LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL:

THE ARTS AS ESTATE AGENCY

 For creatives in South Essex, UK, there has been a recent recurrence of invitations to Have Our Say! By which I mean invitations to join Zoom calls with other local creatives and a number of different agencies involved variously in urban regeneration, development, investment (or the softer-phrased “promotion of growth”). The chance to Have A Say has primarily been on two things: what does the creative industry need in order to thrive, and what do creatives want to see in their town? 

These sessions were primarily unpaid. Nonetheless creatives did turn up, Had A Say. Results were collected, surveys taken, the information being forwarded on to the commissioning local authority, or informing funding applications, shared in partnerships, etc. Since then, if not disappearing completely, these agencies have maintained a kind of omnipresence, logos popping up on press releases and social media, on lists of partners and funders, existing as a barrier to communication between the creative and the local authority. And, as is the direct experience for some individual creatives, the agency will engage directly with them, facilitating opportunities before shutting the individual out from the process. 

Any allusion to interest in what individual creatives Have to “Say” is undercut by the actions of such agencies : particularly when their focus is on the creative industry itself, which is namely a focus on industry, which is namely a focus on capital. In this approach, the needs of the individual practitioner are essentially irrelevant. 

The truth is that what creatives need is money. If these agencies are really interested in the place-making abilities of a creative community, then they would invest directly, or give them spaces and buildings (although these are essentially impossible to run without money, so: money, please). This is the truth at the core of the Have Your Say gobstopper. When it comes to the question of labour value, the input of local creatives is valuable insofar as it is a free data scrape, a box-tick for agencies and an appealing by-line for their clients. We consulted the local creative community! And we all know that creatives have good taste - look at Margate! Who doesn’t want to be Margate.  

A valuable input - just not valuable enough to require payment. 

------------------------------------------------------

Creative Estuary is part of the (deep breath) Thames Estuary Production Corridor project, launched in 2017 by the Mayor of London and initiated by the South East Creative Economy Network and Greater London Authority, in partnership with the London Economic Action Partnership, and the South East Local Enterprise Partnership. Creative Estuary itself is described as a consortium, made up of “South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP), Kent and Essex County Councils, the Greater London Authority, 11 local authority areas represented by Thames Gateway Kent Partnership and Opportunity South Essex, South East Creative Economy Network (SECEN), University of Kent, University of Essex, Locate in Kent, and cultural organisations Metal, and Cement Fields.” As of 2022, Creative Estuary are supported by The Department of Culture, Media and Sport, with match funding secured from Kent and Medway councils, and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation.

It’s a lot. To their credit, Creative Estuary are pretty forthright in how they will achieve the objectives of this multiverse: “To transform 60 miles of the Thames Estuary across Essex and Kent into one of the most exciting cultural hubs in the world.” A broad scope. Their website has pages entitled “Interested in investing?” “Interested in developing?” And in November 2021, they told on themselves pretty hard when they launched a property portal, self-described as “Rightmove for the creative industry,” featuring warehouses, office spaces, shops, and co-working spaces, intended to attract creatives (read: businesses).

Collecting together the spaces which present brilliant opportunities for creatives - the creatives who already have the money and the means. Creatives from elsewhere. The non-local. 

Granted, Creative Estuary has funded local commissions and creative projects. But thinking about their primary objective, this makes their involvement in the local community very, very muddled - for championing the individual becomes a promotion for the potential of the area: look! There are artists here! Existing creative communities for whom it is not inaccurate to say that the costs and logistics of existing are frequently unsustainable. In a 2021 report commissioned by the Creative Land Trust and in collaboration with Creative Estuary, entitled “Creative Places, Creative Value”, the rising house prices in Southend-on-Sea were attributed to (among other unlikely things such as the opening of a library and a remote working space) The Other MA, a small artist-run alternative education programme - stating that the strongest performance of house prices followed the opening of TOMA in 2016. Considering the relatively tiny scale of TOMA and their precarity, this has to be a false correlation. 

And anyway, what is Creative Value? The report is introduced with this passage: “We know that the presence of creative industries within communities has not only a social value but a wider economic value, too. The flow on to residential values is generally understood but not singled out and explicitly recorded, and often it is an uncomfortable truth.” They’re talking about Margate, guys (they measure its Creative Value on page 68). Creative Value is the exploitation of that “uncomfortable truth” - accusing the local creatives of raising property prices, before using this as a springboard to appeal to developers and investment. 

Above all this illustrates that whether local creatives are able to continue sustaining themselves is not a priority. 

------------------------------------------------------

In 2019, the Romford-based Things Made Public CIC won the Arts Council England Creative People and Places fund for Basildon, to focus “...on parts of the country where involvement in arts and culture is significantly below the national average. We believe that everyone has the right to experience and be inspired by art, so we want to transform the opportunities open to people in those places.” TMP were awarded over £1 million to develop opportunities for the local community: murals, pop-up cultural activities, festivals, other public art ventures. 

Since obtaining the fund, TMP have run call-outs for creative proposals - some paid, some unpaid, but open to creatives both local and non-local. They have approached local creatives, collectives and organisations, proposing memberships on partnerships and consortiums - unpaid. They have also run call-outs for the local community; for volunteering at events, to be a “community voice,”  or reviewing creative proposals - unpaid. In September 2021, TMP commissioned a series of street art pieces - paid, but the commissions were not received by local artists. 

Additionally, TMP has a real emphasis on the involvement of the local community as a whole, as in “non-creatives”, who participate in decision making on creative proposals. This motion to specifically address a more “loose” demographic suggests a separation between the existing creative community and the local community itself. Furthermore, that whatever local creatives have been up to in the area (which is relative to the opportunities previously available, i.e. not a lot) is insufficient and inaccessible, and not “for the people.” 

The deeper motive is artwashing. After all, there is a particular image of “community art”, or “community vibes” that those involved in regeneration seem to hold: street art and bunting, so much bunting. This is reflected in imagery for Basildon’s masterplan, a multi-billion pound redevelopment scheme. So this exercise is a problematic reaching to what “Dave from Basildon” is sure to like. 

That’s not to say that TMP haven’t reached out to local creatives/organisations/collectives - they have, and invited them to join their consortium and partnership. The consortium involves attending a periodic presentation by TMP about their latest updates - not for feedback or input. The partnership involves having input on any creative proposals, i.e. Having a Say! but with additional gatekeeping. Both unpaid. Operationally, you’re either in or you’re out. 

Returning to the role of the “non-creative”, which is clearly to fulfill the aim of the ACE Creative People and Places fund : to increase involvement in arts and culture where it is lowest, on the basis of the belief that “...everyone has the right to experience and be inspired by art”. 

Cher Krause Knight points out that, within public and community-focused creative practices, there is an idea that “everyone wants art”, and that it is of an inherent social good. 

This belief is rooted in the Victorian ideology that open access to arts and culture has transformative effects for the benefit of society, i.e. within an exhibitionary space, the working-classes will witness how the higher classes behave, and mimic their behaviour; the uncivil become civil. A classist ideology. 

For all of its socioeconomic inequalities, who’s to say that existing residents don’t like Basildon as it is? Inequalities which can’t be solved by public art - although considering TMP’s involvement in the redevelopment of Basildon, this of course is not their ultimate goal. 

The Basildon masterplan involves a total remodeling of the highstreet, including multiple tower blocks (twelve originally proposed), leisure outlets and a multiplex cinema. In August 2021, plans were approved for an additional eleven-storey housing block. As reported, “Also included in the building could be facilities for local art groups and charities, who would use a community space planned for the ground floor. There are also plans for an art studio, and a competition run with local group Things Made Public, which would see a permanent installation on the building from a local artist.”

Aside from the shoulda-woulda-coulda of the provision of “community space” et al, the decision to commission a local artist specifically here seems loaded. There is something about the role of the local creative, as opposed to the non-local, which is pertinent to their utilisation in redevelopment schemes. 

------------------------------------------------------

When I did Have My Say - during a session lead by Hemingway Design - I criticised, among other things, their suggestion that the massive post-war development and upheaval of Basildon had been “pioneering”. Unfortunately my internet connection failed me, and I was muted for the rest of the session. My choice of platform was misplaced, obviously (including the email I sent them after the session to round up what I had been trying to say). 

The role of the local authority can be difficult to define in relation to these agencies, somewhere between partnership and client. Considering the previously minimal opportunities for creatives now facilitated by such agencies - to Have A Say! or to be offered spaces, public artwork commissions, etc - the local authority’s interest in the creative community is tied into what brings so-called Creative Value. They don’t talk with this community; either they don’t know how, or simply don’t want to. Redevelopment agencies therefore act as a murky one-way medium. 

While they differ in their scale and overall framework, Creative Estuary and TMP are both premised upon the identification of the potential of an area. Therefore, they would have been required to cite an existing community local to the area in order to prove this potential (and secure funding). What’s obvious from these two agencies combined is that the local creative can be a useful tool for securing funding, securing sales, and finding some nice artwork for the new London commuter-belt apartments. 

Ultimately however, the local creative becomes a place-hold for “potential” - this does not denote sufficiency in itself.