 If the following questions have been vexing you then you may find these musings interesting:-
"…. I could happily engage in my work whilst doing no harm to myself or others". Rather than bashing my head against the perennial problem of finding different ways to make a living in the arts I thought I’d start again, from another angle, and design what my own personal “success landscape” looks like. In the course of my researches I have encountered the concept of Right Livelihood from the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path. I’ve used this to identify the factors that, for me, mean that I could happily engage in my work whilst doing no harm to myself or others. “Do myself no harm”
“Do no harm to others”
The answer? I have recently encountered the work of Charles Eisenstein and particularly his Sacred Economics. He argues in favour of a Gift Economy. “Indeed, to charge a fee for service, or even for material goods, violates the spirit of the Gift. When we shift into gift mentality, we treat our creations as gifts to other people or to the world. It is contrary to the nature of a gift to specify, in advance, a return gift, for then it is no longer giving but rather bartering, selling. Furthermore, many people, particularly artists, healers, and musicians, see their work as sacred, inspired by a divine source and bearing infinite value.” I was stunned by how closely this seemed to fit into my own idealisation of a Right Livelihood. In this context I could create work and “do no harm”. "…. the Gift Economy is so new, so different from our ingrained mindset that we all have to find our way" But how to ensure that I “gain reasonable return” so that I can make a “responsible contribution” to my home? Well Eisenstein has built his self-employed practice as a writer and speaker on this basis. He makes his writing available via the internet for free but people can also buy the book. In other words they can choose to make a return Gift. He goes into more detail about exactly how your practice might look with some interesting examples:- http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_ch_21_working_gift_pt_22 But he stresses that, actually, the Gift Economy is so new, so different from our ingrained mindset that we all have to find our way. I see the perfect manifestation of my Right Livelihood as being a self-employed writer/community animateur/speaker who offers all of her services on a Gift basis. Maybe your Right Livelihood looks different. It's scary though isn’t it? A risk? It depends upon others valuing my Gifts enough to allow me a reasonable and responsible income. How can I get myself ready to take such a risk? Well, the first part of my answer to stage the transition. I know what my Right Livelihood looks like now, I have some of the tools to get there – particularly Eisenstein’s Gift concept – but in order to be responsible I may not be able to get there all at once. I’m going to try some things out, learn as I go, grow it slowly. "But when the performance itself is a Gift then surely the return Gift, made in recognition, is also performance?" The second part of my answer is to consider where the Gift part of the process sits in the artwork itself. Currently, when we pay a fixed fee before we see a performance the act of payment is thoroughly removed from art. It is not part of the process, it is an evil necessity to be got out of the way in a dark box-office where no one can see. But when the performance itself is a Gift then surely the return Gift, made in recognition, is also performance? It is part of the art. Maybe the audience should be invited on stage to make their gift in the light, directly to the performers. Maybe they should be invited to make a short statement of critique or gratitude?! A terrifying concept. But I would like to explore it. I am ready to take my first step to Right Livelihood as an independent artist and I am offering my first show Vega on a Gift basis at the Bike Shed Theatre on 14th January 2013 at 7.30. Pre-booking advised!
0 Comments
 Measuring the Arts? That's like telling a spanner to be more fragrant. It's a nonsense because it ignores the essence of what things are. And yet, every time we apply for Arts funding that's exactly what we have to do. We have to apply outcomes to our endeavour and to fully quantify those outcomes; tickets sold, people of this or that group helped, number of ethnic minorities involved.
We live in a world of project planning, goal-setting, objectives and targets. The evaluation of our success then is “measured” against those targets. For decades now it's all we've heard, at work, in our health system and our schools. The problem is that, in this quantification, there is no room for non-conformity or greyness. The only choice it leaves those on the margins is to change or drop out. If that feels like a harsh or revolutionary view just look around – expulsions from our schools are soaring, the homeless fill our streets, the elderly live in decimating isolation. They don't fit the matrix, they're squeezed out of the quantified whole. The Arts really don't fit of course. In tough times Arts funding goes first. We kind of accept it. Communities get used to living with no music, performance or beauty in their midst. As individuals, we understand that if we want to make a living we have to turn to something more “useful” or “saleable”. So artists do their best. Oh, you can tot up audience figures, calculate demographics and social groups reached but how does that really measure that moment when a youngster from the local estate discovers Art for the first time and knows in searing recognition and hope that an artist is what he truly is. Or the shining glow of visibility bestowed on someone properly heard and integrated into a community happening. These things are not subject to measure and, worse still, the attempt to quantify potentially corrupts and negates them. Enough Let the Arts BE Instead, consider instead the fluidity of this alternative vision. Let's allow Art to be supported, created, commissioned and developed by the people it serves. You could see the continuum as a kind of creative water-cycle. High up in the rapids it's the artists job to jump on and enjoy the ride. When community energy wants to meander and soak up influences from elsewhere then, dear artists, lie back and float. When it becomes ethereal, vaporous and rises into the heavens then spread your own arms, turn your face to the sun and rise with it - and then rain down the product of your co-creativity in glory, without discrimination and in Gift. Feeding the whole cycle, allowing it to go around again. That's how a community-led arts project should happen. Let it BE, Funders. Stop dredging, diverting, culverting the flow with your directives, strategies and objectives – that is not Art. So, yes, I will continue to ask our community to gift-it-forward into their own square kilometre (#Squilometre) so they can watch the transformative power of their gift as it goes around and around and I won't be applying for large-scale funding any time soon. Take a look at what you think is meant by economic sustainability. Glance again at your project plan, your targets and objectives. Especially if you are an artist, take a moment to reflect upon the constraint of measure-ability upon your practice. Embrace instead the opportunity to bow into service, join the flow of community will. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything you see and hear. An an artist, it's your job to highlight, reflect, focus and define – good and bad – so that positive change can happen. That is why your community needs you! BE an artist. Embrace the flow. |
RSS Feed
