A Theatrical Critique of Resilience in Culture John Yves...

ATheatricalCritiqueofResilienceinCulture

JohnYvesPinder

Submittedinaccordancewiththerequirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophy

TheUniversityofLeeds

SchoolofPerformanceandCulturalIndustries

SchoolofEnglish

November2018

2Thecandidateconfirmsthattheworksubmittedishisownandthatappropriate

credithasbeengivenwherereferencehasbeenmadetotheworkofothers.

Thiscopyhasbeensuppliedontheunderstandingthatitiscopyrightmaterialand

thatnoquotationfromthethesismaybepublishedwithoutproper

acknowledgement.

TherightofJohnYvesPindertobeidentifiedasAuthorofthisworkhasbeen

assertedbyJohnYvesPinderinaccordancewiththeCopyright,Designs,and

PatentsAct1988.

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

ListoffiguresFigure1.Theadaptivecycle......................................................................................................p.76

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

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.

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.

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:

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–

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:

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

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:

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

BoostingResilience.2017c.BoostingResilience–Residential1–DrNoamShemtov

&Nadia-AnneRicketts.[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:

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:

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

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–

FondationCopernic.2012a.L’utopieest-elleemancipatrice–IsabelleFrémeaux

(Septembre2012).[Online].[Accessed6July2018].Availablefrom:

FondationCopernic.2012b.L’utopieest-elleemancipatrice–PierreMacherey

(Septembre2012).[Online].[Accessed16November2018].Availablefrom:

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–

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-

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

303Higgins,C.2011.ArtsCouncilEnglandfundingcuts-thegreataxefalls.The

Guardian.[Online].30March.[Accessed10June2018].Available

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

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:

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.

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

LeXavierdeYouTube.2009c.What’sgoingonatC.R.A.S.H#4.[Online].[Accessed1

LeXavierdeYouTube.2009d.What’sgoingonatC.R.A.S.H#3.[Online].[Accessed1

LeXavierdeYouTube.2009e.C.R.A.S.HCookingTips.[Online].[Accessed1July

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:

Mitchell,C.J.2015.LADAJan292015Presentation.Unpublished.

311Monbiot,G.2013.OxfordUniversitywon'ttakemoneyfromtobaccocompanies.

ButShell'sOK.TheGuardian.[Online].14May.[Accessed1September2018].

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–

Mulhern,F.2015.Figuresofcatastrophe.London:Verso.

Mulhern,F.2007.CultureandSociety,ThenandNow.NewLeftReview.55,pp.31–

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.

NikSireFilms2014.LondonHereToday....ArtExhibition(withexclusiveinterviews).

[Online].[Accessed3September2016].Availablefrom:

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

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].

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:

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

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

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–

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

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

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.

ZeeTV2015.Akademi’sUmraoJaanGalafeatureonZeeTV’sOutandAbout.

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

Email:pcjyp@leeds.ac.uk

A Theatrical Critique of Resilience in Culture John Yves...

Documents

Transcript of A Theatrical Critique of Resilience in Culture John Yves...

dave made a maze press release - fetch.fm€¦ · • Exclusive UK theatrical teaser • US theatrical teaser • Original theatrical trailer • Storyboard and concept galleries

Peter Handke's Theatrical Works

Bruce Fleming, Theatrical Designer

Left theatrical - Resene

Therapeutic Theatre and Theatrical Therapy Theatre and Theatrical... · Therapeutic Theatre and Theatrical Therapy ... symptoms, accidents, conflicts, ... and possibly universal experiences

Theatrical Makeup

Kathryn Stephens Theatrical Portfolio

Raja Mang Vahala A theatrical critique gone awry Sunday ...archives.sundayobserver.lk/2016/04/03/spe100.pdf · chords were played and a huge lion’s ... Sleeps Tonight complete with

Theatrical Makeup 2013

Film Poster conventions: Theatrical

Rachel Damon Theatrical Portfolio

Philippine Theatrical Compositon

Theatrical vs teaser trailer

Governing the Network Society: A Biopolitical Critique of ... · PDF fileGoverning the Network Society: A Biopolitical Critique of Resilience Christopher Zebrowski Keele University

Theatrical Elements & Techniques

Theatrical Design Handbook

2011 Theatrical Market Statistics

What is Theatrical Design

THE ENGINE OF VALUE: DOMESTIC THEATRICAL RELEASEpeople.stern.nyu.edu/.../HeymanMovieIndustry.pdf · 2004-03-26 · THE ENGINE OF VALUE: DOMESTIC THEATRICAL RELEASE International Theatrical

INVESTOR PRESENTATION...Steady Performance and Resilience 6 85.6 96.3 103.0 118.0 122.4 155.5 165.7 191.7 0 50 100 150 200 250 2016 2017 2018E 2020E Domestic Theatrical Overseas Theatrical