SCOTLAND- CREATIVE NATION
Cultural Summit, Scottish Arts Council, 25th-27th February 2008

SCOTTISH ARTISTS UNION RESPONSE

The Scottish Artists Union stated ahead of Creative Nation, advertised as a
conversation of
pertinent issues in the context of the development of Creative Scotland, that it
was
regrettable participation in the event required a commitment of time and money
beyond
the means of the majority of artists. Sure enough, a glance at the delegates
list revealed a
lamentably small number identifying themselves as creative practitioners rather
than arts
mangers.

As names such as Linda Fabiani, the Minister for Culture, Ann Bonar, charged
with the
transition between the Scottish Arts Council and Creative Scotland, and Richard
Holloway,
Chair of the nascent body's joint board, took to the floor and revealed what
little they
could about Creative Scotland it became depressingly apparent how amorphous the
new
organisation's thinking is, less than a year from the point at which it must
take the wheel
from SAC and Scottish Screen. The Scottish arts community has been holding its
breath
through a Cultural Commission, a draft Culture Bill, a change in government and
now a
cultural summit, hoping against hope for an end to this period of uncertainty.

As pleasing as it may be to hear reaffirmations of "a light touch", arms length
principals as
"sacred" and the promise of Creative Scotland as more than just a quango doling
out
cheques, the summit as a whole struck us and representatives from other
organisations as
a closed shop; a middle management conference in which the relative merits of
various
cultural models, metaphors and lexicons were discussed while both audience and
creators
were notably excluded. Worse, it was an event at which the SAC made it very
clear it is
well into the process of dismantling but their successors have barely begun to
think about
what to do next.

Perhaps the most disturbing new buzzword to be heard being bandied about
liberally was
"excellence". The over-arching concept of Sir Brian McMaster's recent report to
Arts
Council England, the man himself was in attendance on the first day of the
summit to take
part in an "excellence" debate. One might question what relevance the report
has in a
devolved Scotland, but if Creative Scotland's leaders remain as bogged down in a
consultative rather than decision-making process as they appear to be, then it's
easy to
imagine the McMaster report- rapturously welcomed by many critics and
commentators-
having an impact on their thinking. The concept of "excellence" as presented
strikes us as
very dangerous. Whose taste in art determines "excellence"? Artists?
Audiences?
Commissioners? Ministers? Can consensus be reached on such a subjective point?
And
how can "excellence" be determined at the funding stage, before work is
completed?
Worse, how does the product-focused definition of "excellence" presented square
with the
"innovation and risk taking" that McMaster calls for in his report and Richard
Holloway
contends must be a hallmark of Creative Scotland's ethos? Self-evidently,
artists seek to
do good work and arts authorities strive to make good decisions and should be
encouraged to do so. But "excellence" surely comes apparent in retrospect;
adopted as the
central principle on which funding decisions are made, it will lead to money
following
money, conservatism and even entropy in Scottish arts. "Excellence" must be
evident in
the systems that support the artistic process, not just in critic-pleasing
polished end
products.

We fear a significant swathe of the Scottish public has yet to be convinced of
the intrinsic
power, joy and merit of art. Scotland's artists are ready and willing to reach
them, but a
cultural authority that adopts the elitist, out-moded McMaster doctrine of
"excellence"
will poorly serve both.