Post by jenifertoksvig on Jan 15, 2009 16:08:22 GMT
This is a Bumblebee thread that cross-pollinates ideas from several D&D4 sessions which is why I've started a new thread for it.
I started out reading Rebecca's session on language (issue 46, see below for link), and then I read about the session on Andy Burnham (issue 81, see below for link). Someone posted a link to a speech Andy made not long ago about the arts in general (and can be found here in full: www.andyburnham.org/news.asp?newsid=84).
It is ostensibly supportive of the arts, but he's not speaking our language. For example, he said:
Our "reputation for creativity"? We're known for Shakespeare, certainly, but how is Britain culture-identified worldwide? Are we seen as particularly creative? It's a genuine question.
Here's some more corporate talk:
And so on, blah blah.
In her write up of a session on reclaiming language from the corporate world, Rebecca wrote:
Here's my problem: I'm not sure it is a muddying of terms. Corporate people are very careful when they choose terminology. They take a long time over the process; I've seen them do it. But I also take a long time when writing a song: I have to be picky about which specific words will do the job, because I have so few spaces for them.
I think that we, the creative people, and they, the corporate people, are both crafting their choices carefully in order to have clarity of communication, so I can't fault them on finding their own language, but I think they're not doing the job we're doing. I think we need to make sure we keep using, and developing, our own language. (And I also think it doesn't hurt to be bilingual.)
In the session on Andy Burnham, it was observed that cutting funding for theatre has a political, economic and social cost. The first was easy: you piss off the creative community, you lose their votes. (Two hundred votes! - said Nick, and quite right too, but there are 61 million people in this country.) Economic, absolutely: Andy never stops using financial terminology in his speech.
But social? What is the social cost? - I asked, and everyone said well, the social, you know, the social cost. What you lose in the social, you know, value of the arts. Of theatre. Yes, but what is it? Exactly? - I asked. And none of us could really say.
So this thread is my invitation to anyone and everyone to use our language or theirs (or find a new one) to say what you think is the social value of the arts - specifically theatre - and therefore what you think is the social cost of cutting funding for theatre.
----------------------------------------------
The sessions I've referenced are:
Issue 46 called by Rebecca: "Customers or Audience? How do we reclaim creative language to describe our thoughts and processes" which can be found here: devoteddisgruntled.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=47
Issue 81 called by Nick: "Dear Andy Burnham..." which can be found here: devoteddisgruntled.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=82
If you join in, and I'd love you to join in, please consider bookmarking this thread by checking the little box before you post your response, so you can return to it and make further comments if someone asks you more about something you said. Because I might well do that!
I started out reading Rebecca's session on language (issue 46, see below for link), and then I read about the session on Andy Burnham (issue 81, see below for link). Someone posted a link to a speech Andy made not long ago about the arts in general (and can be found here in full: www.andyburnham.org/news.asp?newsid=84).
It is ostensibly supportive of the arts, but he's not speaking our language. For example, he said:
"A glorious British strength is our reputation for creativity. A vibrant cultural base – and commitment to staging world-class culture – is vital to sustaining that reputation."
Our "reputation for creativity"? We're known for Shakespeare, certainly, but how is Britain culture-identified worldwide? Are we seen as particularly creative? It's a genuine question.
Here's some more corporate talk:
"A vibrant cultural base has economic benefits... Placing culture centre stage also has wider indirect benefits... Culture can change perceptions of a city, a region, a country, by bringing an association with aspiration and social mobility."
And so on, blah blah.
In her write up of a session on reclaiming language from the corporate world, Rebecca wrote:
As artists we have a privilege and a duty to observe and resist this muddying of terms and also an opportunity to explore and reinvent language.
Here's my problem: I'm not sure it is a muddying of terms. Corporate people are very careful when they choose terminology. They take a long time over the process; I've seen them do it. But I also take a long time when writing a song: I have to be picky about which specific words will do the job, because I have so few spaces for them.
I think that we, the creative people, and they, the corporate people, are both crafting their choices carefully in order to have clarity of communication, so I can't fault them on finding their own language, but I think they're not doing the job we're doing. I think we need to make sure we keep using, and developing, our own language. (And I also think it doesn't hurt to be bilingual.)
In the session on Andy Burnham, it was observed that cutting funding for theatre has a political, economic and social cost. The first was easy: you piss off the creative community, you lose their votes. (Two hundred votes! - said Nick, and quite right too, but there are 61 million people in this country.) Economic, absolutely: Andy never stops using financial terminology in his speech.
But social? What is the social cost? - I asked, and everyone said well, the social, you know, the social cost. What you lose in the social, you know, value of the arts. Of theatre. Yes, but what is it? Exactly? - I asked. And none of us could really say.
So this thread is my invitation to anyone and everyone to use our language or theirs (or find a new one) to say what you think is the social value of the arts - specifically theatre - and therefore what you think is the social cost of cutting funding for theatre.
----------------------------------------------
The sessions I've referenced are:
Issue 46 called by Rebecca: "Customers or Audience? How do we reclaim creative language to describe our thoughts and processes" which can be found here: devoteddisgruntled.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=47
Issue 81 called by Nick: "Dear Andy Burnham..." which can be found here: devoteddisgruntled.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=82
If you join in, and I'd love you to join in, please consider bookmarking this thread by checking the little box before you post your response, so you can return to it and make further comments if someone asks you more about something you said. Because I might well do that!