Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters1
The organisations and culture spawned by industrialisation, mass production and mass consumption in the 20th century inescapably marked arts organisations, even as they stood apart from and often in opposition to it. Put simply industrialisation created a world in which goods and services were delivered to and for people. For shorthand, call it the world of To and For.
The organisations and culture spawned by industrialisation, mass production and mass consumption in the 20th century inescapably marked arts organisations, even as they stood apart from and often in opposition to it. Put simply industrialisation created a world in which goods and services were delivered to and for people. For shorthand, call it the world of To and For.2
Often in the name of doing things for people traditional, hierarchical organisations end up doing things to people. Companies say they work for consumers but often treat them like targets to be aimed at, wallets to be emptied, desires to be excited and manipulated. The person who calls himself my “personal relationship manager” at a leading high street bank does not know me from Adam but in the cause of trying to sell me some savings products I do not want pretends that we are lifelong friends. In the name of doing something for me, actually he wanted to do something to me: relieve me of some money. Many experiences of public services are often little different. Social services departments were created to help people in need. Yet those on the receiving end of services often complain they feel they are being done to, processed by a bureaucratic machine.
Often in the name of doing things for people traditional, hierarchical organisations end up doing things to people. Companies say they work for consumers but often treat them like targets to be aimed at, wallets to be emptied, desires to be excited and manipulated. The person who calls himself my “personal relationship manager” at a leading high street bank does not know me from Adam but in the cause of trying to sell me some savings products I do not want pretends that we are lifelong friends. In the name of doing something for me, actually he wanted to do something to me: relieve me of some money. Many experiences of public services are often little different. Social services departments were created to help people in need. Yet those on the receiving end of services often complain they feel they are being done to, processed by a bureaucratic machine.3
Politicians claim they are working for us, on our behalf, representing our views. But most of the time they seem to be spinning messages at us.
Politicians claim they are working for us, on our behalf, representing our views. But most of the time they seem to be spinning messages at us.4
Our experience of things being done to us, in our best interests, starts early in life. All too often being at school, especially secondary schools, feels as if you are being done to: instruction is delivered to you, as you listen to your teacher or copy from the blackboard. Secondary education feels like something done to you too much of the time. Even in hospital when doctors attend to you, it can feel as if you are being done to by a system that processes you even as it is responding to your most urgent needs.
Our experience of things being done to us, in our best interests, starts early in life. All too often being at school, especially secondary schools, feels as if you are being done to: instruction is delivered to you, as you listen to your teacher or copy from the blackboard. Secondary education feels like something done to you too much of the time. Even in hospital when doctors attend to you, it can feel as if you are being done to by a system that processes you even as it is responding to your most urgent needs.5
1
We live with systems that are meant to treat us like consumers or respond empathetically to our needs. All too often those very systems seem impersonal, rigid, inhuman even. Work in many large organisations often feels like an imposition. Too much of management in large organisations feels like it is making people do things they do not really want to do.
1
We live with systems that are meant to treat us like consumers or respond empathetically to our needs. All too often those very systems seem impersonal, rigid, inhuman even. Work in many large organisations often feels like an imposition. Too much of management in large organisations feels like it is making people do things they do not really want to do.6
2
Of course we have benefited hugely as consumers from the growth of the To and For world with a vast range of mass produced goods and services delivered to us. These common and widespread experiences of being done to and for stem from deeply rooted assumptions. Knowledge and learning flows from experts to people who are dependent or in need. Organisations are hierarchies based on the power and the knowledge to make decisions. Authority is exercised top down. The aim is to define what people lack – what they need or want that they have not got – and then deliver it to them. The world of To and For starts from people as bundles of needs, rather than, say, as bundles of capabilities and potential.
2
Of course we have benefited hugely as consumers from the growth of the To and For world with a vast range of mass produced goods and services delivered to us. These common and widespread experiences of being done to and for stem from deeply rooted assumptions. Knowledge and learning flows from experts to people who are dependent or in need. Organisations are hierarchies based on the power and the knowledge to make decisions. Authority is exercised top down. The aim is to define what people lack – what they need or want that they have not got – and then deliver it to them. The world of To and For starts from people as bundles of needs, rather than, say, as bundles of capabilities and potential.7
The arts, and the modern avant garde in particular, has stood in opposition to this commodified, regimented world of to and for. The arts offer a space for contemplation and reflection, challenge and controversy, higher meanings and deeper purpose. Yet in its way the modern art world and modern arts institutions embody the principles of to and for just as powerfully as the modern factory or school.
The arts, and the modern avant garde in particular, has stood in opposition to this commodified, regimented world of to and for. The arts offer a space for contemplation and reflection, challenge and controversy, higher meanings and deeper purpose. Yet in its way the modern art world and modern arts institutions embody the principles of to and for just as powerfully as the modern factory or school.Tags: high street bank, personal relationship manager, public services, savings products, teacher
That part of the arts world which is the publicly funded sector is particularly enmeshed in a complex To and For machine. Hence there is a lot of frustration from artists about the way that Cultural Gatekeepers function, which is very To and For. Gatekeepers not only control resources but they also control knowledge. Hence the challenge from artists about the way that the current machinery operates in the To and For world.
The to and for world is a particularly predominant for many of us so called
‘diverse’ or socially excluded groups. In order for us to be done to or for we are firstly labelled at an early stage to see what can be done to or for us rather than how we can contribute, and have these contributions valued. The disability equality movement worldwide has a saying “Nothing about us without us”.
Interesting point about us as “consumers”. When a friend of mine died a few year ago, after an illness, I was struck by how his “worth” to society was not just as a worker (he was a steel worker – so no longer in work, though it probably caused his illness) but as a consumer. Once he stopped consuming, he was almost non-existent. Anyone who has dropped out for a while – redefined as unemployed, sick or a student even – will find society values them a lot less when they stop spending.
It’s interesting to comment on paragraph by paragraph, let alone part by part, although this is how I often read anyway. One thing instantly comes to mind. The talk appears to be about systems and people: the good bunch of folks is treated badly by monstrous bureaucratic structures. But systems are created and run by people, so really, the talk should be about different groups of people. It is a delusion to think that a perfect system may materialise out of some idealistic proposition. I’d rather start by stating the inevitable: there is inequality, and there are people who support it. And the mistake occurs precisely when we shove art as the ever-evolving entity into an “organisation”, inevitably imposing some sort of regulations and structure onto something that is extremely personal and individual.
I work in a large public organisation, managing a mainly paper based application process. The process is essential through legislation backed up by an adherence to best/recommended practice through organisational policy.
We have been looking at ways to have more electronic automation to this process as a response to feedback at delays in the paper based system, the crux is that this response will lead to less people working on the applications, less people to converse with regarding the applications, and less interaction between people who are applying and administrating. This application process certainly relates to this paragraph – people do not really want to have to complete these applications, but they must comply by legislation.
The question I pose to you the audience is that if you ask each individual applicant “How can we make it better?” you will get conflicting answers, some will be doable, some not. Some will be a rejection of the process, some will be a desire to get it done as quickly and as automated as possible. If this is the case then a key missing element from all of this analysis is What are we doing for/ or asking of the people managing the process, and are their opinions just as valuable as the applicants?