Living in an Un-Creative Scotland
I try to be positive here.
I know as an artist I have a duty not to be silenced: and so I keep creating as best I can.
And I am posting this image of the Tree Of Life from Jung’s Red Book to re-affirm my faith in the indestructability of life and art.
But I am profoundly disgusted by the Scottish government’s actions with regard to culture….
So this is an open letter to my member of the Scottish Parliament.
Ben Macpherson MSP,
20 August 2024
Dear Ben,
I’m writing to express my dismay at yesterday’s announcement at Creative Scotland’s decision to no longer allow individual artists and performers to apply for funding for our artistic activity.
What makes this doubly damaging is that this decision has been taken in the context of every festival, every artistic event and every artistic venue having no confirmed funding beyond the end of the financial year in March 2025.
I should not have to point out to you that this makes in effect makes it impossible to continue functioning.
these decisions are being taken because the Scottish Government has failed, yet again, to come to any decisions with regard to arts funding.
So in effect your government is destroying the cultural sector in our country.
I hope I don’t need to convince you how destructive this is to our economic wellbeing and to our future as a country.
It is also disastrous for the cause of Scottish independence and for your party.
As a cultural worker, I was proud to put my talents and skills at the service of the creation of an independent Scotland.
I regret this. There is no point in lifting a finger for the cause of Scottish independence when the result, as now, is a pale and dysfunctional replica of an English government that has no commitment to our country’s cultural wellbeing.
I trust you share my concern at this disastrous state of affairs and will do your utmost to improve it.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Clifford
“I am performing in St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh’s West End this afternoon and Thursday at 2.15. Details here:
This is from Jo Clifford’s Substack newsletter ‘The Light Inside Finding hope in a frightening world’ (republished by kind permission) you can subscribe to here.
Destroyng culture is part of the programme to bring the population into tune with a world view that negates human-ness…an insiduous plan .
All we can do is to realise that this is happening and maintain our artistic integrity and vision…..they cannot reach the soul ..
“to longer allow”?
Do not disagree with your main points. However the Scottish Government does not control the purse strings and is working within severe constraints. To say you will not support Scottish independence is very short sighted as the Government you get after independence will be have a totally different structure both financially and politically.
Look beyond the horizon have vision and faith for a future independent Scotland where the arts will flourish.
Bill Simpson
A dignified protest to a thoughtful MSP.
Culture is foundational to national identity, sense of belonging, and therefore, to folks’ consciousness and capacity to take responsibility – the ability to respond to being a nation.
Well said, Jo.
As Ewan Brown allegedly said while setting up the organisation, his objective with Creative Scotland was “to f*ck artists”.
And, with increasingly less competent leadership over the years since then, it has done so.
This is the final nail in the coffin of the arts in Scotland, one of our greatest contributions to the world.
The English lady doesn’t seem to think she should lend her fingers to help Scottish independence because of the SNP funding cuts from the English government, if she hadn’t worked it out after 10 years, independence isn’t about the SNP it’s about independence, then Scots can choose there own direction. Waiting had and foot of the paternal platitudes of the English community is what we’re meant to be getting away from, . Maybe go home and decolonize your own country and you might find we both get what we want.
Much empathy with this.
Two points though. Pretty sure you can still apply for individual funds from Arts Council England (ACE) – it is not just for England. I got money from them (small grant). Unless the individual grants have also been withdrawn by them.
There is no ‘English government’.
Of course they is in everything but name, it’s called hiding in plain site. Wake up smell the coffee.
I ‘d rather deal in reality than the fantasies of fanatics who tell English people to ‘go home’.
Fantasy, it’s the only reality to gain independence as they say pride comes before a great fall, you and Tommy Robinson are just two ends of the same spectrum of English supremacy, it’s taken over the movement as much as it’s adhered to by unionists, if you hadn’t noticed civic nationalism has failed and fallen to pieces over the last 10 years, and wasn’t fit for purpose in the the first place.
They say that money is the root of all evil so maybe they just don’t want us to become evil, starve? don’t care! but evil? oh no!
The good news is that we have a “live horse and you’ll get corn” promise from Angus for 2028. Wow, isn’t that great?
So many craft and art business in Scotland are individually self employed.
It will hit them hardest .
Rural communities will suffer from underdevelopment within that crafts sector.
I’m a self employed plumber, I cany apply for grants to keep me in my work so why should ‘artists’ (however defined) be any different?
If you want make a reasonable living from your job and you can’t……do something else. Why do ‘artists” expect to be subsidised?
I don;t think everything’s the same. Plumbing or a trade are essential for almost everyone. But do you want to live in a world where there is no new music, no-one writes poetry, no-one writes a book?
Because many people value art because it enriches their lives considerably and so want it to continue to be done and realise that unlike being a plumber, for many art forms there is no direct link between being creative and it making enough money for the artist to continue doing their art. In that sense, the subsidy *is* the ‘making a reasonable living from your job’. For these reasons, artists have been directly subsidised in one form or another (private or public) for hundreds of years and in a democracy, if enough people value art enough for them to approve of subsidy, it will continue.
If you do not value art enough then you will never agree to any kind of subsidy for the reasons you state. You are welcome to vote for a party that would minimise subsidy or even remove it completely.
I should add that in times of economic strife, art subsidy is an inevitable casualty and this must be taken on the chin but as this letter and Mike’s other article discuss, such picking off of low hanging fruit is often a scapegoat / window dressing rather than real solutions to economic shortfalls.
@Niemand, but that doesn’t explain why if people value art they won’t pay for it in sufficient amounts; nor why the values of the gatekeepers should be used to selectively fund it (from general public coffers). Is there too much art? How is quality evaluated? How are skills developed (or preserved)? How are critical voices supported (or suppressed)? Are we providing funding when other forms of support are more appropriate?
We can also look at negative aspects of funding: foreign influence via clandestine propaganda outfits (the CIA funding and changing the ending of the first British animation feature, perhaps); artwashing; the ill effects of patronage; the rather obvious removal of seditious or potentially revolutionary elements from funded art.
As far as I know, the British Arts and Craft movement (of William Morris etc) didn’t need or seek government subsidies. Nor did the chap in this story seem to get state aid:
https://freedomnews.org.uk/2024/08/21/the-illuminating-influence-of-eric-huntley/
There may be good enough reason to fund masonry and drystane dyking courses if there is a skills shortage, but is there really a shortage of ‘art’? Or too many people who don’t want to be plumbers?
Many may not be able to afford to pay enough for the art though I accept the more general problem that in the contemporary scene many actually expect art for free (look at recorded music for example – how many actually pay for it any more?). I think this a massive problem so in general I agree, if the populace were more willing to pay like they used to, subsidy would be less needed.
As for the gatekeeping I agree it is a minefield but surely not an insurmountable one? Much has been written and said on the issue and I don’t have any special further insight. All I would say on a personal level is I wish they were less obviously mired in political biases.
Were not Morris and his ilk basically rich aristocrats anyway who could self-fund / subsides others anyway?
Too much art? Maybe but are we really saying we should be setting up a fight between artists and trades as somehow they are a comparable equivalent?
@Niemand, would it be better to properly state-fund art in schools, for example to make sure all children who wanted to could play a musical instrument throughout their schooling, than to state-fund professional musicians? Plumbers could play on their pipes with the rest of them.
In my view, I think the idea of ‘Scottish culture’ is a bit niche and in danger of becoming something stagnant for tourists. We’re in the era of world culture now, and the biggest game in town is, well, gaming. Wonderfully for artists, almost every kind of art I can think of is included in computer games, certainly music. A bit more concerning is AI, but I guess that’s what unions are for.
And the best genre for envisaging the future is science fiction, which is plentifully represented in computer games. If we want people to imagine what an Independent Scotland might look like, there’s a very obvious choice of artform. However, state funding or private patronage is a killer for this kind of seditious pre-revolutionary art. Which is why crowdfunding was invented. Plus idea communism (ideas are the means of production of more ideas). And, if the Lake District can have their own quirky science fiction game, why can’t some region in Scotland?
https://www.theguardian.com/games/article/2024/aug/21/atomfall-nuclear-catastrophe-lake-district-fallout
One of the levers of state is to supply funding then cut it off (or threaten to, or reduce it). It’s an effective form of control. And even if the state funds someone, aren’t they just going to reinforce the British establishment (social class biases and all)? I think William Morris’ gang were pretty much socialists who thought artistic expression and craft skills were a basic human need for a healthy existence. It’s time we brought back the good life (philosophically speaking) into politics, with a refreshed and non-humanocentric approach, of course.
One way to see subsidy is as an investment rather than a hand-out which is the way critics talk.
I agree about school education but I cannot see anything wrong in the state investing in some of its artistic citizens, the return being a) the artist grows their ‘business’ so they no longer need subsidy b) their work contributes to the economy regardless c) their work enriches the culture of a place (I am also sceptical of the idea of culture tied to nation states especially the idea of promoting a nationality).
A plumber provides a necessary service which is paid for by default by the customer (there is no payment by default for any art). It deals with the specific problem and does contribute to b) above but is much more limited in its wider import. I am reading an Iain M. Banks at the moment (fascinating space opera) – his work has had worldwide impact and indeed benefit, in a way a single plumber never could (I have no idea if he ever got any subsidy early on though he did do an English degree, all free in those days, but that is beside the point).
To return to the idea of a national art and focussing on the promotion of a specific culture, I actually think this a negative in terms of justification for subsidy. In many ways I am not convinced art should be about ‘promoting’ anything, let alone a nation state or some idea of what a national culture is. The best art is universal, transcendental. Reading Banks, the idea their might be some Scottish angle or ‘Scottishness’ to his sci-fi is ludicrous. That is not to say someone focusing on ‘home’ is wrong in any way (the local, even parochial can resonate universally in skilled hands) but nationalist art is generally crap because it is deeply compromised.
I certainly don’t want art and culture funded to promote anything, certainly not ‘Scotland’. However there are some things that are distinct and unique about our culture. That’s not deifying it or saying its better than anything. The same can be said of virtually anywhere. This isn’t very difficult.
Could it be that not everything that has a commercial value has an other value?
Not everything can withstand the market. Some things need to be subsidised and this is okay. The actual % of the SG budget for the arts is miniscule.
Want to live in a society where the only books produced are by Jeffrey Archer or the only art is by Jack Vettriano?
Its 0.5% of the Scottish budget
@Editor, that answer does not seem to either make sense, apply to this dimension of the multiverse, or address my points. I’m not sure why novelists or painters need state subsidies, but if government want to subsidise art, why not spend it on the kids? And level up, so kids with dyslexia or language needs or whatever have the support to write, kids with mobility or fine motor control issues get the means to paint, and so on.
It can only be that case that by selectively funding a few writers and painters, you further marginalise those without such support. Because their voices will be at unfair disadvantage (which possibly contributes to why so few voices from the British imperial margins get heard; and there’s apparently lots of anger and frustration there). Does the world need more gatekeepers? (it does not)
The market, however defective as means of promoting higher quality over lower (if art has value, some appraisal must be made), yet has some function in that respect. Though markets can become saturated, and from some directions more than others. If the state is to accept ‘status quo challenge’ as a positive value of art (it is unclear why it would want to fund such art), then perhaps such challenging art is more likely to come from abroad (from China, India and other ex-colonies, from official enemies, from non-aligned nations, from the edges of Empire). To see ourselves as others see us. But you seem to want only Scottish culture to be subsidised.
OK, so I’d play a subsidised historical open-world game where you went around liberating enslaved people from hideous Scots with Highland names in the Caribbean, made as an international collaboration with local Caribbean artists taking key roles. Is that the sort of game you expect the Scottish government to fund? Or a strategic game where you play under-resourced Chinese customs officials fighting off Scottish opium smugglers. Or a war-game playing as Indian villagers repelling marauding Scottish brigades. Or do you just want art that makes us look good?
BTW:
https://urucagames.com.br
A lot of this I just don’t really understand at all, sorry, it makes little sense, so I can’t really respond.
But you say “but you seem to want only Scottish culture to be subsidised.”
No, no I don’t. Artists in Scotland.
One of the attractions of the idea of Universal Basic Income is that it provides a degree of financial support for everyone. Some might then choose to use that support to develop their creativity, without any prescription (from the state or other gate-keepers) about what such creativity might entail. Creativity includes artistic expression but goes much wider – and why could someone not then choose to be a plumber in the morning and an artist in the afternoon, as dreamt of in News from Nowhere ?
@Paddy Farrington, yet would every aspiring artist benefit equally from Universal Basic Income, without some concomitant duty to equalise the unpaid care burden? While I support your idea of faceted labour/art, not everyone has the same time to spare, at the moment.
https://newint.org/features/2020/10/06/big-story-care-hidden-debt-care
Creativity in Scotland is alive and well. Grants might not be, but the two must not be confused. I know a number of ‘artists’ who have never had a penny in grant aid because they are not part of the ‘artistic community’. There are many drivers in the production of art works but the most important must be from within, having the need to express one’s self irrespective of grant funding. I do find it sad that Arts funding is cut but it’s the same down south with the levelling down policy – deserving companies such as the ENO have had funding slashed without much warning the arts always gets it but up here Creative Scotland has handed out dosh to some questionable projects so it’s not really a surprise. I find the cut of £30 million from mental health services to be much more troubling.
I think we should use the funding being lamented by this artist to fund more rehab programmes to tackle our drug addiction ’emergency’. If there is not enough money to tackle our own declared ’emergency’ how the hell can we chose to give it to these ‘artists’?
Before the artists squawk that they are the very manifestation of a civilised society I would say to them that the mark of such a society would not be to prioritise funding ‘artists’ to do stuff that no-one wants to pay for while watching our disadvantaged die on the streets in front of our eyes.
Yeah you can have health or art, but not both.
This is Scotland.
JFC
A lot of people do, actually, use this fund to apply for community projects based in schools, prisons, care homes or working with vulnerable groups. Music and art can be a really important preventative measure for mental health issues down the line. I’ve first hand experience seeing how these grants have lasting benefits- I think perhaps what is being missed here is that the ‘open fund for individuals’ actually very rarely funds one individual artist to work in isolation.
Maybe your government will fund you?
There is much needless art in this world, many of it by people who do not deserve the title artist. That they require grants to work grifter is more appropriate in some cases.
It has never been easier or cheaper to record music, publish poetry or a novel. If you are motivated and have a worthwhile theatre or film project you are likely to get funding if you are worth investing in.
As always, the talent will rise to the top and I’m glad my tax isn’t being spent on hopeless dreamers with nothing worthwhile to say being indulged and saved from the world of work.
“hopeless dreamers” LOLS – this is people running theatre companies and writing workshops and working with young people and creating cultural work you consume you absolute moron.