Sonya Dyer responds to Arts Council England

It's no surprise that Arts Council England (ACE) disagree with the principles and arguments made in my report. What is surprising is that they seem unable to justify the principles behind their diversity programmes - a policy that is one of their priorities, and into which they have invested millions of pounds. Instead they have responded by saying that they simply disagree with some of the facts of the report - and provide a legal-style point-by-point refutation.

Most of the statements flagged up by ACE are derived from interviews and informal conversations with some of the decibel and Inspire curatorial fellows, Arts Council officers, and others. In addition, the report was written in consultation with many people working in different sectors within the visual arts – artists, curators, academics, etc. Obviously, some of these people could be misinformed. But what their statements show strikingly is the fact that these schemes have not inspired enthusiasm among many of those who have taken part, or others in the sector. There is a lot of discomfort in the visual arts about diversity policies, which has not been aired or discussed publicly - indeed, many of the arts professionals I spoke to would only do so off-the-record, or they were unwilling to be quoted at all, but happy to share their views informally - a level of secrecy normally restricted to informers and whistleblowers.

Throughout my research, it has been difficult to gain information about these programmes - in part because of the Arts Council's defensiveness, and reluctance to debate its programmes. It was difficult even to get Inspire (a government-funded programme) to reveal its annual budget: we were first told that this might not be possible. A similar difficulty was found in gaining decibel's budget, which took several weeks. If ACE truly ‘welcome[s] a public debate about diversity policy in the arts’, you’d think they’d be more transparent. So no, we did not call to check every detail: we wanted to get the report out in 2007.

The report doesn’t seek formally to evaluate Inspire and other programmes. I was driven to write ‘Boxed In’ out of a conviction that diversity policies were going badly wrong, and having a negative impact on many black artists, curators and arts administrators and the arts in general. I have no interest in the idea of being involved in a job predicated on my cultural background - and am aware that many other people feel the same, but are often unable to see any alternatives. My aim was to provoke a public debate, and support arts practitioners who feel uneasy about the status quo.

The report is part of a larger campaign, incorporating the comments page of the website, the launch event on 2 June and future events and texts. In addition, it is worth noting that ‘Boxed In’ was written with the knowledge that bureaucratic organisations take time to change. The ideas suggested in the text need to be understood with this in mind.

Below, I address ACE’s points in turn:

Firstly, everyone knows about the McPherson report and Race Relations Amendment Act. What is as stake is how ACE (and other arts organisations) interpret and implement this legislation – whether they place a ‘burden of representation’ on individuals through the current tick-box culture, or find alternative routes. What I am calling for is a reconsideration of how artists engage with ACE (and other organisations), and how ACE in turn negotiates its relationship with central government. There needs to be a more relevant and creative response to the whole equality agenda. At present, the ACE and its clients are under pressure from the government to meet formally set targets, which are not dealing with the root issues.

ACE POINT 1: 'The article only refers to National Inspire hosts. The Inspire Fellowship Programme spans the museum and gallery sectors and involves 11 institutions: Barbican Art Gallery, British Council, British Museum, the Hayward, Institute of Contemporary Arts, National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery, Tate Modern, Serpentine Gallery, V&A, Whitechapel’

I use the term ‘includes’, which would imply that there are more than just the ‘national hosts’.

ACE POINT 2: ("Diversity schemes like Inspire and Decibel create a culture of dependency".) 'Since Inspire has only been in operation for less than two years, we are interested to know the evidence on which this statement is based.'

Decibel has been running since 2003. I would also note my use of the term ‘schemes like’… My point is general and about a subjective issue of dependence.

ACE POINT 3: ACE disputes my claim: ("ACE has barely analysed the kinds of people who are applying to its own diversity schemes.")

ACE misses the following sentence; ‘One ACE officer told me…’ This individual could have been misinformed, or indeed may not have been.

I would also suggest that ACE’s use of ‘analyse’ in its response isn’t quite as active as I suggest in this passage. ACE lists the type of information that can be found on any application or equal opportunities form. Bearing in mind the importance to ACE of these schemes (and the amount of public money spent on them) one would expect a more vigorous approach. I look forward to reading Baroness Young’s evaluation. I also expand on this at the end of this response.

ACE POINT 4: ("...not all of the Fellows are based in curatorial departments of the host institution.") 'Out of the 11 Fellows 10 are based in curatorial departments. One Fellow is based in the education department of a host institution in which all of the contemporary programmes are developed.'

I would argue that 10 out of 11 is ‘not all.’ It would be interesting to know what the curatorial department of this host institution actually does, and why its activities would not be suitable for an Inspire fellow.

ACE POINT 5: ACE questions: 'The article claimed Inspire Fellows receive a "lack of support".'

The ‘lack of support’ quote is taken from the section detailing the perceptions of three participants in the Arts council England South East Fellowship Programme, based on their evaluation ‘Not by Design.’ The quote is fully attributed in my report. I also say:

‘This was also a common complaint of many decibel and Inspire fellows I spoke to. Many felt that the host organisations were often unprepared for the training aspects of the placements, and said that some staff members even displayed outright hostility towards them.’

The first series of curatorial fellowships were under the ‘decibel’ moniker, before the creation of Inspire. Again, I have not spoken to all of the current Inspire fellows (nor did I claim to), but am reporting the comments of people I did speak to. Perhaps this will be made clear in the forthcoming evaluation, perhaps not – anyone involved with administering evaluation processes will know that participants do not always feel able to complain too much officially!

I would also question whether Inspire is generally regarded in the same manner as the Clore Leadership Programme.

ACE POINT 6: 'You state that there is a "lack of high-quality applicants" for Inspire. This is absolutely not the case. We conducted 55 interviews drawn from 241 applicants. 46% of the total number of applicants had MA, MPhil or PhD qualifications. All shortlisted candidates were highly qualified and had a lot of potential yet most of them were not working in mainstream museum and gallery venues.'

Here I am quoting another individual, heavily involved with Inspire, incidentally, who I have promised to only quote off record. Please note: my aim is not to disparage Inspire fellows. This claim – a perceived lack of quality among some applicants – came up in many conversations I have had and I would argue is openly discussed by many in the sector. On the occasion I quote in the paper, the individual was actually suggesting that I (and ‘people like me’) should apply for an Inspire Fellowship, quoting a supposed lack of ‘quality’ applicants.

ACE POINT 7: ACE disputes: ‘It is also claimed that participation in "the [Inspire Fellowship] scheme might be a stigma".'

This is slightly disingenuous, particularly as an Inspire fellow (a great defender of the scheme) quoted (on the record) also revealed (on the record) that ‘he would not mention the Inspire part of his fellowship when meeting new business associates as “it takes too long to explain”’. Also, please note my use of the word ‘might’ – some people feel it ‘might’ be a stigma.

I would also like to offer a clarification. I should have mentioned in the text that I also included other participants on Inspire–related programmes. Specifically, before writing this report, I worked for two days on a workshop run by Arts Council England / LCACE (a programme at Queen Mary’s University) for around 14 unsuccessful applicants to the Inspire scheme, who discussed this issue of ‘stigma’ or ‘stereotyping’ openly. What was doubly interesting was that it was mainly the younger applicants who were concerned about this issue. In fact, the experience of meeting these (really interesting) people was one of the inspirations behind deciding to kick-start a wider public debate.

Finally, I feel drawn to challenge ACE’s low ambitions for this scheme. We are talking about 11 posts out of 55 interviews out of 250 applications over a two-year period. More of a trickle than I flood, I would suggest.

One wonders whether the applicants have applied for any other jobs, whether they are just looking at ‘diversity–related’ opportunities or not, or whether they have since worked as interns (if they can afford it). As the applicants were so highly qualified (although ACE does not state which subjects these MA’s and Phd’s were in) it would be interesting for the Diversity Sector (and the arts as a whole) to know what they are up to – what career choices are they making? Do they still wish to be institutional curators? Surely they are not all waiting around for the next round of positive action schemes? If there are so many qualified non-white people out there, what difference do 11 posts make? How is this a useful policy to pursue? What happens to the other 230 people? This is the basis of my comments about ACE not researching the applicants properly. This cohort could tell us a lot about the current situation. Perhaps ACE will be ready to debate these and other issues on 2 June….

Interested parties may also want to check out some of the following texts, which provide useful commentary and context for this debate:

‘The disorganised apartheid’ of diversity; Interview with Richard Hylton

Decibel – Inverted Racism, Rasheed Araeen; Art Monthly, May 2007
(Scroll down to ‘Polemic’ for a synopsis)

Stop Art Schools from Turing Into Posh White Ghettos; Grayson Perry, The Times, February 2007

‘Decibel: Running To Stand Still’; Niru Ratnam, Spin Cycle, Co-published by Spike Island and Systemisch (2004) ISBN: 0954549813

Finally, please visit this link for an interview with myself on spiked

Sonya Dyer, 23 May 2007