Skip to main content

This paper combines arguments first presented by Susan Jones at an engage annual conference in which she questioned the efficacy of our insti­tu­tionally-driven visual arts ecology with new research and enquiry into future cultural, digital and social environ­ments for the arts. It calls for adoption of a more open, imagi­native, lateral, collab­o­rative and responsive approaches to creating cultural value, premised on building relation­ships and rapport with the different kinds and bandwidths of audiences and with the enablers and the makers of art. Links updated 17/05/2018

It’s not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intel­ligent, but the most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin

In my provo­cation Where is the place for art?’ [1] that was presented at engage’s 2011 annual conference I asked: Are arts building the place for art’ or could they in future be viewed as memorials to the heady, finance-at-the-ready pre 2007 era? Are buildings (as run by insti­tu­tions) self-serving? How will their viability (sustain­ability) be affected by rising energy and transport costs and the engagement prefer­ences of an ageing population with less disposable income? Are they – as Arts Council England asserts in Achieving great art for everyone [2]well-placed to lead the creativity and innovation that will be a driver of economic recovery’?” Or – quoting Julie Crawshaw — “[is] art practice something that sits, walks, jumps up and down, amongst, on top of and in between [the insti­tu­tions]?” [3] Albeit topical in the midst of the economic distress in the UK that was then constraining all public and arts expen­diture, my provocation’s lines of questioning were neither new nor previ­ously unexamined.

Whilst my aim in 2011 was predom­i­nantly to raise questions about the status quo in order to generate a groundswell of discussion that was otherwise not taking place, in this paper I combine opinion formed from total immersion in the business of running an arts organ­i­sation [4] with analysis of a wide range of evidence drawn from peer-to-peer learning, digital and business innovation, the academic cultural value initiative and through refer­encing numerous arts reports and conferences. 

Arts ecology

In 2005 in a background paper entitled: Visual Arts: a more holistic approach’, the Arts Council launched its first ever review of the presen­tation of contem­porary visual arts [5]. The paper noted upfront that: The artist is engaged in the fringe inter­ference’ which works across many disci­plines and practices to the extent that the contem­porary visual arts have diver­sified into a vibrant global ecology overlapping with heritage, the wider visual culture and public space across the creative indus­tries, [this presenting] challenges for the current insti­tu­tional structure.” The assertion was that promoting the idea of a visual culture [through fostering a multi-faceted arts ecology] would: dispel the image of the museum as conser­v­ative and metro­politan and bridge the still-perceived gulf between heritage and the creative industries”. 

The requirement for a holistic approach was similarly confirmed in a report published two years later by progressive think tank Mission Models Money [6]. Its author John Knell concluded that: The funding community needs to begin to act in ways that foster the health of the whole arts and cultural ecology, not the mainte­nance or survival of particular bits of the system. Organ­i­sa­tional stability and sustain­ability are only desirable outcomes if the portfolio of sustainable arts organ­i­sa­tions is creating the type of arts and cultural ecology that are in tune with the times and public aspiration.” [7] Note that Mission Models Money had previous warned that: Many of our arts and cultural organ­i­sa­tions are not in a position to respond fast enough to the rapidly changing external environment, especially the shifts in the way the wider public are creating, producing and consuming cultural experi­ences and the threats and oppor­tu­nities of new technology.”[8]

The concern for how to secure the overall health of the arts ecology has again become pressing. This is in part due to publi­cation in 2014 of the Rebal­ancing our cultural capital and Place reports by GPS [9] that highlighted stark imbal­ances in the geographical distri­b­ution of public funding in England. Alongside, a‑n/AIR’s Paying artists campaign [10] has exposed the economic disad­vantage faced by artists when showing work in publicly-funded galleries. 

In that same year, Director of National Museum of Wales David Anderson’s provo­cation directly challenged the BBC’s insularity and London-centricity: The culture of any nation or region is an ecosystem, made up of a number of mutually-dependent parts. As well as arts and cultural insti­tu­tions, these also include the print and broadcast media, public and private funders, the education sector, the tourism industry and — last but not least — creative indus­tries and individual profes­sionals.” [11]

Insti­gating in the House of Lords in January 2015 the first-ever (to my knowledge) parlia­mentary debate specif­i­cally focused on the role and value of artists, Lord Clancarty – the artist and commen­tator Nick Trench – asserted that: It is the individual creative vision which has deter­mined the artistic and cultural landscape of this country. Without the fine artist, there would be no Tate Modern; without the playwright, there would be no contem­porary theatre; without composers and musicians, there would be no concert halls.” [12]

The Guardian’s Lyn Gardner has added her voice to those questioning arts policies that place the emphasis on arts insti­tu­tions and buildings to the detriment of the small-scale and individual creators: There does seem something odd about Arts Council England’s long-standing tradition of hurling ever more money at buildings and organ­i­sa­tions …. There are plenty of small, nimble organ­i­sa­tions with absolutely no desire to empire-build … who get by on very little funding… The independent sector of producers and theatre-makers are not only lean, they often have a level of creativity that extends across all aspects of their work and into their business models.” [13]

In the face of government and public-sector cut backs since 2010, all publicly-funded arts insti­tu­tions have been exhorted to become more resilient’. The assumption seems to be that this can be predom­i­nantly achieved through better financial modelling: diver­si­fying income strands within a revitalised but never­theless risk-averse charity model [14]. In recent months, urgent messages of free entry’ to exhibi­tions have appeared on gallery websites. For it is the gallery-goers — who unlike the performing arts provide no box office’ — who must be encouraged to part with their cash for tea and snacks, the purchasing of gifts and the occasional art multiple. These visitors, along with new philan­thropists whenever they can be found, are being targeted to make greater contri­bu­tions into a venue’s diver­sified income mix, and to support their resilience. 

Meanwhile, in some cases, savings in gallery overhead and programme costs have been made by the intro­duction of volun­teers in place of paid front-of-house staff [15], of zero-hours contracts instead of ethical employment practices [16], poor remuner­ation terms for gallery education practi­tioners and – in many cases — no or low pay for exhibiting artists [17]. In terms of supporting the future health of the whole arts and cultural ecology this is unfor­givably short-sighted, to say the least. 

Creative renewal

Mark Robinson’s Making adaptive resilience real [18] however, also advises a more holistic approach. A tool for learning and devel­opment aimed at publicly-funded arts organ­i­sa­tions, his guide sets out the four phases towards creative renewal and replen­ishment through embracing active questioning, improvement, reflection and competent risk-taking, with all of these informed by an acute awareness of the external environment and wider contexts. 

The growth’ phase is charac­terised by innovation and rapid devel­opment. Capability is fostered in the consol­i­dation’ phase which in turn may also lead to insularity and thus vulner­a­bility when unforeseen circum­stances occur. The third phase of release’ – opening up again – is usually the necessary result of an internal or exter­nally-generated distur­bance or disruption that creates the impetus for change. Whilst the upheaval of the release phase and subse­quent reorgan­i­sation’ phase may take you out of your comfort zone, Mark Robinson confirms that this period is: also creative and full of possi­bility. Reorgan­i­sation often then moves back into growth or consol­i­dation, with the paradigms created during the creative destruction and renewal phases shaping the next cycle. 

Signif­i­cantly though, Mark Robinson reminds that: Without [properly acknowl­edging] – what artists are doing, how they are innovating and evolving – little change will occur elsewhere. Without either roman­ti­cising or patro­n­ising individual artists, it is important that policies to increase organ­i­sa­tional resilience do not margin­alise the creativity at the heart of the arts ecology.” 

Those artists reading my essay may recognise – albeit with different termi­nology – that the stages for adaptive resilience described above mirror how they as creative practi­tioners intuitively and neces­sarily behave towards their practice, this not dependent on or governed by funding policy or government spending review cycles but set within a lifetime’s enquiry into the making and meanings of art. As with some of the arts managers consulted within Mark Robinson’s enquiry, that purposeful intro­duction of disruption to avoid becoming complacent in a prolonged consol­i­dation phase” is hardwired into an artist’s practice. 

This feature inherent within an artist’s practice resonates also with another defin­ition of resilience that identifies three factors: The magnitude of shock that the system can absorb and remain within a given state; the degree to which the system is capable of self-organ­i­sation, and the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation.” [19] Albeit not directed specif­i­cally at arts and culture, there is merit here in refer­encing advice on resilience planning from the US-based Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center: A community that is working to strengthen itself is, without realising it, preparing for a disaster”, going on to advise: You don’t get ready for a disaster the day before.….We must keep sharp­ening our tools”.[20]

This raises in my mind at least the need to consider the resilience of artists – the creators of the art itself – within strategies for ensuring a viable and productive arts ecology for the future. However, Robinson in his role of as co-author of another publi­cation also confirms that: Public policy should be concerned equally with artists’ ability to achieve sustainable liveli­hoods and take risks, as it is with funding their work per se.” [21]

Behaviour, disruption and brand

Thus whilst tradi­tional building-based arts organ­i­sa­tions are less easily protected from disasters like floods or a bank (or even several of them) failing, keeping sharp tools” not only involves tracking and predicting adjust­ments in government policy for the arts and social welfare but also requires acute awareness of the changing behav­iours and prefer­ences of what many arts organ­i­sa­tions still tend to describe somewhat gener­i­cally as arts audiences’. 

Amongst a myriad of intel­li­gence that foregrounds future disrup­tions and challenges to the status quo is the Technology Strategy Board’s Creative Indus­tries Strategy[22]. This states: “…the major trends of continued digiti­sation throughout the sector, fragmen­tation of audiences, changing user behav­iours, conver­gence and disin­ter­me­di­ation’ – or cutting out the middleman – have all contributed to the emergence of a digital landscape of increased complexity. These trends are disrupting estab­lished value chains while at the same time providing consid­erable potential for growth.” 

In terms of the UK’s publicly-funded arts and their expec­tation of audience loyalty (and thus organ­i­sa­tional resilience) a comment by Sam Bowman about how he perceives his position in the world and the platforms he uses to navigate it may represent a perspective worthy of more detailed consid­er­ation. The (young) research director of the free-market Adam Smith Institute, he recog­nises a new cosmopoli­tanism, brought on by the internet. People our age are much more cosmopolitan. A 23- or 24-year-old Londoner is more likely to be concerned about Mumbai than Newcastle – we’re much less inter­ested in national bound­aries: the internet lets you speak to people who you share interests with, wherever they live. Geographical unity is fine, but I think most people prefer the unity and friendship that comes from shared interests. We get to do that now.” [23]

In terms of the behaviour of children and young people, digital trends analysis reveals that Gener­ation C [24]- those born after 1990 — are charac­terised as: Connected, commu­ni­cating, comput­erised, community-orien­tated and always clicking”. 95% of this gener­ation have computers, 50% are instant messaging, immersed in social media. They all have mobile phones and constantly send text messages. 

By 2020, this gener­ation will comprise 40% of the population in the US, Europe and other econom­i­cally-stable countries. Having owned digital devices all their lives, they are intimately familiar with them and use them as much as six hours a day. Their famil­iarity with technology, reliance on mobile commu­ni­ca­tions and desire to remain in close contact with networks — family, friends, peers, commu­nities of interest — has already trans­formed and mingled the previ­ously separated worlds of work and leisure. They are looking within the digital trans­ac­tions for high quality user experience’ (or UX). Note that whilst this term has come to encap­sulate all aspects of a person’s inter­action with digital products and services, it is also extended to the brand’ and ethos of a company or an arts organ­i­sation, hence its inclusion in this essay. 

The first requirement for an exemplary user experience is to meet the exact needs of the customer, without fuss or bother. Next comes simplicity and elegance that produce something (a product, service or other engagement or exchange) that UX experts Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman [25] describe as a joy to own, a joy to use”. They note however that: True user experience goes far beyond giving customers what they say they want.” Clearly, the creation of an attractive user experience is closely tuned to the feel or brand’ of a platform or place. Thus for the arts, it’s not just what’s on show or being performed and whether one’s peers are hanging out’ there, but what a colleague in the performing arts described as the ambience of a place” – the seating and lighting, the food and type of beverages on sale”. It also extends to an arts organisation’s environ­mental and ethical stance. As examples, Tate’s accep­tance of BP sponsorship [26] has raised arts hackles, as has FACT’s decision to move from paid to volunteer gallery invig­i­lation [27].

My own recent experi­ences suggest some tradi­tional galleries may have a way to go in the spectrum of good user experience. These have ranged from a venue pretty much empty other than me and the gallery attendant and no seating to ensure I could give proper attention to durational artists’ video works (Northern venue) to battling the throng of people standing in front of the pictures I’m trying to quietly contem­plate (London venue). Conversely, I’m one of over six million people who’ve already experi­enced via YouTube a very short video of London-based trio Troika’s Squaring the Circle [28] as filmed whilst physi­cally on show at the Kohn Gallery in Los Angeles. Clearly the latter’s not the same as the former two, but which has provided me with a better quality user experience and food for further personal devel­opment is surely not clear-cut? 

Socially-engaged enter­prise

Having defined earlier in this text the requirement to contin­u­ously innovate as a key ingre­dient in achieving resilience, those in the publicly-funded arts who seek this sustain­ability in the future’s more cosmopolitan, less hierar­chical arts ecology may care to look for insight and role models to the business world which has had to learn how to adapt or die in the face of truly seismic changes over the last decade in particular in customer expec­tation and behaviour. My engagement with the digital industry in particular has concluded that new entre­pre­neurs are often concerned with creating social rather than capitalist enter­prises and that the users of what they offer or produce are not regarded as customers but as collab­o­rators in the journey from idea to product. 

The Lean Start-Up’ philosophy [29] developed by Eric Reiss has its roots in designing a culture and framework to create viable new businesses that may typically but not exclu­sively be technology-based. It enables them through time and cost-effective (lean) method­ologies to develop, test, refine, roll-out and then adapt or re-iterate their products or services to achieve their ambitions. The philosophy can equally be applied to existing mature businesses looking to re-orientate their offer and to not-for-profit or social enter­prises who need to efficiently use their resources to achieve the mission to deliver better and timely services and to engage audiences effec­tively – whilst becoming resilient to external change. Signif­i­cantly, rather than having something fully-fledged marketed to them on public launch, the intended users or customers of a lean start-up created product are engaged in the devel­opment from the outset. Testers within the proto­typing stage, these users are essential contrib­utors in an exper­iment to produce something viable. 

Under the premise that you need to work smarter not harder’, Reiss says that the question businesses or organ­i­sa­tions need to be asking is not Can this product be built?’ but Should this product be built?’ In other words — do people actually recognise they have the problem you’ve decided it’s your job to solve? Because if they don’t, however much you market something or provide it very cheaply – or in the case of publicly-funded galleries for free – there is no guarantee of a sustainable audience for it. In direct contrast and due in part to high levels of compe­tition for funding, organ­i­sa­tions within the arts tend to keep their ideas and plans as closely-guarded secrets until their new project is launched and only then is their arts audience’ invited to come and get it. 

Parallel partic­i­pation

As Kate Oakley reports, there is clear evidence that the UK cultural indus­tries are becoming more exclusive [30]. This is not just in terms of class, but also in gender and ethnicity. There is a concern about a similar lack of diversity amongst those partic­i­pating in the arts as audiences. The Arts and Human­ities Research Council-funded programme Under­standing everyday partic­i­pation – artic­u­lating cultural values [31] is exploring what kinds of cultural activ­ities have value in people’s lives. The research so far is finding evidence of highly-engaged commu­nities, partic­i­pating in craft, music making, online gaming, social media, playing sports, walking and watching films. These narra­tives of partic­i­pation rarely involve formal arts insti­tu­tions, instead identi­fying community assets such as social clubs, parks, voluntary groups, the family, the home, as well as networks of friends and associates developed through work, religion and recre­ation [32].

In Raising our quality of life [33] Abigail Gilmore concludes that: Policy should not only be about… creating access to arts estab­lish­ments and insti­tu­tions, but also in providing resources for everyday partic­i­pation within commu­nities. This means safeguarding places where commu­nities meet and connect — libraries, parks, community centres, markets, and other public spaces – and supporting commu­nities to have access to the means of cultural production as well as consumption. These forms of cultural production will respond to local agendas, interests and values.” These reports are forming part of a groundswell of compelling evidence about where new audiences’ may come from, what they are inter­ested in and engaged by, providing clues about how to make the arts meaningful to the lives of more people from all walks of life, and thus to contribute to resilience in the arts. 

Although conducted almost ten years ago, a‑n’s Future forecast’ inquiry [34] came to some similar conclu­sions: Changes across our society reflect the ever more complex interplay between our individual and collective behav­iours whether as consumers, neigh­bours, profes­sionals, house­holds, citizens and as commu­nities of interest. The increasing sophis­ti­cation of our networks supported by fast-evolving commu­ni­cation tools provide greater power than ever for commu­nities to question and feedback on what is being done in their name, regardless of their geographical location”. 

Continuous shifts

To survive and thrive in future, arts organ­i­sa­tions – just like commercial and social enter­prise businesses — will need to redesign themselves to adapt better to the continuous shifts in resources, technology and social values. Those in arts organ­i­sa­tions who are already promoting adoption of a more open and fluid structure can use as their evidence The 21st Century Business report [35] that identifies that the six signif­icant shifts to be addressed both socially and econom­i­cally are from discon­nected to networked; from closed to open; from fixed to fluid, from volume to value, from risk to oppor­tunity and from consumers to citizens. 

Citing in a video presen­tation [36] the pivotal impact platforms such as YouTube and Sound­Cloud have had in identi­fying and releasing talent through enabling user-generated content and sharing, US Venture Capitalist Fred Wilson advises that technology is merely a tool in the entre­pre­neurial quest to respond better and more quickly to changes in people’s behav­iours and their new needs within a globalised society. He predicts – amongst other things — that the future for enter­prises lies with unbundling’ the kind of packages tradi­tional insti­tu­tions have previ­ously supplied, in favour of new niche products and services. For example, just as the newspaper industry has lost out over the last ten years to the meteoric rise of peer to peer networks including Twitter, the higher education insti­tu­tions who have tended to follow the now failing Tesco business model may find themselves competing hard for students against the more user-friendly virtual peer-to-peer learning platforms [37].


For those seeking to achieve resilience in the publicly-funded arts the biggest challenge to overcome is the prevailing management thinking – as perpet­uated by some arts funders — that puts its faith predom­i­nantly in making and sticking to well-researched plans. But I believe as Thomas Homer Dixon states, that the solution lies in achieving a prospective mind’ — one that aggres­sively engages with uncer­tainty and risk, one which recog­nises how little we under­stand and how we control even less. The prospective mind … looks for ways to prevent or forestall horrible outcomes, not just through managing things — an approach that is often ineffective and sometimes counter­pro­ductive — but also by imagining and imple­menting more radical and far-reaching solutions. Most funda­men­tally, the prospective mind seeks to make our societies — and each one of us — more resilient to external shock and more supple in response to rapid change.” [38]

For however successful the publicly-funded arts insti­tu­tions may have been in the past, their future resilience is not a matter of what any one of them may achieve in isolation to ensure its own survival, but what a vibrant arts network that is made up of the micro and the macro, the virtual and the physical, the progressive and the more conser­v­ative can achieve through mindful socially-respectful behaviour, coupled with generosity and a commitment to genuine collab­o­ration and co-development. 

Speaking at an RSA event [39] NESTA CEO Geoff Mulgan said: We are witnessing the emergence of an economy founded more on relation­ships than on commodities, on doing rather than having; on mainte­nance rather than production.” Although he goes on to talk about money, the word culture’ could instead be substi­tuted: If you want to make money, you can chose between two funda­men­tally different strategies. One is to create genuinely new value by bringing resources together in ways that serve people’s wants and needs. The other is to seize value through predation, taking resources, money or time from others, whether they like it or not. Your choice, in short, is whether to be a bee or a locust [40]”.

I for one believe that that mission-driven arts sector that enjoys the luxury of public funding must seize any and every oppor­tunity to adopt a more open, imagi­native, lateral, collab­o­rative and responsive approach to creating cultural value: a strategy that considers not solely the organisation’s interests and ambitions but is concerned with building relation­ships and rapport with the different kinds and bandwidths of audiences and with the enablers and the makers of art, placing them all on a level plane in which each holds equal impor­tance and shares in the future of the arts and the well-being of society. 

© Susan Jones 2015 

First published in engage Journal 352015 

[1] Where is the place for art? http://​vimeo​.com/​35635192 and Pitching up’ (edited, The Guardian) www​.theguardian​.com/​c​u​l​t​u​r​e​-​p​r​o​f​e​s​s​i​o​n​a​l​s​-​n​e​t​w​o​r​k​/​c​u​l​t​u​r​e​-​p​r​o​f​e​s​s​i​o​n​a​l​s​-​b​l​o​g​/​2012​/​j​a​n​/​06​/​p​l​a​c​e​-​f​o​r​-​a​r​t​-​c​u​l​t​u​r​e​-​p​a​r​t​i​c​i​p​ation

[2] Achieving great art for everyone, Arts Council England, 2011 www​.artscouncil​.org​.uk/​m​e​d​i​a​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​p​d​f​/​A​r​t​s​_​C​o​u​n​c​i​l​_​P​l​a​n​_​2011​-​15.pdf

[3] From an unpub­lished paper by Julie Crawshaw, 2011 

[4] I was the Director of a‑n The Artists Infor­mation Company 1999 – 2014 

[5] This year-long review, led by highly-experi­enced Arts Council England Visual Arts Department and supported by an eminent advisory group diverse in its knowledge and visual arts literacy commis­sioned five distinct, in-depth research reports and produced the Turning Point strategy (www​.artscouncil​.org​.uk/​p​u​b​l​i​c​a​t​i​o​n​_​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​/​t​u​r​n​i​n​g​-​p​oint/) in June 2006

[6] Active 2011 – 2014 Mission Models Money www​.mission​mod​elsmoney​.org​.uk/ concerned itself with Harnessing arts and culture’s expressive energy and growing the cultural and creative vitality of our commu­nities were key to addressing the big, serious and growing problems of unsus­tainable economic growth, resource scarcity and climate change. Their community of practice shared a passion for realising art and culture’s role in helping to find new economic and social paradigms that recognise the limits of our finite planet and enable all life to flourish.” I contributed to MMM through the Re:volution peer-to-peer group, taking part in and contributing to seminars, discus­sions and confer­ences with UK and inter­na­tional evidence and insight, designed to forecast models and approaches to non-profit arts and cultural devel­op­ments that are appro­priate for the 21st century. 

[7] John Knell, The Art of Living, Mission Models Money, 2007 http://​www​.culturehive​.co​.uk/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2013​/​10​/​23974645​-​T​h​e​-​A​r​t​-​o​f​-​L​i​v​i​n​g​-​b​y​-​J​o​h​n​-​K​n​e​l​l​-​2007​_​0.pdf

[8] Towards a healthy ecology for arts and culture, Mission Models Money, 2007 https://static.a‑

[9] Rebal­ancing our cultural capital www​.theroc​creport​.co​.uk/) and Place (www​.theplac​ereport​.co​.uk) are indepen­dently-produced reports published in 2014 by GPS (Christopher Gordon, David Powell and Peter Stark) 

[10] The manifesto of the Paying artists campaign can be viewed at www​.payin​gartists​.org​.uk/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2014​/​05​/​P​a​y​i​n​g​-​A​r​t​i​s​t​s​_​S​e​c​u​r​i​n​g​-​a​-​f​u​t​u​r​e​-​f​o​r​-​v​i​s​u​a​l​-​a​r​t​s​-​i​n​-​t​h​e​-​U​K​_​f.pdf

[11] The BBC and the arts in the regions and nations: impar­tiality and equality?’, David Anderson, National Museum of Wales, July 2014 www​.museumwales​.ac​.uk/​b​l​o​g​/2014 – 07-21/The-BBC-and-the-Arts-In-the-Nations-and-Regions-Impar­tiality — and-Equality

[12] Art won’t look after itself’, Susan Jones, Arts Profes­sional, January 2015 www​.artspro​fes​sional​.co​.uk/​m​a​g​a​z​i​n​e​/​280​/​n​e​w​s​-​c​o​m​m​e​n​t​/​a​r​t​-​w​o​n​t​-​l​o​o​k​-​a​f​t​e​r​-​i​tself

[13] No theatre is too big to fail’, Lyn Gardner, The Guardian, 31 January 2015 www​.theguardian​.com/​s​t​a​g​e​/​t​h​e​a​t​r​e​b​l​o​g​/​2015​/​j​a​n​/​31​/​n​o​-​t​h​e​a​t​r​e​-​i​s​-​t​o​o​-​b​i​g​-​t​o​-​f​a​i​l​-​a​r​t​s​-​f​u​nding

[14] For example, MMM research asserted that The classic Charity with Company Limited by Guarantee status, the legal structure most often used by arts organ­i­sa­tions to deliver their mission was hotly contested by some, and described as the master servant model’ by others. Like a bad marriage’ it is liveable with, but people feel it is risk averse, innately conser­v­ative and requires such skill, consid­er­ation and bureau­cracy to make it work — partly because of the reliance on time poor volun­teers — that they increas­ingly wonder if there are more effective, more flexible, adaptive models out there” see www​.mission​mod​elsmoney​.org​.uk/​s​i​t​e​s​/​d​e​f​a​u​l​t​/​f​i​l​e​s​/​24539114​-​M​M​M​-​G​o​v​e​r​n​a​n​c​e​-​R​o​a​d​s​h​o​w​-​R​e​p​o​r​t​-​W​i​t​h​-​R​e​c​o​m​m​e​n​d​a​t​i​o​n​s​_​1.pdf

[15] An example at FACT is covered here www.a‑

[16] An example at Tate Liverpool is covered here www​.liver​poolecho​.co​.uk/​n​e​w​s​/​l​i​v​e​r​p​o​o​l​-​n​e​w​s​/​t​a​t​e​-​l​i​v​e​r​p​o​o​l​-​a​d​m​i​t​s​-​e​m​p​l​o​ys-25 – 7922723

[17] Over 71% of artists exhibiting in a publicly-funded gallery received no fee for their work and 59% did not even receive out-of-pocket expenses www​.payin​gartists​.org​.uk/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2014​/​05​/​P​a​y​i​n​g​-​A​r​t​i​s​t​s​_​S​e​c​u​r​i​n​g​-​a​-​f​u​t​u​r​e​-​f​o​r​-​v​i​s​u​a​l​-​a​r​t​s​-​i​n​-​t​h​e​-​U​K​_​f.pdf

[18] Making adaptive resilience real, Mark Robinson, Arts Council England, 2010 www​.artscouncil​.org​.uk/​m​e​d​i​a​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​m​a​k​i​n​g​_​a​d​a​p​t​i​v​e​_​r​e​s​i​l​i​e​n​c​e​_​r​e​a​l.pdf

[19] C Folke, S Carpenter, T Elmqvist, L Gunderson, C Holling, et al, Resilience and sustainable devel­opment: building adaptive capacity in a world of trans­for­ma­tions’, AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment: Vol. 31, No. 5, 2002 cited in www​.artscouncil​.org​.uk/​m​e​d​i​a​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​m​a​k​i​n​g​_​a​d​a​p​t​i​v​e​_​r​e​s​i​l​i​e​n​c​e​_​r​e​a​l.pdf

[20] From the Planning for Community Resilience handbook that sets out proce­dures to create resilient commu­nities — places that avoid, absorb and recover quickly from natural disasters. It shows commu­nities how to lower their risks from physical and social hazards by assessing their vulner­a­bil­ities and creating a plan to address them, noting that resilience depends on planning that considers all popula­tions in the community. 

[21] The Art of Living Danger­ously, Mark Robinson, Shelagh Wright, Natalie Querol, Sarah Coulson, MMM and New Economics Foundation, 2014 https://www.a‑

[22] Creative Indus­tries Strategy 2013 – 2016, Technology Strategy Board, 2013 – 16

[23] Gener­ation self: what do young people really care about?’, The Guardian, March 2013 www​.theguardian​.com/​s​o​c​i​e​t​y​/​2013​/​m​a​r​/​11​/​g​e​n​e​r​a​t​i​o​n​-​s​e​l​f​-​w​h​a​t​-​y​o​u​n​g​-​c​a​r​e​-​about

[24] The Strategy and Rise of Gener­ation C, 2012‑C.pdf.pdf

[25] For extended reading and further study around UX see www​.nngroup​.com

[26] As addressed within the ArtsAdmin, Home Live Art and Live Art Devel­opment Agency event January 2015 Take the money and run?’ As artists and arts organ­i­sa­tions are increas­ingly asked to seek support for their work from corporate sponsorship and individual philan­thropy, questions about cultural values, the ethics of fundraising, and who we are prepared to take money from are becoming more and more urgent. In recent months there has been a groundswell of debate and growing dissent about the conflicts and contra­dic­tions between commerce and culture.” 

[27] See 11 

[28] See http://​www​.troika​.uk​.com/​w​o​r​k​/​s​q​u​a​r​i​n​g​-​t​h​e​-​c​i​rcle/

[29] Lean start up principles are outlined here http://​theleanstartup​.com/​p​r​i​n​c​iples

[30] Note to James Blunt’, Kate Oakley, The Conver­sation repub­lished a‑n, 2015, The repre­sen­tation of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) workers in the media indus­tries was just 5.4% in 2012, down from 7.4% six years earlier – and in both cases a shocking under-repre­sen­tation given the concen­tration of these indus­tries in London and the south-east, where the ethnic minority population is over 40%. Women are also under-repre­sented: around 36% of the media workforce were women in 2012, and they are concen­trated in lower-status and lower-paid areas…. They are also more likely to be freelance and younger than their male counter­parts, suggesting that the strain of staying in precarious work becomes unbearable as women age or take on caring respon­si­bil­ities.” ww.a‑

[31] See www​.every​day​par​tic​i​pation​.org/

[32] Whilst Oakley and colleagues in the Everyday Partic­i­pation research network are not examining audience habits at galleries or within gallery education, such insights about how people engage in what kinds of culture and why are never­theless pertinent as insti­tu­tions seek clues about how to widen their audiences to meet funders’ expec­ta­tions of greater social and cultural diversity. 

[33] http://​classonline​.org​.uk/​b​l​o​g​/​i​t​e​m​/​m​a​k​i​n​g​-​a​n​-​e​v​e​r​y​d​a​y​-​c​a​s​e​-​f​o​r​-​a​r​t​s​-​a​n​d​-​c​u​lture

[34] Future forecast: outcomes and issues, a‑n, 2006 https://www.a‑

[35] The 21st Century Business, The Futures Company 2015 http://​thefu​turescompany​.com/​f​r​e​e​-​t​h​i​n​k​i​n​g​/​t​h​e​-​21​s​t​-​c​e​n​t​u​r​y​-​b​u​s​i​ness/


[37] I have not researched this in detail but evidence such as www​.economist​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​b​u​s​i​n​e​s​s​/​21582001​-​a​r​m​y​-​n​e​w​-​o​n​l​i​n​e​-​c​o​u​r​s​e​s​-​s​c​a​r​i​n​g​-​w​i​t​s​-​o​u​t​-​t​r​a​d​i​t​i​o​n​a​l​-​u​n​i​v​e​r​s​i​t​i​e​s​-​c​a​n​-they suggests that HE insti­tu­tions will struggle to complete with free courses (MOOCS) whereas a niche online course such as Live Theatre’s for writers www​.live​.org​.uk/​b​e​-​a​-​p​l​a​y​w​r​i​g​h​t​-​o​n​l​i​n​e​-​p​l​a​y​w​r​i​t​i​n​g​-​c​ourse has been reported to have achieved some financial success. 

[38] As quoted in Inside the Edge, Roanne Dodds, within Thriving in Times of Uncer­tainty and Change: The People Theme, Money Mission Models 2010 www​.mission​mod​elsmoney​.org​.uk/​r​e​s​o​u​r​c​e​/​i​n​s​i​d​e​-​e​d​g​e​-​r​o​a​n​n​e​-​d​o​d​s​-2008

[39] https://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​8​O​V​y​X​2​Pg-X8

[40] The Locust and the Bee: Predators and Creators in Capitalism’s Future, Geoff Mulgan, Princeton University Press, 2013