Thanks Leigh
Sorry for the long post - clench cheeks now...
There are a couple of threads here - whether a festival is a
priority given the alleged lack of funding and resources and perhaps
seperately, what makes a good or bad festival.
The Fruitmarket was 'ironic' because its an arts venue. You'd
expect people there to have the neccessary communication skills. I'm
not critisising the content but the setup that prevented any content
from being seen. I couldn't see who was speaking because of the
seating arrangement. I couldn't hear them because of the clumsy sound
system. One speaker couldn't show their work because of the 'lack of
a cable'. When an audience member asked for a good example of
'sciart', none of the panel could answer them. One of the members of
the panel left the stage when some members of the audience walked out
in disgust. Hilarious. Bear in mind people paid �7 a ticket for
this!
The speakers and the Fruitmarket could learn from these
mistakes. The Science Festival will. It costs in my experience around
�2000 to put on one talk, so when people start asking for their
money back you're in trouble, since its already being subsidised to
the tune of �600 by the other more populist types of event.
The questions *you* ask about 'sciart' are exactly what I wanted
to hear at this kind of talk. However, the rather stylicised language
you used to ask this question is the kind of thing that alienates
both artists and public, or should I say "constructed
public". Well, no, my point is we shouldn't, especially here
where the audiences are artists and not just art critics.
(I don't know 'where John Latham is' in all of this - who's he?
I can't find any mention of him on the ambit search engine (not even
your post oddly?). I apologise if I've missed something, could you
explain?)
I'd like to suggest perhaps art, artists and resources are
underfunded precisely because no-one is prepared to explain in simple
terms what it is all about, and why it should be funded, to a wider
public, or even the funding bodies?
I've never personally had any real difficulties accessing either
resources or funding in Scotland - but you place FIRST and FOREMOST
in capitals so obviously this you believe this to be a HUGE problem,
so sorry if I've jumped the gun or offended you or anyone else by
talking about accessibility first.
I don't agree there was a big enough audience to allow the
variety of events that would have enabled the old festivals to
self-finance to the small degree that satisfies funders, though the
potential audience was huge.
I know for a fact that a lot of art has lost out in the
'cultural rationing' because it was complacent about accessibility in
the eyes of politicians, because they've said so over and over again.
Perhaps its relevant is (according to Chris) that theatre seems to be
benefitting from this rationing. Is this true? Has it payed more than
lip service to accessibility? Or are you right and its really a
problem of the funding bodies discriminating. If so why, and what can
we do... Next months topic?
Anyway - thanks for your reply, I know we don't agree but its
extremely interesting seeing your point of view.
Cavan
(PS: I'd like to discuss the Sciart thing as a topic at some
point with you too).
