What I Mean When I Talk About Class...

In the aftermath of The Glasgow Effect excitement - it's the weekend, so the print media is giving it some, still - Loki commented that many commentators will discuss any aspect of the stushie as long as they don't have to talk about class. Since my current catch-phrase is all art is bourgeois, it's probably time for me to define my understanding of class consciousness.

The Bourgeoisie
According to the Urban Dictionary, the bourgeoisie was actually a legally defined social status during the French Revolution. It's most popular usage is within Marxist critiques of society, which identifies them as being the owners of the means of production: they are the people who own the factory, invest in the company, tell other people what to do. 

Sometimes bourgeoisie  is used as a synonym for...

The Middle Class
Although I see 'middle class' as being a wider category, since it doesn't just include the owners of production, but those groups who stand to gain from a society dominated by capitalism. So Doctors, Teachers, people who get a good wage, that kind of lark, are middle class without necessarily being bourgeoisie. To mark this collaboration with the bosses, I use the adjective

Bourgeois
I read somewhere or another that bourgeois society  is another way

of saying capitalism. I tend to use it to describe anything that works to the advantage of capitalism, the middle class and the bourgeoisie. 

I do this because I read some Diderot, and think I can see how his massive project was an attempt to define reality to the advantage of these groups. Bourgeois was once a revolutionary energy, aiming to break the hegemony of the absolutist state or aristocrats. Now it is the dominant culture, having created the social framework within which most activity happens. 

That's why I say all art is bourgeois, since its terms have been established by a bourgeois culture. 

The Working Class
This is where I get stuck, perhaps because recent models of capitalism try to dissolve the boundaries between working and middle class. 

There are a bunch of easy stereotypes that can stand in for the working class. I don't like them (the stereotypes, not the class). So I jump to something more specific...

The Proletariat
Marx liked a bit of this... the proletariat are the urban group who do not own the means of production - the exploited masses who have nothing to lose but their chains. Again, working class can be used to mean proletariat, but at least the fancy French word has a bit of political context. 

I've got a few more words to explain, but I'll pause here for a bit. I think my Waitrose soup and Lidl toast are ready. 

Yeah, Hilarious

Now that Pat Kane has published his thoughts, the debate about the Glasgow Effect is quite clearly as relevant as the printing press. To celebrate, I've stolen some cartoons from The New Yorker and given them new catch-phrases about the Glasgow Effect. 

You see, I'm trying to say that both of these things are past their sell-by date. 

Being a Critic: Generosity

If not exactly reluctant, I am a little tentative about writing about 'how to be a critic'. I'm never shy to express an opinion, and do have a clear set of guidelines for my own practice - which I happily explain to students who join one of my various groups (latest sessions available: Young Critics at Manipulate).

But I also believe in the validity of all opinion, in that it expresses an individual's relationship to a work of art. And so, an incoherent scream of outrage is as informative as my increasingly obscure comparisons between French Revolutionary Theatre and The Glasgow Effect. They are part of a multi-perspectival discussion of aesthetics or, if I want to make sense, the general conversation about how art and society get along.

Besides, I critique for a living, and revealing my secret strategies can help readers understand where I am coming from. And I have to teach a class on this soon.

Oh yeah. And the whole of Glasgow is a critic now. 

Let me introduce the first principle and foundation.

Generosity

Because I read a few pages of Mimesis: Culture, Art, Society, I believe that there are two approaches to criticism. One of these examines a text within the context of a (predetermined and external) set of rules. The other attempts to see what the text is trying to say, and assesses its success in terms of its intentions.

I belong to the latter school of thought, even as I realise that this

isn't what the chapter on The Conflict Over History actually says. 

Gebauer and Wulf actually identify a period of French history during which a traditionalist approach to criticism - using Aristotle and the ancients as a rule-book to the value of a work - battled with an idea that would become crucial for both romantic and modernist* artists: that the reader's taste could define the quality. The former is an attempt to set up a stable pattern for analysis, while the latter allows a more subjective interpretation.

I like the subjective version. For the French who agreed with me before I thought of it, this subjectivity allowed them to imagine a French culture, one that progressed, challenged the authority of the past and recognised how art could still be amazing and not conform to any idea of what it 'should' be.

These French guys tended to be the philosophes, who wrote about everything and used their wisdom to undermine the power of the monarchy. 

The other French guys tended to like the monarchy, and social stability, and feudalism and classicism and baroque architecture and that. 

But in brief, I am a bit more on the side of those who understand art as an individual event, that defines its own terms of reference. I call this generosity to the art. I flatter myself that I can apply this same logic to people, and treat them as individuals, too.

There are a few problems, though...

*romanticism and modernism are subdivisions of bourgeois theatre

History Repeats Itself in Architecture

Although there's plenty to dislike in Loki's analysis of The Glasgow Effect (not least his description of an monolithic establishment that secretly undermines working class culture: there's actually a series of different elites that compete to do that), he makes a salient point about the way that building is used to destroy communities.

...common land is handed to private developers, regardless of what locals think and public spaces are locked up at weekends due to funding cuts while suburban Scotland frequents the swanky shopping village now perched on the periphery of these criminally under-resourced communities.

These shopping districts, super-imposed on the receding cultural landscape, are hailed as the solution to poverty and are always given new names which subtly disown the heritage, history and people of the local area – who now work there for peanuts.

Passionately expressed, Loki's description, sadly, is a contemporary take on an ancient narrative. Architecture and public building projects have been used by dominant cultures to establish their power throughout history. In his TV show about the Romans, comedy evil genius Boris Johnson described how the empire would build a forum in occupied cities, a reminder both of their power and practical skills (he memorably compares them to modern shopping malls). Marvin Carlson comments that while democratic fifth century Athens was a maze of narrow streets, the subsequent Hellenistic monarchies liked 'sweeping avenues', an enthusiasm shared by the French absolute monarchy a millennium and a half later.

For the entry of Charles VI into Paris in 1380 the streets and squares were hung with so many tapestries that they resembled temples, and from many artificial fountains, milk, water and wine flowed... not only decorative and allegorical purposes but, as Konigsen observed, also functioned 'to superimpose on the actual city a idealized path, while removing the lived space'. (Places of Performance, pg 22).

The appearance of perspective in painting during the Renaissance led to it being adopted by the Medici as a symbol of their 'egocentric ordering of knowledge' - Henri II entered Lyon in 1548 with parts of the city screened off by paintings that hid the medieval town behind trompe d'oeil, as if making explicit how the 'new' perspective replaces the old. The development of baroque urban planning took notes from the scenography of the theatre, a reminder that the landscape, especially in cities, is more closely connected to art than to simple functionality.

Loki's argument that the rage against Ellie Harrison is based on a disconnect between the art establishment and the working classes attempts to load social grievances onto a specific instance. The architecture of Glasgow, however, is a far more comprehensive example of the disconnect between bodies that control public funding and the people who live in the city. 

The massive motorway through the city centre? The M74? The Tesco Expresses on the street-corners, those out-of-town shopping centres? Or, to take an example presented by one of Loki's mates, the way in which Dublin has become a consumerism dystopia. All of these are more explicit, more obvious and more oppressive expressions of capitalism's power.

Critiquing these would also have the added bonus of not encouraging a baying mob hurling misogynistic abuse at a single artist.

If you like the Glasgow Effect, you'll love this...

Mad Cyril gets the Glasgow Miracle

Okay, some Vile Commentary on The Glasgow Effect.

An appropriate critical response to The Glasgow Effect might involve waiting until the artist has made or done something concrete, assessing its intentions and commenting on its strategies and success. 

Public discussion has, however, raced ahead. The Glasgow Effect conjured a storm of protest. While I dislike any abuse aimed at the personality of the artist, I remain a pretentious old bore who regards all interpretation as valid. I respect it as opinion that has a right to expression. I'd prefer to read commentary without heavy use of the word 'cunt', though. 

Never let it be said that I refuse to jump onto bandwagons, though. Here comes a selection of my usual obsessions, tangentially connected to The Glasgow Effect.

All art is bourgeois

Throughout history, art has been used by the dominant sections of society to establish its values and culture. In fifth century Athens, tragedies were performed during a state supported festival: the absolute monarchy of France before the revolution staged ballets, and the Soviet Union invested in the development of The Bolshoi and The Kirov. In Artificial Hells, Claire Bishop argues that the conflation of political and artistic language has encouraged a participatory art that supports the state's agenda. Even the gentrification of hip-hop, for all its gangster lean, echoes a very capitalist morality.

I've banged on about this before, but the structure of art funding, because it comes from the state (or philanthropic individuals), supports certain bourgeois values. I'd do further: modern ideas about the function of art, the nature of the artist or genius, having been defined by Diderot, represent bourgeois conceptions and were designed to be used as weapons against feudal understanding of society.

The idea of the bourgeoisie - which Marx regarded as the class who held the means of production - has been confused with a wider 'middle-class', denoting a certain set of financial and cultural interests. It's usually those people who stand to gain from various forms of capitalism. Both doctors and playwrights, who don't actually own the means of production, could be within this group.

The Glasgow Effect offers a flash-point for the resentment of those who feel excluded by the arts. It's not unique.

Community orientated art is bourgeois

The argument that the money would be better spent on social amenities or food-banks has been wheeled out in the recent past against any art that transgresses popular ideas about what art's supposed to do or be. I'm suspicious of it: The Rite of Spring caused a riot (allegedly) because it transgressed, yet has become an icon of contemporary composition and choreography. But I'm equally suspicious of socially useful art. To take an example - free music lessons for children.

I support free music lessons but, beneath any subsidy lies the assumption that 'music soothes the savage beast': performing art reveals a quality in the human that has more value than, say, frying chips. Community art is sometimes about introducing culture to a group, as if they are bereft without it.

To take an example: remember The Choir? When Gareth Malone rolled up in South Oxhey, the programme presented an area that was culturally deprived. Funnily enough, my mother has run a ballet school on the estate since the 1960s. They interviewed her for the show, but her vision of a South Oxhey that had plenty of culture - her school sent a student to The Bolshoi School, something rare and wonderful - did not follow the narrative of how the working classes didn't get art. So they cut it from broadcast.

Nothing exists in isolation

The Glasgow Effect, whether or not it turns out to be amazing or rubbish, is part of a wider issue. If Creative Scotland handed over fifteen grand to a project that everyone loved, the problem would still be: what are the assumptions upon which they decide? With a bit of research, it's probably easy to find half a dozen grants that seem pointless or trivial. Certain art forms - such as comic books - are mostly excluded from consideration.

Every system has faults. As Loki points out, one of the problems with the current art culture is the exclusion of certain voices. The debate around this one piece is unfair if it refuses to challenge the underlying values of funding, or engages with Creative Scotland as if it has no integrity or honour. 

Pointing out Flaws is a Form of Respect

I have been rude about my fellow critics and, most recently, The Scotsman. I don't do it because I hate them, but because my fantasy is a dialogue with them. I probably go too far. 

It's the same thing, I think, with this debate. All the opinions are valid, intriguing and deserve to be heard. The Glasgow Effect is a starting point, perhaps. 

Note: not all art is bourgeois, but I like to say this as a corrective to the idea that art is, in some way, leftist and radical.

The Glasgow Effect: Band-wagon Jumping with GKV

Oh my God! This is the first time ever that my Facebook feed has been dominated by a single topic. Nearly every post has got a picture of some chips and the message that Ellie Harrison is embarking on a project called The Glasgow Effect. 

And I don't know enough to have an opinion yet... but I do know that every Glasgow hard-man of art is having a crack at her. 

But I did an interview with Ellie before Christmas because the vile arts is always one step ahead. I am going to reprint her words here because, maybe, it will provide more information about who she is and what her work involves. 

The Radical Renewable Art + Activism Fund (RRAAF) is a new and autonomous alternative funding scheme initiated by artistEllie Harrison and supported by 157 backers of a successful Kickstarter campaign (now the "RRAAF Founders"):rraafund.org/kickstarter

Once set up, RRAAF will use a wind turbine to generate energy to fund a ‘no strings attached’ grant scheme for art-activist projects in the UK.

The RRAAF project concept will be launched in Glasgow during December 2015 with a series of publicity stunts featuring the "RRAAF Mascot" – on Thursday 3rd outside Mono Cafe Bar as part of The Only Way is Ethics and on Thursday 10th outside the CCA Glasgow for ArtCOP Scotland.
These will culminate in this Launch Event at the CCA on Thursday 17th December 2015, 18:30 – 20:00. The event is FREE and open to all and will feature presentations and discussion by Ellie Harrison, Georgy Davis from Community Energy Scotlandand some of the RRAAF Founders, as they outline the plan for making the RRAAF project a reality in the coming years.

That was the project she was talking about. Now some words from her. 

Since the start of the global financial crisis in 2008, my work has focussed on researching, exposing and challenging the workings of our economic system. This has led me to develop an expanded practice that now encompasses both art projects / performances (see Anti-Capitalist Aerobics and The Other Forecast), and direct political campaigning (see Bring Back British Rail, the campaign for the public ownership of our railways I have been running since 2009).

In 2013-4, I took part in Campaign Lab - a nine-month ‘economic justice’ campaigning course coordinated by the New Economics Foundation in London. Since then, and in the wake of continued cuts to public funding for the arts, I have become interested in developing a new model for an alternative funding system, which offers a real working alternative, as well as a critique of the status quo: highlighting how current funding sources for art (from commercial sponsorship to state investment) can influence its content, sometimes to the detriment.

And so the idea for the Radical Renewable Art + Activism Fund (RRAAF) was born! Once set up, RRAAF will use a wind turbine to generate renewable energy to fund a ‘no strings attached’ grant scheme for art-activist projects.

In summer 2015, I started developing the RRAAF project identity with Glasgow-based designer Neil McGuire with the support of Beaconsfield Londonand CCA Glasgow, launching the RRAAF concept and Kickstarter in autumn - winter 2015, through a series of publicity stunts and public events in London and Glasgow as part of ArtCOP21, The Only Way is Ethics and ArtCOP Scotland. 

These will culminate in the Launch Event at CCA Glasgow this 17 December 2015 (6:30pm), where I will present the outcomes of the scoping work funded through the Kickstarter together with Georgy Davis from Community Energy Scotland. 

Loki, I'll be expecting a comment in couplets, please. Then we can have a rap battle or something.