterofourtransnationalpresentinasmuchasitalludestothe
universeasakindofmultiverse(oneworldmadeofmanyworlds).Italsoconnects
toananothertextthatcontraststhepotatofamine,asanexampleofextreme
violencecausedbyamixofenvironmentaldisasterandtop-downimperial
economicpolicy(industrialmono-culture),with‘horizontalprotestmovements’
‘survivingstaterepression,becausetheydon’thaveexecutivecommitteesto
27TheimplicitparalleldrawnbetweentheworkofWilliamsoncommunicationandthe
theoristsofthecommonsissuggestedbyLecercle(2009).
167infiltrateorleaderstoassassinate’(LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination,
2009b,nopagination).Theideaofhorizontality,bottom-uporganisationperforms
acritiqueofauthoritarianismwhilealsomakingtheconnectionbetweensocial
andecologicalsystemsandrationalities(secondprinciple–applynature’s
patterns).
Theanalysisthusfarhascontinuedtoshowhowthepragmatic,culture-as-
resourcerationaleofresilience,contrarytowhatissometimesintimatedinthe
majorcritiquesofthenotion,canbere-functionedformoreradicalpurposes.
WhileIshowedthatmanyoftheprinciplesdiscussedinthischapterwereheldin
commonwiththemoredominantandtechnocraticvarietiesofresilience
discourses,Ialsosuggestedthattheapplicationofthe4ethicsand13principlesof
permacultureisverydifferent.Theanalysisabovealsosuggeststhatthis
‘minoritarian’instanceofresiliencediscourseandpracticepartakesinwhatNegri
(1999,p.1)mighthavecalla‘constituentpower’.Constituentpoweraims,firstand
foremost,toinventandimaginenewformsofresilientlifeawayfromthestate,
whichthecollectiveappearstodis-identifywithinamoreforcefulwayperhaps
thansomeoftheactorsofTTMR.Byattemptingtoreinventrelationsbetween
sciences,politics/ethicsandartanddisplacethepracticesofasocietydominated
bythecommodity-form,Labofii’swasalsoshowntoencourageandcondone
resistancetoprocessesofinternalcolonisation(subsumption)thatdominantor
hegemonicpracticesofresiliencewereshowntolegitimiseandeffect.Infact,their
practicerecoverssomethingoftheoriginalmeaningoftheexpression‘internal
colonisation’,whichBalibar(2015,p.154)borrowsfromHabermas.ForHabermas,
thedominationofeconomicrationalityledtoafragmentationofdifferentspheres
ofexpertise(science,moralityandart)andaseparationofexpertisefromthe
sphereoflifeworldsthat,accordingtohim,iscomparabletocolonisation(Balibar,
1682015).Thetask,forHabermas,istoreconnecttechnicalexpertisewithlifeworlds
inordertochallengethedominationoftheformeroverthelatterand,inthe
process,re-legitimatetechnicalexpertiseandinstrumentalrationality.Although
Labofii’spracticebearslittlerelationtotheworkofHabermas,itcertainlyshares
somethingifthisanti-technocraticrationale.
3.3.3Theambivalencesofart-activistresilienceandcivility
Thisbringsmetoaddresssomeofthelimitsandambivalencesoftheirdiscourse
andpracticethatare,infact,indissociablefromtheirstrengths.Despitetheir
practiceanddiscourseappearingtobethefurthestremovedfromdominant
conceptionsofresilienceintermsoftheirscope,itshouldbenotedthattheir
discourseandpracticeneverthelessmimicslibertarianmarketrationalities.This
mimicryisparticularlyvisibleinthetextoutliningthelastprincipleofthebooklet
–applyself-regulationandacceptfeedback:
Everylivingthingselfregulates:whenwegethot,wesweatandcooldown,
ecosystemssuchasmeadowsaren’tmowedorcoveredinpesticides,theylook
afterthemselves.Eventheplanetworksasaself-regulatingorganismby
keepingtheatmosphere’stemperaturecompatibletolifethroughthecomplex
chemicalandphysicalinteractionofplants,minerals,animals,fungiand
micro-organisms.Thisequilibriumonlyfalteredwhenweviolentlyintervened
byburningfossilfuels.Ahealthysystemrequiresminimumoutside
interventionandisconstantlymonitoringitselfforimbalances,mistakes
becomesignposts,feedbackisfundamental(LaboratoryofInsurrectionary
Imagination,2009b,nopagination).
169Effectively,itisinsuchprinciplesofdesignappliedtothesocialspherethatthe
ideaspromulgatedinthebookletappeartoconvergewithmoredominant,
technocraticversionsofthediscoursenotonlyinthenotions,tropesand
proceduresusedbutalsointhepositionsthattheseimply.Mostnotably,ideasof
self-regulation,andnon-interventionallaissez-faireproduceanaturalisationofthe
social.Thismimickingofthelogicsoftheadaptivecycleandothersimilarideas(as
opposedtothemirroringofliberalpoliticalrationalesdiscussedinthecaseofthe
hegemonic/majoritarianstrategiesTTMR)constitutesoneoftheambivalences
thatBalibar(2015)identifiesascharacterisingminoritarianformsofcivility.
Accordingtohim,thesehaveatendencytoproduceformsofde-subjectivationthat
mirrortheobjectifyingrationalesofthemarket.Thistendency,whichincludes
‘processesofnaturalisingthesocialbond’(2015,p.123),ispresentatotherlevels
aswell.Forinstance,whiletheircritiqueoftraditionalpoliticsoffersaninspiring
alternative,italsoseemstomethattheircritiqueoftraditionalpoliticsandsocial
movementsispremisedonagestureofexilefromtheworld,whichcouldbe
understoodasanotherformofde-subjectivationasdiscussedbyBalibar.Theexile
proceedsfromacertainkindofdisidentificationwithsocietyandacounter-
identificationwithmoreorlesstemporary,small-scaleutopiasandpolitically
autonomouscommunities.However,thisexilebypassesthequestionofhegemony
andstatepoweroranequivalentinstitutionalandrepresentationalform,which
willnotceasetobeeffective.
Thisambivalencealsoappearstobelinkedtotheirinvestmentinartand
culture,despitetheircommittedactivistpractice.Theanalysisoftheiractualwork
showedthat,undoubtedly,artcanmakeprotestandpoliticsmoreappealing,
attractiveandcreative.However,whileLabofiiquiterightlyassertthatanyone
andeveryoneisanartist,thereisalsoasenseinwhichartisasolaceforthosewho
170havethecultural,socialandeconomicresourcestomakeitandenjoyit.Thisisone
oftheobjectionsthatIheardRichardPaton,aneconomistandonceaparticipantin
ReclaimtheStreets,makeduringaConeyShowandTellSalononactivismat
CamdenPeople’sTheatrein2013.Takingthefloorofthesmallblackboxtheatre
onthecornerofDrummondStreetandHampsteadRoadinLondon,Patonasked:
‘protestasperformance,inspiringorindulgent?’(NetworkofConey,2013,no
pagination).Paton’sargumentwasthatculturalactivism(thatusesartastoolfor
protest)thathadapracticalfocusaswellasarealsocialbaseforactioncouldbe
effectiveinsofarasithadthepotentialtopoliticisetheeverydayandgalvanise
socialforceswithsometimestrulytransformativeresults.ForPaton,someofthe
anti-roadprotestsdiscussedwereagoodexampleofthis.Accordingtohim,these
protestswereanchoredinrealcommunitystrugglesthatinvigoratedsocial
movements,localresidentsandactivistsalikeandcreatednewsolidaritiesinthe
process.Incontrast,andtakingtheclownrebelarmyasanexample,Patonargues
thatculturalactivismcouldbeself-indulgentwhentooself-absorbedand
engrossedinitsownaesthetics(thefunnyacronyms,theoverworkedsymbolism).
This,heclaims,issometimesdoneattheexpenseofbuildingstrongsocialbasesor,
toreturntoanideadeartopermaculturalists,attheexpenseofbuildingbeneficial
relationshipsthatcutacrosssociety.Inshort,Patonarguesthataninitiativelike
theClownArmymightbetoopoeticalandfunnytobepoliticallyeffective.Inthe
end,theideaof‘livingasform’mayalsosaysomethingabouttheambivalencesof
Labofii’spoliticsaswellasthestrengthofthecollective’sart.Labofii’spractice
maynotreducibletoalifestylepolitics.However,itdoesappeartopartakeina
counter-culturalmodeofdoingpolitics,whichwascommonintheDIYprotest
movements.Thegroup’sconcernfortheinventionofnewwaysandformsofliving
isinmanywaysinspiringandwelcome.But,IagreewithPatonthattheprivileging
171ofapoliticsofsmallcommunitiesandresistantenclavesaswellasanaestheticised
ideaofpoliticscanmeanthatthispracticetendstoremain‘weak’andthepreserve
ofafairlyprivilegedminorityofmindfulaesthetesandgardeners.
WhileIacknowledgethattheframeandcontextofthisdiscussion(anarts
festival)contributestomyreserve,itshouldneverthelessberestatedthatthese
ambivalencesstructuretheirdiscourseofresilience,whichproducesotherkindsof
problems.Inprinciplessuchas‘theproblemisthesolution’or‘applynature’s
patterns’,thediscourseeffectivelycombinesaverysolution-based,pragmaticform
ofthinkingwithaspecificallyculturalist-cum-environmentalsearchfor
redemption(wholeness,organicity).Here,thesocietyofantsceasestobe
synonymouswithaspiritless,mechanicalsocietyandbecomesthenewidealof
bottom-upwholenessandinsurrectionarysociality.Whilethereismuchtosayin
favourofsuchapositionandideal,itmightalsobeunderstoodtoworkagainstthe
dystopian-utopianethosofcivility.Thisdiscourseappearstopresupposea
philosophyofteleologicalredemptionandresolutionofviolenceaswellasa
phantasmaticunityofcultureandnature.Itcouldbearguedthatsucha
presuppositiondoeslittlemorethanreproducetheambivalencesofthereconciled
idealofethical‘bestself’belongingtothehighculturalisttradition,onlythistime
theaestheticandethicalidealofculturedoesnotshadowthatofliberalpolitics,it
shadowsthatofthemarketitself.
WiththeassessmentoftheambivalencesofLabofii’spracticeand
appropriationofthenotionofresilience,theinquiryintothescopeofresilience
practicesisnowcomplete.Inordertofinishandtransitionintothenextpart,I
wouldliketoreassertthevalueofLabofii’sworkinartistictermsas,afterall,the
project’scontextofproductionmadeit,firstandforemost,intoanartproject.
Macherey(2012)gaveatalkwithIsabelleFrémeauxonthenotionofutopiain
172whichhesuggeststhatthestrengthofutopia,whichisfirstandforemostaliterary
notion,laysnotinthefrontalconfrontationandengagementwithreality.Rather,
theimportanceofutopialaysinthemannerinwhichitproducesadistancingin
relationtorealitythatshowsthatrealityisnotconsistentwithitselfandthat
alternativestoreality,whichinthiscontextarealsoalternativestoresilience,exist
(FondationCopernic,2012b).Thus,utopian-dystopianpracticesshouldnotbe
understoodasprovidingblueprintsforafuturealternativeworld.Rather,itisby
producingspacesforreflectiononandexperimentationwiththesystemsof
positivenormsandcontingenciesthatthesepracticescanmakeamodestbut
importantcontributiontotheeffectivemovementsforsocialchangeandjustice.
Althoughmyowntermsofanalysiswillbedifferent,thenextsectionproposesto
makesenseoftheutopiancharacterofartthatMachereycomparestothenegative
ofaphotographicimage.Thisisthemid-pointofthethesis.Sobeforelaunching
intothenextpart,Iprovideashortrecapitulationofthejourneyperformedthus
far.
Inthepreviousanalyses,Iarguedthatresilienceincultureisarationaleof
crisisandriskmanagement,thescopeandformofwhichmayrangesignificantly
whileneverthelessconformingtotheideaof‘culture-as-ressource’.Iarguedalso
thatdominantresiliencepracticesanddiscoursestendnotonlytobeambivalently
reconciledwiththeexistingorder,theyactivelyeffectandlegitimateanintensified
subsumptionofculture.However,throughadiscussionofTTMRinparticular,I
alsoarguedthatreconciliationisnottheonlythingproducedbytheinstitutions
andinfrastructuresofculturethatprofessresilience.Introducingthenotionsof
civilityandviolencehasenabledmetoraisethestakesoftheanalysisandposit
thatalternativeresiliencepracticesproducealessambivalentlimitingand
distancingofviolence.
173Forthelastpartoftheanalysis,IwillfollowLabofii’slineofflightandput
thedialecticatworkinadiscussionofartobjectsratherthanofcitizen–subjects,of
autonomyratherthanheteronomy,althoughtheheteronomyofartwillremaina
keyconsiderationandprovideathreadbetweenbothparts.Throughthisprocess
thesubjectofculturewillbeobjectifiedanditsobject(art)presentedasasubject-
like,self-reflexivestructure.Throughthedevelopmentofthisdialectic,theanalysis
willaimtogobeyondthepointwhereitcametorest,namely,the‘unconscious’
marketideologyofLabofii’sdiscourse,andindoingsoopenupthequestionof
howartperformsacriticalnegationoftherationalesofresilience.
3.4Artandautonomy:aromanticinterruptionanddetour
3.4.1Thecrisisofartandtheartofcrisis
TheconceptionofartthatIaminterestedinexploringinmoredetailinorderto
negatetherationalesofresilienceisalsolinkedtocrisis,inbothsocialandartistic
terms.TheAdornoianthesisthat‘theunsolvedantagonismsofrealityreturnin
artworksasimmanentproblemsofform’willprovideagoodpointofdeparture
(Adorno,1997,p.6).Thethesisenouncedabovearticulatesafundamentalproblem
ofmodernandcontemporaryart,whichwillbemysubjectofconcerninthis
section:theproblemofthecrisisofforminthemodernworkofart.AsOsborne
(2013)aswellasBernstein(2003)state,thisconcernforthepeculiarpredicament
ofmodernartwasdevelopedbytheJenaRomanticsand,inparticular,byFriedrich
Schlegel.Thisfamilynamehasappearedinthisthesisoncebeforeintheguiseof
thecharacterofMegSchlegelwhoprovidedafictionalcounterpointtotheanalysis
oftheethosofphilanthropyintheprecedingchapter.However,incontrastto
ArnoldorevenBurkeandthelineageofmoreconservativeromanticclerisy
discussedbyWilliams(1963),theyoungSchlegelwaswhatRidout(2013),after
174SayreandMichaelLöwy(1984),callsa‘romanticanti-capitalist’andrevolutionary
(2013,p.7).Imentionthesedifferentgenealogiesbrieflyinordertoestablishthat,
whiletheconceptionofartIamabouttoexpoundispartofthewiderdiscourse
thatIhavebeendescribingandcritiquingthusfar,italsoconstitutesadistinct
lineageofitthatisnotreducibletotheothermoreconservativelinesof
romanticism,evenwhensomeofitsfigures,includingFrederichSchlegel,became
conservativeslaterintheirlives.
FortheyoungSchlegel,themodelofthe‘free’,modernartworkwasthe
novel.AsBenjamin(1996)butalsomorerecentlytheliterarytheoristDavid
Cunningham(2016)suggest,thenovelwasconsideredtobreakwiththeclassical
idealofartbecauseofitshybridandprosaiccharacter.Incontrasttoclassical
genresofpoetry(tragedy,comedybutalsotheepic)thenovelwasfreefrom
conventions,standinginforageneralidealofthemodernartwork,anidealthat
washighlyindividualisedandsingular(‘agenrewithoutgenre’asCunningham
(2016,p.14)writes).Thisprocessofindividualisation,whichisthemarkofthe
newandmodern(orthenovel)inart,alsoengendersacrisisofart’sidealand
form.AsCunningham(2016)explains,thenewartworkischaracterisedbyanew,
boundlessfreedomandpotentialforself-determination(beyondestablished
modelsandgenres),whichenablesittoaffirmitsownindividualisedidealagainst
whatartnolongeris.However,thislimitlessness,whichsetsnoboundsonwhat
materialsitmightincorporateasahybridandimpureform,raisestheissueofthe
borderbetweenartandnon-art,betweenartisticprose(whichformedthebasisof
whatSchlegelwouldalsocalluniversalpoetry)andwhatCunninghamcallsthe
175‘proseoftheworld’(2016,p.19).28Ineffect,oncetheclassicalidealsofarthave
beendestroyed,lifeitselfbecomestherealityagainstwhichartdifferentiatesitself,
givingbirthtoanontological(andformetheatrical)conceptionof‘generic’art.
Insocialterms,then,theemergenceofmodernartisconditionaluponart’s
formalsubsumptionandthehistoricalformationofamarketisedsociety
(capitalismashistoricalconditionofpossibilityofartandthreattoit).Themarket
renderstheindividualartworks,likeindividualsthemselves,intouniversal
subjectsofexchange,thatis,equivalenttoanyother.However,thissocialand
historicalconditionisalsotheconditionofpossibilityofthework’sself-
determinationandautonomy,thatis,itsabilitytoresistitsfunctionasbearerof
exchangevalue.Theideathat‘theunsolvedantagonismsofrealityreturnin
artworksasimmanentproblemsofform’means,then,thatthemodernartworkis
structuredbyadiscrepancybetweenthepromiseof(bourgeoisand
individualised)freedom(thenewidealofart)andthedebasedreignofexchange
valueandequivalence(Adorno,1997,p.6).Itisthroughthisantagonismand
contradiction,whichderivesfromapartialidentityofartwiththecommodity
(dialecticofidentityandnon-identity),thatartisticformalwaysrisksbecoming
partofwhatCunningham(2016,p.20)calls‘theproseoftheworld’.Itisalsothis
dialecticthatpushesarttotheatricallyreinstateitsform(adifferentiatinglimit)
againstreality,producingitsownnon-predeterminedhistoricalmovementorlaw
offormintheprocess,whichcanbeunderstoodasparallelingthemovementof
28Theideaoflivingasartisticformdiscussedearlieraswellastheproblemoftherelation
betweenartandlife,whichisoftenaconcernofavant-gardepractice,canalsobe
understoodtofinditsbasisintheproblemoftherelationbetweenartandnon-artafter
thedestructionofart’sclassical(pre-existing)ideal.
176destructionofsemi-marketisedsocialrelationsandtheirreinstatementanew
(‘creation’)inamarketisedform(subsumption).
TheaimofwhatSchlegel(2003)names‘progressive,universalpoetry’(the
paradigmaticformofwhichwasthenovelas‘genrewithoutgenre’)wasnot
‘merelytoreunitealltheseparatespeciesofpoetry’(p.249).Inafamousfragment,
Schlegelwritesthat,onthecontrary:
Ittriestoandshouldmixandfusepoetryandprose,inspirationandcriticism,
thepoetryofartandthepoetryofnature;andmakepoetrylivelyandsociable,
andlifeandsocietypoetical[...].Itembraceseverythingthatispurelypoetic,
fromthegreatestsystemsofart,containingwithinthemselvesstillfurther
systems,tothesigh,thekissthatthepoetizingchildbreathesforthinartless
song(2003,p.249).
Furthermore,theworkofartthusconceivedis,inAdorno’swords,‘aconstruction
thatisnotcompletebutratherprogressesonwardintotheinfinitethroughself-
reflection[...].Itstotality,theunityofaformdevelopedimmanently,isthatof
somethingnottotal’(1991,p.16).Thus,universal,progressivepoetry,while
appearingtoconnectthepassionandtheprose,asMegSchlegelrecommends,isa
practicethatembracesthefragment.Infact,itisafragment:foreverbecomingand
foreverunfinished,embodyingthesublimedialecticoflimitednessand
limitlessness(presentationofthelimitlessnessinalimitedform),ruinand
progress,dissolutionandcreation,fragmentandtotality.
Cunningham(2004)arguesthattheworkofartthusconceivedalsoimpliesa
specificspatio-temporallogicofartisticexperience,onethatmarksaqualitatively
different,newtimeofartisticbutalsosocialexperience.Theconsciousnessand
177experienceofthisnewtimeisdefinedbytheatricalruptureandincompletion,
creationanddestruction.Artquatheromanticfragmentisunderstoodtobe
endowedwithacertaincapacitytotemporaliseandnegatehistoryby
distinguishingitselffromwhatprecededit,whilealsoremaininginbecoming.The
workofartisboththesiteofanirrevocablelossofandnostalgiafortraditionas
wellasthesiteofafuture-orientatedopeningthatpointstothelimitsofthe
dominationofexchangevalue.Inthissense,thetemporalisationthattheworkof
arteffectshasaspatialdimension,whichgivesthefragmentthestructureofwhat
Smithson(1996,p.72)termsa‘ruininreverse’.
Now,Iwouldliketoreconnectthisconceptionofarttotheon-going
discussion.Iwilldosofirstbyreturningtotheideaofartexploredinthefirstpart
ofthischapter,whichisconnectedbutneverthelessquitedifferent.Atthe
beginningofthischapter,IsuggestedthatJackson(2011)presentsartasforming
partofsocialcontingencieswhilealsoprovidingasiteforachievingahigherkind
ofsocio-politicalself-reflection.Iunderstandthatthisapproachhasvalueandwill
appealtoatheoristinterestedinsociallyengagedartandinthinkingaboutartin
termsofsocialsupport,socialwelfareandcitizenship.Indeed,ithasproved
fruitfulformyownanalysisofartintermsofcivility.However,thegenealogyofart
discussedheresuggeststhatthinkingabouthowartformallynegatesresilience
practicesanddiscoursesunderstoodasdriversandlegitimatorsofsubsumption
necessitatesreconnectingadiscussionofartquafictitiouscommoditytothe
questionofeconomic(reignofexchange-value)ratherthanpoliticaluniversality
(state).Itismyargumentthatitisonlybydoingsothatonecangrasptheformal
aspectsofthecriticalgestureperformedbyeventssuchasTTMR,inthetradition
ofinstitutionalcritique,orLabofii’sdesiretoresistthebecomingcommodityof
art.Thefollowingchaptersexplorehowthisconceptionofartconstitutesan
178alternativetoanewaffirmativecultureproducedandreinforcedbyresilience
politics.However,itshouldbenotedthattheidealofartthatIhavebeen
discussinghereisananti-aestheticandontologicalone,onethatacknowledges
art’scontaminatedandhybridcharacter,butonethatbyextensionalsoprivileges
thepropositionorideaoftheartworkoveritsrealisation(Birnbaum,2014).The
anti-aestheticandsocialaswellaspropositionalcharacteroftheautonomous
workisperhapsbestsummarisedbyaposterPlatformproducedinthe1980s,
whichdeclared:‘thequestionofartisnolongerthatofaesthetics,butthatofthe
survivaloftheplanet’(MűvelődésiSzint,2018).
Inordertofinishthischapter,Iwillexploreonapreliminarybasishowthe
seedsofsuchaconceptionofartarepresentinLabofii’sproject.Thefollowing
sectiongivesanaccountofoneoftheproject’selementsthatIhavenotdiscussed
yet.Itwillprovideaconceptualartcounterpointandcomplementtothepolicy
poetrypresentedpreviously.Iwillreturntoadiscussionofthewholeprojectat
theend.
3.4.2Benchmarksinpost-capitalism
OnawarmMayafternoonin2016,Idecidetosearchfortracesoftheproject.
IdepartfrommyhomeinsouthLondonwithabag,somewaterandahand-drawn
mapreproducedonasmallrectangularpieceofcard(ArtsAdmin,2009d).The
sinuousblacklinesandthenamesofsomestreetsthatappearbetweentheselines
correspondroughlytoLondon’sSquareMile.Aroundtheplanofthedistrict,aset
of13hand-drawnwoodenbenchesappears.Arrowsconnectthedrawingsofthe
benchestothestreetswheretheyaresupposedtobelocated.Ontheversoofthe
card,asetof13statementsappear,whichIreproducebelow:
1791. ‘BORROWWITHOUTLIMITANDSPENDWITHOUTRESTRAINT’GORDONBROWN
2008
2. THISBENCHWASPRESENTEDTOTHECITYOFLONDONFORTHEFREE
EXCHANGEOFIDEAS,CORPORATETAKEOVERSANDSUBVERSIVEPLOTS
3. INLOVINGMEMORYOFEASYCREDIT
4. DEDICATEDTOTHEOPPRESSEDLABOURERSWHOSESUFFERINGULTIMATELY
RENDEREDTHISDISPLAYOFCORPORATEAFFLUENCEPOSSIBLE
5. INMEMORYOFTHEGENDERPAYGAP
6. INMEMORYOFJUNE18th1999ANDITSLEGACY
7. THISBENCHCANBEUSEDASABARRICADE
8. BUYNOW,PAYLATER
9. THISBENCHREMAINSTHEPROPERTYOFTHEBANKOFENGLANDANDIF
FOUNDSHOULDBERETURNEDTOANYBRANCH
10. ‘FOURLEGSGOOD,TWOLEGSBAD’
11. NOPURCHASENECESSARY
12. ‘THEGLASSSHATTEREDLIKEBLOSSOMEDFLOWERSANDTHEBARRICADES
FORCEDUSTOSTOPANDTHINK’LITMUSDRAKE
13. LITMUSDRAKE(2000–2034),REVOLUTIONARYPOET,CONCEIVEDONTHIS
BENCHJUNE18th1999
(ArtsAdmin,2009d).
Theprojectdocumentationstatesthatthesestatementsformedthebasisof13
plaquesmadebythecollectiveQuantitativeTeasing,ananonymouscollectiveofA-
levelstudents,educators,activistsandartists.Thegroupspenttimeobservingthe
streetsofthefinancialdistrictofLondon,researchingitshistoryandhow
corporationsbasedintheSquareMilecontributetoclimatechange.Basedonthis
research,theycreatedtheseriestitledBenchmarksinPostcapitalism(2009)that
werefixedtobenchesacrossthearea(ArtsAdmin,2009c).
180IspendtheafternoonwalkingtheSquareMile,startingofffromBlackfriars
Bridge.Iamnotsurewherethesebenchesareasonlythenamesoflarge
boulevardsandstreetsareetchedontothemap.So,Idecidetodriftalongthe
Thames.IinitiallyendupclosetoStPaul’sandmakemywaythroughtothe
MansionHousearea.IendupgoingthroughroadsandsmallstreetsthatIwould
otherwisenotuse.It’slunchtime,andInoticetheworkershavingtheirlunch
breaksandsocialisingonbenches.IlookateverybenchIcomeacrossinareasthat
Ithinkarethoseindicatedonthemap.Ihangaroundbenchoccupants,inan
attempttoseewhethertheyarehidinganinsignia.Idon’thavemuchluckatthe
beginning,althoughIcomeacrossafewregularplaques,suchasthisone:
Inlovingmemoryof
RobertCooper
03/5/1960–13/2/2009
CityofLondonemployeesadlymissedby
wife,family,friendsandcolleagues
AmblingthroughtheSquareMile,Ialsonoticetheveryparticulararchitectureof
theplace:aneternalconstructionsitedominatedbyimpersonalandabstract
corporatearchitecture,whichcouldbesitedanywhere.Theskyscraperstower
overalabyrinthinemessoflanesandsmallmewsthatembodythehistoryofthe
place.Icomeacrossablueplaquerecordingthesiteofachurchfirstbuiltinthe
13thcenturyneartheRoyalExchange,itselfestablishedin1571(Wikipedia,
2018d).TheplaquewasfixedbytheCityofLondononasmoothpieceofblack
marblethatiscommoninthisareaoftown.Theplaque,whichalsoreferstothe
GreatFireofLondonin1666,readsasfollows:
181
TheSiteof
St.Barthomolew
ByTheExchange,
Burnt1666
RebuiltByWren
Demolished1841
ItisalsonexttoachurchthatIfindthefirstremnantsoftheproject.Ihavetotake
asmallalleywaycalledAustinFriars,justoffOldBroadStreet.Ittakesmetoa
churchcourtyard.Onthenorth-facingsideofthebuildingareaseriesofwooden
benches.Onthelast,Ifindthefollowinginscriptionengravedincapitalletters:
INLOVINGMEMORYOFEASYCREDIT
ItstartsinthesamewayastheonemadeinmemoryofRobertCooper,butthe
subjectisquitedifferent.Itisdedicatedtothesupposedlyunacknowledgedpolicy
regimethatpropsupslowinggrowthindevelopedcountries:privatised
Keynesianism,thatis,thegrowthofconsumerandindividualdebt(Crouch,2009).
AsFraser(2016)hasreiteratedinarecentarticle,debt,theothersideofthecredit
coin,isoneofthemajorfinancialtoolsfordisinvestmentinsocialwelfare,andan
intensificationofthesubsumptionofnon-orsemi-commodifiedsocialrelations.
Shewrites:
Debtistheinstrumentbywhichglobalfinancialinstitutionspressurestatesto
slashsocialspending,enforceausterity,andgenerallycolludewithinvestorsin
extractingvaluefromdefencelesspopulations.Itislargelythroughdebt,too,that
182peasantsintheGlobalSoutharedispossessedbyanewroundofcorporateland
grabs,aimedatcorneringsuppliesofenergy,water,arablelandand‘carbon
offsets’.Itisincreasinglyviadebtaswellthataccumulationproceedsinthe
historiccore:aslow-waged,precariousserviceworkreplacesunionizedindustrial
labour,wagesfallbelowthesociallynecessarycostsofreproduction;inthis‘gig
economy’,continuedconsumerspendingrequiresexpandedconsumercredit,
whichgrowsexponentially.Itisincreasinglythroughdebt,inotherwords,that
capitalnowcannibalizeslabour,disciplinesstates,transferswealthfrom
peripherytocore,andsucksvaluefromhouseholds,families,communitiesand
nature(Fraser,2016,p.112).
Otherreferencestodebtinparticular(benchplaques1,3,8,11)drawattentionto
thespecificcharacterofcontemporarycapitalism.Theplaques,likeFraser’stext,
alsodrawattentiontothecontradictionandboundarystruggles(benchplaques2,
4,5,7,9,10)betweentheeconomicsphereandthespheresofsocialreproduction,
whichtheeconomicspheredependsonbutalsothreatensanddestroys.
Whatthetextperforms,however,isjustasinterestingasitsexplicitcontent
orsubject.TheplaqueiswhatinSituationismmightbecalleda‘détournement’of
theconventionsofbenchplaques(Knabb,2006,p.67).Adétournement,which
appearstoreproduceinitsownwaythelogicsofthefragmentunderstoodas
future-orientatedruinisdefinedinthefollowingmannerbyDebord:
Thereuseofpreexistingartisticelementsinanewensemble,hasbeena
constantlypresenttendencyofthecontemporaryavant-garde,bothbefore
andsincetheformationoftheSI.Thetwofundamentallawsofdétournement
arethelossofimportanceofeachdetournedautonomouselement–which
maygosofarastocompletelyloseitsoriginalsense–andatthesametime
183theorganizationofanothermeaningfulensemblewhichconfersoneach
elementitsnewscopeandeffect’(Knabb,2006,p.67).
Itakeitthatthe‘tendency’referredtohere,whichperformsthedevaluationand
revaluationofpreviouslyautonomouselements,iscollage,montageandtheready-
made.Inthiscase,thedevaluationandrevaluationofthebenchperformedbythe
plaquemirrorsthedevaluationandrevaluationofstockmarkets,thegeographical
heartlandofwhichthebenchoccupies.Theplaquedirectsourattentiontowhile
alsodifferentiatingitselffromtheotherbenchesandwiderenvironmentitispart
of.Thesubversivetextcouldeasilygounnoticedbecauseithasmadethis
immediateenvironmentitscanvas.Yetitisneithertotallyabsorbedbyitnor
equivalenttoaregularbenchplaque.
Theaphoristicfragmentexistsinrelationtootherfragments.Eachlimited
fragmentconnectstoandreferstootherlimitedfragmentsinacyclethatcouldgo
onforever,likethecircularwalkIperformtofindthetracesoftheproject.The
distributedcharacteroftheplaques,theirself-enclosedyetrelationalcharacter
(limitedpresentationofthelimitless),produceadistributiveunitythat,according
toOsborne(2013),ischaracteristicoftheautonomouswork.Thenextplaque
fragmentthatIencounterappearstocontradictthefirst.Thepotentialsubjectof
theepitaphnowappearstobespeakingfromthedead,interpellatingthepassers-
by.Itreads:
BUYNOW,PAYLATER
Viewedinrelationtoeachother,then,theplaquesappeartobecommentingon
theirowncontradictoryandantagonisticconditionasplaquesandbenches.For
184example,onebenchplaquesuggeststhatthebenchesshouldbereturnedtotheir
proprietor,andyettheyarerootedtothegroundandavailabletoall.Thebenches
facilitatefreeexchangebutofsubversiveideasandplots.Bestofall,oneplaque
suggestsitcanberepurposedasabarricade.Inallofthesecases,theplaques
affirmtheblurringbutalsodiscrepancybetweenartandempiricalreality,artistic
proseandtheproseofcapitalistreality,andtheidealoffreedomanditsdebased
reality.
Thehybrid,impurecharacteroftheplaquesismadeparticularlyvisibleby
thevariousquotesthatconstitutethem.‘TWOLEGSBAD,FOURLEGSGOOD’,taken
fromOrwell’sAnimalFarm(2000),isoneoftheexplicitreferencestoadesirefor
anecologicallymoreegalitarianformofcommunism.Incontrastto‘BORROW
WITHOUTLIMITANDSPENDWITHOUTRESTRAINT’,asayingattributedto
formerchancellorGordonBrown(Millar,2008),theplaquesreassertalimit
throughalaconicandsoberstyle(prosaicpoeticsofquotesandeveryday
mundanematerials)andwittyhumour.29
IwouldliketofinishthediscussionwiththelastbenchplaqueIfoundonthe
journey,acrossthestreetfromLiverpoolStreetstation,totheeastofthelargest
trainstationineastLondon.Ithasbeenplacedonabenchthatissituatedatthe
endofMiddlesexRoad.Thebenchfacesthestreet,hasthepubTheShootingStarto
itsleftformingthecorner,andbikestandstoitsright.ABTtelephoneboxanda
redpostboxstandbetweenthebenchandthepubontheothersideoftheroad
29Thestyleofwritingisalsotestimonytothecollective’sDebordiansensibility.Donné
(2009)hasshowntherelationbetweenDebord’sstyleandmodernconceptionsof
rhetoricandthesublime.
185thatrunsaroundthetraffic-island-likepieceofpavementonwhichthebenchis
situated.Iread:
LITMUSDRAKE(2000–2034)
REVOLUTIONARYPOETCONCEIVEDONTHISBENCH
JUNE18th1999
Thisplaquethatcompletestheseriescomesclosesttothefirstnon-artplaqueI
encountered,thatofRobertCooper.LikeCooper’s,theplaquecelebratesalifenow
pastandlost.Themajordifferencebetweenboth,however,isthatLitmusDrakeis
aseeminglyfictionalcharacter,perhapstheauthorofthechaoticnarrativeweaved
bytheseriesofplaques,whichappearstohavebeencreatedfromtheperspective
ofanimaginaryfuture(hisdeathisdatedat2034).Beyondreproducingthe
conceitoftheproject(post-capitalist,post-crisisfutures),Iwouldarguethatthe
plaqueillustratesparticularlywellthroughitsdatingfunctionthetemporalisation
andsingularisationofthefragment’sform.Dates,ofcourse,arepartof
chronologiesofevents,whichtheplaquesrecord.Thedateandtheplaqueappear,
inthissense,tofulfilitsusualfunction:thecelebrationofalifethatisalsopartofa
history(anotherplaquereads‘INMEMORYOFJUNE18TH1999ANDITSLEGACY’
thatstartswithDrake’spresumedconception).However,18thJune1999isalsoan
indexofthecreationoftheworkitself,whichIpresumewasplacedon18thJune
2009,duringtheweekendthatC.R.A.S.HCulturetookplace.18thJune1999isa
signature,ratherthanamererecordofcreationordestruction,birthordeath.The
worktheatricallypointstoitsowncreation,totheadventofsomethingnew,here
andnow.Thisthing,whichexistsonlyinthefuture(forapost-2034generation),
alsoappearstohaveretroactivelyinventeditsownhistoryandlegacy,whichisin
186factourpresent.Paradoxicalandenigmaticstructure,indeed.However,ithasbeen
encounteredbeforeinMarkRobinson’s(2013)poem,whichalsoopenswitha
similarkindofidea:acommittingtothepastthatisalsotakingevidencefromthe
future.Iwillreturntothisstructureinthenextchapter.Fornow,itsufficestosay
thatthismixedtemporalitybelongstothetraditionoftheavant-garde,thebearer
ofatemporalstructureofexperiencethatassertsthenon-identityoftheartistic
andsocio-historicalpresentwithitself.Thefactthatayearaftermyvisitthebench
hadbeenremoved,andnotraceofthefragmentnowremains,reassertsthetime-
boundcharacterofthework,whichintheimageofthefictionallifeitnostalgically
recordsbecomesruinwiththepassingoftime.
Theanonymousandcollectivelyauthoredplaques,shouldalsobe
understoodtoexistinrelationtootherelementsofC.R.A.S.HCulture,whichcould
alsobeconsideredasfragmentsforeverinbecoming.Forinstance,Beinarthad
performedanumberofiterationsofherprojectbeforeC.R.A.S.H.Theworkfrom
C.R.A.S.H,inturn,wasfollowedbyanotheriterationoftheprojectastheartistwas
commissionedforthenextfestival(Pinder,2017a).Ihavenotestablishedifthisis
thecaseforeachoftheworkspresentedduringC.R.A.S.HCulture,butnevertheless
IproposethatthedifferentcomponentsofC.R.A.S.Hcouldalsobeunderstoodtobe
self-enclosedyetrelationalfragmentsthatformpartofalargerexperimental
whole.Astheintegrationofpermacultureitselfsuggests,theprojectcanabsorb
newmaterials,undoingitselfasitconstructsitselfanew.Thischangeis
determinedinpartbyaconjuncturaldialecticbetweentheartandnon-art
elementsthatcomposethework.Forexample,Beinartsuggestedshemaynothave
donewhatshedidforprojecthadittakenplaceafewyearslaterwhenthefood
industryhadcaughtontotheideaofforaging(Pinder,2017a).Theinstructional
characterofthebookletalsoatteststotheprocessualandconceptualcharacterof
187thework.NotunlikeYokoOno’sinstructionalworks,whichdestroyedthe
boundariesofpaintingasmedium,thebookletfunctionsasdocumentationbut
alsoasasetofinstructionsorguidelinesforfutureart,educationandlivingin
timesofcrisis(Osborne,2002).Theecologicalandsystemstheory-inspired
characterofthebooklet,then,startstobereminiscentofthe1960sconceptual
experimentsofHansHaackewiththesameecologicalidioms,oreventheBeuysian
ideaofsocialsculpture,thatis,sculpturethataimstochangetheworld(Osborne,
2002).Thesecharacteristicsmakethebordersoftheworkmalleableandgrounds
theproblemofart’scrisisofformorthequestionofcrisisasartisticforminthe
questionoftheboundariesbetweenartandlife(crisislivingasartisticform,
perhaps).Theprojectwas,thus,anexperimentinexpandingthepotentialformsof
art.Thisexperimentisoneamongmanysuchexperimentsthatthegroup
performs,theworkofwhichcanbeunderstoodtoformpartofalargerbodyofart-
activism,whichinturnisonelineageofLiveArt.LiveArtitselfispartofalarger
foreverbecomingfragmentedwholethatcouldbesimplycalledArt,which,like
progressive,universalpoetry,isanopentotalitythatisforeverbecomingand
unfinished,mixingandfusing‘poetryandprose,inspirationandcriticism,the
poetryofartandthepoetryofnature’andtowhichIalsoaddtheproseandpoetry
ofpolicy(Schlegel,2003,p.249).
Toconclude,itshouldbesaidthatforalltheformalradicalityoftheartthatI
havebeendiscussinginthischapter,itssingularityandnominalism
(uncategorisabilityispartofthisproblem),whichdifferentiatesitandpreventsthe
self-reflexiveartworkfrombecomingself-evident,runstheriskofspillingintoa
formof‘facticity’(Adorno,1997,p.155).Bythis,Imeanthatbecomingso
individualisedinprocessofintegratingnon-artmaterials,theworkrisksfalling
intoaformofundifferentiationbywhichtheworkceasestobelegibleasart.This
188is,ofcourse,adialecticthatisconstitutiveoftheartworkconceivedinthisway
andis,atonelevel,welcome.However,withthiscomesthepossibilityofalossof
moreuniversalmeaning,whichispalpableintheanalysisofthebenchplaques,for
instance.Whiletheworkcomesintobeingthroughaprocessofdifferentiation
fromthesocialrelationsthatconstituteit,itshouldberememberedthatitisthese
relationsthatconstituteitsautonomy.Inthisrespect,theinfrastructuraland
institutionalsupports,discourseandcategoriesofcritics,festivalandproject
frameworks,tonamejustafewstructures,playakeyroleinconstitutingthe
work’sappearanceofautonomy,meaningandvalue(Bourdieu,1993).Thebench
plaquescontaintheworld,buttheywouldnotexist,letaloneappeartospeak,
withoutit.
3.5Conclusion
AfterintroducingtheworkofLabofiiaswellasintroducingC.R.A.S.H’scontextof
production,Idiscussedthedifferentcomponentsoftheprojectinthelightofthe
ideaofcivility.Thisdiscussion,whichmadeupthesecondpartofthechapter,
concentratedonthemannerinwhichthegroupappropriatedresiliencediscourses
viathepracticeofpermacultureunderstoodastheartoforganisationor
managementinthefaceofcrisis.Ilookedatelementsofthetrainingcourse
(C.R.A.S.HCourse),thefinalperformance(C.R.A.S.HContingency)aswellasthe
commissions(C.R.A.S.HCulture)inlightoftheprinciplesofpermaculture,whichI
showedhaveanumberofcommonalitieswiththeprinciplesadvocatedbythe
defendersofresilienceinpolicydiscourseandpractice.Despitethecommonalities,
IshowedthatthemeansandendsofLabofii’scollectivepracticecouldnotbe
moredifferent.Forone,Labofii’sreappropriationoftheideaofresiliencedoes
notlegitimateoreffectthesubsumptionofculturethroughgovernmentalaction
189butratherquestionsthesubsumptionofsocialrelationsthroughartisticmeans
thataimtoinventnewde-commodifiedformsoflife.Throughthisanalysis,I
continuedtoshowinrelationtoQ2.athatwhilecrisismanagementistheshared
aimofresiliencediscourseandpracticeinthiscontext,themeansandendscan
varysignificantly.InacomparableyetdifferentwaytoTTMR,thequestionofthe
limitingofinconvertibledestruction,notablyecologicaldestruction,wascentral.
Thisfindingconfirmsthatcivilityisanotionthatcanrendermoreintelligiblethe
scopeofalternativeresiliencediscoursesandcontributestoansweringQ.2c.After
appraisingtheprojectpositively,Iwentontodiscussitsambivalencesintermsof
theideaofcivility,whichconfirmedthattheideaofcivilityisalsousefultoaccount
fortheproblemsoftheirpractice.Amongotherthings,Iidentifiedhowtheleft-
libertarian,culturalistappropriationsofresiliencediscoursesmimictherationale
ofthemarketanditsspuriousideologyofbalancedharmony.
Thediscussionofambivalenceslaythegroundforthediscussionofthethird
partinwhichIdiscussedhowartcanbethoughtasformallycapableofnegating
dominantrationalesofresilience(Q.3a).DrawingonAdornoianandpost-
Adornoiandiscourse,Iarguedthatthecriticalchargeoftheworksdiscussedthus
far(TTMRandC.R.A.S.H)cannotbeunderstoodwithoutunderstandingthe
negativeidealofartthatunderliestheseworks.Artconstruedontologicallymakes
policyalongwithothernon-artinstitutionalrelationsthatmightdeterminethe
productionprocessamaterialpartoftheartwork.However,itisapartthattheart
workcanandshouldalsotranscendinagestureofnegativecritique.Thisidea
underpinstheAdornoian(1997,p.6)thesisthat‘theunsolvedantagonismsof
realityreturninartworksasimmanentproblemsofform’,whichwillconstitute
somethingofanaxiomforthediscussionsthatfollowsinthenextchapters.Ina
finalsectionandinordertoillustratemydiscussionwithanelementofLabofii’s
190project,IdiscussedQuantitativeTeasing’spost-capitalistbenchplaquesbefore
extendingthediscussiontotheprojectasawhole.
191
4.EmptyLotandDeadline
4.1Introduction
Inthischapterandthenext,Iexploremorefullythemannerinwhichartperforms
acriticalnegationofthedominantrationalesofresilience,andindoingsoalso
providesanalternativetoaffirmativeculture(Q.3).Iwilldosobyintertwininga
discussionoftheworkofMexicanartistAbrahamCruzvillegasandthatof
Platform,theart-activistorganisationdiscussedattheendofchapter2.Theirvery
differentpracticesandworksconvergedattheendof2015attheTateModern,
situatedacrosstheThamesfromLondon’sSquareMile.Cruzvillegas’EmptyLot
(2015a)wasasite-specificcommissionmadefortheTurbineHallbetween2015
and2016.TheunsanctionedfestivaltitledDeadline(2015a),organisedbyPlatform
andheldatTateModern,wasaprotestagainstoilsponsorshipoftheTatethat
tookplaceinDecember2015forwhichEmptyLot(2015a)functionedasa
background.
Asannouncedinchapter1and3,Ipresentartascapableofnegatingthe
rationalesofresiliencethankstoitsabilitytopresentsocialantagonismasan
immanentaspectofitsform.Byrationales,Imeanboththepolicydiscoursesof
resilienceandthepracticesthatthesediscourseslegitimatewhich,inrelationto
thecontextofthischapter,arethepromotionofprivateinvestmentbutalso
marketisation.Despitethisfocus,thischapterisnotamererepetitionofchapter2
andthediscussionofTTMR.Rathertoinvestigatetheeffectofthesetrendsonart
itselfthroughthenotionsofaffirmativecultureandautonomousart.Inthis
chapter,IalsoaddalayerofanalysisthatrelatestothelocalityoftheTateand
urbanredevelopment,whichIargueareindissociablefromconsiderationsof
192investmentinculture.Urbanredevelopmentbearsontheanalysisnotsomuchin
termsofhowculturecanenhanceurbandevelopmentandresilience,ortodiscuss
howresiliencemaybearelevantconceptforurbandevelopment,issuesthatother
scholarshavealreadyinvestigated(Boix,Rausel,&Abeledo,2016;Meerowand
Newell,2016).Rather,Iwillbeconsideringhow,inthecontextoftheTate,a
negationofresiliencerationalescannotdispensewithacritiqueofurbanityand
regeneration,anotheravataroftheideaof‘culture-as-resource’.Thecasesand
worksselectedforthischapterwillenablemetodevelopthisdualfocusand
critique.
Itisworthstressingthatwhilethisdualapproachmightappeartodistract
fromafocusonresilience,itismethodologicallywarrantedfromthepointofview
theontologicalconceptofartthatIhaveelaboratedinthepreviouschapter.An
ontologicalconceptofartpresupposesthatthesocialrelationsthatconstitutethe
workofart,includingthesiteofthemuseumasspaceforart,areimmanenttoits
form.Thus,theinstitutionalcritiqueoffinancingandstructuresofsupport
requiresaconceptionofthemuseumasaphenomenologicallybounded
architecturalsiteandbuildenvironmentaswellasanodeinwhatIwillcalling
globalised‘spacesofflow’,constitutedbythemovementofpeopleandworkers,
moneyandfinancialassetsaswellasinformationandart.Theworksanalysedin
thischapterwillenablemyanalysistofigurethesetwolevels.BeforeIsayabit
moreaboutthecases,Ire-introducethenotionofaffirmativeculture,whichwill
alsoinformmyanalysisoftheproposedworksasinstancesofautonomousart.
Marcusedefinedaffirmativecultureas:
Thatcultureofthebourgeoisepochwhichledinthecourseofits
owndevelopmenttothesegregationfromcivilisationofthementaland
193spiritualworldasanindependentrealmofvaluethatisconsideredsuperior
tocivilisation.(Marcuse,2009,p.70).
Onthebourgeoisspecificityofaffirmativeculture,Marcusewrites:
‘‘Civilizationandculture’isnotsimplyatranslationoftheancientrelationof
purposefulandpurposeless,necessaryandbeautiful.Asthepurposelessand
beautifulwereinternalizedand,alongwiththequalitiesofbindinguniversal
validityandsublimebeauty,madeintotheculturalvaluesofthebourgeoisie,a
realmofapparentunityandapparentfreedomwasconstructedwithinculture
inwhichtheantagonisticrelationsofexistenceweresupposedtobestabilized
andpacified.Cultureaffirmsandconcealsthenewconditionsofsociallife’
(Marcuse,2009,pp.70-71).
Inshort,wherenegativelyautonomousartpresentsantagonismasimmanent
aspectsofitsform,affirmativeculturereconciles.Thequestionofaffirmationwill
cometobearontheanalysisofCruzvillegas’work,inparticular,becauseofits
institutionalisedcharacter.MyargumentisthatCruzvillegas’workperformsa
certainkindofcritiqueofdominantmodelsofurbandevelopmentofwhichthe
museumispart.Theworkachievesthisthroughitsmaterialityandconcept,which
referenceclimateresilientformsofagricultureaswellastheupbringingofthe
artistintheurban‘slums’ofMexicoCity.Inthisrespect,andinacomparableway
toLabofii’sappropriationofresilience,theworkoffersanalternativeandmore
hopefulimaginationofdevelopment.BycontrasttoLabofii,however,itwillbe
showntobelessromanticising,whichisoneofthestrengthsofthework.
However,EmptyLotwillalsobeshowntobeconstrainedbythe
phenomenologicalsiteofthemuseum,thebrandandimageofwhichhiswork
194enhancesinanambivalentwaywhentakingintoaccounthowthemuseum,asa
repositoryofpublicandculturalvalue,becomesanimportantcomponentinthe
brandmanagementofglobalmultinationalcompaniessuchasBP.Thisobjectionis
notacriticismoftheworkitselfortheintentionsoftheartist.Rather,itisa
criticismofthestatus,bothaffirmativeandnegative,thattheworkacquiresinthis
context.WhileIwillenduparguingthatCruzvillegas’workisrenderedaffirmative
byitsinstitutionalsiting,Iwillalsosuggestthatitformallyanticipatesthe
institutionalcritiqueofsponsorshipthatPlatformperformedduringtheDeadline
festival(2015a).Thefestival,whichIwillanalyseinthelastpartofthechapter,
willbeunderstoodtocompleteacritiqueofthesiteandsocialrelationsthat
underpinartpresentedinthecontextofthemuseum.Inthissense,thetwoworks
areindissociable.
Beforestartingtheworkofthemainanalysis,itisworthstatingthatboth
workswillalsoadvancethediscussionoftheideaofmixedtemporalitiesthatI
identifiedatworkindiversefiguresandcontexts,andwhichistiedtotheideaof
subsumptionintroducedinchapter1.Mixedtemporalities–the‘contemporaneity
ofthenon-contemporaneous’–wereencounteredintheimageofthefloodedfield
attheheartofKing’sCrossaswellasinthethirdworldartiststurnedmegastarsof
theinformationindustrywhoattemptedtosaveliveartfrombeingsubmerged.
Theseartistsgavevoicetothebroaderfeelingthatculturalorganisationsand
workers,thesupposedvanguardofthebravenewculturaleconomy,appearin
certainreportsandevaluationsasneverquiteinnovative,developedandadapted
enough.Mixedtemporalitieswerealsoencounteredinthefiguresofthe‘weavers’
ofthedigitalage,butalsopermacultureenthusiastsand,lastbutnotleast,Litmus
Drake,therevolutionarypoetextraordinairewhoisaverredtohavebeendead
since2034andisoneofthesubjects(ifnotoneofthefictionalauthors)ofthe
195‘detourned’benchplaquescreatedbyQuantitativeTeasingandplacedaroundthe
SquareMileinJune2009.Inmypreviousdiscussions,Isuggested,drawingon
Harootunian(2007)butalsoRidout(2013),LöwyandSayre(1984)aswellas
Tomba(2012)thatthekeytounderstandingtheideaofmixedtemporalityisthe
historicalpersistenceofunevendevelopment,producedbythecontinued
existenceofonlyformallysubsumedactivities,whichneverthelessbecomemore
andmoreintegrated,asanomalous‘exceptions’intocircuitsofeconomic
productionandvalorisation.Thisisthecaseofart,whichLütticken(2016,p.111)
haswrylyre-baptisedthe‘comingexception’,anallusionthatreferspartlytohow
contemporarycapitalism,asarule,nourishesitselfmoreandmorefromsemi-or
non-marketisedforms.Inthepreviouschapter,Iexploredhowthisprocessof
subsumptionisthesocialconditionofart’ssearchforautonomy,whilealsobeinga
destructivethreattoit.Thisexperienceofcreationanddestruction,subsumption
butalsoresistancetobeingabearerofexchangevalue,willonceagainfeaturein
thischapterasacharacteristicofthenegativelyautonomousworkofart,although
theworkofthischapterwillgivemeafurtheropportunitytodiscusshowthe
future-boundcontemporaneityofthenon-contemporaneousismoreandmore
boundtoapresentnessthatHarootuniancallsthe‘thickenedpresent’(2007,p.46).
Next,Iproposetoexplorethesocio-economiccontextinmoredetailsoasto
introducethemuseumanditssurroundsbutalsohowthesesurroundsand
questionsofurbandevelopmentconnecttoissuesofsponsorship.Ratherthan
proceedingwithadetaileddiscussionofthenotionof‘creativeclusters’and
‘districts’,ofwhichtheSouthbankisanexample,Iproposetoapproachthis
probleminitiallyviaanaccountofLandry’snotionof‘creativecity’(2008,p.xxi).
DiscussingLandry’sworkwillbeawaybroachingthesub-topicofcultureand
regeneration,whileframingtheproblemoftheiconicstatusofculturalinstitutions
196inmetropolitanurbanity,whichmakesthesesitesparticularlyattractiveto
investorsandsponsors.Landry’sdiscourseisalsoanotherexampleofthink-tank
discoursealreadyencounteredinchapter2,whichisallthemoreinterestingto
focusonasitreproducessomecharacteristicsofdiscourseandthought,whichI
havealreadydiscussed.Ishouldsaystraightawaythatwhilethisaccountwillbe
critical,Idobynomeansthinkthattheworkofurbandevelopers,architectsor
policy-makersisbadintheabsolute.Iamfirstandforemostconcernedwith
framingmydiscussionintermsthatwillmakesenseoftheparticularkindof
developmenttheSouthbankpartakesinaswellashowandwhytheplacecanbe
attractivetocorporatesponsors.
4.2TheSouthBank,theTateandtheartists
4.2.1Culturaldistrictsandcreativecities
AsfarasIhavebeenabletoascertain,thenotionofcreativecitieswascoinedin
Australiainthelate1980s(Yencken,1988).However,itwaspopularisedand
developedthroughaDemospamphletco-writtenbyLandryandBianchini(1995),
wheretheideaofcreativecitiesemergedasapotentialsolutiontotheproblemof
post-industrialdecline.Theculturalindustrieswerethoughtofasanintegralpart
ofthissolution.However,theideaofcreativityalsonamessomethinglarger.
Landrystipulatesthat‘overtime,itbecameclearerthattheeconomy,thepolitical
systemandthebureaucracywereallpartofthecreativeecologyastheworldof
citiesneededtorefocus’(Landry,2008,p.xxii).Hesummarisestheideaasfollows:
TheCreativeCityideaadvocatestheneedforacultureofcreativitytobe
embeddedwithinhowtheurbanstakeholdersoperate.Itimpliesreassessing
theregulationsandincentivesregimeandmovingtowardsamore‘creative
197bureaucracy’.Goodgovernanceisitselfanassetthatcangeneratepotential
andwealth[…].This,thenotionargues,willprovidecitieswiththeflexibility
torespondtochangingcircumstancesandtherebycreatethenecessary
resiliencetopossibleshockstothesystem(Landry,2008,p.xviii).
Althoughtheobjectofthediscourseisdifferent,theproceduresarestrongly
reminiscentofthethink-tankvarietiesofdiscoursereviewedinchapter2.Sucha
discoursecan,effectively,beunderstoodasanexpressionofapost-public,residual
welfarism.Thisresidual,public-privatewelfarismfirstencounteredintheearly
sectionsofchapter2advocatesashiftfromanauthoritarian‘machinemindset’
(oldpaternalistbureaucracy)toathinkingconcernedwiththecityas‘organism’
that,furthermore,issuffusedwithan‘eco-awareness’(Landry,2008,p.xliv,pp.57–
58).Through‘theblurringofintellectualboundaries’and‘multidisciplinary
planning’(Landry,2008,p.55),itisunderstoodthatcreativebureaucracyshould
aimtoproduceinnovativeandholisticsolutionstosolveemergingandcomplex
problemsthroughbottom-upcivicparticipation,whichthediscoursecontrasts
withatop-downinstrumentalism,mal-adaptedbureaucracythatallegedlycannot
copewithmessyproblems.Thisthinking,then,isconcernedwiththeinter-
relationsandconnectionsofpartswithinanorganicwholethatitthinksviaa
seriesofkeytermsandconcepts,someofwhicharealreadyfamiliar:‘capital’,
‘assets’and‘sustainability’(Landry,2008,p.60).
CulturaldistrictssuchastheSouthBankarekeytoLandry’sthinkingabout
creativity.Whiletheideaofcreativecitiesisunderpinnedbyabottom-upethos,
Landryalsospeaksabouttheimportanceof‘iconics’foracity(Landry,2008,
p.xvliii),includingmuseumsandtheatresthatshapetheimageandbrandofacity.
Arguably,theSouthBank,thatstretchesafewkilometresbetweenSouthwarkand
198WestminsterBridge,hasbecomeaniconicdistrictasdefinedbyLandry.Thisisin
partduetotheprestigeprojects(NationalTheatre,RoyalFestivalHall,Tate,Globe,
festivals)thatdominateitslandscapebutalsoduetoitsmorerecentdevelopment
asacommercialhiveofactivity,whichcoincidedwitha‘creative’liberalisationof
itsgovernance,asMcKinnie(2015)suggests.
TheSouthBankalsohighlightsthetensioninLandry’sdiscoursebetween
tworationalitiesandconceptionsofregeneration–culture-ledregenerationand
culturalregeneration(Evans,2005)–whichtogetherappeartoformurban
development-relatedvariantsoftheunityofcontraries(utilitarianism-culture)
discussedatdifferentpointinthisthesis.Bassett,speakingaboutbothmodels,
summarisesthetensionbetweentheseconceptionsofregenerationinthe
followingmanner:
Culturalregenerationismoreconcernedwiththemessuchascommunityself-
developmentandself-expression.Economicregenerationismoreconcerned
withgrowthandpropertydevelopmentandfindsexpressioninprestige
projectsandplacemarketing.Thelatterdoesnotnecessarilycontributetothe
former(BassettquotedinEvans,2005,p.960).
DespiteLandry’s(2008)desiretobalanceboth,itisthelatterrationalethat
appearstodominateinthecaseoftheSouthBank.Andineffect,thedevelopment
oftheSouthBank,whileinmanyregardsasuccess,isalsoinseparablefrom
processesofgentrificationandthedestructionofplace.Writinginthelate1980s,
theatrescholarMarvinCarlson(1989)wasalreadycommentingonthediscontent
surroundingthevariousplansfortheSouthBank.AsBaetan(2009)suggests,local
residentsalsoopposedthedevelopmentbecauseofthelackofsocialhousingand
199provisionofcommunityamenitiesaswellastheprivilegingofbusiness,office
spaceandtheconstructionofvenuesforhigh,elitistart.TheImaxcinematheatre,
ontheWaterlooroundaboutattheendofWaterlooBridge,whichusedtohouse
theCardboardCity,homeformanyofLondon’shomeless,standsasanemblemof
thisprocessofdisplacement,destructionandgentrification(Baeten,2009).
Thedestructionofplacebeingdiscussedhereisnotthesameastheancient
contradictionbetweenthecountryandthecitystructuringthePlatonicdialogue
discussedinLabofii’spamphletfromtheprecedingchapter.Rather,Iwouldlike
tosuggest,followingCunningham(2005),thatitislinkedtoanexperienceof
‘uprooting’orwhathecalls,afterCacciari,anexperienceof‘non-dwelling’(p.20),
whichispropertothemetropolis(asopposedtothecityofpre-moderntimes)
understoodas‘allegoryorprivilegedfigureofcapitalistmodernity,theessential
“site”ofmodernexperiencefromBaudelairetoBenjamintoDebord’(2005,p.16).
Thisexperienceofnon-dwellingisconditionaluponthefunctionalisationand
transformationofsitesandplacesaccordingtotheneedsofcapitalistproduction
andexchange.AsCunningham(2005)writes,‘itisthesocioeconomicprocessesof
capitalistrelationsofproductionandexchange,dominatedbythevalue-form,that
havehistoricallyconstituted,andcontinuetoconstitute,themetropolis’(p.21).
ThisrealitycouldalreadybeobservedintheSquareMile.TheSouthBank,while
verydifferenttotheSquareMile,couldbeunderstoodtohave,asculturaldistrict
andcreativeicon,asimilarstatusandfunction.30AsMcKinniesuggests(2015),the
30AsOsborne(2013)suggests,borrowingfromAugé’svocabulary,thespacesthatplaya
keyroleinreproducingcapitalistrelationsofproductionandexchangearenotonlya
dialecticalnegationofanthropologicallocalitybutarealsointernallydifferentiated:
‘airports,offices,factories,andgalleriesarenotmerelyequivalentasnon-places’(p.134).
200culturaldistrictperforms‘apalliativeroleinacityotherwisededicatedtothe
pursuitoffinancialcapital’(p.76).Thus,thespatial-cum-architecturalfixityofthe
place(aswellasitsculturalcredentials)playsacrucialembeddingfunction,while
alsobeingdependentonfinancialflows(money),flowsofpeople(tourists)and
information(artandculture)thatitembeds.Inthisrespect,thespatialfixityofthe
zoneisinvariablylinkedtowhatOsborne(2013),drawingontheworkoftheorists
suchasSassen,calls‘spacesofflow’(p.135),whichalsotranscendmoretraditional
unitsoflocalitywhileremainingvitaltothelifeoftheculturaldistrict,thecityand
thecountry.
LiketheSquareMile,thisspacehasacomplexhistory,whichiseffectively
spatialisedinitsarchitecture.McKinnie(2015)aversthatthesuccessofthe
neoliberalrefashioningoftheSouthbank,whichmadethezoneintoa
commerciallyvibranthub,wasalsopartlydependentonitswelfaristheritage,
mostvisibleinthemagnificentpost-warBrutalistmodernismofitsarchitecture,
whichbestowsupontheplaceitsiconicity.Thisphenomenon,whichechoesthere-
functionalisationofwelfarereviewedinchapter2,showsthatdespitethe
compressionofbarriersofspaceandtimeconsequenttheglobalcapitalism’s
progressivehistoricalexpansions(Harvey,1989),thepresentdoesnotconstitutea
cleanbreakfromandnegationofthepast.Thepresentmaybefuture-bound.
However,ittendstowardsthefuturethrougharedeploymentandrecapitulation
ofitspastwhich,moreover,isspatialised,asMcKinnie’sanalysissuggests.
Considerationsofthespatiallyandtemporallydifferentiatedcharacterofthe
presentwillfeatureaspartoftheanalysisofCruzvillegas’work.Whatthissection
hasotherwisestartedtoestablishthroughadiscussionofthenotionofcreative
citiesandregeneration,iconicsandtheSouthBankasculturaldistrict,ishow
cultureformsakeypartofcapitalist,metropolitanurbanityanddevelopment,by
201contributingtourbanredevelopment,whichinturnrendersculturaldistrictsand
institutionsintoattractive‘iconics’.Thenextsectionbuildsonthisgeneral
presentationoftheSouthbankascreativeandculturalhubbutfocusesonthe
galleryitself.
4.2.2TheTateModern
TheTateModernwasdesignedtohouse20thand21stcenturyartandopenedto
greatcriticalacclaimattheturnofthemillennium(Searle,2005).The
redevelopment,whichcost£134million,alsore-valorisedthepastoftheold
BanksidePowerStation.AccordingtoHarvie(2009),thedifferentindustrial
componentsoftheoldpowerstationwereemptiedoutinorderfortheshelland
corearchitecturalstructuresandfeaturestobereusedandadaptedintowhatis
nowamulti-storiedpermanentexhibitionspacethatincludesthegiantTurbine
Hallusedforcommissions.Thesteelandbrickbuildingis200metreslongwitha
100-metre-longcentralchimneytoweringhighaboveit(Wikipedia,2018e).The
buildingisperhapsnotasiconicastheBrutalistarchitectureoftheNational
Theatreandotherolderbuildingsofthearea.However,theTatebuildingis
arguablyatouristattractioninitself,justasmuchastheartthatithouses.The
MillenniumBridgeconnectsthemuseumtoStPaul’sCathedralontheNorthBank.
Since2000,thebuildinghasalsoundergoneanumberofextensions,includingthe
creationoftheTateTanksforliveperformancesandTheSwitchHouse,aten-
storey,65-metre-hightower(Moore,2016).
Harvie(2009)hasalsodrawnattentiontothemannerinwhichtheTate
Modernisasymbolofhighculturalcapitalism.Itscommercialcredentialsare,
amongotherthings,vauntedbyitscafesandshopslocatedatdifferentlevelsofthe
building,whichprovidethemerchandisethataccompaniesblockbustershowsand
202themuseum’scollections.AccordingtoEvans(2015),whodrawsontheTate’s
annualreports,themuseum’sincomeincreasedbyover£18millionintenyears,
fromtheearly1990stotheearly2000s.Incomefromtradereachednearly£25
millionin2013–2014.Thesecharacteristics,whichappeartoconformtotheideals
ofresiliencepropoundedbyMMM,areconcatenatedbythemorediscretebutno
lessvisiblecorporatelogosofexhibitionsponsorsonbillboards,programmesand
publicitymoregenerally(Harvie,2009).Buildingontheargumentpresentedin
chapter2,itispossibletoassertthatthegalleryisattractivetosponsorsinpart
because,asHarvie(2009)argues,afterHolden,theTurbineHallandtheTate
Modernarespecialcivicspaces,seatsofthecity’screativeandculturalcredentials.
HarviequotesHoldensayingthefollowing:
TateModerniscreatingpublicgoods:greaterconfidenceinpublicspaces,
socialinteractionamongmembersofthepublic,trustinpublicinstitutions
andnationalandlocalpride.Inthissense,TateModernisanembodimentof
democraticvalues(HoldenquotedinHarvie,2009,p.208).
Theciviccredentialsoftheplacearenotonlyattractivetocorporatesponsorsand
privateinvestorswhoderivereputationalbenefits(accruedsymbolicandsocial
capital)frombeingassociatedwithculture.Theyarecompatiblewithamore
generalneoliberalisationofculture.Evans(2015)suggeststhatthecompatibility
betweencultureandeconomyfollowsthehistoricaltrendstiedtotheriseof
philanthropyandprivategivingreviewedinchapter.AccordingtoEvans(2015),
whilegrant-in-aidmadeup87%ofTate’sincomein1990itconstituted36%of
Tate’sincomein2013–2014.Self-generatedincome(trusts,trading,donations,
203sponsorshipandother)constitutedtherest,totalling£53.2millioncomparedtoa
mere£2millionin1990(Evans,2015,pp.54–55).
WhiletheTateisamajorpartnermuseumthatisfundeddirectlybythe
DCMS,theinstitution’scommercializationandturntoprivateinvestmentand,
mostcontroversially,toBPsponsorshipisinmanywaysexemplaryofthepolitics
offundingthatprogrammessuchasCatalysthasintensified.Italsoexemplifiesthe
powerthatsuchmetropolitaninstitutionshaveofleveragingfunds,inpartthanks
totheirlocationand‘iconic’place-makingvaluebutalsothankstooneoftheir
primeassetsandresources–theirculturalbrand.AsexploredthroughtheTTMR
case,theinstitutionplaysakeyroleincorporatebrandmanagement,keyfinancial
assetsintoday’seconomies,asArvidsson(2005)hasshown.Assuch,thisisnota
rolethatallinstitutions,culturalhubsorcitiesfulfil,butonegiventoinstitutionsof
highartinoneofthefinancialheartlandsoftransnationalcapitalism.
IntheprecedingdiscussionIshowhowthemuseumparticipatesinare-
alignementofculturetothecultureindustries.Beforeintroducingtheartists,I
wouldliketodevelopafinalpointrelatingtothemuseumassiteofsubsumed
culture,whichrelatestothemuseumasasymbolofartisticandcultural
transnationalismandwhichwillalsocometobearontheanalysisofartqua
autonomousart.
AnumberofMarxisttheoristshaveforalongtimenowidentifiedthat
transnationalcapitalismhas,unsurprisinglyperhaps,atransculturallogic.
Exhibitionspaceshaveforalongtimebeentransculturalspaces,andinmany
respectstheTatemuseumisnodifferent.Aboutartincontemporarytransnational
capitalism,Osbornestatesthat‘theinstitutionsofcontemporary[…]havecreated
anovelkindofculturalspace–withtheinternationalbiennaleasitsalreadytiring
emblem–dedicatedtotheexplorationthroughartofsimilaritiesanddifferences
204betweengeopoliticallydiverseformsofsocialexperiencethathaveonlyrecently
beguntoberepresentedwiththeparametersofacommonworld’(2013,p.27).
ForOsborne,biennales–symboloftheartquacultureindustrybyvirtueoftheir
closeintegrationwithrationalesofurbanandregionaldevelopment–arealso
paradigmatic‘emblemsofcapital’scapacitytocrossborders,andtoaccommodate
andappropriateculturaldifferences’(2013,p.165).FollowingBirnbaum(2014),I
findquestionablethesuggestionfoundinthefirstquoteandsometimesfoundin
Osborne’sworkthatthesespacesoftransculturalpresentation(specifically
biennales)arenovelandevenpossiblyimbuedwithakindofradicalityonaccount
oftheirtransculturallogic.However,suchstatementshavethevirtueofstatinga
logicthatisinmyviewalsoatworkintheTate.ThroughitsTurbineHall
commissions,inparticular,theinstitutionworkswithaninternationalarrayof
artiststhatbringwiththemgeopoliticallydiverseformsofsocio-historical
experience.Thecommissionsconsistofbespokeworksmadeforthehallandhave
included,inthepast,worksbyAnishKapoor,OlafurEliasson,DorisSalcedoandAi
Weiwei.TalkoflocalandnationalprideonthepartofHoldenbelies,inthis
respect,theexperienceofamorecomplexformoftransnationalismdefinedby
intensifiedglobalmigrancyofwhatOsbornetermsa‘post-colonialismof‘after
1989’’(2013,p.163).Osborne(2013)sometimesmakesitsoundlikethese
transculturalspaces,spacesofrepresentationofthecontemporaryinart,are
spacesofparity.However,Wu(2009)hasclearlyshownthatthe‘nomadic’cultural
formssuchasbiennalesaredefinedbystark(socialandartistic)dividesand
inequalitiesbetweenartistsfromtheso-calledcentreandtheperiphery(Wu,
2009).Aswellasexploringart,whichproblematisestheseinequalities,shehas
alsoshownhowthemigrancyofartiststoandthesitingofartinthecentresofthe
capitalistartworld,morebroadly,canhaveanadverseeffectontheartitself.A
205shortreviewofapastTurbineHallcommissionwillhelptospecifythepotentials
andproblemsofthisculturalcondition,whichwillalsoinformmyinterpretationof
Cruzvillegas’work.
ThecaseIaminterestedindiscussingbrieflyisShibboleth(2007),more
commonlyknownas‘thecrack’,whichwasmadetheColombianartistDoris
Salcedo,andcounts,inmyview,amongthemostinterestingpastcommissionsfor
theTurbine.Itconsistedofanearthquake-like167metreriftinthegroundthat
rantheentiretyoftheTurbineHallandwentthreefeetunderground.Wu(2011,
p.71)statesthat‘theinteriorofwhatappearedtobeanearthquakefaultlinewas
casttoresemblesolidrock,butembeddedwithinitwaschain-linkfencing,
reminiscentofprisonsorconcentrationcamps’.Theartistclaimsthatthework–
whichaccordingtoWu(2011,p.71)wasnothinglessthan‘anunprecedented
physicalassaultontheveryfabricofitshostinstitution’–makesreferencetothe
historyofracismthatcloselyshadowsthehistoryofcapitalism(Wu,2011).Ina
statementthatsaysasmuchabouttheworkthanaboutherselfasamigrantartist
inafieldstilldominatedbyartistsfromEuropeandtheUnitedStates,theartist
claims:
ItsappearancedisturbstheTurbineHallinthesamewaytheappearanceof
immigrantsdisturbstheconsensusandhomogeneityofEuropeansocieties.In
highWesterntraditiontheinopportunethatinterruptsdevelopment,
progress,istheimmigrant,theonewhodoesnotsharetheidentityofthe
identicalandhasnothingincommonwiththecommunity(Salcedoquotedin
Wu,2011,p.71).
206Inappearance,then,thisworkachievesacertainkindofnegativeautonomy
thankstothemannerinwhichitproblematisesitssite.Bymakingthebuildingand
institutionthenon-artmaterialoftheworkitreflexivelypresentsthesocial
brutalitytiedtohistoriesofmigrationandexclusionthatarebothwithinand
withouttheartinstitution,asAdan(2010)suggests.Wu(2011),however,very
astutelyquestionstheextenttowhichsuchapparentlyboldartmayalsofinditself
underminedbythewidersocialrelationsthatenableit.Whenshetriedtoenquire
intothefinancesoftheproduction,shehit(asisoftenthecase)awallofsecrecy.
Herdetectivework,however,revealsthatataroundthesametimethatthe
commissionwasbeingmade,manyoftheartist’spastworksweregoingonsalein
privategalleries,whichWusupposescontributedtoraisingfundsforthe
exhibitionaswellastoraisingtheprofileofanartistwhowasabouttoacquirea
stellarreputation.Someoftheseworks,Wu(2011)remarks,werememorabilia
fromasite-specificperformancewithaverycontext-specificandpolitically
chargedmeaninginrelationtoColombia’shistoryofcivilwar.ThisleadsWutoask
acrucialquestionandtocometothefollowingconclusion:
Whatdoesitmeanifworks,painstakinglyconceivedandproducedto
commemoratetheappallingsocialrealityofColombia’smissing,arelater
reproducedunderthecommercialimperativesofaWest-runsystemthat
condones—indeed,supportswithmilitaryaid—theexistingpowerstructures
andsocialinequalitiesinColombia?Wherethissortofworkbecomesthe
servantofcommercialmanipulation,theartitselfrisksbeingneutralized(Wu,
2011,p.77).
207WhileWu’sapproachandthequestionssheraises,throughaBourdieusian
framework,arenotexactlythesameasmine,herworkhighlightsoneofthekey
problemsofthisthesisthatrelatestomythirdresearchquestion:namely,
understandingtheextenttowhichandthemannerinwhichanartworkcansituate
itselfcriticallywithintherelationsofproductionandcirculationthatunderpinitin
ordertonotbecomeaninstanceofaffirmativeculture.For,ineffect,aworksited
inthehallcanstillachieveacertainkindofformalautonomy,despitebeingina
placewherecultureismorerigorouslysubsumed.Infact,suchspacesrequire
autonomyinordertomakethemaliveasinstitutions.However,onaccountofthe
workenhancingthespace(feedingintoplace-marketing,whichinturnattracts
andembedseconomicpower),italsorisksbecomingaffirmative,thatis,itrisks
playingtheroleofreconcilerandconcealer,asWu(2011)suggests.Byexploring
thisprobleminmyownanalysis,Iamnotsayingthatartistsshouldnotexhibitat
theTateorthattheTateshouldbeabolished.However,myviewisthatsuch
problemsandcontradictions,whichareconstitutiveofthework,areproblemsand
contradictionsthatareworththinkingaboutinacritiqueofresilienceinculture
andareimportant,moregenerally,foramaterialistunderstandingofthework.
Thenextsectionintroducestheartists.
4.2.3CruzvillegasandAuto-construcción,PlatformandDeadline
CruzvillegaswasborninAjusco,whichisasquattersettlementinthesouthern
outskirtsofMexicoCity.AsDavis(2006)suggests,MexicoCityisbycontrasttoa
globalcreativecityoftheoverdevelopedworldoneofthebiggestbooming
megacitiesofthedevelopingworlddefinedmoreoftenthannotbyunplanned
urbanexpansionandsprawl(slums).TheneighbourhoodwhereCruzvillegasgrew
upisexemplaryofthisphenomenon.Itwasbuiltinavolcanicareadeemedtobe
208barelyhabitableasaconsequenceofthegreatwavesofmigrationfromperipheral
ruralareastotheurbancoreofMexicoduringthecountry’spushtoindustrialise
inthe1950sand1960s(Cruzvillegas,2008).Aboutthehousesinhis
neighbourhood,Cruzvillegasexplainsthat‘thematerialsandthetechniques
employedinthebuildingwerealmostcompletelyimprovised,basedonspecific
circumstancesoftheimmediatesurroundings,andamidsocialandeconomic
instability,notjustinMexico,butprobablyacrosstheworld’(McKee,2008,p.7).
Thus,McKee(2008)explains,theartistfoundinhisparents’homeandthecolony
therootsofhissculpturalandartisticpractice.
Theumbrellaprojectorconceptunderwhichtheartisthasperformedmost
ofhisworksince2007isnamedAuto-construcción(‘Self-construction’).While
Cruzvillegasisoriginallyasculptor,theprojectistransdisciplinaryinthesense
discussedinthepreviouschapter.Itincorporatesfilm,installation,drawing,
theatre,music,teaching,performanceandwriting(Greeley,2015).Thesculptural
elementofCruzvillegas’workremainsneverthelessessentialtounderstandinghis
work.Wheninvitedorcommissionedbyanartinstitutionorgallery,hewilloften
askthegallerytocollectdiscardedmaterialsfromlocalskipsinthearea.With
thesediscardedpiecesofwaste,hemakessculpturesthatformready-made
assemblagesorDIYconstructions,whichappearoftenprecariousandunstable.
EmptyLot(2015a)followssimilarprinciplesandcanbeconsideredasan
iterationofthesameidea.CommentingontheethosofCruzvillegas’practice,
whichinformedthemakingofEmptyLot(2015a),curatorMarkGodfreyargues:
Tomakesculptureinthiswaymeansbeingresourceful,andimprovising;this
kindofworkingmightbeseenasakintobasicthriftybusinessesand
entrepreneurs(i.eyouusewhateverresourcesareathandtomakethings,
209tryingtoexpandaslittleaspossibleinordertomaximizeprofit),butinthe
contextofhigh-budgetsculptureandaworldwhichfetishizesnewthings,
Cruzvillegas’sapproachinsteadseemstobeamodelofsustainability
(Godfrey,2015,p.496).
ThisDIYpracticeandethosofreuse,whichisanimplicitodetotheresilienceof
ruralmigrantandsettlercommunities,canalsobeunderstood,followingKobialka
(2016,p.56)whodrawsonMarcuse,asproducing‘acritiqueofagivenstateof
affairsonitsowngrounds–oftheestablishedsystemoflife,whichdeniesitsown
promisesandpotentialities’.Theimmanentcritiquethathisworkperformsis,in
part,thatofofficial,state-sanctionedandnationalistnarrativesofprogressin
Mexico(Cruzvillegas,2015b).Thewasteanddetritusofoureconomicsystem,
whichisthenon-artmaterialofhiswork,re-affirmsthediscrepancybetweenthe
promiseofbourgeoisprogressanditswastedreality,whichthinkingbackto
Balibar’sBenjaminianargument,mightalsobeunderstoodasits‘inconvertible’
rubbleorwhatBataillenamesthe‘heterogenous’(Balibar,2015,p.41).
ThisacuteawarenessofMexico’ssituationandplacewithintheglobalorder
is,inpart,tiedtotheeventthatcametosymboliseMexico’sentranceintothe
globalliberalorder:the1985earthquakeinMexicoCity.Theearthquakebecame
anallegoryforthedifficultprocessofso-calledmodernisationofMexico,which
underwentvariousphases,includingthecountry’ssubjectiontoneoliberal
structuraladjustmentsprogrammes(liberalisationoftrade,privatisation)ofthe
1980s,andtheNAFTAagreementsofthe1990s(CruzvillegasandGodfrey,2015).
Cruzvillegas,Orozco,Kuri,Ortegaandanumberofotherartistswhosharedan
interestinmasscommoditycultureaswellasaninterestintheplaceofMexico
andMexicanculturewithinthisglobalorderwerepartofanalternative,self-
210organisedscenethatemergedaroundthattime,whichembracedinfluencesfrom
otherpartsofLatinAmericaaswellastherestoftheworld.Thisgroupofartists
wasparticularlycriticalofneo-Mexicanisminpainting,whichwasunderstoodto
betheculturalforerunnerofMexico’sclaimtoaplaceinthenewglobalorder
(CruzvillegasandGodfrey,2015).
Thisall-too-briefbiographyandcontextualisationhasservedtointroduce
thepracticesandconceptsthatunderpinEmptyLot(2015a),whichIhave
suggestedconformsformallytothecharacteristicsofartdiscussedinthe
precedingchapter.Oneoftheconcernsoftheanalysiswillresideinunderstanding
howtheworkthroughitslogicsofself-constructionpresentsacritiqueofthe
socialrelationswithinwhichitsits.Myargumentwillbethatthepresentationof
mixedtemporalitiesandurbanexperiences(theAjuscomigrantmodelofresilient
urbanity)inEmptyLot(2015a)producesaninterestinginvestigationofthe
transnationalurbanformoftheSouthbank.However,myargumentwillalsobe
that,onaccountofitssitinginthehall,itshouldbebestviewedincombination
withtheworkofPlatform,whosefestivalDeadline(2015a)willbeunderstood,
followinglogicthatIwilloutlineinthecourseoftheanalysis,torealiseandundo
Cruzvillegas’work.AstringofperformancescholarsincludingRead(2013),
Schmidt(2010)andTompkins(2014)havewrittenaboutPlatform’spastprojects.
Iwillnotrevisitthesehereindetailasthesubjectofdiscussionisthefestivalin
whichanumberofothergroupsandpersonsparticipated.However,Iwillgivea
generaloverviewofthegroup’sworkandethos,glimpsesofwhichwehave
alreadycaughtinchapters2and3.
Platformwasfoundedintheearly1980s(Bottoms,2012).Environmental
politicshasforalongtimebeenanimportantpartofPlatform’swork,althoughthe
murderofagroupofNigerianactivistswhobecameknownasOgoni9andwhich
211includedNigerianactivistandplaywright-authorKen-SaroWiwain1995
contributedtothegroup’sfocusonhumanrightsviolationsbyglobalcorporations
BritishPetroleumandShell(Rowelletal.,2005).Thecollective,whichhaschanged
andmorphedoverits35yearsofexistence,includesartistsandactivistsaswellas
peoplewithnon-artcampaigningbackgrounds(Bottoms,2012).Thismakes
Platform,asBottoms(2012)suggests,atrulyinterdisciplinaryart,activistand
educationalorganisation.
Imentionedinchapter2thatPlatformisamemberofthelargerArtNotOil
coalition,whichiscampaigningtoendoilsponsorshipofculturalinstitutionsin
theUKandglobally.AccordingtoEvans(2015),thiscampaigncameoffthebackof
similarcampaignsconductedthroughoutthe1990sinrelationtotobaccoand
armsmanufacturing.WhileIwillnotrevisittheparticularissueofsponsorshipin
greatdetail,IwillrestatebrieflyhowthesponsorshipofTatebyBP,a26-year
relationshipthatendedin2016,providesaninterestingcaseforourdiscussionof
resiliencediscourses,illustratingthedissensusaroundtheideaanditsdefinitions.
Inchapter2,Idiscussedhowcultureprovidesbigoilcompanieswithasocial
licensetooperate,aPRandmarketingconceptthatgainedcurrencyafterShell
aimedtocleanupitstarnishedpublicimageafterthehigh-profilemurderofthe
Ogoni9(Evans,2015).Evans(2015)andanumberofPlatformactivistshave
shownthatBPsponsorsinstitutionssuchastheTateforsimilarmotives.However,
ithasalsobeshownthattheproportionofBP’ssponsorshipofculturalinstitutions
inLondon,suchasTate,wasactuallyverysmallincomparisonwithothersources
offunding(Clarkeetal.,2011).ForthegroupsthatarepartoftheArtnotOil
campaign,thisdatawasandstilliskeyinchallengingthemythperpetuatedbythe
headsoftheseinstitutionsthemselvesthatartsinstitutionsareabsolutely
dependentontheseformsofsponsorshipintimesofcrisis(Clarkeetal.,2011).
212Theyarguethat,infact,thereverseistrue.Namely,itisculturalorganisationsthat
playastabilisingandembeddingroleforcompaniessuchasBP,inparticularwhen
theyaremarredbycrisessuchasthatofDeepwaterHorizon,whichturnspublic
opinionagainstthem.PlatformandtheArtNotOilcoalitionargue,then,thatthis
associationwentagainsttheethicalpolicyandvaluesofTate(byextensionagainst
thedefinitionsofresilienceendorsedbytheACEorprobablytheDCMS),stressing
thatitmarstheidentityofanorganisationthat,ifanything,shouldstandforethical
andpoliticallyprogressiveculture.Underlyingtheargumentisalsothemore
fundamentalideathatthisassociationgoesagainstthebuildingofanecologically
resilientandsustainablesociety(Clarkeetal.,2011).31Thisargumentisimportant
fortheanalysisofthischapterasitbringsmyanalysisbacktothequestionof
antagonisminculturalpractice.AndwhileIwillnotreturntodiscussionsof
resiliencepolicies,theanalysisofthefestivalwillbetheopportunitytomake
visiblethisantagonismandmalaise,whichisthegesturethroughwhichart
negatesresilience.WhatfollowsisanaccountanddiscussionofCruzvillegas’work
EmptyLot(2015).Thisaccountreproducesmyfirstencounterwiththework,
whichoccurredduringthePlatformfestivalandaperformancelecturebyAlan
Read,whichopenedthePlatformfestival.
31Evans(2015)arguesthatthemalaisecausedbythisrelationshipwasalsofeltamongst
themembersofTatewhotookuptheissueanumberoftimeswiththeboardofthe
institution.
2134.3The(Non-)Site
4.3.1EmptyLot:floatingislandsongiantscaffolds
IarriveattheTateearlyinthemorningfortheopeningofthefestival.Asmall
crowdofpeoplehasalreadygatheredonthefirstlevelbridgethatjoinsthetwo
sidesofthebuildinginthemiddleoftheTurbineHall.Peoplearesittingonthe
concretelisteningtoAlanReadgivingaperformancelecture.Heistalkingabout
‘phyto-performance’,thatis,performancepracticesthatde-centrethehuman
throughare-centeringonplantsandprocessesof‘co-presentationalongsideand
withinplantprocesses’(Vieiraetal.,2015,p.xx).Suchperformancesinviteus,
Readclaims,toproblematiseamongstotherthingswhathecallsthe‘English
Gardeneffect’(Read,2015,p.251):theconversionoflandscapesintonicely
arrangedgardens,aeuphemismforthecoveringupofactsofdestructionand
exterminationoflifetiedtothemarchofso-calledprogress(Read,2015,p.251).
ItturnsoutthatReadisperformingaco-presentationalongsideandwithin
plantprocesses.Hislectureisalsoaphyto-performanceofsorts.Hishumanfigure
isflankedbyplantsssituatedonbothsidesofthehall,whicharepartof
Cruzvillegas’EmptyLot(2015a).AsIleanovertheedgeofthebridge,Icanseeon
eithersidetwogiant,raisedplatformsonwhichtriangular,wedge-likeplanters
havebeenplacedand,intheplanters,soil.Outofsomeoftheplanters,onecansee
tuftsofgreenwhereplantsandotherformsoflifearegrowing.Accordingto
Godfrey(2015b),theplantershavebeenfilledwithearthcollectedfrompublic
parks,heaths,commons,greenspaces,andprivategardensfromacrossLondon,
includingthecurator’s.Thetraysarewateredonaregularbasis.Noflowersor
bulbshavebeenplantedintheplanters.However,someplantershavealready
becomefulloflife(grass,weedsandmushrooms)whileothershaveremained
barreninoutwardappearanceatleast.Theplantersarealsolitby10spotlights
214riggedoneachsideofthegiantplatforms.DIYsculpturallightshavebeenplaced
aroundtheplantersaswell.Cruzvillegasandhiscollaboratorsconstructedthem
frommaterialsfoundinskipsandonconstructionsitesnearthemuseum(Tate,
2015).
Thegianttriangularplatformspointtowardsthewesternentranceofthe
galleryaswellastheeasternendofthehall.Thestepped,stair-likegiantplatform
facingeastbecomesmoreelevatedasthesculpturereachesfurtherintothehall.
Onthewesternend,thesculpturegoesdownandisatitslowestheightwhen
closesttotheslopedentranceofthemuseum.Fromthebridge,fromwherethe
scaffoldingisnotvisible,theplatformappearstobeafloatingasifithaderected
itself.AsIgodownfromthebridgeandenterthesculpture’sunderbelly,Iam
absorbedbyastructurethatappearstobeinperpetualconstruction,forever
remakingitself.Itisamazeofscaffoldingsupportedbyadozensquaresupport
towersdistributedinnomorethanfourorfiverowsoverthelengthofthegiant
structure.Small,warmyellowlightshangfromthetopofthescaffoldingtolightup
theundersideofthestructure.
Bycontrast,theactualplatformsaredefinedbysymmetry.Themini-
triangularplanters,whichcontainthegrowth,siton11differentstepsoftwoand
halfmetresinlength(Tate,2015).Becausethegiantplatformsaretriangularin
shape,eachstepholdsadifferentnumberofplanters,theinteriorsofwhichare
linedwithblackmaterial.Thestepsclosesttothebridgeoneachsidecontain21
mini-planters.Eachnewstephastwolessplantersthanthepreviousone,sothe
tipofthegianttrianglesupportedbyasinglesupporttowercladinwiringholdsup
asingleplanter(Tate,2015).Thesizeisimposingyettheminimalistbarenessof
theplantersaswellasthesenseofimprovisedinventivenesscreatedbythe
sculpturallampsprovideacounterpointtothesymmetriesofthestructure.
215ThisaccountoftheworksuggeststhatEmptyLot(2015a),whilesingular,
reproducesbycertainofitsaspects(DIYconstructions,urbanscaffolded
sculpture)theethosofCruzvillegas’work,andnotablytheAjusco-inspiredethosof
‘self-construction’discussedintheprevioussection.Iwillnowexaminehow
despiteCruzvillegas’suspicionofperformingMexican-nessontheartworldstage,
theworkcarriesthoseurbanMexicanexperiences,whichIwillberelatingbackto
theissueofthemixedtemporalitiesofunevendevelopment.
Cruzvillegasstatesthatoneofhisearlyreferencepointsfortheconstruction
wasapre-colonialagriculturalsystemcalledchinampas(CruzvillegasandGodfrey,
2015).Thechinampassystemissupposedtobeahighlysustainable,climate-
resilientandlocalisedformofculture(Saliba,2015),aboutwhichCruzvillegas
states:
ThesewerelittlerectangularislandscreatedbytheAztecpeopleinthelakeof
Mexicowhenmuchofthecityweknowtodaywasonandaroundalargelake.
Theymadetheserectangularislandsingridswithcanalsrunningbetween
them.Theislandswereforagriculture–forcorn,beans,chilli,tomatoes,
potatoesandsoon–averyorganicsystem[…].Thechinampaswereonmy
mindwhenIthoughtaboutconstructingfloatingpieceoflandintheTurbine
Hall:afloatingpieceoflanddividedintotraysofearth(Cruzvillegasand
Godfrey,2015,p.63).
Thisinterestinpre-modernformsofagriculture,whichneverthelesspersisttoday,
isaclearpointofconnectionwithpermacultureandappearstoinstantiatethe
temporallogicsofthecontemporaneityofthenon-contemporaneous.However,in
contrasttoLabofii’sdiscourseofresilience,theminimalistfloatingpieceofland
anditstraysofearthaswellasindustrialscaleoftheworkavoidsabadlyromantic
216viewofnature,whichLabofii’sdiscoursetendstoconstruct.Instead,EmptyLot
(2015a)presentsaverycontemporaryurbanimagination,whichIwillargueisone
oflarge-scaledestruction,lossandcrisisaswellaspossibility.Iwillexplorethis
probleminabitmoredetailbelowstartingwiththequestionofdestructionand
loss.
Thesculpturalconstruction,initsscaleaswellasmaterials,appearsto
presenttheever-expandingurbanexperienceofthemetropolisorperhapsI
shouldsaymegalopolis.AsCunninghamsuggestsspeakingaboutmetropolitan-
megalopolitanurbanityoftransnationalcapitalism:
Thesimultaneousjoiningupof‘juxtaposedanddistantpoints’that–nolonger
held(howeverporously)withinthecontinuousspatialtotalityofmoreorless
discretemetropolises–nowformsanemergent,immanentlydifferentiated,
totalprocessofurbanizationonaplanetaryscale(2005,p.21).
EmptyLot(2015)couldbeunderstoodtopresentthegeopoliticallydifferentiated
characterofthisprocess,whichdividesandconnectsglobalcitieslikeLondonand
megacitieslikeMexico.Thus,there-inscriptionofthisdifferentialrealitybya
migrantartistinagalleryinLondonappearstomakepalpableinitsmateriality
andformtheinequalitiesindevelopmentbetweencitiesintheoverdeveloped
worldanddevelopingworld.AsDavis(2006)haspointedoutmigrationtourban
centresintheboomingcitiesoftheGlobalSouthhasproducedanexplosionof
urbanpoverty,nothinglessthana‘surplushumanity’,anewurbanrabblevariously
(un)employedinanebulousandexpandinginformaleconomy(Davis,2006,
p.174).Thisurbanityisalsolinkedtotheproductionofallkindsofnewtoxicities,
hazardsandenvironmentaldegradationonaccountoftheencroachmentof
217unplannedurbansprawlonruralenvironmentalreserves(Davis,2010,2006).The
productionofurbaninequalitiesandthedisorganisationoflabourpowercaused
bylarge-scalemigration,aswellastheproductionofaglobalisedurbanrabble,are
notfiguredexplicitlyinthework.However,theantagonismsthattraverse
contemporarytransnational,urbancapitalismarethroughthepresentationofthe
residualcharacteroftraditional,evenruralculturesandformsofsociality,the
rationalisationofabarrennatureanddepletedresources,whichalsoalludestothe
sporadicpoliticsofguerrillagardeningandland-grabbingperformedbytheurban
poor,includingCruzvillegas’parents(CruzvillegasandGodfrey,2015).These
inequalitiesinurbandevelopmentarealso,asDavis(2010)andFraser(2016)
state,partlysustainedbyregimesofdebtthatlimitpublicinvestmentinthe
sprawlingcitiesoftheGlobalSouth,andwhichsustainthedominanceofthegreat
centresoffinancecapitalintheGlobalNorth.Thepresentationofthisinequality
alsoappears,inacomparablewaytoTowell’sparableaboutBraziliancultural
workers,tobedouble-coded.Thefigurationofunevendevelopmentpointsto
urbaninequalitiesthatdefineLondon,andwhicharereproduced,wittinglyornot,
throughprocessesofregenerationsuchasthosethatdefinetheSouthBank.
Inthissense,thework’smixingoftraditionalandmodern,ancientand
contemporarypresentsarebuttalofwhatHarootunian(2007)viewsas‘oneofthe
moresuccessfulconjurationsperformedbymodernindustrializedsocieties’:the
concealmentof‘theunevennesswithintheirownprecinctsanditsaccompanying,
mixed,andoften“discordanttemporalities”regulatingtherhythmsoflife,making
it[theunevenness–J.YPinder]appearasaproblemstigmatizingthenonmodern’
(p.475).ThisgestureofCruzvillegas’work,bywhichtheantagonismthatdefine
theunevenlydevelopedLondonandtransnationalurbanitymorebroadlyarere-
presented,definesthework’sclaimtoautonomy.
218Indoingso,however,italsoavoidswhatCunningham(2005,p.22)callsthe
‘pathosofenclavetheory’,whicharguablydefinesLabofii’sutopianyearnings.If
followingTomba(2012,p.175),thereappearstobe‘somethingofthefuture
encapsulatedinthepastthatcanbefreedfromthecontemporaneityofthearchaic’
inthepresentwork,thentheutopianchargeofpre-capitalistpasts(chinampas)
andnatureappeardifferentlytothelostruralidyllspreviouslyencountered.Odes
tothelostidyllwerespokenbybenchplaqueslamentingtheexistenceofbipeds,
theanimalsforwhomthebenchesweredesignedforinthefirstplace.Theyalso
appearedintheguiseofpoemsabouttheNigerDelta,alostparadise,becominga
hostilehomeandlover.InEmptyLot(2015a),however,thepastdoesnotappearas
alostparadise.Here,thepastappearsclosertohowitwasfiguredinRobinson’s
(2013)poemabouttheNorth-East:destructionwithouttheorganicidyll.IfEmpty
Lot(2015a),whichCruzvillegasclaimsisasculpturemadeoutofhope(Tate,
2015),presentsafreeingofarchaicfuturity,acommitmenttothepastthatisalsoa
takingevidencefromthefutureasRobinson’s(2013)poembutalsotheexistence
LitmusDrake’splaquesuggest,thenthearchaicisdefinitelyanup-rootedideal.
Despitetheirrevocablelossthatitproduces,itisthisconditionofnoreturnthat
alsoopensuppossibilities,whichthegrowinglifeoftheemptylotsembodies.It
shouldalsobenotedthatwhilethetime-basedcharacteroftheplantperformance
addstothesenseofthework’sincompleteness(itsruininreverse),thereisa
senseinwhichthesealternativetemporalitiesarecontainedorminimisedbythe
overbearingspatialtherenessofthestructure.Thisdoesnotannulthefuturityof
thearchaicperse.However,theexperienceofuprootingandun-dwellingthatthis
spatialisationembodies,whichispresentedinthematerialsandformsofthe
sculptureundoubtedlypresupposestheurbanpresentoftheinterconnected
219megalopolis.Thisappearstomakeforasobererre-inventionofthechinampas
thantheoneimaginedbythepermaculturalistsofthepreviouschapter.
Thisurbanityalsoappearstobetheconditionofpossibilityforotherurban
imaginations,figuredthroughtheallusionstoguerrillagardeningandland-
grabbing,practicesthataimtoreclaimtheusevaluesandsocialintelligence
producedbycities(McKay,2013).Inthissense,theuselessnessandthe
randomnessoftheemptylots,takenfromvariouscommonsandpublicspacesof
London,standinforwhatAdornocalledthe‘stuntedusevalue’(Adorno,1997,
p.227)–thosenon-commercialspacesthatareencroacheduponbythesprawling
urbanitythatisotherwisetheconditionoftheirexistence.Thistensionwas
alreadypresentinthediscussionofthetwoconceptions(cultural
regeneration/culture-ledregeneration)ofdevelopmentandregenerationnested
inLandry’sdiscussionofcreativecities.EmptyLot(2015a)recoversthis
antagonisminform.
Theprecedinganalysishasdonemuchtoclarifythesocialcharacterofthe
work.However,theartisticcharacteroftheworkremainstobemorefully
determinedinordertounderstandinmoredetailhowitexistswithinthelineages
ofartthatIspecifiedinthepreviouschapter.Asthecuratorsuggests,Cruzvillegas’
workcanalsobeproductivelyviewedinrelationtoanumberofpracticesand
artists,includingtheSovietConstructivists,HansHaacke’sgrowinggrassworks
andthearchitecturalworksofMatta-Clark(CruzvillegasandGodfrey,2015).
However,itisperhapsSmithson’sconceptofthenon-sitethatismostrelevantin
termsofhowtheconceptcanhelptomakesenseoftheformalfeaturesofthework
aswellasitsrelationtothemuseum,theculturaldistrictandthecity.
Aboutthenon-siteanditsrelationtositeintheworkofSmithson,Meyer
(2000)writes:
220
Place,forSmithson,isavectoredrelation:thephysicalsiteisadestinationto
beseenorleftbehind,a“tour”recalledthroughsnapshotsandtravelogues.It
isonlytemporarilyexperienced[…],ifitisseenatall(SpiralJettysanksoon
afteritscompletion).Siteasaunique,demarcatedplaceavailableto
perceptualexperiencealone[…]becomesanetworkofsitesreferringtoan
elsewhere(2000,p.30).
Asexamplesofnon-sites,onecouldevokeSmithson’sFloatingIslandtoTravel
AroundManhattanIsland,whichwasaninstructionforatugboattopullabarge
fulloftreesandvegetationaroundManhattan,makingFloatingIslandamirror
displacementofagreenisland(Osborne,2013).Theideaofnon-sitealsoinformed
theinfluentialmodelofthemobileartistastouristorinvestigatorofmultiplesites,
whichIthinkalsounderpinsBeinart’sinvestigationsoftheflauraandfaunaofthe
SquareMile(Osborne,2013).EmptyLot(2015a)reproducessomethingofthis
rationale.Thedifferentsoils,whichweregatheredfromdifferentparksandplaces,
createamirrorofthecity,whichtheworkisconstitutedbyandplacedinrelation
to.Kaye(2000)suggeststhattherepresentationofasiteasanon-siteisawayof
revealingtherelationbetweenthenon-siteofthegalleryorworkofartandwhatit
existsinrelationtobutalsonegates.Throughthisindexicalquality,thenon-site
exposes,asKayesuggests,‘thelimitsandoperationofthegalleryitself’andthe
formofdevelopmentitpartakesit(Kaye,2000,p.93).Bydoingso,itmayalsobe
understood,asmypreviousanalysisofthearchaicsuggests,aspresentinganother
idealofurbanity,whichrevealsthelimitsofourown.
Theprecedinganalysisofthework’sautonomyneedstobecomplicatedand
complementedonanumberofcounts.Itwouldbeperhapsunfairtocriticisethe
221workfornothavingintegratedacritiqueofitssponsors,asIdonotthinkthatthe
sponsorshiprelationconstitutedanelementofthework’sconcept.Nevertheless,
thisquestioncomestobearontheanalysisasthesite-specificcharacterofthe
workcomplicatesanyclaimstoaformofcriticalautonomy.AsOsborne(2013)
suggests,thecategoryofnon-siteemergedasareactionagainstthe
institutionalisationofartinthesamemannerasconceptualartdiscoursewas,in
part,areactionagainstcommodificationofartaswellasinstitutionalised
(Greenbergian)formsofcriticism.Theproblemofinstitutionalisationposesitself
inthecontextofCruzvillegas’workasitdidinthecaseofSalcedo’swork.Inboth
cases,areflexiverelationtotheinstitutionisconstructed.But,alsoinbothcases,
theinstitutionalisationoftheworkisambivalent.InthecaseofCruzvillegaswe
maywonderwhetherthework,regardlessoftheintentionsoftheartist,functions
asanadornmenttothebuildingitselfinnotadissimilarwaytohowAkademi’s
site-specificperformanceadornedthegardensofthebillionairemoguls.Projects
suchasEmptyLot(2015a)andthecommissionsappeartoprovidethemuseum
withacontemporaryedgethatcomestocomplementthemuseum’sclaimtobea
repositoryoftransnational‘modern’heritageandculture,culturalvalueandpublic
good.Thisis,ofcourse,agoodthing.However,thisalsopresentsacontradiction
thatisworthdiscussingasitpointstoapotentiallimitoftheworkunderstoodas
non-site.Thesite-specificcommissionappearsthankstoitspublicnesstoadd
valuetothesiteandbrandoftheTate,whichinturnmakesitmoreattractiveto
sponsorsandmakesthegalleryakeynodeinthemanagementofcorporate
financialassets.Inthisrespect,thecommissions,moregenerally,sharecertain
characteristicswithwhatMcKinnie(2012)callsmonopolisticperformance.
Namely,commissionslikeEmptyLot(2015a)maximisetheuseofthespace.
However,insteadofplayingwithfantasiesofprivateownership,Iwouldargue
222thatitisthepublicnessofthesecommissions,theiridealityaspublicgoodsand
culturalvalueàlaHolden(enhancedbytheirsheersize)thatmakestheman
attractivepropositionforthemuseumbutalsobyextensionbythesponsors.
Havingunpickedthisambivalence,whichmeansthattheworkhasbeen
identifiedasoscillatingbetweennegativeandaffirmativeautonomy,thenext
sectiongoesontoexplorehowtheDeadline(2015a)festivalcouldbeunderstood
torealisebutalsoundoCruzvillegas’workbydevelopingthelogicsofhisworkas
non-sitebeyondwhatIunderstandtobeitsunwittingspatialcontainment.The
workofthefestivalwilldosobyactualisingtheguerrillagardeningprinciple
embeddedintheemptylots,thoselittlewedgedfragmentsoftemporalisedspace,
whichappeartorenderEmptyLot(2015a)incompletewhilerealisingthework’s
idealbymakingaplaceforheteronomousprocessesandcontingencies,struggles
foruse-valuesandresistancetobeabearerofexchange-value.Theemptylots,in
thisrespect,performwhatBenjamin(1996,p.163)callstheironisationofart’s
form,its‘freelywilleddestruction’inthesearchofitsunconditionedautonomy.
Thesearchisironicastheunconditionedcharacteroftheworkrevealsitselftobe
illusionary:autonomyisconditioned,acontradictionandtensionmadevisiblein
therelationbetweenthearial,‘floating’platformandtheunderbellyofthe
structure.
However,inactivating,beyondthework’sspatialisedcontainment,the
apparentauto-destructionofthework,thefestivalwillbeshowntodisplacethe
phenomenologicalminimalismofCruzvillegas’site-specificcommissionand
produceaconceptofnon-siteand,moregenerally,ofartthatinmyviewisnot
reconcilablewiththerationalesofsponsorship.Ialsowarnthereaderthatthe
analysisofthefestivalwillbelessdevelopedthanthepreviousone.Thisisdueto
223thefactthatitwasafestivalwithmanyworks.Aftergivingabriefaccountofthe
overallIwillsettleontheanalysisofoneworkbeforeconcluding.
4.3.2Deadline
Assuggestedabove,andasMeyer(2000)specifies,thefirstwaveofartists
interestedininstitutionalcritique‘displacedthephenomenologicalsiteofthe
minimalistinstallationintoacriticalreflectiononthegalleryitself’(p.25).While
thisrationaleisnotentirelyabsentfromCruzvillegas’work,thelatterdoesnot
addresshowculturalinstitutionsembedfinancialflowsaspartofwhatPlatform
(2012,p.6)memberscallsthe‘CarbonWeb’.AbouttheCarbonWebmembersof
Platformwrite:
Aroundtheoilcorporationaregatheredinstitutionsthatenableittoconduct
itsbusiness.Theseincludepublicandprivatebanks,governmentministries
andmilitarybodies,engineeringcompaniesandlegalfirms,universitiesand
environmentalconsultants,non-governmentalorganizationsandcultural
institutions.AllthesemakeuptheCarbonWebthatdrivesforwardthe
extraction,transportation,andconsumptionoffossilfuels(MarriotandMinio-
Paluello,2012,p.6).
InthisrespecttheinstitutionalcritiquethatPlatformanditscollaboratorsperform
throughsucheventsis‘site-specific’butaimstoconnectthesitetothewebitis
partof.Inthisrespect,itreproducesthelogicsofthenon-sitebutexpandsthe
conceptbymakingthequestionofsponsorshipcentraltotheconcept.The
unsanctionedfestivallastedthreedays,fromthe4thtothe6thofDecember2015.It
openedwithRead’stalk,whichwasattendedbysomefortypeopleorso,including
alargegroupofKingsCollege-affiliatedUniversityofCaliforniastudents.Thetalk
224wasfollowedbyasmallerperformancebyVirtualMigrants,whoseperformances
oftenexplorequestionsofrace,migrationandglobaljustice(Platform,2015b).
Theirparticipatoryperformance,whichconsistedofexcerptsofoneoftheirshows
happenedonlevel2ofthemuseum(virtualmigrants,2018).Theatreand
performancemoregenerallyplayedanimportantpartinthefestival:a
performanceofCarylChurchill’sshortplayonartandsponsorshipwas
programmedonSaturdayafternoon,followedbyapanelthatincludedthe
playwrightMichaelMcMillan(Platform,2015b).32IvoTheatreperformedviaalive
feedinthefoyeroflevel2fromtheCOP21climatenegotiationsthatwere
happeninginParisatthetime.Otherartisticworksandinterventionsincluded
Platform’salternativeaudioguidetourtotheTatemuseums,whichinvited
audiencememberstomovebetweendifferentsites(TateBritain,ThamesandTate
Modern)whilethenarrativetookthelistenertodifferentplacesacrosstheworld.
Thefestivalhadalsoprogrammedseed-bombingsessions,literallytakingup
Cruzvillegas’originalintuitionaboutinterventionsmadepossiblebyhisspace.
Finally,agiantfloormosaicshowingthemessageDROPBP,madeoutofthegreen
festivalprogrammes,maskingtapeandsunflowerseeds–apossibleallusiontoAi
Weiwei’scommissionthatfilledthespacewithporcelainsunflowerseeds–was
createdbypeopleofallagesonthemezzaninefloor(Platform,2015b).
Thefestivalfocusedheavilyonculture’simplicationinthereproductionof
violenceanddidsoinlayeredandmultifariousways.Anumberoftalks,whichalso
featuredparticipantsfromPlatform’sradicaleducationprogrammeShake!andex-
Tatecurators,focusedontherelationshipbetweenartandempire,mostnotably
32SeeAstonandDiamond(2009)forChurchill’slongstandingengagementwiththe
questionsofart,theatreandcorporatesponsorship.
225Tate’shistoricalrelationtoslavesugarplantations.Othertalksconnectedtheoil
campaignwiththeissueofthefinancialcuts,corporatisationoftheartsandthe
ongoingstrikeattheNationalGalleryinLondon.Thetitlesofeventssuchasthe
‘SistersofPerpetualResistance’,organisedbyyoungShakemembers,alsosuggest
thatparticipantsandorganisershadadesiretothinkaboutthepossibilityto
articulateenvironmentalanddecolonialstruggleswithfeministones.Certain
eventspushedthislineofquestioningfurther,turningthecriticalgazebackonto
itselfwithaworkshoptitled‘Whogetstochangetheclimate?’,whichclosedthe
festival.Theworkshopaimedtoquestiontheblindspotsofthewhite-dominated
environmentalmovementanditsinabilitytoconnectuptoanti-racistmovements
andcauses(Platform,2015b).
Thereislittledoubtthatalloftheseinterventionswereconceivedasmeans
toshifttheconsensusaboutthesponsorshipofoil.However,whatisalsoofnote
andwhatIwouldliketodiscussisthematerialityoftheworks.Iwouldarguethat
thepredominanceoflanguageandcommunicationasmaterialsmirrorstheform
(information)thatenablesthemuseumtobecomeanattractivebrandandasset
whilealsoprovidingacounterpointtothiscirculationofinformation.Inthissense,
theworksofthefestival,whichalsotookplaceinandaroundEmptyLot(2015a),
canbeunderstoodtoexpandthematerialityofCruzvillegas’construction.Where
hisworkfiguredurbanformandmigrancy,thefestivalpresentedtheflowof
informationandfinancialassetsthatdeterminethespaceofthemuseumand
Cruzvillegas’work.
Asimilarargumentcanbemadeabouttheelementsofthefestivalthatwere
notlanguage-based,whichiswheremyanalysiswillcometorest.OntheFriday
night,largeprintsofportraitphotographsmadebySouthAfricanphotographer
226GideonMendelwereintroducedintothegalleryspace,aboutwhichDawsonwrote
thefollowingfortheArtnewspaper:
Bytheafternoonmorethan200peoplewereparticipatinginthefestivaland
theTatebegantorestrictitsprogramme.Securitypersonnelpreventedthe
festivalorganisersfrombringinginacollectionof44largephotographic
printsfromGideonMendel’sseriesDrowningWorld(2007–ongoing),which
depictspeopleintheirfloodedhomes.Theorganiserswereabletosetuponly
20ofthephotographsinthehall(Dawson,2015).
AsIre-enteredthegalleryontheFridaynight,Iencounteredthose20portraits,
whichwereproppedupagainstthesouthernwallofthemezzaninespace.The
photographs,whichwerecordonedoff,wereprintedsquareontowhatlookedlike
foamboardorpaintedplywood.Mendeltravelstodifferentplacesintheworld
wheremajorfloodshaveoccurredasaconsequenceofrainorsevereclimatic
eventsandtakesphotographicportraitsofpeopleintheirfloodedhomesand
surroundings.ThelocationsincludeIndia,Pakistan,Bangladesh,Thailand,Brazil,
Haiti,USA,UKandGermany.Hehasalsomadefilmsfromthesejourneysandhas
madephotographicworksfromtheflood-destroyedfamilyphotographsand
memoriesthathefinds(GideonMendel,nodate).Inthephotographicimages
proppedupagainstthewallofthegallery,thesubjectsoftenposesoloorin
couplesagainstaninteriorwallofthehomeorinfrontofanexternaldoorleading
tothehouse.Thesubjectsareoftenlookingstraightintothecamera,whilethey
standknee–andsometimeswaistortorso–deepinwater.Themurkywater,
whichinundatestheframe,givesthephoto’s‘ritualofsolemnizationand
227consecrationofthegroupandtheworld’(Bourdieu,1990,p.92)anentirely
differentvalueandsenseofgravitas.
Mendel’sworkisphotojournalistic.Hestartedasastrugglephotographerin
thefinalyearsofapartheidandsubsequentlymadeprojectsaboutAidsinSouth
Africa(Mendel,2001).Inthe1990shemovedtoLondonwherehealso
documentedanti-roadstrugglesinwhichJohnJordanwasinvolved.Inherbook
TheCivilContractofPhotography(2008),Azoulayarguesthatphotographycan
contributetoconstructingaformofatransnationalcivilandpoliticised
communitythatbearswitnesstosovereignviolence.Whileherfocusonthe
Israeli–Palestinianconflictisnotentirelyrelevanttothetopicofthischapter,this
emphasisonviolence,injusticeandphotographyisabsolutelyrelevanttoMendel’s
photography.Hisworkstagestheviolenceanddestructionofclimatechange,with
itsobjectiveandsubjectivefacets,butthephotographsalsointerpellatethe
spectators-turned-witnessesinforcefulways.Followingthetermsproposedby
Roberts(2014),whoreprisesanddevelopsAzoulay’sconcerns,Mendel’s
photojournalismcouldbeunderstoodasshowingviolencethroughanintrusion
andinterruptionthatisdestabilisingforthespectatorconfrontedwiththetruthof
thehistoricalindexanddocument.Here,were-encounterthefundamentally
‘ostensive’,thatis,indexicalcharacteroftheartwork(2014,p.153).
Thementionofindexicality,however,bringsmetoaddressmoredirectly
howMendel’sworkcontributestotheinvestigationofthegalleryassite,according
tothetransdisciplinaryconceptionofartexploredinthisthesis.AsOsborne
(2013)hasargued,thereisnoonesingletechnologicalbasistotheontologyofthe
photography,whichfindsitselfdistributedacrossdifferentformsand
technologies,includingdigitalandchemicalprocesses,photography,video,and
film.Inthissenseitcannotbeconsideredtobeaspecificmedium.Inourtime,it
228hasbeenalsointimatelyassociated,byBaudrillard(1994)andtheSituationists
(Knabb,2006),withthecirculationofinformationandcapital,andinthisrespectit
holdsaparadigmaticvalueasaculturalform.33However,theundesirable
proppingupofthesephotographsandtheiroutofplace-nessunderlinestheplace
andfunctionofthemuseumasaspacethatembedstheseflowsofinformation
capitalinawaythatitspainterlyother–thehungphotographoftheexhibition
thatstilloffersacertainexperienceofabsorption,whatFried(1995)wouldcallan
anti-theatricalexperience–doesnot(Fried,2008).Indoingso,theimagesappear
tocontradicttheFriediananti-theatricalideathat‘presentnessisgrace’(1995,
p.147),understoodasamomentarysuspensionofeverydayrelationalityandtime
throughapurifiedartwork.Bycontrast,thephotographspresentfrozenmoments
ofcrisisandcatastrophewithnoredemption.However,thesearenotonlyatrace
orrecordofapastmomentoftime.Rather,asRoberts(2014)aswellasGreenand
Lowry(2003)suggest,thesefrozenmomentsoftimelayclaimupontherealhere
andnowbyvirtueofpointingtotheirownexistenceasevent.Thedelimited
singularimagesandformsexistinaseriesthatareidenticaltothelimitlessimages
ofcatastrophethatthemediaproduce(inwhichMendel’simagesarealso
circulated),andyettheyretainacertainexpressiveforcebyvirtueoftheirsitingin
themuseumandtheirstatusaspropinthefestival.
Mendel’sphotographsalsocapturethedifferencebetweenthefestivalasa
wholeandtheworkofCruzvillegasintermsofhowbothstandinrelationtothe
33ItshouldbenotedthatBaudrillardisareferenceinsomeoftheresiliencetrainingI
mentionedinchapter2(BoostingResilience,2017b).Itfeaturesinordertoexplainthe
valueofimagesasassets.ThisisalsopickedupandcritiquedinBourdieuandHaacke’s
(1995)discussionofculture,brandsandprivateinvestment.
229building.Insteadofmaximizingthesiteofthemuseum,thefestivalassertsthe
valueofdemocracyandcivicparticipation,butitdoessobyenteringintoamore
explicitformofantagonismwiththeinstitution,whilestillexpressingsolidarity
withtheinstitution.Tomakesenseofthisdifference,istemptingtofollow
Bourdieu’s(1993)andunderstandinstitutionalconsecrationasaformoftemporal
pushingbackinrelationtoavant-gardism.EmptyLot(2015a)andDeadline
(2015a)wouldthenappeartobecoeval,yetexistingwithinadifferentartistic
present.However,beyondtheriskoffallingpreytoavariantofavant-guardist
Darwinism,Ihavealreadyarguedthatthefestivalandthere-localisationof
antagonismthatitperformscanbeunderstoodasboththedestructionand
realisationofthework’sideal.Inthisrespect,thefestivaldoesindeedforcesocial
andartisticcoevaltimestogetherinawaythatwasalreadyseenduringthelast
eventofTTMR.However,itdoessoinordertoconstructatransnationalartistic
andpoliticisedspacethataimstomakesenseofaswellaschangethehistorical
present.Thisconstitutesadifferenttransculturalrationaleandprojecttotheone
analysedsomewhatambiguouslybyOsborne(2013).Inordertorealisethis
rationaleandinnotadissimilarwaytoLabofii’sproject,thefestivalprovidesan
artisticframe,alargerunitofsignificanceforaninvariablysingularsetofworks.
Theironictwistinthissituationisthattheunsanctionedrealisationofthe
Cruzvillegas’idealoftheemptylotalsoappearstocontributetosecuringthe
gallery’scontemporaneityandinstitutionallegitimacyasasitefortheproduction
ofautonomouswork.Thisissurelyinpartwhy20photospresentingthe
destructioncausedbythegallery’snowformersponsorsandamotleycrewof
activistsandfestivalgoersareallowedwithmuchresistancetoholdthespace.
2304.4Conclusion
Inthischapter,Imovedawayfromadiscussionofthenatureofresilience
discoursesandpracticestowardsanexaminationofhowartnegatestherationales
ofresilience(Q.3a-b).TheTateandtheworksthereinprovidedagoodcasestudy
toadvancethistask.Theanalysisoftheseworksprovidedmewiththeopportunity
toexplorehow,inthecaseoftheTate,acritiqueofpracticeslegitimatedby
dominantresiliencediscourses,suchasprivateinvestmentandcorporate
sponsorship,areindissociablefromacritiqueofcommercialisedprocessesof
urbanredevelopment.Iarguedthatitisthesymbolicandculturalstatusof
creative‘iconics’,astheorisedbywriterssuchasLandry,thatissoattractiveto
sponsorsandinvestors.
Afteraninitialanalysisfocusedonthecontextandartists,thediscussion
concentratedontwocases,whichenabledmetofiguretheTateas
phenomenologicalurbanartspaceaswellasanodewithinaspaceof‘flow’.Empty
Lot(2015a)wasinitiallyanalysedforthemannerinwhichitpresentedthe
inequalitiescreatedandthedestructionwroughtbytransnationalcapitalist
urbanityaswellasthepossibilityofbifurcationfromthismodelofdevelopment.
However,Ialsosuggestedthatthesite-specificrationaleofEmptyLot(2015a)
meantthattheworkisrenderedaffirmativeandplaystheambivalentroleofan
enhancer.Itisambivalentbecauseitisthefactthattheregeneratedmuseumand
institutionhasbecomearepositoryofhumanistpublicvaluethatsponsorsare
attractedtoit.
WithoutcriticisingCruzvillegas’workfornotincludingsponsorshipasa
material,IneverthelessturnedtotheDeadlinefestival,whichprovidedthemeans
tobothrealiseandundo–a‘ruininreverse’,tospeakinSmithsonianterms–the
negativeconceptofnon-sitethatwasembeddedinCruzvillegas’emptylots.The
231festivaladdedanotherdimensiontotheinvestigationoftheinstitutionbysituating
itselfmoredirectlyatthelevelof‘spacesofflow’andmakingsponsorshiponeof
itsartisticmaterials.Thediscussionofthevariouscomponentsofthefestival
againstoilsponsorship,includingGideonMendel’sphotography,advancedthe
discussionofartunderstoodinnon-mediumspecificterms.Iarguedthatthework
ofthefestival,animatedbyawilltomakesenseofourglobalcontemporaryand
contesttheoppressionsthatconstituteit,presentedwithinitscontextour
collectiveunfreedom,andindoingsopinpointedthepossibilityofalimitto
cruelty:adeadline,whichisalsoalifeline.
232
5.HereToday…,VitaVitale,LivingSkinandPelt
5.1Introduction
Thischaptercontinuestoexaminetherisksanddangerslinkedtosponsorshipand
privateinvestmentwhilealsoaimingtounderstandhowartcanpositionitself
criticallyinrelationtothosepractices.Byinvestigatingthisquestionfurtherand
garneringmoreevidencetoanswerthethirdareaofinvestigationofthisthesis,I
alsocontinuetoinvestigatetheriskthatartbecomesaffirmative,thatis,thatit
comestoplayalegitimatingfunctionvis-à-viseconomicandpoliticalpower
(Q.3b).LiketheanalysisofCruzvillegas’andPlatform’sworkintheprevious
chapter,theanalysisofthischapterisfocusedonacomplexcase–complex
becauseofitscompositionbutalsobecauseofthequestionsthatitraises.Ipresent
thecaseaswellastheissuesbrieflybeforegoingontostatemoreexplicitlyhow
thischapterbuildsontheprecedingchapters.
Thecaseinquestion,whichIlearnedaboutduringTTMR(2015),isthe
exhibitionHereToday…(2014),whichwascommissionedbytheInternational
UnionfortheConservationofNature(IUCN)tocelebrate50yearsoftheexistence
oftheIUCNRedListofendangeredspecies.Forthecelebration,thecuratorial
collectiveArtwisebroughttogetheranimpressiverangeofartistsandartworks
includingworkbyAckroyd&Harvey,SiobhanDavies,LauraFord,ChrisJordan,
BhartiKher,JulianPerry,MikePerry,GavinTurkandAndyWarhol.Theexhibition
wasspreadacrosstwofloorsoftheOldSortingOffice,situatedneartheBritish
MuseumintheHolbornareaofcentralLondon,anditsscopewasnoless
impressive.Theexhibitionwasorganisedaroundeightthemedchapters,which
aimedtogivevisibilitytospeciesextinctionandtheviolenceofglobalwarming,as
233wellasforegroundconservationeffortsandideasthatcouldslowclimatechange
downandhelpcreateamoresustainableplanet(ArtwiseCurators,2014).While
theexhibitionwascommissionedbytheIUCN,itwasfundedandsupportedbythe
NGOInternationalDialogueforEnvironmentalAction(IDEA)andBaku,an
Azerbaijaniglossyartandfashionmagazine.Accordingtothecuratorsofthe
exhibition,LeylaAliyev,thedirectoroftheNGOandeditor-in-chiefofBaku,isa
supporteroftheIUCNandhasdonealotofworkonenvironmentalconservation
andtheprotectionofendangeredspecies(Pinder,2017b).Thecommissioners,
accordingtothecuratorsandparticipatingartists,weredelightedwiththe
exhibitionaswerethefunders(Pinder,2017b,2017c).
Despitetheapparentsuccessoftheexhibition,aproblemarosewhenthe
artistsHeatherAckroydandDanHarvey(Ackroyd&Harvey)startedtofeel
retrospectivelyuncomfortableaboutthestructuresoffundingoftheexhibition:
LeylaAliyevisthedaughterofthecurrentpresidentoftheRepublicofAzerbaijan,
arepressivedictatorialregimeknownforitscorruptionandabuseofhumanrights
(Snaith,2018;HardingandBarr,2017).Thediscomfortalsocamefromthefact
thatBritishPetroleum(BP),whichleadsaconsortiumoforganisationsexploiting
theCaspianoilfields,has,alongwithEuropeanpowers,aspecialinterestin
proppinguptheregimethatitviewsasabackstopintroubledtimes.Accordingto
HughesandMarriott(2015)fromPlatform,theCEOofBPhimselfclaimedthatthe
DeepwaterHorizondisasterbroughtthecompanywithinthreedaysof
bankruptcy.ItispartlythankstoitspartnershipwiththeAzerigovernmentthat
thecompanymanagedtoreassureitsinvestors.Itisafterinvestigatingthiswebof
relationsinthecontextofasmalldiscussiongroupsetupbyAckroyd&Harvey
andhostedatIndependentDanceinElephantandCastle(Pinder,2017c),that
Ackroyd&Harveydecidedtodroptheirassociationwiththeexhibition.Works
234thatwerepartofHereToday…(2014)wentontoformthebasisforVitaVitale
(2015),oneofthetwoexhibitionsoftheAzerbaijanipavilionatthe2015Venice
Biennale.However,Ackroyd&Harvey’swork,LivingSkin,didnotgoontothe
VeniceBiennale,despitetheartistshavingbeeninvitedtotakepart.Instead,they
wentontocreateawork,Pelt(AfterLivingSkin),asaresponsetothoseevents.I
willalsodiscussthisworkmorebrieflyattheendofthechapterasameansof
providingmoreevidenceforthequestionQ.3a.
Thiscaseisparticularlyinterestingforanumberofreasons.Intheprevious
chapteraswellasinchapter2,Idiscussedtheethicsandpoliticsoffundingin
relationtocases(BPandTate)aboutwhichacertainkindofconsensushasformed
amongpoliticallyconsciousculturalworkers.Whileanumberofartistsandkey
stakeholdersmayholdtheoppositeview,artisticcommunitiesviewBP
sponsorshiporsponsorshipfromarmscompaniesasproblematic.Anotherrecent
funding-relatedcontroversytestifiestothis.BAESystems,oneofthelargestarms
firmsintheworld,hadtowithdrawaspartnersfromTheGreatExhibitionofthe
Northafterartistsprotestedagainstthepartnership(Perraudin,2018).Whilethe
governmentministerfortheNorthernPowerhousebrandedtheprotestingartists
‘snowflakes’and‘subsidyaddicted’(Perraudin,2018,nopagination),theprotests
indicatedacertainlevelofconsciousnessabouttheseissuesamongcultural
workersandartists.ThecasethatIdiscussinthischaptersharesanumberof
characteristicswiththosemorewell-knowncases,whilealsobeingmorecomplex.
Theaddedcomplexityderivespartlyfromthefactthattheexhibitionwas
commissionedbyanon-governmentalorganisationtomustersupportfora
pressingenvironmentalcausethatalltheparticipatingartistsandcuratorswere
committedto.Italsoderivesfromthefactthatthewebofrelationsand
235associationsthatAckroyd&Harveyfeltuncomfortableaboutis,inappearanceat
least,thickerthanintheothercasesmentionedhere.
Whilehelpingmetogarneradditionalevidencerelatingtotheaffirmative
andnegativelyautonomousstatusofart,thislastcasewillalsoprovidethe
opportunitytoextendtheanalysisbeyondthewallsofthemuseumandgalleryin
ordertoincludethediscussionofatransnationalexhibition,whichendedup
formingthebasisofaVeniceBiennalepavilionexhibition.TheanalysisofAckroyd
andHarvey’sworkwillalsopickupwherethelastchapterleftoff.LivingSkin
(2014),madeforthecelebrationofthecreationoftheIUCNlistaswellas20years
ofcollaborationbetweentheartists,isphotographic.Pelt(AfterLivingSkin)
(2015),whichwillalsogivemetheopportunitytoreturntothequestionofthe
contemporaneityofthenon-contemporaneousandtheatricality,isaswell.
Whilequestionsofurbanitywillnotbeabsentfromtheanalysis,itis
questionsofconservation,culturalandnaturalheritage,aswellastourism,which
alsoconformaccordingtoYúdice(2003)tothelogicsofculture-as-resource,which
willbearonthediscussionofprivateinvestmentandoftheaffirmativecharacter
ofart.Art,conservationandheritagewillalsobeshowntobeattractiveto
sponsorsinneedoflegitimacyinawaythatparallelshowregenerated
architecturaliconicsandsymbolsofcreativitybecomeso.Theanalysiswillalso
addresshowart,conservationandheritageisalsoakeyareaofeconomicactivity,
whichgoesbeyondaquestionofaccrualofsymboliccapitalforsponsors.Itshould
alsobenotedthat,asinthelastchapter,resiliencediscoursesinpolicywillnot
formanimportantpartofthischapter,althoughIlearnedaboutthiscaseduring
theTTMReventatwhichAckroyd&Harveymadeapresentation.However,asin
Cruzvillegas’EmptyLot,ideasofresilienceandsustainabilitywillbeencountered
asconceptualmaterialsofAckroyd&Harvey’swork,conceivedasanodetothe
236resilienceoftheendangeredtigeraswellasinthewiderexhibition,whichwas
dedicatedtoissuesofconservationandsustainability.
BeforeIfinishthisintroduction,itisworthmentioningthat,onaccountofthe
highlevelsofpersonalinvestmentofthecuratorsandartists,theeventcaused
somesorrowandunease.Thisalsomakeswritingaboutthiscasemoredifficult.I
havestudiedthiscasebyusingonlinedocumentationandcataloguesgenerously
providedtomebythecurators,aswellasthroughinterviewsandconversations
withthreeartists(includingAckroyd&Harvey)andthecurators.Unliketheother
chapters,Iwillbemorefrequentlyreferencingsomeoftheinterviews.Finally,in
thischapter,adiscussionofrelationsofproductionandcontext,moregenerally,
dominates.Inthissense,itreturnstoamodeofinquirythatcharacterisedthe
secondchapter.ThisdecisionwasmadeonaccountofwhatIperceivedtobethe
morecomplexandcontradictorycharacterofthecase.
Aftergivinganoverviewoftheworkoftheartistsandcurators,includingthe
originalcommission,whichformedthebasisoftheworkthatAckroyd&Harvey
presentedduringHereToday…(2014).Idiscusstheexhibitionaswellas,more
briefly,VitaVitale(2015).Inthesecondpart,Idiscusstheissuesthatarosein
relationtothefundingaswellastherelationofthefunderstotheartandthe
implicationofthisrelationfortheart.Finally,theanalysisfinisheswithathird,
brieferpartthatfunctionsasanepiloguetothechapterinwhichIwillgivea
brieferaccountofAckroyd&Harvey’sartisticresponsetotheevent.
5.2 Artists,curators,commissionersandsupporters
5.2.1Ackroyd&Harvey
Ackroyd&Harveystartedcollaboratingintheearlynineties(Pinder,2017c).
Previoustothat,HeatherAckroydworkedcloselyasaperformerwithanumberof
237performancecompaniesandpractitioners,includingLeeds-basedImpactTheatre
Co-operative,ThePeopleShowandGaryStevens.Shecontinuedcollaboratingwith
GraemeMillerwhowasafoundingmemberofImpactTheatre(Ackroydand
Harvey,2017).DanHarveywasalwaysmorecloselyassociatedtotheworldoffine
artsinwhichhetrained.Heneverthelessworkedinproximitytoperformance
processesearlyoninhiscareerashewaspartofthespecialisedprop-makingand
visualconstructionteamonanumberofPeterGreenawayfilmproductions
(AckroydandHarvey,2017).Earlyonintheirpartnership,theduomadealotof
time-basedworkusinggrass,which,bothartistsstateinaninterview,wasa
materialtheywerebothinterestedinpriortocollaboratingtogether(Barnes,
2001).EarlycommissionsandsoloprojectsincludedtheGrassHouse(1991),
commissionedbyTimeBasedArtsbasedinHull.Videodocumentationofthepiece
showstheartistssmearingthewallsandfeaturesofanabandonedhouseon
WestbourneAvenuewithclayandseedlings.Withtimethefaçadeturnsintoalush
greensurface,whichmomentarilyregeneratedthederelictbuilding(TimeBased
Arts,2008).Accordingtotheartists,earlyexperimentswithgrowingindoorand
outdoorgrassenvironmentsledtoaserendipitousrealisationthatgrasshad
incrediblyrichphotographicpotentialonaccountofitsorganicpowerof
photosynthesis(Barnes,2001).Oneoftheirfirstcollaborationsexperimenting
withgrassandphotosynthesiswasaprojecttitledGrassCoats(1991),madefor
theLynxanti-furcampaign.Thetigerstripeeffecttypicaloffurcoatswasrendered
throughacontrolledproductionofchlorophyllthatdeniedlighttocertainareasof
thegrass(Pinder,2017b).
TheotherearlyworkworthmentioningisLivingSkins(1992),whichwas
presentedattheSerpentineGalleryaspartofaliveartfestival.Thecommission
consistedofanumberofpieces,includinginteriorswalls,floorsandobjectssewn
238withgrass.Imagesofanimals(asnakeandatiger)werealsoprojectedontothe
growingseedlingsandfixedontothegrassforthedurationofthefestival,
followingasimilarprocesstothegrasscoats.Thetime-basedworks,liketheir
otherworks,playedwiththeideasoflifeanddeath,growthanddecay,creation
anddestruction.Theworksonlylastedthedurationofthefestivalasthematerials
weresubjecttonaturaldecayandmoulding.Fortheartists,theprocessof
generatingimagesthroughthecontroloftheorganicprocessesofphotosynthesis
alsohasarelationtophotography’scapacitytocapturealostmoment,functioning
asanindexortraceoftime.HeatherAckroydsays:
SomethingthatIfindveryinterestingisthisnotionofastolenmomentinthe
photograph.Wearebringingthatmomentbacktolifeinthegrasswithakind
ofbio-chemicalconjuring.Theimageslowlybecomesmanifest,butitsonly
throughtheactionoflifethatwecanresurrectthatlostmoment.Butthenit
willonlybeinthatstateforashortwhile(Barnes,2001,p.71).
Thestatusoftransienceandtimeintheirworkchangedwhenduringthemid-
nineties,theartistsworkingincollaborationwithscientistsdevelopedastrainof
‘staygreen’grasscapableoffixingimagesandholdcontrastsmoredurably
(Antoninietal.,2015).Thisdiscoveryledtheartiststoworkwithlarge-scalegrass
photographyandportraiturewhichtheyhave,liketheirarchitecturalworkwith
grass,becomefamousfor.Theartistshave,sincetheinventionofthe‘staygreen’
grass,alsorevivedandregrownLivingSkin(2002)fortheexhibitionTraitsofLife
(2002)thattookplaceattheExploratorium,asciencemuseuminSanFrancisco
(Exploratorium,nodate).
239TheprojectsandworksmadebyAckroyd&Harveyaretoonumerousto
mentionorreviewinanykindofsignificantdetail.However,itisworth
mentioningthattheycontinuedtoworkonmedium-tolarge-scalegrass-based
architecturalprojects,whichincludedcoveringtheNationalTheatre’sflytowerin
grassin2007(Gill,2014).TheirarchitecturalworkoverlapswiththeBeuys-
inspiredpracticeofsocialsculpturementionedinchapter3.Theyreferenced
BeuysdirectlyintheirBeuys’Acorns(2007),anodetoBeuys’seminal7000Oaks
(1982)forwhichtheartistsgathered300acornsfromthetreesplantedbyBeuys
inKasselinGermanyduringtheartfairDocumentainordertogrowanew
generationofliving,slow-growingsculptures.Theyalsocontinuedtoworkatthe
frontiersbetweenartandnaturalandclimatesciences,workingwitharangeof
institutions,includingUCLandCambridge(AckroydandHarvey,2017).Theartists
alsofilmedTheEcocideTrial(2012),amocktrialaboutanenvironmentaldisaster
stagedasifLondon’sSupremeCourthadalreadyadoptedthecrimeofecocideas
thefifthcrimeagainstpeace(DanHarvey,2018).Finally,theartistshavealsobeen
involvedintheenvironmentalcampaigntosaveLeithHill,closetotheirhomein
Surrey,fromdrillingbyEuropaOil(Pinder,2017b).
HoweverbriefthispresentationofAckroyd&Harvey’sworkmaybe,the
Beuysconnectionaswellasthecross-disciplinaryandcross-mediumcharacterof
theirwork,moregenerally,suggeststhattheirartcanbesituatedwithinthe
lineageofartthatIhaveforegroundedthroughoutthetwoprecedingchaptersof
thisthesis.ThenextsectionlooksattheworkofArtwise,thecuratorsofthe
exhibitions.
2405.2.2Artwise
Thecollective,setupin1996bySusieAllen,workswitharangeofclients,
includingcorporates,charitiesandprivatecollectorsforwhomthecollectivework
asconsultantsbutalsoascuratorsforbespokeprojects(Artwise,2018).Artwise
wereselectedtocurateHereToday…(2014)onaccountoftheirpastworkwiththe
WorldWildlifeFundforNature(WWF).Theyorganisedtwoexhibitionsand
eventstitledWWFPandamonium(2012,2009),whichaimedtosupportthework
ofthecharityandspreadawarenessabouthowclimatechangeaffectslifeand
endangeredspecies.Accordingtothewebsite,thefirstPandamonium(2009)
invitedartists,includingPeterBlake,TraceyEmin,andRachelWhiteheadtocreate
worksoutofoldpanda(money)collectionboxes,whichwerethenauctioned
(Artwise,2018).ForPandamonium2(2012),artistsincludingZahaHadidand
RichardWilsonwereinvitedtomakeperformativewearablesculpturesthat
highlighteddifferentenvironmentalconcerns.Thesculptureswereshowcasedat
anopen-aireventhostedbyGraysonPerryinHydeParkinMay2012(Artwise,
2018).Thecuratorialcollective’sworkaboutenvironmentalandconservation
extendsbeyondcharity.TheymostrecentlycuratedashowtitledWatershed
(2015)thatbroughttogether15artistsattheHallPlace&GardensinBexleyto
explorewaterasaresource.TheartistLauraEllenBaconwasthefirstartistin
residenceinthesummerofthatyear.
Artwise’spublicfacingengagementextendstoitscollaborationswithmore
corporateclients,offeringtheircuratorialservicestoenhancemarketingand
communicationcampaigns.ThisapproachisclearlyvisibleinthecaseoftheWWF
exhibitions,whichusedcultureasaresourcetodrumupsupportfortheWWF.
However,asimilarrationaleguidedtheirprojectFiat500CollectorsCar(2007).
Thecollectivewascommissionedbythestrategicdevelopmentandmediafirm
241BeatCapitaltodeviseanartprojectforthepreviewofthenewFiat500andthe
celebrationofthemodel’s50thanniversary,whichaccordingtothewebsite,also
positioned‘theItalianbrandintheUKasaniconicandinfluentialplayerwithinthe
worldofartanddesign’(Artwise,2018,nopagination).Emincustomisedafleetof
carswithvinyldrawings.Thecarswerethenusedaspop-up,nomadicexhibitions
tocarryartists,collectorsandVIPgueststoparties,openings,artfairsand
auctionsthattookplaceduringtheFriezeArtFair.Accordingtothewebsite,oneof
thefourvehicleswasauctionedthroughtheauctionhousePhillipsdePury,raising
£200,000forPEAS,acharitythatpromotesequalityinAfricanschools(Artwise,
2018).
Thecollectivehasalsoworkedascuratorsforarangeofcorporateclients,
includingBritishAirways(BA)andMercedes-Benz,organisingcorporate
exhibitionsandbuildingcorporatecollections.Theblurbonthewebsitegiving
detailsoftheircollaborationwithBAstatesthefollowing:
Backin1996BArecognizedthepotentialthatartcouldplayinitsre-
branding:increasingbrandawarenessandcreatinganewcontemporary(and
British)imageforthecompany.Artwise’saimforBAwastoestablishaseries
oflong-termstrategiesandaprogrammeofdiverseartist-ledinitiatives
incorporatingthecompany’sgoalsthatwouldincludebothcustomersand
staff.Itneededtoreflecttheworld-classstatusofthecompanyandto
demonstrateitsinnovationandleadershipwithintheindustry,throughitsart
(Artwise,2018,nopagination).
Thisdescriptionfitstherationalediscussedatdifferentpointsinthisthesis,which
seesartasameanstoenhancetheworkenvironmentorcorporatepremisesas
wellastopromotecorporatebrandsandimages.Culturalgoods,asDiMaggio
242suggests,‘areconsumedforwhattheysayabouttheirconsumerstothemselves
andtoothers’,whichincludethecustomersofBA,theirstaffaswellastheir
leadership(1991,p.133).ForMercedes-Benz,theartistPaulVeroudewas
commissionedtocreateaninstallationthatfeaturedoneofMichaelSchumacher’s
Formula1vehiclesdeconstructedandhungmid-aironaseriesofwires.Itgavethe
guestsvisitingthebrandexperiencecentreoftheMercedes-BenzWorldexhibition
aninsightintoFormula1’sindustrysecretsandhelpedthecompanytoweavea
uniquenarrativeaboutitsbrandandprocesses(Artwise,2018).
Finally,ArtwisehavealsocuratedexhibitionshostedatLloyd’sofLondon
witha‘community’programmefundedbyArts&Business.Theexhibition,which
coincidedwiththe200-yearcommemorationoftheBattleofTrafalgar,showcased
arangeofartefactsassociatedwithLordNelsonandpartoftheLloyd’sofLondon
collection(Artwise,2018).Atthelaunchoftheexhibition,apiecebyAmerican
composerDavidLangwaspremiered.ThecomposerteamedupwithPeter
GreenawayandtheLondonSinfoniettainanaudio-visualperformanceinspiredby
Nelson’s‘traditionofinnovation,risk-takingandthesea’(Artwise,2018).Thismix
ofheritageandcutting-edgeartisticexperimentationbyworld-renowned
internationalartistsappearstomixtheethosofthecorporatemuseum,the
functionofwhichistodisplayobjectsthatinsomewayrecountthehistoryor
interestsofthecompany,withamorerecentmodelofcorporateexhibitions,
whichemergedinthe1980sand1990s.AccordingtoWu(2002),thesemaybeless
directlylinkedtothehistoryofthecompanyinquestion,andinsteadappeartobe
morestrictlyconcernedwithpresentingaestheticobjectsandexperiencesinorder
topresentthecompanyasalegitimateandenlightenedpatronofthearts.
Artwise’shistoryandwork,likethoseofAckroyd&Harvey,aretoolongand
diversetodofulljusticetotheirbreadthinthisbriefoverview.Nonetheless,some
243ofthecharacteristicsthatIhavepresentedherewillalsobepresentintheprojects
thatIdiscussinthischapter,thefirstofwhich(HereToday…)waspublicisedand
marketedbythepublicrelationscompanyFreud’s.Inordertobringthisfirstpart
toacloseIturntothecommissionersandsponsorsoftheexhibition,startingwith
theIUCN.
5.2.3Thesupportersandcommissioners
MypresentationoftheIUCNwillbebriefasIamlessconcernedwiththeirworkin
thisdiscussion.However,presentingtheorganisationwillalsohelptoestablish
howdiscoursesandpracticesofsustainabilityformedacomponentoftheproject.
TheIUCN,foundedin1948,isapparentlytheworld’soldestandlargest
environmentalorganisation.Conservationisakeyelementofitsworkasthe
existenceoftheRedListtestifies(ArtwiseCurators,2014).AccordingtotheIUCN,
theRedLististhemostcomprehensivesourceofinformationabout‘theglobal
conservationstatusofanimal,fungiandplantspeciesandtheirlinkstolivelihoods’
(ArtwiseCurators,2014,p.11).Itisusedbyarangedofnon-governmental
organisationsaswellasgovernmentalagencies,policy-makersandplannersto
catalyseconservationalaction.Despitemanyareasoflifeandspeciesbeing
comprehensivelyassessed,throughculturaleventssuchasHereToday…(2014),
theIUCNwasalsoaimingtouseculturetodrumupmoresupportandinvestment
toexpandtheworkofassessmentanditstaxonomiccoverage.
LeylaAliyevofferedtosupporttheexhibitionviaInternationalDialoguefor
EnvironmentalAction(IDEA),herownnon-governmentalorganisationthatwas,
accordingtothecurators,themainfunderforHereToday…(Pinder,2017b).IDEA
alsofundedelementsofVitaVitale(2015),theprincipalfunderofwhichwasthe
HeydarAliyevFoundation,aphilanthropicfoundationsetupinhonourofthefirst
244presidentofAzerbaijanandheadedbyLeylaAliyev’smother,theFirstLadyof
Azerbaijan.Iwillnotdelveintothedetailofthepoliticalandeconomic
ambivalencesthathavebecometiedtothesupportstructuresatthispointasthis
willbeanissuethatIexploreinthecourseofthesecondpartofthechapter.
However,itisworthstatingthatdespitethecurators’willingnesstoengagewith
thequestionoffundingduringtheinterview,itisstillnotentirelycleartomehow
theexhibitionwasfunded,astheinformationthatIhavegatheredfromdifferent
placesaboutthefundingstructuresisnotconsistent.InthecatalogueofHere
Today…(2014),alltheaboveorganisationsarecreditedexcepttheHeydarAliyev
Foundation.However,onthelastpageitisstatedthattheexhibitionwas
supportedbyBakumagazineonly(ArtwiseCurators,2014,p.163).What
organisationalsupportmeansisneverspecified.Bycontrast,inananniversary
reportcelebratingIDEA’sfiveyearsofexistence,theHeydarAliyevFoundationis
alsomentionedasa‘partner’alongsideBakuandtheIUCN(IDEA,nodate,p.74).
Theseinconsistenciesmightonlybemistakesinthecopyorinformation
circulated.Nonetheless,theyhighlight,likeinthecaseofShibboleth(2007)and
Tatediscussedinthepreviouschapter,acertainopacitywhenitcomestomoney
anditsexactinstitutionalprovenance.LeylaAliyev,theeldestdaughterofthe
presidentofAzerbaijanandgranddaughterofHeydarAliyev,istheheadofIDEA,
editor-in-chiefofBakuandvice-presidentoftheHeydarAliyevFoundation,the
foundationsetupbyherfamily.Onecan,therefore,presume,giventhetiesofthe
threeorganisationstoLeylaAliyevandherhistoricalsupportfortheIUCN,that
sheandherfamilyeffectivelyfinanced,viatheirownprojectsandorganisations,
theexhibitionsinwhichAliyevalsoexhibitedherownartisticwork(Pinder,
2017b).IwillnowproceedtopresentbrieflytheworkofIDEA,Bakuandthe
HeydarAliyevFoundation.
245IDEAwaslaunchedbyAliyevin2011withtheaimofpromotingpublic
awarenessaboutandactivelyleadingontheenvironmentalissuesinAzerbaijan
andglobally.Inthissense,IDEAappearstobeavehicleforbringingsustainability
discoursesandcampaignstotheforeinAzerbaijanthrougheducationaland
culturalevents,whichinturnhelpstoputAzerbaijanonthemapwithregardsto
theseissues.Forexample,in2012,itheldanessaycompetitionthatinvitedyoung
Azeristosendtheirmessagestothe2012RiodeJaneiroconferenceonsustainable
developmentaspartofawidernationalyouthengagementprogrammethatwas
setupintherun-uptotheconference.Italsorunsotherregulareducational
events,suchassummerschools,lectures,debatesandinternationalcampsfor
youngenvironmentalactivists.Aswellastree-plantingprojects,theorganisation
hasalsolaunchedacampaignincollaborationwiththeministryofecologyand
naturalresourcestoresettleanumberofendangeredspecies,includingthe
goiteredgazelle.Anartexhibitiondedicatedtoendangeredspecieswasalso
organisedandsupportedbyIDEA,amonganumberofotherartisticeventsand
festivalinAzerbaijanandinternationally(IDEA,nodate,nopagination).
Baku,theothersupporteroftheexhibition,waslaunchedin2007andwas
firstpublishedinMoscowinorder,accordingtoHughesandMarriott(2015),to
enhanceRussianandAzerities.Since2011,ithasalsobeenpublishedinLondon
bythesamecompanythatpublishesVogueandGQ.Themagazine,thetaglineand
subtitleofwhichare‘theonlinemagazineabouteverything’and‘ART.CULTURE.
WILD’,reflectstheinterestsofitseditor-in-chief(CondéNast,2017,no
pagination):themagazineincludesfeaturesandarticlesaboutart,fashion,
conservation,andluxuryproductsamongotherthings.
TheHeydarAliyevFoundationwassetupin2004inhonourofthedeceased
firstpresidentoftherepublicofAzerbaijanandthefatherofthecurrentpresident,
246IlhamAliyev.Theorganisation,headedbyMehribanAliyev,supportsarangeof
cultural,educationalandhealthprojects.TheFoundationhasfundedthe
constructionofamuseumofmodernartinBakuaswellasnumerousartand
musicevents,includingshowcasesofAzeriartandmusicinMoscow.Aswellas
organisingnumerousinternationalconferenceswithinternationalorganisations
suchasUNESCO,aswellascorporationssuchasIntelandMicrosoft,the
FoundationhasfundedanumberofprojectsoutsideofAzerbaijan.Ithelped
financetherenovationsoftheLouvremuseumandthePalaceofVersaillesin
France;asthanks,thefirstladywasawardedaLegionofHonourbythethen
FrenchpresidentSarkozy.TheFoundationalsofundedtherestorationofthe
catacombsintheVatican(Wikipedia,2018f).
5.3Art,extinction,conservationandaffirmativeculture
5.3.1Theexhibitions
HereToday…(2014)tookplaceattheOldSortingOfficeinHolborn,whichhasnow
beenrenamedandconvertedintoofficesbyBrocktonCapitalandOxford
Properties(Oxfordproperties,nodate).Thebuilding,whichhasbeenadvertised
asa‘post-industrialbuildingofepicscaleandvolumeintheheartofcreative
London’,has11levels,althoughonlytwoofthemwereusedfortheexhibition
(Pinder,2017b).Accordingtothecurators,thespacewaschosenforanumberof
reasons.Althoughnothingcouldbehungfromthewalls,thespace,situated
betweenHighHolborn,NewOxfordStreetandMuseumStreet,iscentraland
convenientlylocated.Itwasalsoavailableatthetimethattheyneededit,asthe
exhibitioncoincidedwithaballthattheIUCNwashostingforitsmembers.The
IUCNwantedtogiveattendeestheopportunitytoattendtheexhibitionaswell
(Pinder,2017b).
247Giventheparticularnatureofthespace,theexhibitionspacewasmade
immersive(attendeeswalkedthroughaseriesofspacesthatmadeupthepath
throughthedifferentchapters)throughatheatricaluseoflighting,designedby
TupacMartirofSatoreStudios,aswellastheconstructionofenclosedspacesand
rooms(Pinder,2017b;ArtwiseCurators,2014).Theexhibition,structuredaround
eightchapters,istoovasttocovercomprehensivelyinthischapter.Forthis
reason,Iproposetoconcentrateonafewworksfromthreeofthezonesincluding
theopening,thesecondchapter(‘humanfootprint’)andthefifthchapter(‘hunted
species’),whichfeaturedoneofAckroyd&Harvey’sworks(ArtwiseCurators,
2014,p.7).
Theexhibitionopenedwithtensilkscreenprintsofendangeredanimals
madebyAndyWarholin1983(ArtwiseCurators,2014).Theprintswerehungon
threeofthewallsofthefirstexhibitionspace.Totherightofthisdeeppurple
space,visitorsencounteredimagesofanAfricanelephant,agiantpanda,apine
barrenstreefrogandaGrevy’szebra(JournalofBaku,2013).Totheleftwere
imagesofaSiberiantiger,anorangutan,ablackrhino,andasilverspotbutterfly.
Straightahead,oneachsideofthedoorframeleadingintothenextspace,werea
bighornramandabaldeagle.Theprintswerecommissionedtoraiseawareness
aboutendangeredspecies.Toachievethis,Warholemployedhissignaturestyleof
portraituremorefamouslyusedforcelebritiesandglamorousclients:Eachanimal
wasrenderedinbrightandvividcoloursthatresulted,accordingtothecatalogue,
inanennoblingoftheanimals,whichWarholreferredtoas‘animalswithmake-
up’(ArtwiseCurators,2014,p.22).
ThecuratorscommissionedGavinTurk–oneofsevenoreightartiststohave
beencommissioned(Pinder,2017b)–torespondtotheprints,whichhedidby
creatingPandyWarhol(2014),consistingofstripsofwallpaperappropriatingthe
248Warholpopartmotifthathighlightedtheplightofthepandaandalsofunctioned
asanodetothedeadartist.Thewallpaperthatmadeupthesecondspaceofthe
exhibitionandopenedontotherestoftheexhibitioncaptureshowtheideaof
immersivenesssupportedtheenvironmentalconcernsandthemesofthe
exhibition.Theuseofwallpaperprovidedawayofpointingtothe
interdependenciesofhumanandnon-humanhabitats,thedomesticandthe‘wild’,
cultureandnature,whileplayfullybringingtotheforetheplightofthepanda
throughthelanguageofpopartandcelebrityculture,whichunderlinesthe
discrepancybetweentheculturalandsymbolicvaluethatweattributetothe
animalanditsactualhistoricalconditionsofexistence.Turk’scommissionalso
providedawayofgesturingtointergenerationalawareness-raisingandsolidarity
withtheIUCNcauseamongartistsaswellastothechangeandcontinuityinthe
statusoftheendangeredspeciesoriginallyrepresentedbyWarhol(Pinder,
2017b).AttendeescouldalsofindanotherworkatthecentreofTurk’sspace,
originallycommissionedforWWFPandamonium(2009).BetweenaRock&aHard
Place(2008)isarockmadeoutofpaintedresinwiththeartist’ssignatureonit.
Thesignatureandstonefunctionasanallusiontoatombstoneandthedeathofa
species(ArtwiseCurators,2014).Yet,theworkappearstounderlinehowartcan
actasakeystoneintheprotectionofthepanda,otherwisethreatenedbyhuman
civilisation.
Chapter2oftheexhibitionwasdedicatedthehumanfootprintonthe
environment,whichformedthebasisofthethemeoftheVitaVitale(2015)
exhibition.Tenartistscontributedworkstothiszone,whichvisitorswouldhave
walkedintoimmediatelyuponexitingTurk’sopenspace.Iwouldliketomention
andcontrastonlytwooftheworksthatvisitorswillhavefoundtotheirleft.The
firstworkwasaseriesofthreephotographsmadebytheartistChrisJordan;these
249werepartofalargerseriescalledMidway:MessagefromtheGyre(2009).The
photographsweretakenontheremoteislandofMidwayAtollsituatedinthe
middleofthePacific,north-westofHawaii.Theislandisnothometohumansbut
toamillionalbatrosses.Adultalbatrossesmistakeplastictrashfloatingonthesea
forfoodandfeedittotheiryoung,slowlykillingthemintheprocess.The
photographsdocumentthisoccurrencebyshowingacorpseofabirdatdifferent
stagesofdecomposition.Thelessthereisleftofthebird,themoretheplasticthat
waslodgedinsidethebirdrevealsitself.InasimilarwaytoMendel’sphotographs
discussedinthepreviouschapter,theemotionallychargeddocumentsbear
witnesstoanintolerablehistoricalrealitywhilealsosummoningthespectatoras
witnesstothisdestruction,whichthespectatorpartakesinbysimplylivingina
culturedominatedbyplasticandoil(ArtwiseCurators,2014).
MikePerry’sworkMorPlastig(2014)couldnotbemoredifferent,despite
beingconcernedwithasimilarsubject.Theworkconsistsofaseriesoften
photographsofflip-flopsinvariousstatesofdecompositionandmutation,which
hefoundondifferentbeachesaroundtheworld.The1:1scale,high-resolution
photosweretakeninPerry’sstudiousingaveryneutrallight,whichproducesan
objectivequalitytotheimage,asifheweredocumentingtheremainsofafallen
civilisation(Perry,2018;Pinder,2017c).Theseriality,objectivityandminimalism
ofthephotosappeartodoawaywithanysenseofexpressionandaestheticism,
refractinginsteadthecommodifiedformofobjectsthathavetravelledtheworld
throughthesea.However,theerosionoftheplasticflip-flops,theincrustationof
shells,andthediscolorationandformationofnewcolours,shapesandlineson
theirsurfacegivetheflip-flopsaneerieexpressivity,whichrevealsnaturetobe
theultimatedesignerofsingularspecimensofart(Perry,2018).
250Afterthefirstchapter,visitorsmadetheirwaythroughazonetitled‘Plants&
Trees–Birds&Bees’(ArtwiseCurators,2014,p.57),whichopenedwithLeyla
Aliyev’sownworktitledLifeaswellasanotherzonetitled‘ClimateChange&Loss
ofNaturalHabitat’(ArtwiseCurators,2014,p.59,p.73).Atthecentreofthislast
zone,visitorsencounteredascatteredgroupofpenguinsculpturesmadebyLaura
Ford;theseresembledpeopledressedaslostpenguinsinsearchofanewfloe
(JournalofBaku,2013).Ackroyd&Harvey’sworkthatIwilldiscusswaspartof
thefifthzone,whichwasdedicatedtohuntedspecies.LivingSkin(2014)wasa
recreationoftheoriginalLivingSkins(1992),previouslydiscussed.Thisiteration
wasmadeusingStaygreenseedlings.Theworkconsistsofafour-metrelong,taut
tigerhidemadeoutofstencilled,greengrassgrownhydroponicallyonahessian
skin.Throughaprocessofphotosynthesisandbycontrollinglightexposure
throughtheuseofstencils,theartistsimprintedstripesofdifferentshadesonto
thegreengrass.Oncetheprocessofphotosynthesishadtakenplace,theskin
patternwasmaintainedbylowexposuretolight.Thisprocessresultedinthe
creationofalushlivingskinstretchedoverandheldbywoodenbeamsriggedto
thefloor.Producinganewiterationoftheworkwasawayofhighlightingthe
plightoftheSiberiantigersandtheirresilienceaswellasanoccasionforthe
artiststocelebratetwodecadesofcollaboratingtogether.Thisgesturealso
befittedanexhibitionconcernedwithsustainability,intergenerationalawareness-
raisingandsolidaritywiththeIUCNcause(Pinder,2017b,2017c;NikSireFilms,
2014).
ThepresentationofHereToday…(2014)stopshere,althoughIwillreturnto
Ackroyd&Harvey’sworkattheendofthischapter.Iwillgivenowaverybrief
overviewofVitaVitale(2015).ThecuratorialcollectiveusedHereToday…(2014)
asabasisforVitaVitale.AnumberofworksfromtheLondonexhibitionwentto
251Venice,includingtheworkofKhalilChishtee;GordonCheung;LauraFord;Chris
Jordan,RebeccaClarkandHelenaEitel;JulianPerry;MikePerry;andDianaThater
(HeydarAliyevFoundation,2015).Accordingtothecurators,themainfunderfor
thesecondexhibitionwastheHeydarAliyevFoundation,whileIDEAsupported
theIDEALaboratorycuratedbyProfessorRachelArmstrong(Pinder,2017b).The
laboratorytestifiestotheseriousnessoftheengagementwithissueofclimate
change.Armstrongstatesthatitaimedtobegintoimagine‘aradicalnewsynthesis
withthenaturalrealm’throughadialoguebetweenartandscience(HeydarAliyev
Foundation,2015,p.117).Forinstance,thelaboratoryfeaturedphotosynthetic
technologiesmadeofsilkproteinandchloroplasts,whichwerecombinedforthe
occasionwithshape-memorymetalsthatrespondtochangesintheenvironment
andwhichservedtoprotect(shade)thelab,whileproducingoxygenatthesame
time(HeydarAliyevFoundation,2015).Inadifferentregister,MikePerry
presentedspecimensofplastiglomerates,whichhecollectedalongvariouscoasts.
Theconglomeratesofplasticsthattaketheappearanceofcoalhaveinfactbeen
erodedandshapedintoexistencebythesea.ThearchitectAzusaMurakamiand
theartistAlexanderGrovealsopresentedbeachchairsmadeoutofplastics
collectedonbeaches,whichweremouldedintoshapebyadevicethatusesthe
magnifiedraysofthesun(HeydarAliyevFoundation,2015).
IacknowledgethattheworkpresentedduringVitaVitale(2015)deservesa
morethoroughdiscussion.However,Iamlessinterestedindiscussingtheactual
worksthaninformallyestablishingtherelationbetweenthetwoexhibitionsfora
discussionofartwork’sautonomy.Thequestionoftransnationalismandtheart
industryisarguablyalreadyvisibleinthecaseofHereToday…(2014).However,
therelationshipbetweenbothexhibitionsenablesmyanalysistointegratethe
discussionofaculturalform(theexhibition)thatembodies(andnotonlyembeds)
252whatItermedintheprecedingchapter‘spacesofflow’(information,people,
money)whilealsoallowingmetoconnectartandculturetothequestionof
heritageandtourism.Theseprovidethesocialconditionsofpossibilityfor
establishingart’sautonomyorlackof.Thenextpartexaminesinmoredetailthe
socialrelationsunderpinningHereToday…(2014)andVitaVitale(2015),which
wereboththesubjectofcontroversy.
5.3.2TheAliyevs,artandconservation
Mostparticipantsdidnotfeeldiscomfortaboutthenatureofthesupportstructure.
Thecuratorsreiteratedthistomeinanemail:
However,theconsensusfrom(mostof)theartistsatthecloseoftheshowwas
thatwehadsucceededinputtingtogetherameaningfulexhibitionthat
genuinelyraisedquestionsabouttheenvironment,thestateofourplanetand
thehandthatweashumanshaveinthat.TheIUCNweredelightedwiththe
awarenessitbroughttotheirorganisationandcause.WefoundLeylaandher
organisationsIDEAandBakuMagazineprofessionalandgoodtoworkwithas
wereFreudswhowereourongoingpointofcontact(ArtwiseCurators,2018).
WhileIhavenoreasontodoubtthis,itisstillinterestingtodelveintothereasons
whyAckroyd&Harveyfeltuncomfortableenoughaboutthediscrepancybetween
theaimsandvaluesoftheexhibitionandtherealityofitsinfrastructureto
constituteaworkinggrouptounpicktheissue.Infact,itisanecessarystepfor
understandingtheparticularsetofissuesthatarose,whichrelatedirectlythe
discussionoftherisksanddangerslinkedtoanintensificationofprivate
investmentintheartslegitimatedbyresilienceagendas.
253AckroydandHarveybegantofeelsometimeaftertheexhibition’sopening
(Pinder,2017b).Oneofthekeyissuesthatarosethroughconversationwithothers
wastherepressivecharacterofaregimeheadedbyLeylaAliyev’sfather.The
second,relatedissue,justasimportant,wasthattheregime,whichhasbeenin
placesincethetransitionofpost-SovietAzerbaijan,isdirectlylinkedtothe
exploitationofoilresourcesintheCaspianSeainwhichmultinational
corporationssuchasBPandAmoco,butalsotheEuropeanUnionandtheUnited
Kingdom,haveaspecialinterest.BPhasbeenthekeypartnerinthepost-Soviet
developmentoftheCaspianOilfields,whichhavebeenprovidingEuropewithoil
since1994(MarriottandMinio-Palluelo,2012).AccordingtoHughesandMarriott
(2015),Europeanpublicmoneyhasbeeninvestedinthedevelopmentofwhatis
sometimesknownastheEuro-CaspianMegaPipeline,whichwillrunfrom
AzerbaijanthroughGeorgia,Turkey,Greece,AlbaniaandItaly.The$45billion
projectisalsosettobeextendedtoothercountriesinEasternEurope,theBalkans
andAustria.AccordingtoPlatformmembers(2015),theprojectwillleavea4,000-
kilometre-longhighlyprotectedsecuritycorridorthroughoutEurope,whichwill
causelarge-scalepopulationdisplacementsaswellasdestructionofhumanand
non-humanhabitats.Crucially,thewholeprojectalsogoesagainsttheEU’scurrent
commitmentstoreducecarbonemissionsby80%by2050.
Thiswebofrelationsbringstheanalysisbacktothenotionofthecarbon
web,thesetofinstitutionsthatdrive‘forwardtheextraction,transportation,and
consumptionoffossilfuels’(MarriottandMinio-Panuelo,2012,p.16).Theweb
includesgovernmentsandgovernmentaldepartments,industrypartnersofall
kindsincludinguniversities,andarangeoffinancialinstitutions,aswellaswhat
MarriottandMinio-Panuelo(2012,p.179)call‘externalaffairs’,whichinclude
culturalinstitutionsandalsoNGOs.Thiswebofeconomicandpoliticaltiesalso
254feedsthepersonalenrichmentofelitesintheUK,EuropeandAzerbaijan.
AccordingtotheGuardian,theAzerileadershiprana$2.9billionschemetobribe
Europeanpoliticians,laundermoneythroughanetworkofBritishcompanies(on
accountoftheUK’slightregulation)andbuyluxurygoods,whichpresumablyalso
includedart(HardingandBarr,2017).Thebribingofanumberofformer
membersofCouncilofEurope’sparliamentaryassembly(theCouncilofEuropeis
aninternationalorganisationdedicatedthedefenseofhumanrights)cameata
timewhenthecountrywascomingunderfireforitsrepressionofhumanrights
activists.Thisexercisein‘caviardiplomacy’resultedintheCouncilofEurope’s
parliamentvotingagainstareportthatwascriticalofthecountry(Hardingand
Barr,2017,nopagination).Closetohalfamillioneuroswerealsopaidoutforwhat
wasallegedlyprivateconsultingtoaboardmemberoftheEuropeanBankfor
ReconstructionandDevelopment,whichishelpingtofinancetheEuro-Caspian
MegaPipeline(HardingandBarr,2017).Thisindividual,whodeniesall
accusationsofcorruption,happenstobethehusbandofthedirector-generalof
UNESCO,whobestowedonthefirstladyofAzerbaijanUNESCO’shighestmedalof
honour.HealsoinauguratedanexhibitiononAzerbaijanandreligioustoleranceat
UNESCO’sheadquarters,whichwasfundedbytheHeydarAliyevFoundation
(HardingandBarr,2017).Addedtoallofthisisthepersonalwealththatthe
AliyevshaveaccruedbysiphoningoffAzerioilwealthtooff-shoreaccounts,via
theUK,and/orinvestingtheminallsortsofassets,includingbonds,equitiesand
property(HughesandMarriott,2015)
Iimaginethatthesearesomeoftheissuesdiscussedduringtheartist
workinggroupAckroyd&HarveysetupatIndependentDanceinElephant&
Castle(Pinder,2017c).TheseissuesrejointheproblemsIhavebeendiscussingin
theearlierpartofthisthesis,includingthedualcharacter–infrastructural
255(economic/ecological)andsuperstructural(politicalandideological)–ofviolence
thatcharacteriseourtransnationalcontext.Buttheseissuesandrealitieswere
madeallthemoreacutegiventhesubjectoftheexhibition.
Whiletheseissuesareperhapsnotunfamiliarfromthediscussionsinthe
precedingchapters,thelayeredcharacterofthesituationandsetofrelations
warrantfurtheranalysis.IwilldosobyrevisitingargumentsthatIdeveloped
previouslyrelatingtotheaccrualofsocio-symboliccapitalofelites,butalsoby
deepeninganengagementwithhoweconomiesofart,conservationandheritage
reproducethiswebofpower.
Asalreadysuggested,itispossibletopositartisticeventsandinstitutionsas
wellasNGOsasformingpartofthecarbonweb.Theactorsoftheseinstitutions
maynotthinkthemselvesasdriversofcrudeextractionorclimatechange.
However,theybecome,wittinglyornot,partofitthroughrelationsofsponsorship
thatallowthesponsorsandrelatedpartiestousecultureasaresourcetoaccrue
socialandsymboliccapital.Whatdiffersmarkedlyinthiscase,asopposedtothe
previouschapter,isthedirectpoliticaldimension.WhileLeylaAliyevisnotthe
presidentofAzerbaijan,herpolitical,organisationalandfamilialtieseffectively
makeaneventsuchasHereToday…(2014)intoanexerciseofsoftdiplomacy,
whichhelpstoupholdtheregime’simage,reputationandstandingintheworld,
regardlessofherpersonalaffinitywiththeenvironmentalcause.Suchexercises
areperformedbyallcountriesthroughgovernmentalandsemi-ornon-
governmentalagencies.IntheUK,theBritishCouncil,whosemissionis,inpart,to
promoteBritishcultureabroadisagoodexampleofthis.FortheAzeri
government,anumberofsuchbodiesexistthataimtobuildpoliticalalliancesand
relationsthroughculture.TheseincludetheHeydarAliyevFoundationandBaku
magazine.AsHughesandMarriott(2015)haveshown,one-offeventsand
256spectacularssuchastheBakuGamesin2015orartexhibitionssuchasHere
Today…(2014)haveasimilarfunction.
Onthisbasis,theartofHereToday…(2014)acquiresanaffirmativestatus:
likeintheprecedingchapter,theartisautonomousandfree(itisevencutting
edge,astheexhibitionsandlaboratoriesdemonstrate),yetitendsupplayingan
ambiguouspartinlegitimisingeconomicandpoliticalpower,despitealsobeinga
resourceinenvironmentalawareness-raising.
Nature,heritageandconservationhaveasimilarstatus.Sponsorsseekan
associationwiththeseastheystandinforobjectsandquasi-personsthatare
generallythoughttobeinneedofprotectionfromcommodification.Suchan
associationhasthevirtueofmakingtheirpatronsappeartobehumanistsand
humanitariansconcernedwithmaintainingtheboundariesofcommodification,
whilepartakingquiteliberallyinitstransgressionoftheseboundaries.34
Commodificationisneververyfar.Oneonlyhastotakealookatthevarious
initiativesassociatedwithLeylaAliyev,Bakumagazinebeingperhapsthebest
example.Themagazineisrepletewitharticlesandfeaturesaboutculturaland
sportingevents,fashionandcelebrities,lifestyleadviceandadvertisementsfor
luxuriesaimedatthesuperrich.Themagazinealsoincludesarticlesabout
environmentalconservation(forexample,sustainablecaviarandbiodiversity)and
Azerinationalheritageandcontemporaryart,whichproducenarrativesof
nationalauthenticitybutalsoexclusivity.
Othereventsandinitiativesmixthisconcernforluxury,heritage,cultureand
diplomacyindifferentwaysandmeasures.Aliyev’sartworkandpaintingshave
34Itwouldbeinterestingtodevelopthetheatricaldimensiontothisassociationwith
animals,inparticular,inrelationtoquestionsofsovereignty(Orozco,2013).
257formedthebasisofcreationsbyMayfair-basedfinejewellerStephenWebster,the
resultsofwhichformedthebasisofanexhibitionheldinBaku.FlytoBaku(2012),
anexhibitionaboutAzericontemporaryart,washostedinLondonatPhilippeDe
Pury&CompanybeforetouringdifferentEuropeancities,includingParis,Berlin
andMoscow.ItwascuratedbyHerveMikaeloff,whoworksasanadvisertoand
curatorfortheLVMH(LouisVuitton)group.Employingsuchafiguretocuratean
exhibitionthatwas,asfarasIunderstand,anexerciseinsoftdiplomacypoints
onceagaintoacertainproximitybetweenthestrategiesandtacticsusedbythe
powerhousesofhigh-endfashionandtoday’spoliticalelites.AsWu(2017)
suggests,thefashionworld’s(PradaandLouisVuitton)oftenverycostly
integrationandpromotionofhighartdoesnotalwayshaveadirectfinancial
benefit.However,throughthedistinctionanddifferentiation(asopposedto
standardisation)thattheseobjectsbring,thereputationandstandingofpatrons
eagertokeepalegitimateplaceamongtheglobalelitesis,ineffect,enhanced.
Finally,somethingsimilarisatworkinthebiennaleexhibition,whichis
amongstotherthingsachannelforthepromotionofAzerbaijanasatourist
destination.Thesecondexhibitionofthepavilion,BeyondtheLine(2015),was
dedicatedtotheartofhistoricalAzeriavant-gardessidelinedduringtherepressive
Sovietregime.Pastpoliticalartwasfortheoccasionreframedasnational,
bourgeoisheritage,producing,intheprocess,anarrativeofculturalauthenticity
aswellasmostprobablyincreasingtheglobalmarketvalueofhithertolesswell-
knownartists.Onceagain,thisaffirmativebecomingofavant-gardeartcanbe
understoodfromthepointofviewofthecollectorasaBourdieusianstrategyof
distinction.Raisingthepriceoftheworksmayhavebeenoneofitseffects,
althoughIhavenotconductedresearchtotrytoverifythis.Morefundamentally,
however,BeyondtheLine(2015),curatedincollaborationwiththecollectorand
258auctioneerSimonDePury,expandedthehistoryofartbyputtingAzerbaijanon
themapoftoday’sartmarket.Thecombinationofhistoricalartwithadistinctly
Azeriflavourandanexhibitionbringingtogetherahostofcontemporaryartists
fromallovertheworldcouldonlyhaveenhancedAzerbaijan’sclaimtomodernity,
perhapsbestsummarisedbytheHeydarAliyevCentre’s(anaward-winning
exhibitioncentreinBaku)nationalistmotto,‘TotheFuturewithValues!’(Heydar
AliyevCentre,2018).
Intheanalysisabove,Ihavere-presentedwhyandhowart,heritageand
conservationbecomesociallyandeconomicallyattractivetosponsorsaswellas
howart,heritageandconservationplayareconciliatingandlegitimisingfunction
inthiscontext.Whilemanyoftheartistsaswellascuratorsmaythinkthattheir
dutiesdonotgobeyondtheneedtovalorisetheartorthecausetheyare
supporting,theissuesexploredaboveneverthelessraiseanumberofquiteserious
questions,whichalsoappeartoleadmyanalysisbeyondquestionsoflegitimation.
Asalreadysuggestedinthepreviousparagraph,theculturalcomplexthatIdiscuss
abovesuggeststhattheaccrualofsocio-symboliccapitalthroughsponsorshipis
alsolinkedtoalargereconomyofart(forexample,theVenicebiennale),
conservationandtourism,whichinpartsupportsthecreationofagreenerworld
whilealsoconstitutingastrategyforthediversificationofeconomicincomeaway
fromoilandgasfortheAzerigovernment.However,itisalsoapparentthatthese
economiesalsocontributetofeedingeconomies,includingthoseofbiennales,
whosewiderimpactgoesdirectlyagainsttheaimsoftheIUCN.Inthissense,the
contradictionthatartpartakesinandhelpstosustain,thatis,smoothoverand
exacerbate,runsdeepinthesetofsocialrelationsdiscussed.
259Thenextsectioncontinuestodiscusstheproblemsraisedbythecaseby
revisitingsomeoftheobjectionsandquestionsraisedbypeoplewhodidnot
dissociatethemselvesfromtheexhibition.
5.3.3Thetroubledwatersofart’sideal
Thequestionofautonomousartalsotouchesonthequestionofcensorship,the
absenceofwhichwasgivenbyanumberofnon-dissentingpartiesasareasonfor
continuingwiththeexhibitions(Pinder2017a,2017c).Indeed,theexhibitions
includedmanyworksthatwerepotentiallyconfrontationalforthefunders(Chris
Jordan’sphotographs,forexample).Thecuratorsalsoaffirmthat,whiletheyasked
thesponsorssomehardquestions,thesponsorswerealwaysopentodialogue
(Pinder,2017a).Ihavenoreasontothinkthatthisisuntrueordoubtthe
genuinenessofthecuratorswhoIbelieveperformedtheircuratorialdutieswith
careandachievedresultsthatareprobablytheenvyofmostcurators.However,
askinghardquestionsdoesnotmeanthatacertainkindofcensorshipisnotat
work.AsWu(2002)suggests,censorshipdoesnotnecessarilyneedtobefrontal
(although,accordingtomyinterviews,itappearsthatamorefrontalkindof
censorshipwouldhaveproducedacertainconsensusamongculturalworkers).
Aftertheinterview,Iwasalsoleftwonderingwhetherthecuratorswouldhave
includedaworkakintotheconceptualmappingsproducedbyPlatform(the
carbonweb)ortheconceptualartistHansHaackedetailinghowspeciesextinction
mightbedirectlylinkedtooilexploitationaroundtheworld,includingAzerbaijan.
Myguessisthattheywouldnot.Infact,theydidnot,whichsuggeststhat
censorshipcaninanycontextwhatsoeverworkwithin(pre-emptive,moreorless
unconsciousomissions)justasmuchaswithout(enforced).Finally,itseemsthat
aslongastheartservesthepurpose/aimoftheexhibitionandtheworkisnota
260directaffronttoitssupporters,manystylesandformscanbeaccommodated,from
themoredocumentarytothemorereflective(MikePerry’swork,forexample).
Moreinterestinglyperhaps,anumberofinterviewees,includingthecurators
andanartistIspoketo,intimatedthatanequallydubiousbutWesternsponsor
(forexample,abank)mightnothaveattractedthesamekindofrebuke(Pinder,
2017b,2017d).Moreover,thisartistquiterightlypointedoutthatourownstate
institutionsareimplicatedmoreorlessdirectlyinthekindofcorruptcorporate
cultureandpoliticsthatcausedAckroydandHarveytodistancethemselvesfrom
theexhibition.AlthoughthecommentwasnotnecessarilydirectedatAckroyd&
Harvey,suchremarkseffectivelyraisethemoregeneralquestionofdouble
standards.Ackroyd&Harveyare,Ibelieve,wellawareofthistrap(ArtsAdminUk,
2015),andasIhavealreadyexplainedthesponsorshipoftheexhibitionbythe
AzerioligarchyisdirectlylinkedtoWesternpowersandmultinationals.However,
theseproblemsareworthexploringabitfurtherastheydrawattentiontooneof
thespecificitiesofthecase.
Hatherley(2014)raisedsimilarquestionsinarecentarticleanalysingthe
outcryabouttheDesignMuseum’sDesignoftheYearawardbeinggiventoZaha
Hadid’sHeydarAliyevCentreinBaku.Hatherley(2014)pointsoutthatnumerous
otherethicallyandpoliticallydubiousarchitecturalprojectswouldnothave
attractedthesamelevelofcondemnationonaccountofanoticeablewantofwhat
hecallsthe‘oligarchitecture’factor,inotherwords,(oriental)philistine
ostentation(Hatherley,2014,nopagination).WhileIamnotclaimingthatAckroyd
&Harvey’sactionswereguidedbyaformofunconsciousorientalism,thereisgood
reasontosupposethat,despitethecleareconomicandpoliticallinkstoEurope,a
similarculturalunconsciousisatworkinthiscontext.Iwouldgoasfarastoargue
thatLeylaAliyevandthemannerinwhichpeoplereacttohercapturesomething
261ofthephenomenon,addingastronggendereddimensiontothequestionof‘race’.
Intheliteratureproducedbyhercriticsshecanasappearasahuman
personificationofthe‘oligarchitecture’factor,whileintheliteratureand
testimoniesofthosewhosupportanddefendher,sherepresentsbothan
embodimentofculturalintegrity.HughesandMarriott(2015),infact,summarise
thisparadoxwhentheystatethat‘somedescribeherasvacuous,withlittle
interestinanythingapartfromherself.Othersfindhercharming,engagedand
genuinelyinterestedintheenvironmentalcausesshechampions’(p.53).Itshould
benotedthatthissplithasinitselfaculturalistcharacter.Aliyevappearsto
embody,asfemale,bothAzerbaijan’sheritageandfuture,andwhatMulhern
(2015,p.134)hastermedthephilistine‘anti-cultural’principle(alsooftenfemale)
thatobstructsatruerrealisationofcultureanditsprinciple(amoreauthentic,less
commodifiedandoppressiveformofAzericultureormoregenuinekindof
environmentalism,ethicalprinciples,etc.).Iamlessconcernedwithdiscussing
whatsuchviewssayaboutAliyevthanwithaskingwhatsuchviewssayabout
thosewhoholdorreproducethem,consciouslyornot.Ifthereisanorientalismat
workhere,myviewisthatitshouldbetakenasadisplacedexpressionofan
antagonismconsequentuponculture’sintensifiedsubsumptionthatdefinesthe
hereandnowoftheUKjustasmuchasan‘exotic’elsewhere.Theartistwhostates
thattheinstitutionofcultureintheUKissoakedinthepowerofprivateand
corporatemoneyis,amongotherthings,pointingtothisreality,whichsome
appeartobemorecomfortablewiththanothers(Pinder,2017d).
WhiletheobjectionthatanotherWesternsponsorwouldnothaveprovoked
thesamekindofoutcryneedssomeseriousqualification(‘Western’armsdealers
andBPobviouslydo!),suchanobjectionalsoappearstopointtoamalaise
traversingtheidealofcultureitself.IfAliyevisanembodimentofphilistine
262ostentationintheeyesofhercritics,forherownpartisans,sheisainfactavariant
ofthemuchmorefamiliarfigureofthe‘beautifulsoul’discussedinchapter2
throughForster’sfictionalfigureofMsSchlegelbutalsoMrsNarula,thewifeofthe
Indianbillionaire.Inanotdissimilarfashion,theappointedguardianofAzeri
nationalheritageandspiritentertainsacloserelationtothepoliticalandeconomic
drivessheissupposedtoelevateandcomplement.Sheshowsthat,despite
widespreadcrueltyandviolence,spoliationanddestruction,thehumanistvalues
ofculture,conservationandthenationcanberealised.Indoingso,shealsoshows
howthecivilitiesofartandcultureplayakeyroleinsofteningtheedgesofan
altogethermoremusculareconomicandpoliticalpower.
Thenextpart,whichismoreofanepiloguethanafully-fledgeddiscussion,
presentshowAckroyd&Harveyrespondedartisticallytotheevent.Thisbrief
presentationwillgivemetheopportunitytoreflectonthealternativeto
affirmativeculturebeforeconcluding.
5.4Pelt(AfterLivingSkin)
SometimeafterAckroyd&Harveydecidedtodissociatethemselvesfromthe
touringshow,theduomadeapiecetitledPelt(AfterLivingSkin)(2015),which
waspresentedattheDisplayGalleryaspartofanexhibitiontitledSundayinthe
ParkwithEd(2015).ThenameEdisareferencetoÉdouardManet,whofirst
presentedthepaintingLeDéjeunersurL’Herbe(mentionedintheProustpassage
inchapter2)attheSalondesRefusés.Theexhibition,asawhole,aimedto
interrogatethepossibilityoftransgressionandthestatusoftheavant-gardetoday
(Pinder,2017c).
Asthetitlesuggests,theworkwasmadeoutoftheremnantofthework
presentedattheOldSortingOffice.Incontrasttothelushlivingskinofthetiger,
263thepeltwaslooselyslungontoapieceofropetiedbetweenthewallsofthegallery.
Withpartofitshessianfabricmadevisible,ithunglimply,dishevelledand
yellowedonaccountofover-exposure.ItcreatedwhatHughes(2015,no
pagination)justlycalls‘apoignantimageofdeath’.Toaccompanytheworkandas
partoftheprogrammeoftalksthatformedpartoftheexhibition,theartistshelda
discussionwiththejournalistRachelFenshamaboutsomeoftheissues
surroundingtheinfrastructuralmake-upoftheLondonexhibition(Pinder,2017c).
Thispieceprovidesaninterestingcounterpointtotheworkpresentedduring
HereToday…(2014)onanumberofcounts.Throughitscreationoutofthe
destructionoftheold,theworkgivesexpressiontolosswhilealsomarkinga
future-boundopeningthattemporalisesandnegatesthepresent,markingthe
resistanceoftheworktoitscommodifiedstatus.Theimageofcatastrophethat
replacesthearrestedimageofgracecreatedpreviouslydoesnotonlygesture
towardsthesceneofthetiger’sdeath.Italsofunctionsasanindexofalargerkind
ofexhaustion,thatis,theexhaustionofnon-commodifiedspheresoflifeand
resources.Italsofunctionsasanindexoftheexhaustionofcriticalartinthefaceof
contemporarycapitalism.Thephotographicimageinbothcasestakesona
paradigmaticvalueasamediumofartisticandsocialcontemporaneity,while
perhapsnotbelongingtothesamecontemporary.LivingSkin(2014)becamean
imagethatfedamediatizedspectacle.TheworkcouldhavegoneontotheVenice
Biennale,whicharguablyrefracts,asatransculturalartspace,atransnationaland
globalizedworld.Instead,theartistsemployedadifferentstrategy.Theworkwas
givenarenewedandradicallydifferentmeaningandformwithinthecontextofa
smallerexhibition.Withinthiscontext,theworkgaveformtothesocial
antagonismthattraversedit,andindoingsofoundwaysofdistinguishingitself
‘fromtheever-sameinventoryinobediencetotheneedfortheexploitationof
264capital’(Adorno,1997,p.21).Pelt(AfterLivingSkin)’stheatricalre-temporalising
ofthefrozentimedoesnotproduce‘thevigorousandluxuriantgrowthofatrue
workofart’(Proust,2010,p.438).However,thedeathandbirthoftheform,which
itpresents,pointstothelimitsofbrutality,thatis,bothtoitsintolerableextremes
andtothepossibilityofitsend.
5.5Conclusion
Thischapteristheconclusionofthethirdareaofinquiryofthisthesisfocusedon
affirmativeartandalternativestoanewaffirmativeart,whichIhavebeenarguing
isoneoftheeffectsonartofcertainresiliencepracticesinpolicy.Incomparisonto
theCruzvillegas–Platformcase,theA&Hcaseexaminedinthischapteraddeda
numberoflayerstotheinquiry.Theanalysiswentbeyondtheconfinesofthe
museuminitsdiscussionofanexhibitionthat,ineffect,providedthebasisforpart
ofabiennaleexhibitionthatwasheldinVenice.Thediscussionwasalsomade
morecomplexbyvirtueofthenexusofEuro-Asianeconomic,socialandpolitical
relationsinvolvedinthecaseaswellastheexhibition’srelationtoconservation
andtheIUCNascharity,throughwhichIinflectedtheideaofaffirmativeculture
butalsoculture-as-resourcedifferently.
Afteranaccountoftheexhibition,Iprovidedadetaileddiscussionofthe
relationsanddangersembeddedintheserelationsforart,whichwentbeyonda
discussionofsocio-symboliclegitimationtoconsiderthemodesofeconomic
valorizationartandconservationpartakein.Afterexploringthedifferent
objectionstoa‘boycott’aswellasthelimitationsoftheseobjections,Iwentonto
exploreA&H’sresponsetotheevent,whichwaspresentedsomemonthslaterina
Londongallery.Theshortpresentationandanalysisestablishedthatoneofthe
virtuesoftheworkformyownanalysislaysinthemannerinwhichitpresented
265veryclearlyart’sapparentcapacitytoself-legislateandresistbecomingabearerof
exchangevalue.Ifthephotographicformwasshowntohaveaparadigmaticvalue
inbothofAckroyd&Harvey’sworksforthinkingabouttheartisticandsocial
contemporary,theirtheatricalindexicalitywasalsoshown,likeMendel’s
photographs,tobeakeycharacteristicofart’sabilitytopresentandretainsocial
antagonismand,indoingso,presentanotheridealofart.
266
6.Conclusion
6.1Summaryofthesisandfindings
BeforeIgoontodiscusstheoriginalityandsignificanceofmyfindings,Iprovidea
summaryofthediscussionandexplainhowthediscussionansweredtheresearch
questions.Irestatethequestionsbelow:
Q.1aWhatarethehistoriesofdiscoursesandpracticesofresilience?
Q.1bHowandwhydidresiliencebecomeakeynotioninculturaladministrationin
theUKinthecontextofthemostrecenteconomiccrisis?
Q.2a.Whatarethescopeandambivalencesofdifferentresiliencediscoursesand
practicesinthefieldofcultureintheUK?
Q.2b.Howcanthenotionofculture-as-resourcehelptoclarifythescopeand
ambivalencesofdominantresiliencediscoursesandpracticesinthiscontext?
Q.2c.Howcanthenotionofcivilityhelptoclarifythescopeandambivalencesof
alternativeresiliencediscoursesandpracticesinthiscontext?
Q.3a.Beyondalternativeresiliences,whatotherwayscanartandcriticismbe
understoodtoperformacriticalnegationofthedominantrationalesofresilience?
Q.3b.Whatalternativescanartandcriticismoffertoareconciledaffirmative
culture?
IgaveapartialbutneverthelesscomprehensiveenoughanswertoQ.1ainchapter
1whereIexploredhowdiscoursesofresilienceandthepracticesofriskandcrisis
managementthatthesediscourseslegitimiseshadowthehistoryofneoliberalism.
Whilediscoursesofresiliencedonothaveasinglepointofgenesis,Iargued
buildingonexistinggenealogiesthattheecologicalconceptionsofresiliencethat
267emergedinthewakeofthe1973oilcrisiswereparticularlyinfluentialinthe
spreadofthenotion.Inchapter2,Iconfirmedthatthedevelopmentofresilience
discoursesandpracticesfollowedasimilarhistoricaldevelopmenttotheone
describedbyothercritics,notablyWalkerandCooper.Theauthors(2011,p.157)
claimthatresiliencediscoursesandpractices‘movedfromapositionofcritique
(againstthedestructiveconsequencesoforthodoxresourceeconomics)tooneof
collusionwithanagendaofresourcemanagementthatcollapsesecologicalcrisis
intothecreativedestructionofatrulyHayekianfinancialorder’.Thereferenceto
Hayekandcrisisunderstoodinpurelyecologicaltermsarenotentirelycogent
whenexaminingresilienceinculture.Nevertheless,thestatementprovidesan
accurateenoughsummaryofthehistoricaltrajectoryofresilienceincultural
administrationandpolicy.Theclaimwasverifiedandquestion1bpartially
answeredthrougha‘pre-history’ofresilienceinculture,whichdepartedfroman
discussionoftheNationalTheatreconferenceonculturalvalue.Irevealedthatthe
termappearedinfieldthroughdebatesandinterventionsthatwereaimedat
challengingNewLabourinstrumentalismandeconomism.Themetaphorof
resiliencewasnotafully-fledgednotionatthisstage.Yet,itwasshowntobeara
privilegedrelationtoecologicalrationalityandrationalesof‘culture-as-resource’
characteristicoftheLeft-leaning,post-welfaristpolicydiscourseofDEMOSandits
founderGeoffMulgan.
MyanalysisthenshowedthatitisMMManditsassociateswhomadeamajor
contributiontothedevelopmentofresiliencethinkinginthefieldofculture.At
theirhands,resilienceappearedasadiscourseconcernedwiththefinancial
managementandsustainabilityofculturalorganisationsinthecontextofanon-
goingeconomicandenvironmentalcrisis.Fromthenon,Idemonstrated
throughoutmyanalysisofchapter2and3thatwhileresiliencepracticesand
268discourseswerevaried,theygenerallyretainedaconnectiontocrisismanagement
andthesocialisationofriskslinkedtocrises,whethereconomicorenvironmental.
Inshowingthis,IansweredQ.1bandQ.2a.
ThroughtheanalysisofMMM’swork,Ialsostartedtoconfirmthatthe
expedientmanagementofcrisisandsocialisationofrisksperformedbyresilience
discoursesandpracticespartakesinanintensifiedsubsumptionofculture.The
notionof‘culture-as-resource’helpedtomakesenseofthisfact,whilealsohelping
toaccountfortheambivalencesofthismodeofsocialisationofrisksandcrisis,
whichincludedthemoreorlesswittingencouragementofexploitativelabour
practicesthroughthepromotionofvolunteering.TheworkofMMMalsoshowed
thatwhiletheidealandprincipleofculturetendstobesubjugatedtoamore
utilitarianrationaleinthiscontext,cultureandecologyalsoappearasambivalent
ideologicalsupplementsthatlegitimiseexpedientrationalesofresource
management.MyanalysisofMMMfinishedwithadiscussionoftheworkofpoet
andpolicyconsultantMarkRobinsonwhosedefinitionsofresiliencehavebeen
particularlyinfluentialinthefield.
Afterthat,IfurtheredtheinquirythatformsthebasisofQ.1bbyexaminingin
detailthecutstoculturethatprecipitatedtheriseofresilience.Throughthe
analysisoftheACE’scurrentstrategyaswellastheirPRvideos,Icontinuedto
examinetherhetoricallymystifyingrolethatartandecologyplayinlegitimisingan
institutioninthethrowsadeepcrisisoflegitimacyandmeans.Chapter2showed
thatecologyandenvironmentalconcernswerenotonlyrhetorical.Theyhavea
basisinpolicypracticeaswell,whichsuggeststhatthescopeofresilience
practices(Q.2a-b)innationalculturalpolicyisdiverse.ACE’senvironmental
policiesare,ineffect,novel.Theyconnecttoresilienceagendasinasmuchas
enhancingtheenvironmentalsustainabilityofthefieldcontributestothe
269managementofenvironmentalriskswhileimprovingthebusinessacumenof
organisationsinthefield.Ahistoricalanalysisofthewiderformationthathas
emergedaroundgroupssuchasTippingPointandJulie’sBicyclealsoshowedthat
thehistoryofthesepoliciesisfraughtwithinstitutionalconflict,andthatthe
policiesthemselvesarosefrompressurefromactorsinthefieldwhowere
disgruntledwiththefactthatACEdidnotseemtotakeenvironmentalissues
seriously(Q.1b).Inrelationtothesecondareaofinvestigation,thisanalysisdid
notonlyconfirmthatresiliencepracticesanddiscoursescouldhavesignificantly
differentaims,italsoshowedthatpracticesof‘culture-as-resource’couldhave
moreprogressiveends.Nonetheless,Iarguedthattheseenvironmentalpolicies
alsoplayedanambivalentroleinlegitimisinganinstitutionincrisisand
distractingfromtheon-goingrestructurationofthefield.
Therestofthesecondchapterexaminedprogrammesrelatingtobuilding
financialresiliencethroughphilanthropy,whicharethepillarofresilienceagendas
inculture.IfocusedonthefirstCatalystprogrammethatranfrom2012-2015as
wellasthetrainingprogrammesassociatedtoCatalyst.Longerhistoriesaside,the
Catalystprogrammeisbestviewedastheculminationofthepoliticsof
privatisationandmarketisationthattookadecisiveturnin1976withthecreation
oftheAssociationforBusinessSponsorshipoftheArts(ABSA),laterrenamedArts
&Business,undertheLabourgovernmentofJamesGallaghan.Here,thequestion
ofresourcemanagementcametobearontheanalysisintwoways.Thefirstisthat
theseprogrammes,liketheworkofMMM,haveasobjecttheexpedient
managementanddistributionofculture’sfinancialresourcesforthesocialisation
ofriskslinkedtothecuts.Second,Ishowedthat,throughtheseprogrammes,
culturealsobecomesasocio-symbolicandeconomicresourceforprivate
investors.Whiletheseprogrammeswerepartiallysuccessfulinthesocialising
270riskslinkedtothecuts,theywerenotwithouttheirambivalences.Notably,I
arguedthattheyreinforcedthepowerandprivilegeoflargerorganisationsand
metropolitancentres,increasedcompetitionforfunds,uncertaintyandexhaustion
inthesector.Theanalysisofthetrainingprogrammes,whichwasanopportunity
torevisitaspectsoftheMMMdiscussion,alsoconfirmedthatwhileprivate
investmenthasbeennaturalised,thisnaturalisationofprivateinvestmenthasand
stilldoesrequireaheavyhandfromthestateanditspartners.
Thispartoftheanalysisalsostartedtouncoverthemixedtemporalitythat
characterisessubsumptionandunevendevelopment.Thismixedtemporality
offeredastartingpointforexaminingalternativeresiliencepractices,which
neverthelessconformtotherationalesof‘culture-as-resource’.Thisoccasionwas
providedbythealternativefundraisingstrategies(artholemedalforphilanthropy,
LiveArtAidcampaigns,alternativeauctionsetc.)ofLADA,AAandHLA.Then,I
wentontoreviewtheconsortium’sworkonethicalfundraisingpolicies.Whilethe
questionofcultureasaresourcestillcametobearonthediscussionofcorporate
brandmanagement,Iexploredthesepoliciesandproblemsthroughthenotionof
‘civility’,whichenabledtopresentthesepoliciesasalternativeresiliencepractices
whileexploringtheambivalencesandlimitsofthesocialisationofrisksperformed
bydominantresiliencediscoursesandpractices.IstartedtoanswerQ.2cby
showingthatthenotionof‘civility’wasusefultomakesenseofhowtheprivate
investmentofoilorarmscorporations,whichderivereputationalandeconomic
benefitsfromanassociationwithculture,islinkedtotheproductionofextremes
ofviolenceonothergeopoliticalscenes(notablytheglobalsouth).Aswiththe
environmentalpoliciesandrhetoric,Ialsoarguedthattheseethicalpolicies,which
aimtolimitanddistancetheseextremesthroughboycott-likestrategies,were
deeplyambivalent.Theideaofcivilityalsohelpedtoclarifytheseambivalences
271(Q.2c).Theanalysisshowedthat,throughaprocessofethico-aesthetic
‘educement’,theseethicalpoliciessupportdivestmentfromcertainkindsof
undesirableformsofprivateinvestment,whilealsocontributingtoembedthe
broaderturntoprivateinvestmentbypresentingprivateinvestmentasanethical,
andnotpolitical,issue.Beyondtheseambivalencesandlimits,Iarguedthroughan
analysisofthefinaleventoftheconsortium’sTTMRprogrammethatthisinitiative
hadthevirtueofraisingproblemsanddemands,whichhadabroaderpolitical
valuethatisnotreducibletothequestionofstatemanagementandadministration
ofculture.
Chapter3,4and5wereallfocusedongroups,eventsandcontextsthat
featuredaspartofTTMRorthatarecloselyrelatedtotheorganisersofthe
programme.ThiswasthecaseofLabofii,whocreatedC.R.A.S.Hanexperimentin
post-crisisandpost-capitalistlivingforArtsAdmin’sTwoDegreesfestival.Their
workandappropriationofresiliencediscoursesprovidedthemeanstofurther
investigatetheusesofresiliencediscourseswithinthecontextofsocial
movements,aninvestigationinitiatedthroughthediscussionofTTMR.Thecase
alsoprovidedtheopportunitytoconfirmthatwhiletheiralternativeresilience
discoursepartakesinanartofcrisismanagement,theirworkalsoshowedthat
resiliencecanberadicallyrefunctionedawayfromitsmoreliberalgovernmental
uses.
InrelationtoQ.2c,Ishowedthatthenotionofcivility,re-workedthrougha
referencetotheworkofShannonJackson,wasusefulformakingsenseofhowthe
group’ssocially-engagedpracticehighlightstheviolenceofcivilizationandcrisis
whilealsoofferingutopian-dystopianwaysofimaginativelyshapingsocialnorms
awayfromtheircapitalistichistoricalbecoming.Thisalternativedevelopment
rationalewaspresentedinthebookletthatoutlinestheethicsandprinciplesof
272permaculture,intheworkshopsandeducationalsessionsthatthegroupran,as
wellasintheperformancesthattookplaceduringtheproject,includinginthe
performanceofBeckyBeinart.
Finally,IdiscussedtheambivalencesoftheworkofLabofiiaswellasof
theirre-appropriationsofresilienceintermsofcivility(Q.2c).Bycontrasttothe
ethico-aesthetic‘educement’atworkinTTMR,Iarguedthattheleft-libertarian
ethosoftheirpracticeanddiscourseunconsciouslymimicstherationaleofthe
market,andindoingsorisksbecomingavectorofde-subjectificationand
accommodation,ifnotreconciliation,withcapitalism.Theaestheticandpathosof
theradicalisedenclaveandutopiancommunityistheperfectexampleofhow
resistancetocapitalisticmodesofdevelopmentcanbecomeanambivalent
accommodationwithit.
Openingthethirdareaofinquiryofthisthesis(Q.3a.b)throughthelastpart
ofthechapterprovidedawayofgoingbeyondthisambivalenceand‘beyond’
resilience.Agenealogicalaccountofthepost-Adornonian,romanticconceptofart,
whichIargued,afterOsborneandCunningham,findsitsrootsinFredrich
Schlegel’sconceptofliteratureandthenovel,enabledmyanalysistoaccountfor
howart,ontologicallyconstrued,iscapableofpresentingsocialantagonismasan
immanentaspectofitsform.Whiletheatricalityfeaturesinanumberofwaysin
mythesis,includingthroughtheartcases,itisthispresentationofantagonismthat
Itermed‘theatrical’.Theatricalitywasunderstoodtobethephenomenological
markerofart’sperpetualcrisisofformandincompleteness,ofitscharacteras
non-contemporaneousbutfuture-orientatedruinthatperformsadisjunctive
temporalisationandnegationofthehistoricalspaceofitspresentation.The
theatricalityofautonomousartisthesiteofart’sresistancetosubsumptionandto
itsconditionofbearerofexchangevalue.Thisnegationisalsoanegationof
273resilienceinasmuchasthelatterlegitimatesandeffectsthisprocessof
subsumption.
Afteratheoreticalpresentationoftheidea,Iexploredinapreliminaryway
howthisconceptofartisatworkinthebenchplaques-fragmentscreatedbythe
anonymouscollectiveQuantitativeTeasingforLabofii’sproject.Ithenextended
theconcepttotherestofC.R.A.S.H,showingthatthisconceptofartcanhelpto
makesenseoftheformalaspectsoftheprojectratherthanitsaverredsocio-
politicalintent.
Thelasttwo,shorterchapterswerededicatedtoexploringthisconceptofart
whilecontrastingitwithwhatItermed,afterMarcuse,‘affirmativeculture’,thatis,
functionalisedartandculturethatlegitimiseseconomicandpoliticalpowers
(Q.3a-b).Ipresentedthisnewaffirmativecultureasoneoftheconsequencesofthe
subsumptionthatresiliencediscoursesandpracticeslegitimateandeffect.In
chapter4,IdiscussedCruzvillegas’EmptyLot,alivingsculpturemadeofgiant
scaffolding,plantersandplantsthattheMexicanartistinstalledinTate’sTurbine
Hall.Hisinstallationforegroundedalternativeclimate-resilientformsof
indigenousagriculturewhileavoidingtheromanticisationofthesepracticesthat
groupssuchasLabofiitendedtoreproduce.IpresentedEmptyLot’sresolutely
urbanimaginationasacritiqueoftheurbandevelopmentwhichtheTateandthe
Southbank,linchpinsof‘creative’London,arepartofandwhichmakestheTateso
attractivetocorporatesponsors.Thus,inthiscase,considerationsofurbanityand
urbanredevelopmentwerecentralinapproachingthequestionofsponsorship
andprivateinvestment,whilealsobeingakeyintheassessmentofart’scapacity
topositionitselfcriticallywithinthesiteandrelationsthatconstituteit.
Myargumentwasthatdespiteitsforcefulcharacterandgesture,the
commissionmadefortheTurbineHallalsofeedsinanambivalentwaythe
274perceivedpublicvalueoftheinstitution.For,public/culturalvalueis,inpart,what
privatecorporationssuchasBPseekinordertoenhancetheirownreputations
andmanagetheirbrands.Withoutcritiquingtheintentionorconceptorganising
Cruzvillegas’work,IwentontodiscusshowthePlatformfestivalDeadline,to
whichCruzvillegas’workservedasadefactobackground,dialecticallyundidand
realisedtheprincipleembeddedinCruzvillegas’work.Thefestival,whichwasa
protestagainstBPsponsorshipoftheTate,undidCruzvillegas’workinthesense
thatitexpandedthephenomenologically-boundedconceptofsitethat
Cruzvillegas’workpresupposedbyincludingacritiqueofsponsorshipandthe
museumasanodeinspacesoffloworwhatPlatformcallthe‘carbonweb’.Butthe
unsanctionedfestival,whichwasinternationalistinperspectiveandmakeup,
realisedCruzvillegas’workinasmuchasitactualisedtheconceptoftheemptylot
oflandandspacethatreclaimslifeawayfromexchangevalue.IsettledonSouth
AfricanphotographerMendel’stheatricalportraitsofpeopleintheirflooded
homestofinishtheanalysisofthefestivalandanchormydiscussionofnegative
autonomy.
Thefinalchaptercontinuedtoconfirmthatthepracticeslegitimisedand
effectedbyresiliencediscoursesandpracticesproduceaffirmativeculture.
However,Ialsocontinuedtoconfirmthatartiscapableofbeinganalternativeto
affirmativeculture(Q3.a-b).Inthischapter,IexaminedHereToday…,anexhibition
organisedincelebrationofthe50thanniversaryoftheIUCNlistandfundedby
Azerioligarchs.Thecasewasinterestingforanumberofreasons.Thefirstisthat
thislesswell-knowncaseraisedanumberofmorecomplexquestionsthanthe
Tatecase,partlyonaccountofitsconnectiontotheIUCN.IconcentratedonLiving
SkinandPelt,whichAckroyd&Harveymadeforandinresponsetotheexhibition
tohighlighttheplightandresilienceoftigers,andwhichIpresentedasinstances
275ofaffirmativeandnegativelyautonomousart.Urbanitydidnotcometobareso
muchontheanalysis.However,inthischapter,Iconsideredhowenvironmental
conservationandheritage,whichalsoconformtotherationalesof‘culture-as-
resource’,formedkeysocio-symbolicandeconomicassetsforcorporateand
politicalpowers.Afteradetailedexplorationofthecomplexitiesofthecase,I
finishedwiththeanalysisofPelt,whichIarguedrecoveredatheatricaltemporality
thatallowedittopresentthesocialtruthofculture’ssubsumption.
6.2Limitationsandfutureareasofwork
Ihavealreadyacknowledgedsomeofthelimitationsofmythesis.Amongstother
things,thelimitationsrelatetothetimescalesoftheproject,whichhaveaffected
howIhaveengagedwithpolicybutalsothecases.Futureworkbasedonthis
thesiswouldtakeintoaccountmorerecentpolicydevelopments.WhileIhave
coveredalotofgroundinthediscussion,itwouldbevaluabletoextendthe
discussionofthekeyconceptsofthisthesistoothercasesaswell,inordertosee
whetherthetermsthatIproposehaveabroaderkindofgenerality.Other
limitationsrelatetomyaccesstopracticesIwaswritingabout.Forexample,
discussionsofthecaseinchapter3,inparticular,couldbecomplementedwith
furtherfieldworkandinvestigationsintopermacultureasapractice.This
knowledgeisnotstrictlynecessaryforasuccessfulanalysisofthematerial,butit
couldprovideadditionalgrounding.Finally,therearelimitationswhicharemore
akintoexclusionsandwhichrelatetohowIexcludedadiscussionofBrexitor
theatre.Havingacknowledgedsomeofthelimitationsofmywork,Iwouldliketo
presentsomeofthefutureareasofinquirythattheselimitationshaveopenedup.
Thefifthchapterofthisthesis,inparticular,openedupanumberof
questions,whichIwillseektopursue,andwhichrelatemoredirectlytotheorising
276theplaceofartandcultureinaglobalisedeconomy,aproblemthatbecamecentral
asthisresearchdeveloped.IenvisagethatIwillwriteanarticlefocusedontheart
discussedinthechapter.ButIalsoenvisagethattherewouldbeaseparatearticle
thatwouldfocusinmoredepthonthesocio-economicrelationsandproblemsthat
underpinnedtheexhibition.Ithinksuchanarticlewouldalsohavescholarlyand
publicvaluebutwouldnecessitatefurtherresearch.
Ilargelyexcludedadiscussionofdramaandtheatreinthisthesis.However,
throughoutmytimeresearchingthisthesis,Ialsoengagedwithhow‘culture’
manifestsasatopicindramaandtheatre.Thisinquirystartedthroughasustained
engagementwiththehistoriesofcriticisminthedisciplinesofperformanceand
theatrestudiesbutwasthentransferredtoanexaminationofactualdramaticand
theatricalworks.So,Ianticipatethatthisinquiry,whichranparalleltomythesis,
willformthesteppingstoneforalonger-terminvestigationofwhatcouldbe
termed,afterMulhern(2015,p.1),‘conditionofculture’discourseindrama,
theatreandperformancewriting.Bydoingthis,Ihopetocontributetoclarifying
how‘culture’isaproblemandtopicthatisgermanetothefieldandstudyof
theatreandperformance(asopposedtotheproperobjectofculturalstudies).
Amongstothers,Jackson(2004)touchesonthesequestionsinherilluminating
discussionsofthehistoriesofperformanceandtheatrecriticism.Myworkwould
beelaboratedinthosetracksbutwouldbeextendedtoacomparativediscussion
ofdramasandtheatricalperformancesinordertoestablishthescopeanddifferent
variantsofthisimaginationinthefield.
2776.3Originality,significanceandimplications
6.3.1Contributiontocriticaldiscourseaboutresilience
Afterhavingpresentedadetailedsummaryofmyfindings,Idiscusstheoriginality,
significanceandimplicationsofmywork.Imaketwomainclaimstooriginality,
whichrelatetotherecontextualizationofthecritiqueofresilienceincultureas
wellastotheapproachIhavetakentoperformthisrecontextualization.Theother,
moreminor,relatestomyintegrationofenvironmentalproblemswithinpractical
materialistresearch.Istartwiththemoreminorclaim,whichfitswithinthe
discussionofmycontributiontoscholarshipaboutresilience.
Bytakingculturalpolicyasastartingpointforinvestigation,itdidnotfeel
entirelyappropriatetoproblematise‘culture’alongpost-humanistlines.However,
myworkhasendeavouredtointegrateadiscussionofenvironmentalconcerns,
whichIshowedareanintegralpartofpolicydiscoursesandpracticesand,more
broadly,oftheromantic/post-romantictopicofculture.Beyondpolicy,
environmentalconcernsfeaturedinallthechaptersanddiscussionsofart.This
integrationofenvironmentalconcernscontributesinamodestwaytoa
recodificationofdiscussionsofart,performanceandneoliberalism,whichtendto
focusonissuesoflabourand/orissuesofpoliticaleconomy.Byextension,suchan
approachrecodifiesdiscussionsfocusedonpost-Thatcherculturalpolicy,which
havealsotended,withinandwithoutthefieldoftheatreandperformance,to
ignoretheseissues(Harvie,2013;Hewison,2014).
Thisleadsmetodiscussthefirstmaincontributiontoknowledge.The
analysisofchapter2and3,inparticular,showedthatwhileanumberof
characteristicsofresiliencediscoursesandpracticesidentifiedbyothercritics
recurwithinthefieldofculture,Ihavedemonstratedthatthesecharacteristicsare
subjecttoproceduresandschemasthatarespecifictoculture.Thus,dominant
278discoursesandpracticesofresilienceinalltheirdiversitycanbeunderstoodas
conformingtotherationaleof‘culture-as-resource’.Turningtothenotionof
‘civility’toaccountforalternativeresiliencepracticesanddiscourses(TTMRand
chapter3)providedawayofbringingtotheforetheproblemofviolence,which
featuresprominentlyindiscussionsofresilience,whilegivingtheproblema
specifically‘culturalist’frame.AffirmativecultureandtheAdornonianconceptof
artthatIdevelopedinthesecondpartofthethesis,whicharenotionsthatbelong
tothetraditionsofculturalMarxism,wereintroducedtomakesenseoftheeffects
ofresiliencediscoursesandpracticesonartandart’sresistancetotheseeffects.
Thus,thecommonplaceofcultureunites,beyondtheirvastdifferencesand
particularities,thediscoursesofHolden,MMM,ACE,TTMR,andLabofii,butalso
thediscoursesofLandry,AliyevaswellasthoseofAdornoandMarcuse.Inthis
sense,whilealternativestodominantresiliencediscoursesandthealternativesto
resilienceinartexist,noneoftheabovefalloutsidetheproceduresofculturalist
discourseandpractice.
BeforeImoveontoadiscussionofmycontributiontoculturalandpractical
materialistresearchinthefieldoftheatreandperformancestudies,Iwouldliketo
sayafewmorethingsregardingthecategoriesIhaveemployedinthisthesisand
howtheyrelatetoeachother.‘Culture-as-resource’and‘civility’,ontheonehand,
and‘affirmativeculture’and‘art’,ontheother,functionaspairs.Thefirstpair
relatestoartasaheteronomouspractice,andtheothertoartasautonomous
practice.However,mydiscussionshaveshownthatculture-as-resourceand
affirmativecultureaswellascivilityandartalsoformpairs.Inchapter2,for
instance,Ishowedthattherationaleofculture-as-resourceinpolicyhasa
rhetoricallyaffirmativedimension,whichmakesresilienceanambivalent
discourseoflegitimationofandreconciliationwithsubsumption.Equally,in
279chapter4and5,whereIconcentratedonaffirmativeculture,Ishowedthatartand
culturebecomeaffirmativeallthewhileenteringdirectlyintoprocessesof
valorisationasresources.So,theapparentoppositionbetween‘culture-as-
resource’and‘affirmativeculture’is,infact,aresolvableantinomythatappearsto
traverseeachtermthatconstitutestheopposition.Thesameappliestocivilityand
art,whichIshowedinchapter3,formapair,withthelatternotionhelpingto
accountinformaltermsforthenegativeandcriticalchargethatanimatedevents
andprojectssuchasTTMRorC.R.A.S.H.Theanalysissuggestedthattheboundaries
betweenthesecategoriesarenotalwayshard.Cruzvillegas’work,forexample,was
presentedfittingthecategoryofaffirmativeandnegativeautonomy.Whileat
othertimes,theboundariesshouldbeunderstoodasharder.Theautonomyofart
isconditionaluponthepresentationoftheantagonismsandcontradictionsthat
traversetheheteronomousrelationsthatconstituteitasart.However,this
presentationofheteronomyhasthestatusofanegation.
Thereisnodoubtthatthesefourtermshaveanapplicationbeyond
discussionsofresilience.However,asIstateintheprecedingsection,itwouldalso
beinterestingtoseehowrelevanttheyaretotheanalysisofresilienceinother
contexts.Withintheframesofthisthesis,though,theyhaveallowedmetomapout
andtotalisethedifferentproblemsandeffectsofdominantresiliencediscourses
andpracticesinagivenhistoricalandgeographiccontext,alongsidethevarious
formsandculturalpracticesthatcriticallydivergefromit.
6.3.2Contributiontoculturalandpracticalmaterialistdiscourse
Iwillnowcontinuemydiscussionbyaddressingwhatthisresearchaddsto
culturalandpracticalmaterialistdiscourseinthestudyofart,theatreand
280performance.IwillsituatemycontributioninrelationtotheworkofJenHarvie,
whichintermsofapproachandobject,isclosetomine.
ThegreatstrengthofHarvie’sscholarshipisthemannerinwhichitengages
withandunifiesdiversebodyofknowledgesthroughanumberof‘travelling’
conceptsembeddedinadiscipline-specificdiscourseforthepurposesofcritique.
WhileIemulatedthisapproach,oneofthedifferencesbetweenmyresearchand
Harvie’sisthatIhavesoughttogivetheconceptsthatIusetodiscussartthesame
levelofgeneralityasconceptsusedfordiscussingpolicyorgovernance(‘civility’
functionsonbothplanesofanalysis).AsIarguedintheintroduction,thisisnotthe
caseinHarvie’smorerecentworkatleast,wherethediscussionofartasgenreis
givenamuchlower,art-historicallevelofgeneralitythanideasof
‘governmentality’and‘neoliberalism’.Oneoftheconsequencesofsuchamoveis
thatherresearchmakes,wittinglyornot,thediscussionoftheadministrationof
cultureitshorizon.Thereisnothingwrongpersewiththis.Itjustpresupposesa
differentconceptof‘practicalcriticism’,whichinturnoffersadifferentideaof
whatmaterialistresearchis.Iwouldliketopushthisdiscussionfurther,notasa
waydevaluingHarvie’sachievements,butratherasawayofdevelopingapotential
thatisembeddedinHarvie’sownwork,whichmyclosereadingofherworkhas
givenmetheopportunitytodevelop.Itisworthdevelopingas,tothebestofmy
knowledge,nooneelsehasdevelopedthisissuewithinthefieldoftheatreand
performanceresearch.
ThefirstpointIwouldliketore-iterateisthatthepredominanceofthe
conceptof‘governmentality’narrowsthediscussionofculturalpoliticsandart.
Thediscussionoftheadministrationofcultureandpolicy,whichtheideaof
‘governmentality’organisesandgivesprimacyto,isanimportantaspectofa
discussionofcultureandpolitics,butperhapsnottheonlyonetoconsiderfor
281scholarswhodonotspecializeprimarilyinculturalpolicy.Yet,anyother
conceptionofpoliticsinculturetendstobeabsentfromHarvie’swork.By
contrast,inmyownanalysis,theideaofcivility,whichwasdirectlyrelatedtomy
discussionofadministrationandpolicy,alsoprovidedawayofopeningupthe
discussionabouttherelationbetweencultureandpoliticsbeyondculturalpolicy
andadministration.
Iwouldarguethatthecentralityoftheconceptofgovernmentalityin
Harvie’sresearchalsomeansthatherdiscussionofart,howeverinspiringand
perceptive,tendstoobscureart’sconcept.Thereislittledoubt,formeatleast,that
artandculturebeararelationtopolicyaswellastothediffusionsofideologies.
However,myresearchsuggeststhatartisnottobethoughtofprimarilyasatool
ofgovernmentalityorameanstodiffuseideologiesofwhateverkind.35Onthe
contrary,artwasshowntobecapableofgiving‘voicetowhatideologyhides’
(Adorno,1991,p.39).Inthisway,itshareswithcriticism,accordingtoJones
(2004),adelegitimisingtruthcontent,onethatenablesittopresentthe
discrepancybetweenthepromiseandpretensionsofbourgeoisideologyandits
realitythroughits‘free’(butdependent)autonomousform.Itsdelegitimisingtruth
contentmakesartpartofwhatOsborne(2013)hascalleda‘supra-aesthetic
regimeoftruth’(p.44).WhileImaybeexaggeratingthefeaturesanddifferences
betweenHarvie’sworkandmyown,Idosoinordertoclarifythepointthatthe
questionofthecontestationofideologiescan,ormaybeshould,bederivedfroma
determinedconceptofartifoneisnotprimarilyaculturalpolicyscholar.
35Theideaofartasideologicalmeansofcommunicationfindsmostprobablyitsoriginin
lastchapterofCultureandSociety(Williams,1963).
282Inordertofinishthissection,Iwouldliketoassertalastdistinctionbetween
themodesofknowledgeproductionatworkinmythesisandtheones
presupposedbyresiliencediscoursesandpractices,whichwillbuildonmy
discussionoftransdisciplinarityinartpresentedinchapter1and3.Itwillalso
provideawayofansweringhowmyowncriticismproducesanegationofthe
rationalesofresilience,whichisanaspectofQ.3athathasnotbeenentirely
clarified.
Harvie’s(2013)nominalintegrationoftheperspectivesofANTinhermore
recentworkprovideagoodstartingpointforthisdiscussion.Osborne(2015)has
arguedthatANTandtheworkofFelixGuattari,whichANTpartiallybuildson,isa
radicalandmoretheoreticallyrefinedversionofatransdisciplinarymodeof
knowledgeproductionaimedatinquiringintoandactingupon,ifnotsolving,
complexlife-worldandinstitutionalproblemssuchasclimatechangeorhealth.
Thisisinpartwhythisapproachlendsitselfwelltopractice-basedinquiriesor
actionresearch,amongstotherapproaches.TheprojectledbySteveBottoms
(2016)relatedtofloodprevention,whichImentionedintheintroduction,isinfact
agoodexampleofthisapproachandwhatitcanachieve.However,Iwouldargue
thattheresiliencediscourseofthink-tanksreviewedatdifferentpointsinthis
thesisalsoformpartofthismodeloftransdisciplinaryknowledgeproduction,
whileremainingtheoreticallylesssophisticatedandsociallylessradicalthanthe
workofBottoms,forinstance.Inchapter2and4,inparticular,thesediscourses
wereshowntobetransdisciplinaryinasmuchastheycutacrossdifferent
disciplinaryboundariesinorder,followingaresidualwelfaristethos,tosolveor
manage‘complex’and‘messy’issuessuchasthesustainabilityandresilienceof
urbancentresorthefieldofculture,the‘reform’ofthepublicserviceorthe
efficientdeliveryofpublicservicesandvalue.
283IdonotthinkthatthisrationaleformsacorepartofHarvie’swork,whichis
moreindebtedtoalineofscholarshipthatrunsfromRaymondWilliamsand
thinkingaboutradicalusesofartandculturetoTonyBennettandconcernsabout
theusesofculturalpolicy.Asalreadysuggested,however,embeddedwithinher
work,isaconceptionoftransdisciplinarityinmaterialistresearch,whichIwantto
contrasttothemodeofknowledgeproductionIdiscussinthepreceding
paragraph.Ireiteratewhatthisis.Harvie’sworkisorganisedby‘travelling’,cross-
disciplinarygeneralities.Inbeingso,herworkreproducessomethingofthe
‘transcendentalhomelessness’thatLukács(1971,p.41)romanticallyascribedto
thenovel,whichIamtemptedtocompare,usinganotherromanticmetaphor,toa
kindofhomesickness:afeelingandtendencytobeathomeeverywhere
(anywhere)yetbelongingnowhere.Thishomesicknessmakesstrangefamiliar
problemsandnotions,suchas‘resilience’,inordertore-problematiseandre-
formulatethem.Thesereformulationsandproblematisationsarenotmeanttobe
amenabletoimmediatepolicyuse.Solvingproblemsislaudableandnecessary,no
doubt.However,likeart,theprimarytaskofthiskindofcriticismisother:itisto
presentthecontradictionsandantagonismsofrealityinordertomakethemmore
intelligible.Inthisthesis,Iaimedtomakethisaffectandapproachmyownand,in
manyregards,Ithinkthatthecritiqueofresiliencegavemetheopportunityto
clarifyitscharacterandvalue.Bytakingthisapproach,Ihavesoughttorefinean
understandingofwhatconstitutesaphilosophically-inclinedsociologyofculture,
whichisrelatedyetdifferenttoothersociologicalorethnographicapproachesto
thestudyofcultureortomorestrictlyphilosophicalortheoreticaldiscussionsof
culture,artandperformance.
284
7.BibliographyACE.2018.ArtsCouncilEnglandCatalyst:evolve.[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed
13June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2017.ArtsCouncilEnglandevaluationofCatalystyear3.[Online].London:
ACE.[Accessed13June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2016.Privateinvestmentinculturesurvey2012/2013,2013/2014,2014/2015.
[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed13June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2015a.Catalystevaluationyear2.[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed13June
2018].Availablefrom:https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2015b.Evaluationofthedevelopingculturalresiliencesectorresilience
programme.[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed13June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2013.Greatartandcultureforeveryone.[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed1
April2015].Availablefrom:https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2010.Annualreview2010.[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed1June2018].
Availablefrom:https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2008a.Evaluationofstabilityandrecoveryprogrammes.[Online].London:
ACE.[Accessed1June2018].Availablefrom:http://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
ACE.2008b.Evaluationofthegrantsforthearts,ODThrive!programme–interim
report.[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed1June2018].Availablefrom:
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
285ACGB.1984.Thegloryofthegarden.London:ACGB.
Ackroyd,H.andHarvey,D.2017.Ackroyd&HarveyCV.Unpublished.
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.2015.Plet(livingskin).[Grass,hessian].
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.2014.Livingskin.[Grass,hessian].
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.2014.[Film].Theecocidetrial.HeatherAckroydandDan
Harvey,dir.USA:Ackroyd&Harvey.
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.2007.Beuys’acorns.[Acorns,trees].
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.2002.Livingskin.[Grass,hessian].
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.1992.Livingskins.[Grass,various].
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.1991.Grasscoats.[Grass,unknown].
Ackroyd,HandHarvey,D.1991.Grasshouse.[Grass,house].
Adan,E.2010.An‘imperativetointerrupt’:radicalaesthetics,globalcontextsand
site-specificityintherecentworkofDorisSalcedo.ThirdText.24(5),pp.583–596.
Adorno,T.W.1997.Aesthetictheory.London:AthlonePress.
Adorno,T.W1991.Notesonliteraturevolume1.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Adorno,T.W.1973.Thejargonofauthenticity.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversity
Press.
Adorno,T.W.andHorkheimer,M.1997.Dialecticofenlightenment.London:Verso.
286Allen,P.,Hinshelwood,E.,Smith,F.,Thomas,R.andWoods,S.2014.Cultureshift.
[Online].Wales:Emergence.[Accessed1September2016].Availablefrom:
http://www.emergence-uk.org.
Alvaredo,F.,Atkinson,A.B.,Piketty,T.andSaez,E.2013.Thetop1percentin
internationalandhistoricalperspective.JournalofEconomicPerspectives.27(3),
pp.3–20.
Anderson,R.2016.Universityfeesinhistoricalperspective.History&Policy.
[Online].[Accessed18July2018].Availablefrom:
http://www.historyandpolicy.org.
AndrewsN.andDods,R.2010.Thepeople'stheme.London:MMM.
APE.2011.C.R.A.S.H.APE:ArtistsProjectEarth.8July.[Online].[Accessed1
September2018].Availablefrom:http://apeuk.org/c-r-a-s-h/.
Antonini,M.,Minniti,S.,Gómez,F.,Lungarella,G.andBendandi,L.2016.
Experimentalphotography:ahandbookoftechniques.London:Thames&Hudson.
ArcolaTheatre.2018.CarbonneutralArcola.[Online].[Accessed16November
2018].Availablefrom:https://www.arcolatheatre.com.
ArtsAdmin.2017.2Degrees.Art.Climate.Action.9–18June2015.[Leaflet].London:
ArtsAdmin.
ArtsAdmin.2015.2Degrees1–7June2015.Art.Climate.Action.[Leaflet].London:
ArtsAdmin.
ArtsAdmin.2013.2Degreesclimate,consumerism,community…17–22June2013.
[Leaflet].London:ArtsAdmin.
287ArtsAdmin.2011.2Degreesartandactivismclimateandcuts12–18June2011.
[Leaflet].London:ArtsAdmin.
ArtsAdmin.2009a.2Degreesartactivismandtheglobalclimateemergency16–21
June2009.[Leaflet].London:ArtsAdmin.
ArtsAdmin.2009b.C.R.A.S.Hcourse.[Leaflet].London:ArtsAdmin.
ArtsAdmin.2009c.Abenchmarkinpostcapitalism.[Leaflet].London:ArtsAdmin.
ArtsAdmin.2009d.Untitled.[Leaflet].London:ArtsAdmin.
ArtsAdmin.[nodate].C.R.A.S.Hcontigency.[Online].[Accessed10February2016].
Availablefrom:https://www.artsadmin.co.uk.
ArtsCouncilEngland.2014.Ourfundingecologies.[Online].[Accessed10June
2018].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
ArtsCouncilEngland.2013.ArtsCouncilEngland'smissionandgoalsexplained.
[Online].[Accessed10June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
ArtsAdminUK.2015.Takethemoneyandrun?(40minutes).[Online].[Accessed16
November2018].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
ArtsManagerInternational.2017.ArtsManagerInternationalwebsite.[Online].
[Accessed16June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.artsmanagerinternational.com.
Artwise.2018.Artwisewebsite.[Online].[Accessed1August2017].Availablefrom:
http://artwisecurators.com.
Arts&Business.2011.Privateinvestmentinculturesurveyreport,2010–2011.
[Online].[Accessed1August2017].http://artsandbusiness.org.uk.
288ArtwiseCurators.2014.Heretoday….TheOldSortingOffice,London.24
November–17December2014.[Exhibitioncatalogue].London:ArtwiseCurators.
Arvidsson,A.2005.Brands:Acriticalperspective.JournalofConsumerCulture.
5(2),pp.235–258.
Aston,E.andDiamond,E.2009.TheCambridgecompaniontoCarylChurchill.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Azoulay,A.2008.Thecivilcontractofphotography.NewYork:ZoneBooks.
Baeten,G.2009.RegeneratingtheSouthBank.Reworkingthecommunityandthe
emergenceofpost-politicalregenerationIn:Imrie,R.,Lees,L.andRaco,M.,eds.
RegeneratingLondon:governance,sustainabilityandcommunityintheglobalcity.
London:Routledge,pp.237–253.
Bailes,S.J.2011.Performancetheatreandthepoeticsoffailure.London:Routledge.
Balfour,M.2013.Refugeeperformance:practicalencounters.Bristol:Intellect.
Balfour,M.,Bundy,P.,Burton,B.,Dunn,J.andWoodrow,N.2015.Appliedtheatre:
resettlement:drama,refugeesandresilience.London:BloomsburyMethuenDrama.
Bal,M.2002.Travellingconceptsinthehumanities:aroughguide.Toronto:
UniversityofTorontoPress.
Balibar,E.2015.Violenceandcivility:onthelimitsofpoliticalphilosophy.NewYork:
ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Balibar,E.2002.Politicsandtheotherscene.London:Verso.
Barnes,M.2001.ThechlorophyllapparitionsofAckroydandHarvey.Aperture.
165,pp.66–71.
289Bassett,K.1993.Urbanculturalstrategiesandurbanregenerationacasestudyand
critique.EnvironmentandPlanning.25(12),pp.1773–1789.
Baudrillard,J.1994.Simulacraandsimulation.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichigan
Press.
BBC.2017.Glasgoweffectartist'usedanger'tofuelwork.BBC.[Online].6January.
[Accessed8June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.bbc.com.
BBC.2015.Spendingreview:ArtsCouncilprotecteddespiteDCMScuts.BBC.
[Online].25November.[Accessed8June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.bbc.com.
BBC.2013.Spendingreview:Culturedepartmentbudgetcutby7%.BBC.[Online].
26June.[Accessed8June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.bbc.com.
BBC.2010.ArtsCouncil'sbudgetcutby30%.BBC.[Online].20October.[Accessed
8June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.bbc.com.
Beck,U.2000.Whatisglobalization?Cambridge:PolityPress.
Beech,D.2015.Artandvalue:art'seconomicexceptionalisminclassical,
neoclassicalandMarxisteconomics.Leiden:Brill.
Beer,T.2015.TanjBeer'swebsite.[Online].[Accessed18June2018].Available
from:http://www.tanjabeer.com/the-living-stage.
Beinart,R.2009a.Gisforgluttony.[Performance,publicsculpture,research].At:
London,ArtsAdmin.
Beinart,R.2009b.Gisforgluttony.FieldKitchen.2July.[Online].[Accessed22
November2017].Availablefrom:http://www.fieldkitchen.net.
290Beiser,F.2006.Theromanticimperative.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Benjamin,W.1996.Theconceptofcriticism.In:Bullock,M.andJennings,M.,eds.
WalterBenjaminselectedwritings.Vol.1,1913–1926.Cambridge:BelknapPressof
HarvardUniversityPress.
Bennett,T.1998.Culture:Areformer’sscience.London:Sage.
Bentley,T.andWilsdon,J.2003.Theadaptivestate.[Online].London:Demos.
[Accessed3May2016].Availablefrom:
https://www.demos.co.uk/files/HPAPft.pdf.
Bell,D.F.andOakley,K.2015.Culturalpolicy.Abingdon:Routledge.
Benda,J.2006.Thetreasonoftheintellectuals.Abingdon:Routledge.
Bernstein,J.M.2003.Introduction.In:Bernstein,J.M.,ed.Classicandromantic
Germanaesthetics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.vii–xxxiii.
Beuys,J.1982.7000oaks.[Oaktrees].At:Kassel,Germany.
Beyondtheline.2015.[Exhibition].VeniceBiennale,9May–22November2015.
Birnbaum,A.2014.Extra,extra,readallaboutit!Contemporaryartis
postconceptualart.RadicalPhilosophy.183,pp.33–39.
Bishop.2012.Artificialhells:participatoryartandthepoliticsofspectatorship.
Verso:London.
Blanco,J.R.2013.Reclaimthestreets!Fromlocaltoglobalpartyprotest.Revistade
EstudiosGlobalesyArteContemporáneo.1(1),pp.171–180.
Boix,R.,Rausell,P.andAbedelo,R.TheCalatravamodel:reflectionsonresilience
andurbanplasticity.EuropeanPlanningStudies.27(1),pp.29-47.
291Boltanski,L.andEsquerre,A.2017.Enrichment,profit,critique.NewLeftReview.
106,pp.67–76.
Boltanski,L.andEsquerre,A.2016.Theeconomiclifeofthings.NewLeftReview.
98,pp.31–54.
Bolton,M.,Cooper,C.,Antrobus,C.,Ludlow,J.andTebbutt,H.2010.Capital
matters:howtobuildfinancialresilienceintheUK'sartsandculturalsector
[Online].London:MMM.[Accessed7November2015].Availablefrom:
http://www.missionmodelsmoney.org.uk.
BoostingResilience.2017a.BoostingResilience.Introductiontotheprogramme.
[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://vimeo.com/220797420.
BoostingResilience.2017b.BoostingResilience–Residential1–PatrickTowell.
[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://vimeo.com/245716114.
BoostingResilience.2017c.BoostingResilience–Residential1–DrNoamShemtov
&Nadia-AnneRicketts.[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://vimeo.com/245718907.
Bottoms,S.J.2016.Theagencyofenvironment:artificialhellsandmulti-story
water.In:Harpin,A.andNicholson,H.,eds.,Performanceandparticipation:
practices,audiences,politics.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,pp.167–188.
Bottoms,S.J.,Evans,M.andMarriott,J.2012.'We,thecity':aninterviewwith
Platform,London.PerformanceResearch.17(4),pp.128–134.
292Bourdieu,P.1993.Thefieldofculturalproduction:essaysonartandliterature.
Cambridge:PolityPress.
Bourdieu,P.1991.Languageandsymbolicpower.Boston:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Bourdieu,P.1990.Photography:amiddle-browart.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Bourdieu,P.andHaacke,H.1995.Freeexchange.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Boutilier,R.G.andThomson,I.2011.Modellingandmeasuringthesociallicenseto
operate:fruitsofadialoguebetweentheoryandpractice.[Online].[Accessed7June
2016].Availablefrom:https://socialicense.com.
Boyle,M.S.2016.Brecht'sgale.PerformanceResearch.21(3),pp.16–26.
Brecht.B.1994.Collectedplays:seven.London:MethuenDrama.
Brown,M.2012.Artsorganisationsandmuseumsfacefurtherfundingcutsof
£11.6million.TheGuardian.[Online].10December.[Accessed7June2018].
Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com.
BruxellesE.S.-L.2017.PresentationduLaboratoired’ImaginationInsurrectionnelle
parIsabelleFrémeaux.[Online].[Accessed6July2018].Availablefrom:
https://vimeo.com/238362951.
Buchloh,B.H.D.1990.Conceptualart1962-1969:fromtheaestheticof
administrationtothecritiqueofinstitutions.October.55,p.105-143.
Butler,J.,Laclau,E.andŽižek,S.2000.Contingency,hegemony,universality:
Contemporarydialoguesontheleft.London:Verso.
293CamdenCouncil.2016.Voluntaryandcommunitysector(VCS)investmentand
supportprogramme2012to16.[Online].[Accessed20March2018].Available
from:https://www.camden.gov.uk.
CamdenCouncil.2010.Camdensetsoutlongtermplanstoweatherthestormof
localgovernmentcuts.[Online].[Accessed20March2018]Availablefrom:
http://www.camden.gov.uk.
Caloz-Tschopp,M.-C.2008.Mondialisation,développement,résistance:Durêve
utopiqueàlapraxisd’utopiedystopique.In:Bagchi,B.andSpensky,M.Utopia,
dystopia&conceptsofdevelopment,14and15February2008,MaisondesSciences
del’Homme,Paris.[Online].[Accessed20June2018].Availablefrom:
https://serval.unil.ch.
Carlson,M.A.1989.Placesofperformance:thesemioticsoftheatrearchitecture.
Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
CAWRCoventryUniversity.2015.TomasRemiarz–Nov26th2015[Online].
[Accessed16February2016].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
Chandler,D.2013.Resilienceandtheautotelicsubject:towardsacritiqueofthe
societalisationofsecurity.InternationalPoliticalSociology.7,pp.210–216.
Chandler,D.andReid,J.2016.Theneoliberalsubject:resilience,adaptationand
vulnerability.London:Rowman&LittlefieldInternational.
Charlesworth,J.J.2010.CrisisattheICA:EkowEshun'sexperimentationin
deinstitutionalisation.Mute.[Online].10February.[Accessed8June2018].
Availablefrom:http://www.metamute.org.
294Chartrand,H.andMcCaughey,C.1989.Thearm’slengthprincipleandthearts:an
internationalperspective–past,present,andfuture.In:Cummings,M.and
Schuster,M.eds.,Who’stopayforthearts?Theinternationalsearchformodelsof
support.NewYork:ACABooks,pp.43–80.
Christians,C.G.2005.Ethicsandpoliticsofqualitativeresearch.In:Denzin,N.K.
andLincoln,Y.S.eds.,TheSagehandbookofqualitativeresearch.3rdedn.London:
SagePublications,pp.139–164.
Clark,D.2013.Whichfossilfuelcompaniesaremostresponsibleforclimate
change?.TheGuardian.[Online].20November.[Accessed23February2017].
Availablefrom:http://www.theguardian.com.
Clarke,J.,Evans,M.,Newman,H.,Smith,K.andTarman,G.2011.Notifbutwhen:
Culturebeyondoil.London:ArtNotOil.
ClimateGames.2016.Climategameswrapup.[Online].[Accessed10February
2016].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
CondéNast.[nodate].Bakumagazine.[Online].[Accessed1September2018].
Availablefrom:https://baku-magazine.com.
Crouch,C.2009.PrivatisedKeynesianism:anunacknowledgedpolicyregime.The
BritishJournalofPoliticsandInternationalRelations.11(3),pp.382–399.
Cruzvillegas,A.2015a.Emptylot.[Sculpture].At:London,TateModern.
Cruzvillegas,A.2015b.Freetradetreat.In:Greeley,R.A.,ed.Thelogicofdisorder:
theartandwritingofAbrahamCruzvillegas.Cambridge:CulturalAgentsInitiative
atHarvardUniversity,pp.125–163.
295Cruzvillegas,A.2008.Self-buildingauto-construcción.In:McKee,F.,ed.
Autoconstrucción.Glasgow:CCA,pp.7–75.
Cruzvillegas,A.andGodfrey,M.2015.AbrahamCruzvillegasinconversationwith
MarkGodfrey.In:Godfrey,M.,ed.AbrahamCruzvillegasEmptyLot.London:Tate
Publishing,pp.12–81.
CTPositiveSolutions.2012.MarkRobinson:thinkingadaptiveresilience.[Online].
[Accessed6June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
Cunningham,D.2016.Genrewithoutgenre.RadicalPhilosophy.196,pp.14–27.
Cunningham,D.2005.Theconceptofmetropolis:philosophyandurbanform.
RadicalPhilosophy.133,pp.13–25.
Cunningham,D.2004.Howthesublimebecame“now”:time,modernity,and
aestheticsinLyotard’srewritingofKant.Symposium:CanadianJournalof
ContinentalPhilosophy.8(3),pp.549–571.
Daddario,W.andSchmidt,T.2018.Introduction:crisisandtheim/possibilityof
thought.PerformancePhilosophy.4(1),pp.1–8.
DanHarvey.2018.TheEcocideTrial.[Online].[Accessed2September2018].
Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
Davies,W.2016.Thenewneoliberalism.NewLeftReview.101,pp.121–134.
Davis,M.2010.Whowillbuildtheark?NewLeftReview.61,pp.29–46.
Davis,M.2006.Planetofslums.London:Verso.
Dawson,Aimee2015.Climatechangeactiviststo‘seedbomb’Abraham
Cruzvillegas’sTurbineHallinstallationatTateModern.Artintern.[Online].
2967December.[Accessed27Frebruary2016].Availablefrom:
http://en.artintern.net.
DCMS.2016.Theculturewhitepaper.[Online].London:DCMS.[Accessed8June
2018].Availablefrom:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk.
DCMS.2001.Creativeindustriesmappingdocuments2001.London:DCMS.
DeDomenici,R.2015.Liveartaid.[Online].[Accessed1June2016].Availablefrom:
https://www.youtube.com.
DeDomenici,R.2009.Planefoodcafé.[Performancesheldon16,17,18,19,20
June2009,ToynbeeStudios,London].
Demos,T.J.2016.Betweenrebelcreativityandreification:forandagainstvisual
activism.JournalofVisualCulture.15(1),pp.85–102.
Descombe,M.2010.Thegoodresearchguide:forsmall-scalesocialresearch.5th
edn.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.
DiMaggio,P.1991.Socialstructure,institutions,andculturalgoods:thecaseofthe
unitedstates.In:Bourdieu,P.andColeman,J.eds.,Socialtheoryforachanging
society.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.
Donné,B.2004.Debordetlesublime,ouleretourdeGuyl'éclair.In:Ciret,Y.,ed.
Figuresdelanégation:avant-gardesdudépassementdel’art,Muséed’artmoderne
deSaint-Étiennemétropole,22Novembre2003–22February2004.[Exhibition
catalogue].Saint-Étienne:Muséed’artmoderneSaint-ÉtienneMétropole.
Dougan,B.2015.Editor'sintroduction.Engage.36,pp.5–15.
Eagleton,T.2000.Theideaofculture.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
297Edemariam,A.2010.EkowEshunandAlanYentobtoquitafterICAsurvivescrisis.
TheGuardian.[Online].27August.[Accessed6June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.theguardian.com.
Edwards,C.2009.Resilientnation.[Online].London:Demos.[Accessed1March
2015].Availablefrom:https://www.demos.co.uk.
Elias,N.1978.Thecivilizingprocess.Oxford:Blackwell.
Evans,B.andReid,J.2014.Resilientlife:theartoflivingdangerously.Cambridge:
PolityPress.
Evans,G.2005.Measureformeasure:evaluatingtheevidenceofculture's
contributiontoregeneration.UrbanStudies.42(5/6),pp.959–983.
Evans,G.2009.Creativecities,creativespacesandurbanpolicy.UrbanStudies.
46(5/6),pp.1003–1040.
Exploratorium.[nodate].TraitsofLifephotogallery.[Online].[Accessed1March
2015].http://www.exploratorium.edu.
Fiat500CollectorsCar.2007.[Exhibition].London,October2007.
Finlayson,A.2001.NewLabour:thecultureofgovernmentandthegovernmentof
culture.In:Bewes,T.andGilbert,J.,eds.,Culturalcapitalism:politicsafterNew
Labour.London:Lawrence&Whishart,pp.177–202.
Fleming,T.andErskine,A.2011.Supportinggrowthintheartseconomy.[Online].
London:ACE.[Accessed1October2015].Availablefrom:
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
298FlytoBaku.ContemporaryartfromAzerbaijan.2012.[Exhibition].PhilipdePury&
Company,London,17-29January.
Flyvbjerg,B.2011.Casestudy.In:Denzin,N.K.andLincoln,Y.S.,eds.,TheSage
handbookofqualitativeresearch.4thedn.California:SagePublications,pp.301–
316.
FondationCopernic.2012a.L’utopieest-elleemancipatrice–IsabelleFrémeaux
(Septembre2012).[Online].[Accessed6July2018].Availablefrom:
https://vimeo.com/49345533.
FondationCopernic.2012b.L’utopieest-elleemancipatrice–PierreMacherey
(Septembre2012).[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://vimeo.com/49345533.
Forster,E.M.2013.Howard'send.Hazleton,PA:TheElectronicSeriesClassics.
[Online].[Accessed21January2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.ompersonal.com.ar.
Foster,J.B.2000.Marx’secology:materialismandnature.NewYork:NYUPress.
Foucault,M.2008.Thebirthofbiopolitics:lecturesattheCollègedeFrance,1978–
79.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Foucault,M.2007.Security,territory,population:lecturesattheCollègedeFrance,
1977–1978.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Fraser,N.2016.Contradictionsofcapitalandcare.NewLeftReview.100,pp.99–
117.
Fraser,N.2014.BehindMarx'shiddenabode.NewLeftReview.86,pp.55–72.
299Fraser,N.2013.Atriplemovement?ParsingthepoliticsofcrisisafterPolanyi.New
LeftReview.81,pp.119–132.
Frémeaux,I.andJordan,J.2015.Onart,activismandpermaculture.Galhós,C.,ed.
Thereisnothingthatisbeyondourimagination.TorresVedras:ArtinSite,pp.35–54.
Frémeaux,I.andJordan,J.2012.Lessentiersdel'utopie.Paris:LaDécouverte.
Freud,S.1958.Civilizationanditsdiscontents.NewYork:Doubleday&Co.
Fried,M.2008.Whyphotographymattersasartasneverbefore.NewHaven:Yale
UniversityPress.
Fried,M.1995.Artandobjecthood.In:Battock,G.,ed.Minimalart:acritical
anthology.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.116–147.
FullFact.2017.Localauthorities'budgetsareroughly26%lowersince2010.
[Online].[Accessed15July2018].Availablefrom:https://fullfact.org.
Gardner,L.2009a.TheArtsCouncilSustainfundfavoursthehighandmighty.1
September.TheGuardiantheatreblog.[Online].[Accessed7June2018].Available
from:https://www.theguardian.com.
Gardner,L.2009b.WhowillbenefitfromArtsCouncilEngland'sSustainfund?5
May.TheGuardiantheatreblog.[Online].[Accessed7June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.theguardian.com.
Gardner,T.2014.Agitationandentertainment:RodDixonandRedLadderTheatre
Company.In:Duggan,P.andUkaegbu,V.I.,eds.,Reverberationsacrosssmall-scale
Britishtheatre.Bristol:Intellect.
300Giddens,A.1998.Thethirdway:therenewalofsocialdemocracy.Cambridge:Polity
Press.
Gilmore,J.H,PineII,J.andMermiri,T.2009.Beyondexperience:culture,consumer&
brand.[Online].London:Arts&Business.Availablefrom:
http://www.aandbcymru.org.uk.
Gingold,P.2016.Facinguptoclimatechange.ArtsProfessional.[Online].[Accessed
16November2018].Availablefrom:https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk.
Godfrey,M.2015.Makingsculpturenow.In:Greeley,R.A.,ed.Thelogicofdisorder:
theartandwritingofAbrahamCruzvillegas.Cambridge:CulturalAgentsInitiative
atHarvardUniversity,pp.493–524.
Gordon-Nesbitt,R.2012.Values,measure,sustainability:ideastowardsthefutureof
thesmall-scalevisualartssector.[Online].London:CommonPractice.[Accessed18
August2018].Availablefrom:http://www.commonpractice.org.uk.
Gramsci,A.1971.Selectionsfromtheprisonnotebooks.London:Lawrence&
Wishart.
Gray,C.2010.Analysingculturalpolicy:incorrigiblypluralorontologically
incompatible?InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy.16(2),pp.215–230.
Gray,C.2008.ArtsCouncilEnglandandpublicvalue:acriticalreview.
InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy.14(2),pp.209–214.
Greeley,R.A.Auto-construccion'sdialecticalobjects:sculpturalmaterialismof
AbrahamCruzvillegas.In:Greeley,R.A.,ed.Thelogicofdisorder:theartandwriting
ofAbrahamCruzvillegas.Cambridge:CulturalAgentsInitiativeatHarvard
University.
301Green,D.andLowry,J.2003.Frompresencetotheperformative:rethinking
photographicindexicality.In:Green,D.,ed.WhereisthePhotograph?Brighton:
Photoforum,pp.47–60.
Gunderson,L.H.andHolling,C.S.eds.,2002.Panarchy:understanding
transformationsinhumanandnaturalsystems.London:IslandPres.
Hall,S.andJacques,M.eds.,1989.Newtimes:thechangingfaceofpoliticsinthe
1990s.London:Lawrence&Wishart.
Harding,L.andBarr,C.2017.UKatcentreofsecret$3bnAzerbaijanimoney
launderingandlobbyingscheme.TheGuardian.[Online].4September.[Accessed7
September2018].Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com.
Harootunian,H.2007.Rememberingthehistoricalpresent.CriticalInquiry.33(3),
pp.471–494.
Harvey,A.2016.Fundingartsandcultureintimesofausterity.[Online].London:
NLGN.[Accessed10June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
Harvey,D.1989.Theconditionofpostmodernity.Oxford:Blackwell.
Harvie,J.2015.Funding,philanthropy,structuralinequalityanddeclinein
England'stheatreecology.CulturalTrends.24(1),pp.56-61.
Harvie,J.2013.FairPlay-art,performanceandneoliberalism.Basingstoke:
PalgraveMacmillan.
Harvie,J.2009.Agencyandcomplicityin'aspecialcivicroom':London'sTate
ModernTurbineHall.Performanceandthecity.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,
pp.204-221.
302Hatherley,O.2017.Theministryofnostalgia.London:Verso.
Hatherley,O.2014.OntheoutcryaroundZahaHadid’sHeydarAliyevCentre.
Dezeen.[Online].7July.[Accessed14September2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.dezeen.com.
HereToday….2014.[Exhibition].TheOldSortingOffice,London.25November–17
December.
Hesmondhalgh,D.2013.Theculturalindustries.London:SAGE.
Hesmondhalgh,D.,Oakley,K.,Lee,D.andNisbett,M.2015.Culture,economyand
politics:thecaseofNewLabour.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Hesmondhalgh,D.,Nisbett,M.,Oakley,K.andLee,D.2014.WereNewLabour's
culturalpoliciesneo-liberal?InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy.21(1),pp.97-
114.
Hewison,R.2015.EmailtoJ.Y.Pinder,16October.
Hewison,R.2014.Culturalcapital:theriseandfallofcreativeBritain.London:
Verso.
HeydarAliyevCentre.2018.HeydarAliyevCentreWebsite.[Online].[Accessed1
September2018].Availablefrom:http://heydaraliyevcenter.az.
HeydarAliyevFoundation.2015.VitaVitale,VeniceBiennale,9May-22November.
[Exhibitioncatalogue].Baku:HeydarAliyevFoundation.
Higgins,C.2014.NickForbes:wewerewhistlebowersforwhatausteritymeantfor
thearts.TheGuardian.[Online].14December.[Accessed6June2018].Available
from:https://www.theguardian.com.
303Higgins,C.2011.ArtsCouncilEnglandfundingcuts-thegreataxefalls.The
Guardian.[Online].30March.[Accessed10June2018].Available
from:https://www.theguardian.com.
Hoggart,R.1972.Onlyconnect:Oncultureandcommunication.London:Chatto&
Windus.
Holden,R.2015.EmailtoJ.Y.Pinder,17October.
Holden,J.2004.Capturingculturalvalue.[Online].London:Demos.[Accessed15
February2015].Availablefrom:https://www.demos.co.uk.
Holling,C.S.1973.Resilienceandstabilityofecologicalsystems.AnnualReviewof
EcologyandSystematics.4(1),pp.1-23.
Holmgren,D.2002.Permaculture:principles&pathwaysbeyondsustainability.
Hepburn:VictoriaMelliodoraPublishing.
Hughes,E.2015.Thetiger,theartistsandtheoildictator’sdaughter–Ackroyd&
HarveypulloutofAliyevfundedexhibition.29April.PlatformBlog.[Online].
[Accessed17September2016].Availablefrom:https://platformlondon.org.
Hughes,E.andMarriott,J.2015.Allthatglitters.London:Platform.
Hughes,J.2015.8stepstowardsatheatrecommons:5to8.Poortheatres:theatre,
performance,poverty.14January[Online].[Accessed17May2015].Available
from:http://blog.poortheatres.manchester.ac.uk.
HullTimeBasedArts.2008.TheGrasshouseEffect.[Online].[Accessed18September
2016].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
304Hunt,J.2010.Philanthropykeynotespeech.[Online].8December,JPMorgan
London.[Accessed1November2015].Availablefrom:https://www.gov.uk.
IDEA.[nodate].IDEAwebsite.[Online].[Accessed1September2016].Available
from:http://www.ideacampaign.org/.
IDEA.[nodate].AnniversaryReport2011-2016.[Online].Baku:Azerbaijan.
[Accessed1September2016].Availablefrom:http://ideacampaign.org.
Jackson,S.2015.Lifepolitics/lifeaesthetics:environmentalperformanceinred,
black&GREEN:ablues.In:Fischer-Lichte,E.andWihstutz,B.eds.,Performance
andthepoliticsofspace:theatreandtopology.Abingdon:Routledge,pp.276-296.
Jackson,S.2011.Socialworks:performingart,supportingpublics.Abingdon:
Routledge.
Jackson,S.2004.Professingperformance:theatreintheacademyfromphilololgyto
performativity.Canbridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Jameson,F.2015.TheAestheticsofsingularity.NewLeftReview.92,pp.101-132.
Jameson,F.1991.Postmodernism,ortheculturallogicoflatecapitalism.Durham:
DukeUniversityPress.
Jameson,F.1984.Postmodernism,ortheculturallogicoflatecapitalism.NewLeft
Review.I/146,pp.53-92.
Jancovich,L.2015.Theparticipationmyth.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy.
23(1),pp.107-121.
Jones,P.2004.RaymondWilliams'sociologyofculture:acriticalreconstruction.
Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
305Jordan,C.2009.Midway:messagefromtheGyre.[3photographs].
Jordan,J.1998.Theartofnecessity:thesubversiveimaginationofanti-road
protestandReclaimtheStreets.In:McKay,G.,ed.DiYculture:partyandprotestin
nineties'Britain.London:Verso,pp.129-152.
Joss,T.2008.NewfLow:Abetterfutureforartists,citizensandthestate.[Online].
London:MMM.[Accessed15October2015].Availablefrom:
http://www.missionmodelsmoney.org.uk.
JournalofBaku2013.BakuMagazine.[Online].[Accessed3September2018].
Availablefrom:http://baku-media.ru.
Julie'sBicycle.2017.Sustaininggreatart.[Online].London:ACE.[Accessed18June
2018].Availablefrom:https://www.juliesbicycle.com.
Julie'sBicycle.2015.Sustaininggreatartenvironmentalreport.[Online].London:
ACE.[Accessed1December2016].Availablefrom:https://www.juliesbicycle.com.
Julie’sBicycle.[nodate].TippingPoint.[Online].[Accessed1stSeptember2018].
Availablefrom:https://www.juliesbicycle.com.
Kaye,N.2000.Site-specificart:performance,placeanddocumentation.London:
Routledge.
Kelly,G.,Mulgan,G.andMuers,S.2002.Creatingpublicvalue:ananalytical
frameworkforpublicservicereform.London:CabinetOffice.
Kentish,B.2017.UniversitytuitionfeesinEnglandnowthehighestintheworld
analysissuggests.TheIndependent.[Online].12December2017.[Accessed17July
2018].Availablefrom:https://www.independent.co.uk
306Kipling,R.2013.Thegloryofthegarden.[Online].[1July2018].Availablefrom:
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk.
Klein,N.2007.Theshockdoctrine.NewYork:MetropolitanBooks.
Klein,N.M.2000.Abriefdisappearinganimationsandanimorphsact.In:Sobchak,
V.C.,ed.Metamorphingandthecultureofquick-change.Minneapolis:Minnesota
UniversityPress,pp.21–39.
Klepto,K.andEvil,M.U.2005.TheClandestineInsurgentRebelClownArmygoes
toScotlandviaafewotherplacesIn:Harvie,D.,Milburn,K.,Trott,B.andWatts,D.,
eds.ShutThemDown:TheG8,Gleneagles2005andtheMovementofMovements.
Leeds:Dissent,pp.243–254
Knabb,K.2006.Situationistinternationalanthology.Berkeley:BureauofPublic
Secrets.
Knell,J.2007.Theartofliving.[Online].London:MMM.[Accessed15February
2015].Availablefrom:http://www.culturehive.co.uk.
Knowles,R.2004.Readingthematerialtheatre.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Kobialka,M.2016.Anoteonspatialdialectics.PerformanceResearch.21(3),
pp.54–64.
Kovel,J.2002.Theenemyofnature:theendofcapitalismortheendoftheworld?.
London:Fernwood.
Kwakkenbos,L.2011.Art,activism,andpermaculture.ForeignPolicyinFocus.
[Online].20January.[Available9February2016].Availablefrom:https://fpif.org.
307LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination.2009a.C.R.A.S.H–ApostcapitalistAto
Z.[performances,talks,workshops].At:London,ArtsAdmin.
LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination.2009b.Thinklikeaforestactlikea
meadow.[Online].London:LaboratoryofInsurrectionaryImagination.[Accessed
15December2015].Availablefrom:http://www.labofii.net.
LADA.2014a.SUPPORTLADA.LiveArtDevelopmentAgencyBlog.6October
[Online].[Accessed17June2018].Availablefrom:
http://www.thisisliveart.co.uk/blog/support-lada/.
LADA.2014b.Ethicalfundingpolicy.LADA'swebsite.[Online].[Accessed18June
2018].Availablefrom:http://www.thisisliveart.co.uk.
LADA-Liveonline.2014.LADAPresents:ALAG-ALiveArtGala-Highlights.
[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://vimeo.com/114879113.
LADA,ArtsAdmin,HomeLiveArtandPlatform.2015.TaketheMoneyandRun?.
[eventviewedon29January2015,ToynbeeStudios,London].
Landry,C.2008.Thecreativecity:atoolkitforurbaninnovators.London:Comedia.
Lapsley,I.2009.NewPublicManagement:thecruellestinventionofthehuman
spirit?.Abacus.45(1),pp.1–21.
Lash,S.andLury,C.2007.Theglobalcultureindustry.Cambridge:PolityPress
LeXavierdeYouTube.2009a.C.R.A.S.HTrickforfreefood.[Online].[Accessed1
July2017].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
308LeXavierdeYouTube.2009b.C.R.A.S.Hpeople/anja.[Online].[Accessed1July
2017].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
LeXavierdeYouTube.2009c.What’sgoingonatC.R.A.S.H#4.[Online].[Accessed1
July2017].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
LeXavierdeYouTube.2009d.What’sgoingonatC.R.A.S.H#3.[Online].[Accessed1
July2017].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
LeXavierdeYouTube.2009e.C.R.A.S.HCookingTips.[Online].[Accessed1July
2017].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
Lecercle,J.-J.2009.LireRaymondWilliamsaujourd’hui.In:Williams,R.Cultureet
Matérialisme.Paris:LesPrairiesOrdinaires,pp.1–12.
Lecercle,J.-J.2006.AMarxistPhilosophyofLanguage.Leiden:Brill.
Lee,D.,Oakley,K.and,Naylor,R.2011.'Thepublicgetswhatthepublicwants'?
Theusesandabusesof'publicvalue'incontemporaryBritishculturalpolicy.
InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy,17(3),pp.289–300.
Lefebvre,J.-P.andMacherey,P.1984.Hegeletlasocieté.Paris:PUF.
Lehmann,H.-T.2006.Postdramatictheatre.London:Routledge.
Lloyd,D.andThomas,P.1998.Cultureandthestate.London:Routledge.
Löwy,M.2011.Ecosocialisme.Paris:EditionsMilleetUneNuits.
Lukács,G.1971.Thetheoryofthenovel:ahistorico-philosophicalessayonthe
formsofgreatepicliterature.Cambridge:M.I.T.Press.
Lütticken,S.2016.Thecomingexception.NewLeftReview.99,pp.111–136.
309Marcuse,H.2009.Negations.London:MayFlyBooks.
Marriott,J.andMinio-Paluello,M.2012.Theoilroad:travelsfromtheCaspiantothe
City.London:Verso.
Marx,K.1990.Capital:acritiqueofpoliticaleconomyvol.1.London:Penguin
Books.
Masso,G.2017.SustainableartsawardshortlistsYoungVic,BushandLive
Theatre.TheStage.[Online].6April.[Accessed21June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.thestage.co.uk.
McGuigan,J.2004.Re-thinkingculturalpolicy.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.
McKay,G.2013.Radicalgardening:politics,idealism&rebellioninthegarden.
London:FrancesLincoln.
McKay,G.,ed.DiYCulture:PartyAndProtestInNineties'Britain.London:Verso.
McKee,F.2008.Mutual&Mutable.In:McKee,F.,ed.Autoconstruccion.Glasgow:
CCA,pp.1–3.
McKinnie,M.2015.Performinglikeacity.In:Fischer-Lichte,E.andWihstutz,B.,
eds.Performanceandthepoliticsofspace:theatreandtopology.Abingdon:
Routledge,pp.66–80.
McKinnie,M.2012.Rethinkingsite-specificity:monopoly,urbanspace,andthe
culturaleconomicsofsite-specificperformance.In:Birch,A.andTompkins,J.,eds.
Performingsite-specifictheatre.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,pp.21–33.
McKinnie,M.2009.Performingthecitytransnational:culturalproduction,
governance,andcitizenshipincontemporaryLondon.In:Solga,K.Orr,S.and
310Hopkins,D.J.,ed.Performanceandthecity.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,
pp.110–127.
Meerow,S.andNewell,J.2016.Urbanresilienceforwhom,what,when,whereand
why?UrbanGeography.
Mendel,G.2001.TheBrokenLandscape:HIVandAIDSinAfrica.London:Network
Photographers.
Mendel,G.[nodate].GideonMendel’swebsite.[Online].[Accessed4August2018].
Availablefrom:http://gideonmendel.com.
Mermiri,T.2010.Privateinvesmentinculturein2008/2009:theartsinthe'new
normal'.[Online].London:Arts&Business.[AccessedJune62015].Available
from:http://aandbcymru.org.uk.
Miège,B.1989.Thecapitalisationofculturalproduction.NewYork:International
General.
Millar,F.2008.Newpollconfirms'Brownbounce'fromcrisis.TheIrishTimes.
[Online].1November.[Accessed1September2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.irishtimes.com.
Miller,T.1993.Thewell-temperedself.Baltimore:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress.
MMM.2007.TowardsaHealthyEcologyoftheArtsandCulture.[Online].London:
MMM.[AccessedJune62015].Availablefrom:
http://www.missionmodelsmoney.org.uk.
Mitchell,C.J.2015.LADAJan292015Presentation.Unpublished.
311Monbiot,G.2013.OxfordUniversitywon'ttakemoneyfromtobaccocompanies.
ButShell'sOK.TheGuardian.[Online].14May.[Accessed1September2018].
Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com.
Moore,J.W.2015.Capitalismintheweboflife:ecologyandtheaccumulationof
capital.London:Verso.
Mulgan,G.1989.Thepoweroftheweak.In:Hall,S.andJacques,M.,eds.Newtimes:
thechangingfaceofpoliticsinthe1990s.London:Lawrence&Wishart,pp.347–
363.
Mulhern,F.2015.Figuresofcatastrophe.London:Verso.
Mulhern,F.2007.CultureandSociety,ThenandNow.NewLeftReview.55,pp.31–
45.
Mulhern,F.2002.Beyondmetaculture.NewLeftReview.16,pp.86–104.
Mulhern,F.2000.Culture/metaculture.London:Routledge.
Mulhern,F.1996.Awelfareculture?HoggartandWilliamsinthefifties.Radical
Philosophy.77,pp.26–37.
MűvelődésiSzint.2018.JohnJordan&IsabelleFremeaux:Theartofcreative
resistance|lecture@Budapest,Auróra.[Online].[Accessed1September2018].
Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
Neal,L.2015.Playingfortime:makingartasiftheworldmattered.London:Oberon
Books.
Negri,A.1999.Insurgencies:Constituentpowerandthemodernstate.Minneapolis:
UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
312Neocleous,M.2015.ResistingResilience.MedicoInternational.[Online].9June.
[Accessed11June2018].Availablefrom:https://www.medico.de.
Neocleous,M.2013.ResistingResilience.RadicalPhilosophy.178,pp.2–7.
Neocleous,M.2011.AnxiousResilience.Mute.[Online].18August.[Accessed8
June2018].Availablefrom:http://www.metamute.org.
NetworkofConey.2013.Protestasperformance,inspiringorindulgent?.26
September.ConeyBlog.[Online].[Accessed11November2015].Availablefrom:
https://coneyhq.org.
Nielsen,L.andYbarra,P.,eds.2012.Neoliberalismandglobaltheatres.
Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
NikSireFilms2014.LondonHereToday....ArtExhibition(withexclusiveinterviews).
[Online].[Accessed3September2016].Availablefrom:
https://www.youtube.com.
Oakley,K.2004.NotsoCoolBritannia.InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies.
7(1),pp.67–77.
OpenInnovation.2013.BuildingcommunityresilienceinCamden.11June.Open
Innovation.[Online].[Accessed15January2015].Availablefrom:
https://openinnovationblogdotnet.wordpress.com.
Orozco,L.2013.Theatreandanimals.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Orwell,G.2000.Animalfarm.London:PenguinBooks.
Osborne,P.2015.ProblematizingDisciplinarity,TransdisciplinaryProblematics.
Theory,CultureandSociety.32(5),pp3–35.
313Osborne,P.2013.Anywhereornotatall:philosophyofcontemporaryart.London:
Osborne,P.2006.Whoeverspeaksofculturespeaksofadministrationaswell.
CulturalStudies.20(1),pp.33–47.
Osborne,P.2002.Conceptualart.London:Phaidon.
Osborne,D.andGaebler,T.1992.Reinventinggovernment:howthe
entrepreneurialspiritistransformingthepublicsector.NewYork:PenguinPress.
Oxfordproperties.[nodate].ThePostBuilding.[Accessed3rdSeptember2018].
Availablefrom:https://postbuilding.com/.
Pandamonium2.2012.[Exhibition/Auction].HydePark,London.May2012.
Pandamonium.2009.[Exhibition/Auction].Selfridges,London.October2009.
Parson,S.andRay,E.2018.Sustainablecolonization:tarsandsasresource
colonialism.CapitalismNatureSocialism.29(3),pp.68–86.
Paterson,M.2015.Liveartperformerstakeahammertoartsfundingdebate.27
January.GuardianTheatreBlog.[Online].[Accessed19November2015].Available
from:https://www.theguardian.com.
Peck,J.andTheodore,N.2010.Mobilisingpolicy:models,methods,andmutations.
Geoforum.41(2),pp.169–174
Perraudin,F.2018.Ministercriticises‘snowflake’artistswhoopposedarmsfirm
sponsorship.TheGuardian.[Online].9March.[Accessed18September2018].
Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com.
Perrot,M.-D.2002.Mondialiserlenon-sens.RevueDuMauss.20(2),pp.204–221.
314Perry,G.2014.Playingathome-thehouseincontemporaryart.London:Reaction
Books,pp178–183.
Perry,M.2018.MikePerry’swebsite.[Online].[Accessed1August2017].Available
from:https://m-perry.com.
Perry,M.2014.MorPlastig.[10photographs].
Pinder,J.Y.2018.AtheatricalcritiqueofhumanitariancivilityintheICRCMuseum.
ResearchinDramaEducation.23(4),pp.483–498.
Pinder,J.Y.2017a.InteriewwithRebeccaBeinart.23rdOctober2017,Nottingham.
Pinder,J.Y.2017b.InteriewwithArtwisecurators.11October2017,London.
Pinder,J.Y.2017c.InteriewwithAckroydandHarvey.4March2017,Skype.
Pinder,J.Y.2017d.InteriewwithHereToday…artist.10March2017,Telephone.
Pinder,J.Y.2016a.InteriewwithJaneTrowell.12February2016,London.
Pinder,J.Y.2016b.InterviewwithPeterGingold.11September2016,London.
Pinder,J.Y.2015.InterviewwithRodDixon.26October2015,London.
Platform.2015a.Deadline.[livefestivalheldon4,5,6December2015,Tate
Modern,London].
Platform.2015b.De:ad:li:neFestival@Tate4–6December2015.[Leaflet].London:
Platform.
Polanyi,K.2001.Thegreattransformation:thepoliticalandeconomicoriginsofour
time.Boston:BeaconPress.
315Pratt,A.C2017.BeyondResilience:learningfromtheculturaleconomy.European
PlanningStudies.27(1),pp.127-139.
PrecariousWorkersBrigade.2014a.OpenlettertoFACT,Liverpool.31March.
PrecariousWorkersBrigade.[Online].[Accessed31October2015].Availablefrom:
https://precariousworkersbrigade.tumblr.com.
PrecariousWorkersBrigade.2014b.OpenlettertoFACT'sresponsetous.8May.
PrecariousWorkersBrigade.[Online].[Accessed31October2015].Availablefrom:
https://precariousworkersbrigade.tumblr.com.
Proust,M.2010.Insearchoflosttime,vol.6:timeregained.London:PenguinBooks.
QuantitativeTeasing.Benchplaquesinpost-capitalism.[benchmemorialplaques,
benches].At:London,ArtsAdmin.
Rabinow,P.,ed.1997.Ethics:subjectivityandtruth.NewYork:TheNewPress.
Rabinow,P.,ed.1984.TheFoucaultreader.London:Penguin.
Ramay,A.2012.Dilcheezkyahaiaapmerijaanlijiye-AshaBhosle-UmraoJaan
(1981).[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.youtube.com.
Read,A.2016.Theenglishgardeneffect.In:Viera,P.,Gagliano,M.andRyan,J.,eds.
Thegreenthread:dialogueswiththevegetalworld.Lanham:LexingtonBooks,pp.
251–275.
Read,A.2013.Theatreintheexpandedfield:sevenapproachestoperformance.
London:MethuenDrama.
Read,A.,ed.2004.Oncivility.London:TaylorandFrancis.
316RedLadderTheatreCompany.SaveRedLadderwinsaward.[Online].[Accessed6
September2018].Availablefrom:http://www.redladder.co.uk/save-red-ladder-
wins-award/.
Reghezza-Zitt,M.andRufat,S.,eds.2015.Résiliences.London:ISTEEditions.
Richens,F.2015.MixedsuccessforCatalystasschemeisscaledback.Arts
Professional.[Online].30October.[Accessed1June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk.
Ridout,N.P.2013.Passionateamateurs:theatre,communism,andlove.AnnArbor:
TheUniversityofMichiganPress.
Roberts,J.2014.Photographyanditsviolation.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Robinson,M.2015.5thingspeopleforgetaboutresilience.Engage.36,pp.16–21.
Robinson,M.2013.HowIlearnedtosing.Ripon:Smokestackbooks.
Robinson,M.2011.Theroleofdiversityinbuildingadaptiveresilience.[Online].
London:ACE.[Accessed1February2015].Availablefrom:
http://culturehive.co.uk.
Robinson,M.2010.Makingadaptativeresiliencereal.[Online].London:ACE.
[Accessed1February2015].Availablefrom:http://www.artscouncil.org.uk.
Routledge,P.2012.Sensuoussolidarities:emotion,politicsandperformanceinthe
ClandestineInsurgentRebelClownArmy.Antipode.44(2),pp.428–452.
Rowell,A.,Marriott,J.andStockman,L.2005.ThenextGulf:London,Washington
andoilconflictinNigeria.London:Constable.
317Rufat,S.2015.Critiquedelarésiliencepure.In:Reghezza-Zitt,M.andRufat,S.,eds.
Résiliences.London:ISTEEditions,pp.187–210.
Rupiah,K.2015.MeetSelinaNwuluYoungpoetlaureateforLondon.Afripop!.
[Online].20October.[Accessed1June2018].Availablefrom:
http://afripopmag.com.
Salcedo,D.2007.Shibboleth.[installation,various].At:London,TateModern.
Saliba,F.2015.DevelopmentthreatenstodryupMexicoCity’sfloatingmarket
gardens.TheGuardian.[Online].17April.[Accessed11October2018].Available
from:https://www.theguardian.com.
Sayre,R.andLöwy,M.1984.Figuresofromanticanti-capitalism.NewGerman
Critique.32,pp.42–92.
Schechner,R.2003.Performancetheory.London:Routledge.
Schlegel,F.2003.Athenaeumfragments.In:Bernstein,J.M.,ed.Classicand
romanticGermanaesthetics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.246–260.
Schmidt,T.2010.Unsettlingrepresentation:monuments,theatre,andrelational
space.ContemporaryTheatreReview.20(3),pp.283–295.
Schumpeter,J.A.2010.Capitalism,socialismanddemocracy.London:Routledge.
Scottee.2015.Doubleyourmoney.[performanceheldon5September2015,
VauxhallTavern,London].
Searle.A.2005.Happybirthday,TateModern.TheGuardian.[Online].5May.
[Accessed30September2018].Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com.
318Sinclair,M.2017.Whatdoesitmeantoberesilientinthearts?3April.Paul
HamlynFoundationBlog.[Online].[Accessed21July2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.phf.org.uk/blog/.
Shaw,E.2008.LosingLabour'sSoul?.London:Routledge.
Sholette,G.2011.Darkmatter:artandpoliticsintheageofenterpriseculture.
London:PlutoPress.
Sivanandan,A.1990.Allthatmeltsintoairissolid:thehokumofNewTimes.Race
&Class.31(3),pp.1–30.
Snaith,Emma2018.‘Cultureofimpunity’amongMPsoverhospitalityfromcorrupt
regimes.TheGuardian.[Online].30July.[Accessed30August2018].Available
from:https://www.theguardian.com.
Smith,A.2013.ArtsCouncilEnglandannouncesmorefundingcutsin2014.The
Stage.[Online].19December.[Accessed9June2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.thestage.co.uk.
Smith,B.2013.Stagingclimatechange:thelasttenyears.[Online].[Accessed9June
2018].Availablefrom:http://bradonsmith.com.
Sofaer,J.2018.ArtholeCockle.JoshuaSofaer'swebsite.[Online].[Accessed16June
2018].Availablefrom:https://www.joshuasofaer.com.
Sofaer,J.2015.ArtholeCockleMedalforLiveArtPhilanthropy.[bronzemedals
platedinsilverandgold].At:London,LADA.
319Soltis,J.1989.Theethicsofqualitativeresearch.InternationalJournalof
QualitativeStudiesinEducation.2(2),pp.123–130.
Stake,R.2005.Qualitativecasestudies.In:Denzin,N.K.andLincoln,Y.S.,eds.The
Sagehandbookofqualitativeresearch.3rdedn.California:SagePublications,
pp.443–467.
Stark,P.,Powell,D.andGordon,C.2013.Rebalancingourculturalcapital[Online].
GPSculture.Availableat:http://www.gpsculture.co.uk.
Steel,Patrick2016.ACEawards£12.2mfromMuseumResilienceFund.Museum
Association.[Online].2August.[Accessed31May2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.museumsassociation.org.
Steinberg,D.LandJohnson,R.,eds.2004.Blairismandthewarofpersuasion.
London:Lawrence&Wishart.
Streeck,W.2017.Thereturnoftherepressed.NewLeftReview.104,pp.5–18.
Streeck,W.2014.Howwillcapitalismend.NewLeftReview.87,pp.35–64.
Streeck,W.2011.Thecrisisofdemocraticcapitalism.NewLeftReview.71,pp.5–
29.
Sullivan,N.2015.DCMSbudgetcutwillhitmuseums.MuseumAssociation.
[Online].9June.[Accessed31May2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.museumsassociation.org.
SundayintheParkwithEd.2015.[Exhibition].TheDisplayGallery.London.6–28
March2015.
320Thompson,N.2012.Livingasform:sociallyengagedartfrom1991–2011.New
York,N.Y:CreativeTime.
Tierney,K.2015.Resilienceandtheneoliberalproject:discourses,critiques,
practices—andKatrina.AmericanBehavioralScientist.59(10),pp.1327–1342.
Tomba,M.2012.Marx’sTemporalities.Leiden:Brill
Tompkins,J.2014.Theatre'sheterotopias.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Trowell,J.2013.Takethemoneyandrun?:somepositionsonethics,business
sponsorshipandmakingart.London:Platform.
Turk,G.2014.PandyWarhol.[Wallpaper].
Turk,G.2008.Betweenarockandahardplace.[Paintedraisin].
Upchurch,A.R.2016.TheoriginsoftheArtsCouncilmovement:philanthropyand
policy.Basingstoke:Palgravemacmillan.
vanMourikBroekman,P.2011.Mute's100%cutbyACE-apersonalconsideration
ofmute'sdefunding,byco-founderPaulinevanMourikBroekman.Mute.[Online].
1April.[Accessed10June2018].Availablefrom:http://www.metamute.org.
Vercellone,C.2007.Fromformalsubsumptiontogeneralintellect:elementsfora
marxistreadingofthethesisofcognitivecapitalism.HistoricalMaterialism.15(1),
pp.13–36.
Verson,J.2007.Whyweneedculturalactivism.In:TrapeseCollective.,eds.Doit
Yourself:AHandbookforChangingourWorld.London:PlutoPress,pp.171–186.
Virtualmigrants2018.ContinentChopChop-TheDocumentary.[Online].[Accessed
16November2018].Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com.
321Vishmidt,M.2016.Whatdowemeanby'autonomy'andreproduction?In:
Stakemeier,K.andVishmidt,M.ReproducingAutonomy.London:Mute,pp.33–51.
VitaVitale.2015.[Exhibition].VeniceBiennale,Venice.9May22–November,2015.
vonWuthenau.2015.Image2020artandcimatechangeanintroduction.In:
Galhós,C.,ed.Thereisnothingthatisbeyondourimagination.TorresVedras:
ArtinSite,pp.24–31.
Walker,A.2015.Resilienceinpractice.[Online].London:LGiU.[Accessed20
October2016].Avaialablefrom:https://www.lgiu.org.uk.
Walker,J.andCooper,M.2011.Genealogiesofresilience:fromsystemsecologyto
thepoliticaleconomyofcrisisadaptation.SecurityDialogue.42(2),pp.143–160.
Wanderingseed2011.ThomasRemiarz.24October.Wanderingseeds.[Online].
[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://wanderingseeds.wordpress.com.
WarwickCommission.2015.EnrichingBritain:Culture,CreativityandGrowth.
[Online].Coventry:UniversityofWarwick.[Accessed21March2016].Available
from:https://warwick.ac.uk.
Waters,S.2015.TheContigencyPlan.London:NickHernBooks.
Waters,S.2005.Theunthinkable.London:NickHernBooks.
Waters,S.2004.DangerousMinds.TheGuardian.[Online].10November2004.
[Accessed6September2015].Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com.
Watershed.2015.[Exhibition].HallPlace&Gardens,Bexley.28March-6
September2015.
322Watkins,S.2010.Shiftingsands.NewLeftReview.61,pp.5–27.
Wickstrom,M.2012.Performanceintheblockadesofneoliberalism:thinkingthe
politicalanewBasingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Wikipedia.2018a.Adhocracy.[Online].[Accessed6September2018].Available
from:https://en.wikipedia.org.
Wikipedia.2018b.UmraoJaan.[Online].[Accessed6September2018].Available
from:https://en.wikipedia.org.
Wikipedia.2018c.Settlementmovement.[Online].[Accessed6September2018].
Availablefrom:https://en.wikipedia.org.
Wikipedia.2018d.TheBartholomew-by-the-Exchange.[Online].[Accessed6
September2018].Availablefrom:https://en.wikipedia.org.
Wikipedia.2018e.TateModern.[Online].[Accessed6September2018].Available
from:https://en.wikipedia.org.
Wikipedia.2018f.HeydarAliyevFoundation.[Online].[Accessed6September
2018].Availablefrom:https://en.wikipedia.org.
Wilks-Heeg,S.2009.NewlabourandthereformofEnglishlocalgoverment,1997–
2007:privatisingthepartsthatconservativegovernmentscouldnotreach.
PlanningPracticeandResearch.24(1),pp.23–39.
Williams,R.2005.Cultureandmaterialism.London:Verso.
Williams,R.1983.Writinginsociety.London:Verso
Williams,R.1976.Keywords:avocabularyofcultureandsociety.London:Fontana
Press.
323Williams,R.1973.Thecountryandthecity.London:ChattoandWindus.
Williams,R.1970.OnreadingMarcuse.In:Homeberger,E.,Janeway,W.and
Schama,S.eds.TheCambridgeMind.London:JonathanCape,pp.162–166.
Williams,R.1963.Cultureandsociety1780–1950.Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks.
Williams,R.1953.Theideaofculture.EssaysinCriticism.3(3),pp.239–266.
Woolf,B.2015.Puttingpolicyintoperformancestudies?PerformanceResearch.
20(4),pp.104–111.
Wu,C.T.2017.Fashionseducesart.NewLeftReview.108,pp.117–125.
Wu,C.T.2011.Scarsandfaultlines:theartofDorisSalcedo.NewLeftReview.69,
pp.61–77.
Wu,C.T.2009.Biennaleswithoutborders?NewLeftReview.57,pp.107–115.
Wu,C.T.2002.Privatisingculture:corporateartinterventionsincethe1980s.
London:Verso.
YoungFoundation.2012.Adaptingtochange:theroleofcommunityresilience.
[Online].London:TheYoungFoundation.[Accessed10September2017].
Availablefrom:https://youngfoundation.org.
Yencken,D.1988.Thecreativecity.Meanjin.47(4),p.597.
Yin.R.K.2013.CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods.California:Sage
Publications.
Yúdice,G.2003.Theexpediencyofculture:usesofcultureintheglobalera.Durham:
DukeUniversityPress.
324Zaroulia,M.andHager,P.2015.Performancesofcapitalism,crisesandresistance.
Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
ZeeTV2015.Akademi’sUmraoJaanGalafeatureonZeeTV’sOutandAbout.
[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:
https://www.youtube.com.
325
8.Appendix
Iincludeinthisappendixtheinformationcirculatedtoparticipantspriortothe
interview.
TheParticipantInformationSheetforJohnPinder’sPhDResearchProject
Iamaresearcherandtheatremaker,basedattheUniversityofLeeds.Iaminviting
youtotakepartinaresearchprojectthatIstartedinOctober2014.This
informationsheetprovidesthebasicdetailsabouttheresearch.Pleasereadthe
followingparagraphstoensurethatyouunderstandthepurposeoftheresearch,
itscontextandwhatitinvolves.Wecandiscussitfurtheruponmeeting.
ContextandPurposeofResearch
Myresearchexaminestheideaofresilienceintheatreandperformance.My
researchisbothsocialandartisticinscope,proposingtoinvestigatetheidea
acrossculturalpolicyprogrammes,theatretextsandperformances.Throughthis
investigationmyresearchaimstoproblematisethescopeandvalueofanideathat
isassociatedtoArtsCouncilEngland’spoliciesthatpromotethefinancialand
environmentalsustainabilityofasectorhitbycutsandrestructuringprocesses.
Myresearchispremisedontheobservationthatresilience,whichhasbecomean
importantsocio-politicalideainwiderareasofpolicyandpolitics,hasnotbeen
sufficientlyscrutinisedinthefieldoftheatreandperformanceitself.Aspartofmy
studyIamplanningtospeaktoarangeofartistsandorganisations.
HowwouldIliketoinvolveyou?
326YourworkinterestsmebecauseIamwritingaboutaneventduringwhich…was
mentioned.Aspartofthis,I’malsowritingabout….worktitled….Iwouldlikethe
opportunitytotalktoyouaboutHereToday…andthecontextaroundaswellas
theissuesthataroseinrelationtothefundingoftheexhibition.
UsingInformation,DataProtection,AnonymityandConfidentiality
Dependingoncircumstancesandneeds,Imightmakeanaudiorecordingofthe
intervieworconversation.Itisalsofineifyouwouldprefernottorecordthe
conversationorstoptherecordingatanystage.AfterourconversationIwill
transcribeourconversationfortherecordandplantostoreitsafelyonUniversity
serverstoavoidunauthorisedaccess,lossordestructionofdata.Theinformation
thatwouldbeprocessedduringtheresearchwillbeusedaspartofmyPhD
research.Itisverylikelytoinformthewritingofmythesis,whichisduetofinish
in2017-2018.Inthisrespect,theinformationthatIamseekingtocollectfromyou
willberelevanttomystudyandIamnotplanningtousetheinformationforany
otherpurposethanmyresearch.AnyuseofthematerialImakewillconsiderthe
originalcontextinwhichitwasdiscussed,andwillnotbeusedoutofcontext.Iwill
alsoensurethatmyinformationiskeptuptodateandwillcontactyouagainifI
haveanydoubtsabouttheaccuracyofmyinformation.
ItisalsopossiblethatImayrefertoyouworkinconferences,ifIattendany
inthenexttwoyears.Ifthisisthecase,asmentionedabove,theinformationthatI
willcollectfromyouforthepurposesoftheresearchwillberenderedwith
accuracyandprocessedwithyourauthorisation.Anysensitiveinformationthat
youdonotwishtodisclosewillnotbeusedandanyothersensitiveinformation
wouldbeusedwithyourauthorisation.AnydirectquotesthatImayusefromthe
interviewwillremainanonymous.However,youshouldalsobeawarethatdespite
327databeingmadeanonymousyoumightstillbeidentifiablebyvirtueofhaving
participatedinmyresearch.Wecandiscussthispossibilityfurtherandanyother
riskourinterviewmayposetoyou,peoplearoundyouortheorganisationyou
workwith.Thesemayincludeissuesofmobilityandaccess,ormayrelatetothe
natureofmystudyorinformationdisclosed.Idonotwantmyresearchtobecause
ofdistress,andthereforeyouwillalsohavetherighttowithdrawyour
participationatanymomentintime(mycontactdetailsarebelow).
JohnPinder,PhDCandidate,
UniversityofLeeds,3.01ClothworkersSouthBuilding,UniversityofLeeds,LS2
9JT
Email:[email protected]
Related Documents
