Comment from the Creative Minds Conference at Brighton Dome on Monday 10th March 2014:
“I wouldn’t programme any of the work I saw today in my venue. It’s not of a high quality. Art produced by learning disabled people isn’t of a high quality, generally. They can make their own art, performance and film, but its only when they work with professional artists of a high calibre that the resulting work becomes of high quality. Otherwise it’s just a participatory project.”
This discussion has moved towards a lack of training for artists. Professional training, in an accessible and pro-active, student-centred environment will hopefully allow more artists with learning disabilities to become professionals in their own right and be able to create work, if they wish to, without the facilitation of non-LD. Is this possible?
At the conference, one man said that he didn’t want to have training. Is it simply about having training there if people want it?
No training that person said!
I think Just being Able to keep your own notebook of ideas and thinking. Plus being able to add to it at any time without someone tell you” You only Make art here for Two hours on a monday morning”. is a good first step. Than comes the professional time and space in a “real Artist Space”.. .. If you are lucky . Carers plus Support workers need to buy into the idea of professional quality Arts Training. Course Leaders/artists have to design in Life Skills . eg working as a person on your own to develop Quality Art, being able to get quality feelback and also Feelback to other Artists on the course.
Sorry me again had to rered the original comment again…. Saying “Art produced by learning disabled people isn’t of a high quality, generally.” is about as useful as saying all art produced by people with a learning disability is generally of a high quality….And yes Theo, substitute any other word(s) for “learning disabled” and the comment fast becomes downright offensive, having overtaken patronising a mile ago.
I suppose at least this view kind of shines a light on the whole “quality” debate. Does anyone need to define the quality of art at all?
I’m struck by how polarised discussion of work by artists with learning disabilities can be: between ‘It’s all rubbish’ and, at the opposite end, words like ‘inspiring’ and ‘refreshing’. These can sometimes be as dismissive of the art in their way. We can go round and round trying to define quality. I think what we do genuinely need more of is real critical engagement with the work – something totally absent from the comment that started this thread. These are professional artists making creative decisions. They deserve proper critical responses, something more thoughtful, engaged and, hopefully, constructive than just a thumbs down or a thumbs up.
The Times art critic, Donald Hutera, was so impressed by Corali’s performance at Creative Minds he booked them for an event he is putting on, info here: https://www.facebook.com/creativemindsproject?ref=hl
He says that “I did not label either John or Corali as learning disabled as my feeling is they’re dancers and a company first and foremost and that status as artists, makers and performers is what counts”.
Interestingly, it was the Venue Programmer who made the comment that started this conversation was at the performance that Corali Dance Company gave to Creative Minds conference on 10th March.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Bella. Creative Minds was started by a group of disgruntled artists, performers and film makers coming together with lots of different experiences of how they felt their work wasn’t being taken seriously. They all felt, for one reason or another, that this was because they had learning disabilities. As they sat round and talked about what they wanted, it became clearer that they wanted their work to be seen by a wider cross-section of people (meaning those beyond the learning disability arts scene). One of the ways they wanted to do this was by starting a nation wide conversation about their work – the launch of Creative Minds is the beginning, and they are clear that they think there will be a long way to go yet. It is important for them that they start talking about quality in their work. They looked at lots of “reviews” of learning disability work in the press (there really wasn’t much of this to be found) – and were outraged that all reviewers, in their words, just sat on the fence, either just describing the work or saying that it was fantastic that this work was going on. They found these comments patronising and felt that the work wasn’t being treated equally with other arts work. Its all very well saying that work by learning disabled artists performers and film makers is “inspiring”, “excellent”, “moving” – it either is or it isn’t (and that can be subjective) – but what is completely missing is a critical debate. What are we scared of? Why can’t that happen? And why can’t we see that when it does happen we will be making a cultural shift towards treating learning disability arts, film and performance work just like any other?
I try to avoid generalising or making assumptions about anyone or anything wherever possible. Having said that I more than likely do it all the time.
I think some of this quality debate might beabout the notion of a level playing field. There isn’t a level playing field for any artist I know. Creative self expression exists within a society which is constructed on inequality. As a consequence much, but not all good art comes as a response to, or a comment on, this unequal state of affairs
My experience of working alongside musicians both with and without learning disabilities for a good long time, is that talent or piercing artistic vision is absolutely no guarantee of success, or access to a wider audience. Possibly because the airwaves galleries, theatres and internet are clogged up with work that conforms to a societal norm. The unconscious acceptance of an uphill playing field where virtuosity is king, “oversinging “is seen as soul, and where conformity is continually disguised as edgy is where we all live.
I think perhaps the failure to take seriously, criticise honestly, not to patronise, and to generally marginalise artists with disabilities comes from something wider than the “arts community” that just needs waking up: From how society views and treats people with a learning disability?
The very idea of a level playing field for any section of society, be it sports or arts or anything else is fundamentally politically and economically threatening to the status quo. So changing the consciousness of high profile art critics, gaining access to more venues etc are extremely positive steps and we should keep moving, with conviction in that direction.
But maybe the very act of accepting a notion of equality in one or other strand of society is too revolutionary to countenance for many. My reality is that, that is the landscape within which we operate. Is that too depressing? I hope not. I really believe all of us with talent should keep painting, dancing, playing, singing, filming and see where it takes us.
thank you .
Comment from Creative Minds Action Plan section:
Begin to tackle the quality question. Do it! Don’t wait for permission!
Create work that’s inspiring, creative, new and un-cliched. Go for quality. Be confident to make judgements on quality. Be clear about the purpose of the work – be they projects, quality arts works or participatory events.
From Creative Minds Conference:
“Be determined”
From Creative Minds Conference:
“We just want to see good work – regardless of disability or not.”
From Creative Minds Conference:
It can be hard to judge what is good. Can be very personal. An emotional response tells me its good.
Is there only one person in that artspace who looks and develop a programme? ? Would not the venue be at the risk of no funding as a funder just might ask “Any Quality work done by learning disabled artists” on show.
I had just written a piece to post here when I read the comment at the top and had to respond first. Struggling to adhere to the ground rules as I write. It really is an extraordinary point of view and I have to wonder what the author thought they might gain from attending Creative Minds. It is really a shame that the venue isn’t named because I suspect it might be one to avoid if it’s view of what constitutes “good” art is so narrow.
Just maybe the people of that city/town or place are missing out on some great and interesting Art eg Would the person Have Any Art on Show done by young or old people or such group in such a space!
In response to this post, I can only agree with what has already been said. There does need to be more of an explanation of what the writer believes defines quality in art. I suspect that this is more about personal taste and a fixed idea about what they ‘expect’ from different artforms. Quality art is about the artist’s story and experience of the world, about what they want to say through their art and the viewers response to it. I hope the writer of the post continues to engage in the conversation.
No time to say more right now other than I am curious as to what the comment-maker saw as we all had to make choices about which genre of work we headed towards. I had a rewarding time at both dance-based events and have ‘booked’ Corali to present VIVID [or whatever they may choose to re-name it] at one of three evenings of ‘pop-up performance’ I am curating [on a wing and prayer, it seems!] in a church hall in Chelsea. I can let anyone know more details maybe MAYBE with the help of this website. To be discussed! In any case, I made my decision on gut feeling and based on the strength and POTENTIAL I saw in Corali’s presentation. I felt it – and they, the performers – was/were worth investing in. Anyway, ideas of quality are very tied in with expectations one has of what performance, the arts and so on is/are. It’s complicated!
Apologies for possible slightly slap-dash response but perhaps I can contribute something a tad more considered later on… All best and thanks again for a stimulating and fun day.
Hi Donald
This comment was taken from the “Post-It” wall that was in the Studio Theatre. So the anonymous author saw either Corali Dance Company or Face Front Theatre – or possibly both.
Many thanks.
ps – It’s important to avoid generalities whenever possible, and to be specific and articulate about identifying what was seen and why it didn’t work.
I think the interesting thing about this comment is that is brings us back to our original question- what is good art and how do we judge quality? I would like to know how this person judges quality and what is their criteria for good Art? Are they judging the work from a purely subjective viewpoint, personal taste, the skill involved, the ideas behind it, the background work? Are they thinking about bringing audiences to the venue?
It would be great if he/she could explain further and provide some constructive criticism rather than making such a sweeping generalisation!
A rather extraordinary view I have to say. Either the writer is oblivious to changes in the aesthetic landscape or has a reason for making these comments that we don’t know about. I’m at a loss as to how anyone could value, for instance, Anthony Gorman’s PEOPLE’S PLINTH or the work of, say, Anish Kapoor but not things like Miguel Tomasin BLANK TAPES or Jez Colborne creating a sound installation from a shipping container because the latter two artists are learning disabled. Sounds like we’re talking about a rather old fashioned and unexciting venue.
Arts spaces must get hold of people in new and interesting ways. people want to see new Art that moves them forward. makes them think hard and be open to new ideas. Have a good mix of artist images and ideas from young to old on show with just the name. The people of town/city/place pick their kind of Art or u will lose interest from them
Sousou was an AMAZING and truly personally changing experience in so many ways. I don’t think I’ll quickly forget it
I LOVED that show at Wellcome – so exciting, varied, unforgettable. THANK YOU for citing it. There’s also a tremendous museum in Lausanne devoted to art brut, a visit to which made a big and lasting impact on me.
? what is “art brut”sounds interesting. thanks
For the majority of venues, I imagine that programming often is about a venue’s financial survival; but I believe it is important that venues offer a wide range of work which should include work they are helping to develop…. just like music venues have support acts. This way, groups get experience and mix with others who may raise aspirations and standards. In fact, by choosing to programme work by learning disabled artists alongside ‘professional artists of a high calibre’, may well raise the quality of the work.
We had an amazing opportunity to perform at the NT Olivier Theatre in 1993 + 1995 and both experiences certainly lifted our aspirations and expectations, resulting in higher quality work.
Interesting comment and I switch to both camps, but for me as an artist, and through my work with an arts charity that supports people to create I find that the work that has inspired me the most over the last few years has been work created by artists outside of the system. I agree with the thought that working ‘with professional artists of a high calibre that the resulting work becomes of high quality’. but didn’t the ‘mainstream’ arts community do exactly that to help nurture and inspire each other (and student artists)? And as a social/participatory arts community should we look to raise the bar by encouraging our participants to experience that high quality to aspire too?
Interesting comment from the person who said they wouldn’t programme any of the work they saw at the Creative Minds event. I am sure that if we look back into the history of theatre we’d see the same argument being made about gay, black, Asian and women’s theatre in the past…that it isn’t “of a high quality, generally.” Well says who, and based on what? I saw two pieces yesterday both of which I would happily pay money to see, from companies whose work I will now follow.
As with any subjective assessment there are as many definitions of ‘quality’ as there are people, which is perhaps why the conference raised as many questions as it answered. But to dismiss the artistic merit of a huge body of work and a large group of people on such flimsy evidence is in my judgement is wholly unfair.
I hope your day down at CM was of much interest to u
the whole of idea of artists with learning disability not being able to produce quality arts is total rubbish. I have worked voluntarily with many artists with a learning disability in the last 12 months with the Funky Liama project (and it’s partners) and they are just as talented as able-bodied artists. Currently it is simply too hard to any sort of support when taking part in the arts(this is for both artists with autism and with learning disability) my support was taken away at christmas
Being a creative mind, I feel very lucky to be able to make Art projects with other people and just maybe unlock it for them in a fun and interesting ways. Making creative art for self is hard but if my arts projects touch and move people forward in some way then I feel that I have achieved something.
What a very emotive comment! Yes, Learning Disabled artists do need to improve the quality of their work as do many, many artists of all kinds. But, it is nonsense to suggest that it is ONLY when they work with ‘professional artists of a high calibre’ that it becomes quality. Disabled artists across the board need much better access to training, mentoring, production support etc so they can achieve their potential. For many disabled artists those opportunities are simply not available to them. We need to do something about that.
“As the arts develop So do the people” Great Art must get to U and make U think about Life and other items in interesting ways. Learning Disability arts is so young( about 30 years old) and its just finding its own place and voice. let go! More high quality Arts training please eg artist development.
any more news???