Another Arts Council Triumph
Speaking of the Arts Council and its casual arrogance, Karen steers our attention to this little nugget:
Ah, dance, poetry and epileptic fitting. A fine night out by anyone’s standards. But how will this gesture – sorry, seizure – be achieved? Isn’t it all rather messy and difficult to predict?
Chocolate, booze and fasting?
And it’s interactive too. How terribly modern.
Note the presumption packed in those two sentences.
On what basis does Ms Marcalo have a right to be heard beyond the rights available to any other member of the public? Is it because she’s an important artist? And who exactly is stopping her from being heard? Perhaps it’s a matter of cash. Maybe self-inflicted public fitting is an expensive endeavour and the only possible avenue for an artist wishing to be heard. But why is that being made my business or yours? Why should others be expected to foot the bill – to the tune of £14,000 – irrespective of their lack of interest or outright disapproval? What if I don’t wish to have my awareness raised in such pretentious and lurid terms? Can I claim a refund? Surely what the Arts Council means is, “You the taxpayer are supporting this spectacle – this artistic vision – whether you like it or not, because we have your money and We Know Best.”
Now I’ve no particular feelings regarding the morality, let alone aesthetics, of public self-harm. But if this woman wishes to gratuitously endanger her health onstage and create enormous inconvenience for those around her, then shouldn’t she at least have the decency to do it on her own dime? Why the presumptuous panhandling – and why make others complicit? Isn’t that just… arrogant?
I hadn’t realised “exploring one’s relationship with epilepsy” via theatrical convulsion is now in effect a function of the welfare state. Readers who itch to see Ms Marcalo twitch should book their tickets now. As Involuntary Dances is a “one-off 24-hour event” – and as the headline act is by its nature unpredictable – the venue will offer patrons hot chocolate and biscuits.
Update, via Carbon in the comments:
The Guardian’s Allan Sutherland is of course impressed…
Do these people not hear themselves? Do they never pause and think, “Oh dear, I said transgressive. I sound a bit of a prick”? And note how the idea that artists might be interested in, say, making beautiful objects of one kind or another simply doesn’t feature. It’s all about being “thought-provoking,” “exciting” and very, very edgy. But hanging around for up to 24 hours on the off chance that a pretentious woman will start to fit isn’t my idea of gripping. Or witty, or thought-provoking. I mean, if you need a siren to wake up the audience, the word “exciting” doesn’t seem quite right somehow.
Note too how Mr Sutherland is very keen to tell us – at some length – what it is Marcalo intends and how lofty and challenging her ambitions are, even though he doesn’t actually quote her anywhere in the piece. Is he guessing on her behalf? Does he feel obliged to fill in the blanks? He also, rather predictably, implies that any objections to the “performance” must be based on stuffiness and prudery.
It’s just a fit. Get over it.
Apparently, the only objection Mr Sutherland can imagine entails being shocked and aghast – and by implication unhip. How cool he must be. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that what may irritate is the presumed entitlement to public subsidy. In fact, most of the commentary I’ve seen so far focuses on the alleged “controversy” of the seizure itself, as if that were the only possible grounds for disapproval. But I don’t see that as the issue. I’ve seen people vomit and call it art and I’ve had to read press releases by people who were so goddamn edgy they wanted to give birth in a gallery. I’ve seen shit machines and x-rayed blowjobs, enormous turds and alleged self-induced abortions, all presented as art and incredibly challenging.
But is anyone here actually shocked by this kind of needy, rather comical self-absorption? I find it very hard to care whether Ms Marcalo fits or doesn’t, publicly or otherwise. Try as I might, I just don’t feel transgressed. I do, however, wish I wasn’t obliged to bankroll this kind of bollocks. And it’s interesting that an article titled Epilepsy as Live Art isn’t Controversial should in fact be arguing that, actually, it is.
Update 2:
Dr Rita Marcalo is a lecturer in dance at York St John University. Her research interests include, “The application of post-classical theoretical physics to the articulation of artistic practice.”
Oh my.
Update 3:
It’s a ‘good-news-bad-news’ thing. 
Having been innoculated by reading what Sutherland says, watching a Marcalo fit should be child’s play.
It’s a good thing they have the siren. Otherwise people might not know when the dancing ended.
A quick and easy correction which should cheer you all right up – Rita’s project received a grant from Grants for the Arts, which is National Lottery funding distributed by the Arts Council, NOT taxpayers’ money. So it wasn’t “bankrolled by the taxpayer”/”at taxpayers’ expense”, “the rest of us” haven’t been “made to pay for it”, there is no “extracting thousands of pounds of taxpayer subsidy” and as for “wish I wasn’t obliged to bankroll this kind of bollocks”, well hey, you’re not. It’s so much easier to be outraged when it’s on “the taxpayers'” behalf isn’t it? That’s why the papers like to skim over the facts – it makes for a better headline, and everyone gets to enjoy a good moan.
Hope I haven’t spoiled your days by introducing some facts into the debate – if you need any more info, it’s here:
http://www.bradfordplayhouse.co.uk/rita/faq.html
jx
Jane,
Thanks for that. Yes, the Times report (and those in other papers) should have made that distinction, as public funding is the most obvious basis for disapproval. That said, the flummery and presumption noted above haven’t become any less conspicuous. And the project has an inherent ridiculousness – as do the inanities mouthed in its defence. (See, for example, the question-begging commentary by Allan Sutherland.)
“It’s so much easier to be outraged when it’s on ‘the taxpayers’ behalf, isn’t it?”
I don’t recall being outraged. Indeed, I pointed out the tendentious insinuation that criticism must be driven by moral outrage or prudery of some kind. Rather than by, say, a disdain for hustlers, hokum and pretentious panhandlers. Similar objections could be made regarding any number of Arts Council projects using public money, some of which can be found in the archives. And one could turn your statement around and, for instance, say,
“It’s so much easier to indulge one’s self-preoccupation and do it with someone else’s money if it’s done on behalf of art. Or laughable bollocks pretending to be art.”
Happy to be of assistance and forgive me for presuming you were outraged, but you and your commenters did sound quite cross.
I only popped by to point out to those people who seemed angry/outraged about their taxes being used to fund this work that it’s ok, they weren’t. I’m not trying to defend the work – some people will find it interesting, others won’t. That’s true of any art, and people who choose to push the boundaries are always an easy target for ridicule. I doubt they’re bothered.
Personally I think the Arts Council funds some truly awesome stuff, while some of it leaves me cold. That’s it. But I noticed the other day that the government spends 5 times as much on winter fuel payments as it does on the arts in total, so hopefully that’s a warming bit of context to end on.
j x
Jane,
“…but you and your commenters did sound quite cross.”
Well, if the tone was unflattering I suppose that’s partly because of the narcissistic drama that typically surrounds “work” of this kind. And of course there are objections to the economic inequity of the Arts Council itself. I hope you can see how one might take exception to the casual and self-serving presumption shown above – the sense of somehow being entitled to improve the population with alleged discernment and someone else’s money. Whatever its merits, the Arts Council is in effect a curatorial caste premised on extortion.
“I noticed the other day that the government spends 5 times as much on winter fuel payments as it does on the arts in total, so hopefully that’s a warming bit of context to end on.”
That the government spends more on something else doesn’t validate the funding of the Arts Council, or any of its projects.
“…people who choose to push the boundaries are always an easy target for ridicule.”
And people who are actually ridiculous even more so.
Jane,
So taking Lottery Money means Marcalo’s vanity project is now a “good cause”?
“I noticed the other day that the government spends 5 times as much on winter fuel payments as it does on the arts in total, so hopefully that’s a warming bit of context to end on.”
That must be some art parasite logic. To me this “bit of context” says
(a) Slash the Arts Council budget and keep more old people warm.
Or
(b) Slash the Arts Council budget and give taxpayers some of their own money back.
Yes?
“Art parasite logic”. Nice, thanks very much. I don’t think I’ve been rude but cheers anyway.
All I meant was that arts spend per capita is a few quid – you only have to do a few arty things that you enjoy and you’ve got your money’s worth. Maybe ignore the rest, someone else might like them.
Yes the arts are funded through the lottery as good causes, as are lots of other things. I don’t really like badminton but I’m not getting my knickers in a twist about people “taking Lottery Money” to chase a shuttlecock round a sports hall.
The joy of a democracy is that if you don’t like the way something’s done, you get to vote for someone who might do it more the way you want it. So if you want to slash the arts budget, there’s a party that will happily do that for you.
Have wonderful yuletides one and all. Peace and goodwill to all.
jxxx