Tonight I’m working on my placement report for my MA. Out of all the pieces of work I have to complete for my course in the next three months this one is the snake in the grass – the one I have identified the need to devote extra amount of time to for it is sneaky. It cowardly hides behind the layers of module coursework work and in the looming shadow of the summer dissertation. It is a 6k critical and contextual evaluation into the whole placement experience and needs to be taken down as soon as possible!
My placement is undertaking a digital evaluation of the WE PLAY programme. I am currently two thirds of the way through this evaluation and have so far found it very engaging. Questions regarding how we measure the impact of digital and social media have risen during my work. Exactly how does the number of ‘likes’ ‘views’ and ‘comments’ translate into success and measurable impact on physical projects?
This was rammed home by my rare night watching the Brit Awards on TV Wednesday night. Keeping one eye on this highly glossed cringing yawn fest (and realising I really don’t know who half of these kids are), the only moments that really piqued my interest was when an artist won an award. As the voice-over man rolled off facts and record sales as the winner took to the stage, he launched into statistics of YouTube views, Facebook likes and Twitter followers, placing these on the same industry pedestal as the cold, hard cash transactions that are record sales. I was suprised as the last time I watched a music award show this definitely wasn’t the case and shows the impact that social media has had in creating artists and their personas. (Lady Gaga and her 19 million Twitter ‘Monsters’ surely is the best example of this).
If the music industry directly attributes YouTube views of music videos to high record sales/download figures, then what are the best tools for translating the number of YouTube views of a 3 minute video clip documenting a collaborative arts project into measurable success? Answers on a postcard, I mean, in a report…
One of the most thrilling elements of studying at MA level is that you have a wider appreciation and awareness of access to a wider talk and seminar programme at the University. My University, The University of Manchester, programmes a year long series of cross departmental lectures, talks and masterclasses which I have strove to attend as many as I possibly can manage manage during my short MA year.
The Centre for Muselogy hosted a spring seminar last night delievered by Dr Sam Lackey curator at Hepworth Wakefield. The title of Dr Lackey’s seminar ‘The Hepworth Comes Home’ was elaborated on further at the start of her seminar. Lackey spoke of the seemingly ‘shaky conceptual ground’ that the link between Wakefield and Barbara Hepworth exists on. Detailing Hepworth’s early life in Wakefield, Lackey intertwined Wakefield’s council’s identification of developing the water front of the town as early as the 1930’s. The original Wakefield gallery situated in a house in Wakefield town and was inaccessible to many with mobility issues and frankly unsuitable to display art. (Having stood in the car park of the closed gallery recently, I safely would have arrived at this conclusion without insider information.)
The offer of over 40 original Barbara Hepworth plaster sculptures by the Hepworth Estate to Wakefield in 1996 contained one major condition – that the plasters must be exhibited in a venue worthy of international museum standard. Having mapped the slow burning early threads of the Hepworth Gallery, Lackey pinpoints this moment as the catalyst for the project. It wasn’t until 2003 that David Chipperfield Architects were appointed, winning the tender hands down with a unique and engaged design that responded to Hepworth’s work. Chipperfield himself spent time visiting the collection in Wakefield to before his firm submitted its bid.
Lackey spoke of how the magnificent new building acted as leverage in attracting new funders and stakeholders and emphasied the critical role that these backers played in finally realising it. Interestingly, until Director Simon Wallis took up his position, the original curatorial plan was to showcase the Wakefield collection throughout the galleries. Wallis immediately scrapped this plan and started to develop a new curatorial strategy. Lackey hightlighted the tranistional period between old (the council led gallery) and the new team noting the loss of the knowledge of the original Wakefield Art Gallery curator, who possessed an intimate knowledge of the collection and the local audience. Lackey did acknowledge that the original curator has been very generous in helping the new team adapt to the collection and sharing their knowledge. Each gallery of the Hepworth was discussed in terms of curatorial decision making. I found it interesting that Lackey noted the negative critical reaction to the museum curated display of the Hepworth plasters. This gallery is the one area the curatorial team that they weren’t involved in decision making. One of the key aims of the gallery is to present Hepworth’s work in a new light, creating new insights and offering fresh perspectives compared to existing Hepworth museums such as St.Ives and research.
Lackey spoke honestly about the joys and difficulties of working in the newly opened gallery, with her statement that the Hepworth is appearing to simultaneously develop two audiences with differing requirements and visions for the gallery. This was illustrated by the advice that Lackey and her colleagues received that the it was critically vital that the Hepworth needed to be centred around the temporary exhibition programme as opposed to the Hepworth collection, something that some stakeholders are keen to see permanently. The fact that visitor numbers are 300k over original projections could be read as proof that this was the correct approach. Lackey’s seminar was an interesting and fascinatingly generous insight into the workings of (arguably) England’s most high profile art gallery opening of the last few years.
Disturbing news from Glasgow where the council has released a briefing detailing a new Public Entertainment License. Under the license, both permanent and temporary exhibition spaces are deemed as form of Entertainment venue and therefore now requires a license. The license itself would cost hundreds of pounds to obtain and the ramifications of this new policy for the visual arts are critical. The license must be opposed. The activities of artist led spaces will be paralysed by this license for numerous reasons. The bureaucratic processes involved in obtaining a license would stand against the very nature of exhibition production. However even this pales in comparison by the ludicrous charge for the license. Not many venues could realistically afford it and would severely damage artistic entrepreneurial spirit in the city. Having gained such a renowned reputation in the arts Glasgow now has a real challenge in opposing this license. It needs our support in doing so.
This is lifted from the press release:
WHY IS THE CHANGE HAPPENING?
The Scottish Government has made this change because it believes that it is necessary for all public entertainment events, particularly large scale events, to be licensed even where there is no charge for entry or use of any facilities.
