Participation
Ensuring that as many people as possible can participate in creative activities
Diane Ragsdale
29 October 2009
The Disinclined: Right Where We Want Them?
Arts participation is at times a woolly topic and theories on engaging people in the arts abound. Several years ago, Jerry Yoshitomi wrote about a still-utilized arts participation framework, published in 2001 by RAND, that divides people into three categories: currently participating, inclined to participate, and disinclined to participate.
Yoshitomi describes the “disinclined” as those with negative perceptions of what it means to participate in arts activities and notes that such perceptions—that they would be unlike others in attendance, or would be uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the work—are based on such factors as socio-demographics, past experiences, and identity.[1]
One wonders if the negative perceptions of the disinclined are inaccurate if one considers that arts organizations routinely:
- Cater to and value the opinions of the intelligentsia and the critics over others;
- Through advertising and pricing give the perception that the arts are for an elite group of cultural sophisticates;
- Create large, intimidating upscale venues or dark, mysterious alternative venues and do little to make newcomers feel welcome;
- Promote artistic hierarchies (Bach is intrinsically better than Bjork, who is intrinsically better than my brother, Mickey, who plays banjo in a pro-am banjo club in St. Louis, Missouri) and (often inexplicably) value certain kinds of art and experiences (and the people who engage in them) over others;
- Underscore distinctions between those who have the “talent” to do, and those who should be content to “view”;
- Privilege “liveness” over mediated art forms and resist allowing the live arts to be distributed and modified electronically even though this might enable the arts to reach more people;
- Disregard the clear connection between making art and consuming art and strive to build patrons for their institutions without also providing validation and meaningful opportunities for people of all ages to explore their own creativity;
- Fail to provide the information, guidance, and encouragement that could help people confidently and enjoyably navigate the arts scene and derive greater meaning and pleasure therein.
This prompts the questions: How committed are arts organizations to engaging the disinclined? And if they have failed to engage the broader population is it, in part, because they are ambivalent about doing so?
The negative perceptions of the disinclined must be addressed and changed if we are to significantly increase audiences. To do this, two things must be acknowledged:
First, the determination of what is considered “art”, and who gets to call oneself “artistic” or “artist”, are key drivers of which publics are engaged, and how. If art and artistic practice are defined narrowly then audiences (their size and the nature of their participation) will be small and limited. Relevance cannot be relegated to the PR department. Arts organizations may be failing to engage more people because they have too narrow a viewpoint on what a legitimate artistic experience is or whom they exist to serve.
Second, creating a vast supply of art and developing the capacity for people to derive meaning, understanding, and enjoyment therein are two separate things. How does one access and make sense of an arts scene that seems to demand prerequisite information and navigational skills one gains only by being an insider? If there is a chasm between “the arts” and “society,” nonprofit arts organizations may need to create the necessary bridges and then reach across them and provide the requisite knowledge and experiences so that youth and adults can develop their tastes, expand their palettes, and enjoy the arts.
Third, while an individual organization may be able to develop a “member,” true arts participation—if defined as helping an individual develop his or her creativity and capacity to meaningfully engage with the arts—takes a village. Before competing over slices of the pie, organizations may need to work together to grow the pie.
Finally, I would like to challenge the use of the term disinclined, as it is not only imprecise but implies an unwillingness to participate. The so-called disinclined might be better characterized, for instance, as “uninformed” “deprived,” “uncertain,” “confused,” “intimidated,” or “skeptical.” If arts organizations were to think about non-attenders in these more precise terms, then perhaps they could develop more effective strategies for engaging them.
If people are feeling “disinclined”—mystified, unworthy, and on the outside—then the nonprofit arts have failed and need to step up. 21st Century Arts Engagement—brokering relationships between people and art(ists)—may simply require more of cultural institutions than they have been required to provide in the past.
Diane Ragsdale is the associate program officer for the performing arts program at The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Her viewpoints are personal and should not be taken to be the viewpoints of the Foundation.
For Perspectives www.perspectives.creativescotland.org.uk
[1] Jerry Yoshitomi, “New Fundamentals and Practices to Increase Cultural Participation and Develop Arts Audiences” available at
http://www.artspresenters.org/members/pdf/newfundamentals.pdf: an essay in response to “A New Framework for Building Participation on the Arts,” by Kevin F. McCarthy and Kimberly Jinnett (RAND, 2001).
Comments
I think one addition to the list should be 'None of the Above'. For too many, even getting on the 'disinclined' roster is a mystery.
Yet, it's no mystery to me that the 'disinclined' are - “uninformed” “deprived,” “uncertain,” “confused,” “intimidated,” or “skeptical.” Has anyone actually looked at the SAC web site? Actually spent time applying for assistance (of any size) only to be informed that the "existing [applicants] were prioritised over new applications" - i.e. newcomers were never even considered?
In terms of participation, is Creative Scotland going to simplify all this or raise bigger walls to those who don;t fit it under a Grandfather Clause? It's all fine/I'm all for the effort to characterise thisproactively, and ask for positive suggestions, etc. However, if any of this is to be actually taken seriously by the previously 'disinclined', someone has some pavement to clear so they can at least come in through the back door.
Face to face = long time comin'. Have the nonprofit arts failed? That's a debate plenty of us would like to have, if allowed.
The 'Participation' discussion appears to have ground to an early halt - I wonder why.
The discussion so far, including my own effort, reminds me of nothing so much as the early days of community development in the UK. For 'disinclined' read 'apathetic' and you have a repeat of the debates that used to be held about why people do not participate in community building and in political activity. Some of the comment reflects a 'top down' approach - how do we get people to engage in the activities we have decided to undertake? Others are more 'bottom up' - how do people in Scotland wish to express themselves culturally and how can they be enabled to achieve this? And, thirdly, the discussion tiptoes around the issue of 'power'- who should participate in decision making, including resource allocation, what should qualify them to make decisions and what mandate should they bring with them to the decision making table.
It is not entirely inappropriate that the establishment of Creative Scotland is being taken forward in a Parliamentary Bill dealing with Public Service Reform. In addition to dealing with the nitty gritty of organisational changes in a number of public services the Bill also reflects a longer term cultural and managerial trend towards 'user involvement', the principle that the recipients of public services have a distinctive contribution to make towards the planning of services and that significant elements of decision making about service delivery benefit from being devolved to groups which include service users. 'User involvement' is an appropriate response to the challenge of a lack of 'participation' in many areas of public life; it does not, however, appear to impinge on the formation of Creative Scotland or on the strategy of the new organisation as expressed in its business plan.
There are a variety of typologies of 'participation', of which Arnstein's Ladder is perhaps the best known, which reflect the variety of forms and the differences of degree of participation which people seek. These range from the equivalents of a ‘bums on seats’ or ‘consumption equals participation’ model through to substantially more sophisticated forms of user/provider relationships. Where they all agree is that the ultimate purpose of participation is to become more empowered as someone who is responsible for their own role in the world and for how it impacts on others and to be better able to challenge impositions which threaten the quality of our own and other peoples' lives.
Issues of participation and how it can be best promoted have been extensively explored in Scotland, not least through the agency of the Scottish Community Development Centre which has advised government on how people might be more fully involved in a whole range of public service areas, such as regeneration, health services and Community Planning. Their experience and that of many other bodies in the fields of equalities, disability, environmental action etc. provide a substantial platform of knowledge and experience from which Creative Scotland could learn in order to develop a progressive programme of public participation in Scotland’s cultural development.
One thing that the history of community development shows, however, is that many public bodies which proclaim a commitment to participation and related values treat them as general operational principles which, in the reality of organisational life, few people understand or feel responsible for implementing. This comes to be seen as tokenism and breeds cynicism both within and without organisations. What has been learned is that if principles such as ‘participation' are to be embedded in organisational culture a number of key elements need to be in place. In this case, Creative Scotland should develop a coherent statement of what it means by participation,why it has highlighted it as a core objective and what it hopes to achieve by promoting it; staff at the most senior level need to be charged with ensuring that the organisation delivers on participation in a way which can be monitored and evaluated; and the process of evaluating the organisation’s effectiveness in delivering participation should itself be participatory. Participation, if it is to be meaningful, should not only happen ‘out there’, it also needs to be evidenced in the way that Creative Scotland conducts its own business.
For me, Creative Scotland will have been successful in achieving public participation in Scotland’s cultural development when members of the general public are putting themselves forward to play a role in the management of publicly funded creative activities – as they do in relation to health and education services, for example – from the grass roots through to Creative Scotland itself, because they care about the impact culture has upon their lives. I look forward to hearing how Creative Scotland intends to go about achieving this.
Much time and effort and not inconsiderable sums of money have been spent on trying to find out why people do not particpate in the arts instead of perhaps concentrating on celebrating who IS parti
The 'attitudinal' barrier is the most difficult to tackle. Many who have the money and time are just plain not interested in the arts. However when further questioned about their leisure time acivitiies many of them are involved in what would be descriv=bed as arts activities (even if it is going to see a film) Perhaps we need a stealthier approach whereby and lose the arts label which many find off putting.
Looks at the rise in interest in knitting for example which is a craft but is now trendy for young women because of the strong social aspect to knitting circles.
Thanks everyone for your comments in this first week of the ‘participation’ debate. We have drawn out some of the key points that have been raised during the course of the conversation to date.
• We all have the right to be ‘disinclined’ however, how can we be certain that ‘disinclined ‘ is not in fact ‘disempowered’?
• Barriers to participation can be physical, financial, emotional and attitudinal which can translate into discrimination.
• We should acknowledge and learn from the success of projects where the public work directly with artists, projects that result from and can support civic engagement, community planning and social cohesion.
• There is definitely a place for the role of the advocate for example, do we need an expansion of the Cultural Co-ordinator scheme, giving it wider and deeper impact, beyond schools perhaps?
• PR in general and specifically the broadcast media can play a vital role in the portrayal or ‘unpacking’ of art to the wider community. Also, in recognising and celebrating the work of arts organisations across Scotland.
• Art and ‘the Arts’ are two different things; art is what we all agree to call art. ‘The Arts’ is an institutional framework.
Finally, a question: Given that there is already a huge amount of artistic activity available for (most) to participate in, what do we want /expect from a body like Creative Scotland?
Best wishes, Katrina & Simon
To be disinclined is surely a right we all have. Like Robert Livingstone I too have many disinclinations - and many of these would even cover certain aspects of the cultural life of this nation.
A few years ago I worked with an Australian artist group called 'Severed Heads'. When one of the members was interviewed by Channel 4 as part of the project and asked the inevitable question - 'but is it art ?', he replied in a slightly peeved and incredulous, but not altogether telegenic way, 'art is just an agreement amongst people that something is art' .
The point being, that the thing we call 'art' is the product of a community - and that this community may occasionally be institutionalised into that thing we call 'the arts'. Equally we need to acknowledge that the condition of art may exist in a domain where people choose not to define it as art. However, bringing it back to the context of this discussion, engagement with somebody else's community is not something that can be done by policy direction, it can only be done by getting to know them, sharing their beliefs and acknowledging any differences in a way that is mutually respectful and trusting. In other words development by nurture, rather than development by design.
As we hopefully become a more comfortably heterogenous society We need to work out how we share our values and our understanding of those things that we cherish in a way that also acknowledges that these things may not be shared or cherished in the same way by others. While this process on its own is complex, it is further complicated by the role of state investment in art and - as we move towards a rhetoric that is more dominated by the economic and social impacts of culture - we need to be able to articulate and nurture more effectively those shared values that reside solely within the domain of culture.
On a more belligerent note, (and to echo Robert Livingstone's sentiments) We should not beat outselves up about being guilty for creating the situation depicted here. As a community we do a lot to build engagement and We should not accept the culturalpathic tendencies we sometimes receive in response any more than we would accept sociopathic attitudes in the world in which we live today.
(Personal comments again)
I have to say first of all that I am taking away the description of a community based artist as a 'creative actor' away with me.
'Disinclined' - a term that is absolutely loaded with assumptions and prejudices. I want to take us away from audience-speak and into a language centred on equalities. I also want to distinguish the disinclined label into two areas: non-attenders by choice, non-attenders through barriers. For me, participation in the arts should by and large be focussed on the second group.
The social model of disability is really clear. It is not someone's impairment that is the issue or barrier, it is people's and organisations' attitudinal, physical and social barriers that prevent access. This translates across areas of discrimination, such as race, economic deprivation, age and sexual orientation.
To label someone disinclined is to put the liability on individuals who may have barriers to attendance that have not even been considered. I was in a taxi after a Voluntary Arts Scotland conference in Livingstone last weekend and heard that young people in the area would often have to fork out up to £25 a night out on a weekend, just to get into the town as transport was so difficult for a night out on the town. Likewise, disabled people, particularly people with communication needs, will often not be able to attend because staff have such a heavy influence on their lives, either attitudinally or because rotas come before everything else in life. There are still adults with learning disabilities in long-stay hospital (there will be a really important exhibition about this in Inverness this month ) and in many other 'specialist' facilities that keep people in the NHS. There are the 'captive audiences', people in hospitals, in regimented institutional settings, in prisons. All these people can see the arts as 'relief', something to break up the monotony, to change the physical environment, to inspire and provide intellectual and social sustenance.
We seem to be so concerned with bringing people to the arts, and yes we should be doing this, but first we need to bring the arts to some of the people. And there will still be those who choose not to participate, but I think those 'disinclined' by choice will be limited.
I think though that there is also an important comment to be made on the link between participating and consuming arts. There is indeed a separation here and one that needs to be addressed. I certainly try to address it. The people who participate in institutional and community settings are often not art consumers. This is something that can be mean their artistic voice is authentic and their aesthetic personal. This is why disability arts can be so distinctive. But we need to ensure participatory arts include in their make-up, consumption of arts. Many of the projects I develop, involve a 'visit' for research as part of the planning. There may be weeks of 'visits', opportunities to see other cultural and arts spaces, to engage with a stimulating environment. It is also only by making these 'visits' that arts venues can be challenged in becoming more accessible.
We also lack activism in this area here in Scotland. This was highlighted by the recent activities of Ju Gosling, a very respected artist who attempted to visit the 'Letter Writing Project' in National Galleries in Edinburgh during the Festivals. Unable to access the installation, she embarked on a letter writing campaign of her own and installed it on her website. This kind of political energy and agitation is needed and can at times be lacking in Scotland. People need to see their futures in the arts and for example, more visibility of disabled artists with strong artistic practice is needed. We need more approaches such as Trongate 103 where disabled artists are now in the heart of the artistic community.
I also feel that I need to make one more point. In the participatory arts we are motivated by the creative and the need to nurture the creative in people. We are equally about breaking down or exposing barriers. There is always a balance in this. On one hand we might be delivering prisoner outcomes, community planning agendas, clinical outcomes and on the other hand we need to set strong artistic ones. This is the art of the participatory arts, it is never just about the work we produce, it is always about the process however.
I hope these comments are useful.
I have had experience of creating access and pomoting participation in artistic activities since the 1970's not as an professional arts practitioner but as a youth worker, a community worker and an
What I have learned from my experience is that many people will move from a distrusting, alienated relationship with 'art' when they have the opportunity to engage directly with artists and artistic processes and not just with artistic products; when they are encouraged to develop their own understanding and thinking about the work of artists and when they feel that they can play a legitimate role in the decision making processes that underpin the creation of works of art.
Yesterday evening, for example, members of our Commissioning Group,local people with little or no previous background in the arts but who have experienced a year long training programme in public art commissioning, met with Simon Grennan of Grennan and Sperandio to discuss the progress of a project they have commissioned them to undertake to create a Psychic Avatar for Portobello. This is one of a number of commissions the group will decide on this year as part of a process of involving the wider public and the local authority in the development of a comprehensive public art plan for Portobello Promenade.
We are open to artists working in any art form that can be expressed in public space, including cyber space. What we have grown to appreciate over the past few years is that the quality of the relationships we are able to develop with artists are more important to us than the forms in which they work. We seek to develop relationships with artists which respect their artistic integrity and independence and which also respect our role as creative actors in our community. When this happens we have seen that the relationship can generate confidence in the wider community to engage with artistic work which is well outside their current comfort zone.
There is learning required to achieve this kind of relationship, both for artists and for the public and our experience is that people are willing to engage in learning if they feel it will open them up to new possibilities and opportunities for empowerment. This kind of learning is not just abour 'participation in the arts' or the nitty gritty of commissioning; it is also about civic engagement, community planning, personal development, social cohesion and all the other positive attributes of a cultured society.
Along with some other contributors, I have found your three 'provocations' to be too superficial or poorly focussed to be helpful in forming a view about the future of Creative Scotland. I would like to be part of a much more open and free wheeling discussion about how 'creativity' and the role of 'creatives' can be more highly valued in Scotland, yes for their economic value but also for their potential to liberate people to determine the future of their culture for themselves. If Mike Russell wants people to support higher public spending on artistic creation, this is the kind of public energy and excitement he needs to tap into in the future.
This provocation seems to me a cruel caricature of the arts sector as I understand it in Scotland, and perhaps this is a result of once again inviting a contribution from an outsider.
As for the 'disinclined',well, wild horses wouldn't drag me to a sporting event, and any targeted efforts to do so would be a waste of time and resources. Sometimes people have to be allowed their prejudices. The idea of 'arts for all' is patronising, and the ultimate elitist lie. We're often told that attendances at live theatre, or live music, or exhibitions, exceed that for football matches. Perhaps these urban myths need firming up with hard statistics. Certainly,in the Highlands and Islands, levels of involvement in the arts are very high.
I think the biggest problem is not what arts organisations are actually doing to encourage participation, but how the arts sector is portrayed (or not portrayed) in the mainstream media--with versions of exactly the kind of distorted and exaggerated views contained in this provocation. Consider me provoked!
As others have commented from the beginning of 'Perspectives', this is a linear thread of comments rather than a conversation or a discussion.
In relation to Diane's post I offer two.
First, I point to the conclusions from the Arts Council of England's review of 'public value' in 2007. People in that consultation (from all categories, including the 'disinclined') routinely identifed art as a source of 'capacity for life' and something that enriches the 'experience of life'. But members of the public involved in the consultations made it clear that they make a distinction in this context between 'art' and 'the arts': "'art' is part of the fabric of their lives, while 'the arts' are something institutional and separate from their day to day experience of the world." I suspect this discussion is about 'the arts'. The ACE report is well worth a look: http://bit.ly/1uLawo.
Second, I am a great fan of the Birmingham Community Opera director Graham Vick and his inclusive philosophy. I once spent a wonderful evening in his company. His determination to bring Great Art out of the temple into the streets and the lives of communities is inspirational. He bridled at the confusion that he might be putting on operas written specially for communities. No: he takes great opera into communities and has the community (with a little professional help) participate in its performance. And as he said: they relish the difficulty. Like the findings in the classic 1960s book on education 'Does Easy Do It?' - people want to be stretched, want to raise their game to another level. You can read more about Graham Vick's approach here: http://bit.ly/2WZHsy .
I cannot resist advertising the fact that Graham signed up to bring Wagner's Ring to Scotland in this spirit: bringing the ultimate 'High Art' into people's lives, shifting it from being part of 'the arts' to becoming again simply 'art'. But it has so far been the funders that are disinclined to embrace this project, not the people. Apparently some 'disinclined' people were sponsored by SAC to attend a Scottish Opera Ring performance in 2003 - but they didn't like it.
I say no more.
Categories, categories, setting up “the disinclined”, then after making all the points deconstructing the very category that provided the platform is an interesting technique.
“uncertain,” “confused,” “intimidated,” or “sceptical” doesn’t really do justice to me. None of these are the kind of words I’d use to describe myself – except perhaps sceptical. If the disinclined are to get over their disinclination arts theorists are going to have to hop down and recognise that a life where “art” (the kind into which the SAC pumps the bulk of its funds) is peripheral - is still a life worth living.
The “arts” are not like those religions which make a distinction between the believer and the unbeliever – and then predicating (their) belief as the only way to true life. This is why I kind of like the opportunity of a Creative Scotland rather than an Arts Council – perhaps a bit more of a broad possibility and a bit less like a body defining dogma - what with all the architects and advertising people on board (has anyone told them yet?). That said, I remain concerned that the processes and procedures will surreptitiously transfer (along with the staff) so that funds will still be given to people on the basis of how well their proposals fit into an application format rather than the quality of their creative and participatory vision.
I was also struck by the phrase that “relevance cannot be relegated to the PR department.” Having worked on PR with a wide range of not for profit organisations, it is my clear understanding that PR departments are often a pretty good place to relegate relevance to! Breaking down the paradoxical walls of understanding and misunderstanding that dis-incentivise participation is surely a job that the PR department is best placed to engage with. Many times I’ve found clients, fearing for the integrity of their work, huddling around to protect it from exposure to the media and the public. Bizarre! If the problem is building PR departments that understand not only the work and the existing audience but also the future audience of the otherwise disinclined, then perhaps they need to be included with the educationalists, policy makers, heads of art colleges, lecturers and teachers that need to be part of this discussion!