OPEN SPACE INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Participants: hosted by Sharon Hooper and recorded by Samantha Broadhead (Leeds Arts), Ronan Kelly (Winchester), Roy Hanney (Solent) , Darren Kerr (Solent), Ivan Magrin-Chagnolleau – (Centre national de la recherche scientifique, France), Julian Lawrence (Teeside University), Ben Harbisher (De Montfort University), Paul Stevens (Solent).
Sharon opened up the discussion asking if others had ethical considerations or dilemmas within their creative practice. This line of questioning was catalysed by Hooper, Tobias-Green and Broadhead’s film essay, ‘A conversation about ethics’ that was shown at the MPE/MECCAS 2021 conference.
Ronan was the first to respond by describing a dilemma in his PhD which involved drawing upon Chinese literature that had been translated into English. He discussed the ethics of his practice around authenticity. He argued that meanings and approaches could be lost in translation. He also aimed to avoid the orientalist ‘gaze’ and recognised that he needed to be aware of the geo-political dimension of the work. He wanted to make it explicit that his own interpretation may not not be based on the original meanings of the Chinese texts. Sharon reflected on Ronan’s points agreeing that she as a practitioner needed to be sensitive to cultural appropriation.
Roy offered a concrete example about the tensions between working for and with people from different cultures on an arts project through public consultation. He recounted a project where PhD students acted as producers working with hard to reach communities. One student claimed that such projects represented the middle-class colonisation of communities. Often after the arts project had been completed, the creative practitioners left. It seemed like a cynical appropriation of a community to do an arts project. Roy reflected that he recognised the ethical issue but also that often this reflected the nature of the funding.
Darren commented on the semantic difficulties in talking about communities labelled as ‘hard to reach’. It was a geographical perspective where some areas were left out of classed, gendered and white spaces. No spaces for black faces. There is a responsibility to co-create. What were people being left out of? They were left out of white, middle-class culture. Questions need to be asked about what cultures are valued.
Roy, Sharon and Ronan all responded to Darren’s critical perspective, adding that practitioners had their own artistic aims or standards. Maybe they sought to impose their creative vision and will when working with groups of people who may have different skills and experiences with creative practice and media. When consulting with a community group, a practitioner may require a textile worker and therefore, end up writing themselves out of the project. Roy posed that extra activities could be required to ensure that projects are run in an ethical way. Or there is a danger that the work reproduces the dominant male and white modes of production that are prevalent in the media? But again, this requires more funding.
Sharon moved the debate on asking if ethics is a good way of framing one’s intention, does ethics give a practitioner a critical framework?
Ivan offered a story about his interaction with a film school in Marseilles that provided a free opportunity for minorities to learn about film. Ivan asked the school’s organisers what funding there was – there was none. The work was undertaken by volunteers. He was amazed that such a school could exist. He ran a master class in colour correcting. During the session he asked the students about their dreams and they said they wanted to get a job. This encounter revealed a gap or fundamental difference Ivan’s and his students’ thinking about film. It was not about theory or creative vision but to a chance get a job and to improve lives. Ivan reflected that we would need to travel a long way in our thinking before we could hear their voices.
Sharon agreed that we cannot make assumptions about communities. We must accept that there are differences in the reasons they want to make work.
Ivan continued that at the end of the session he gave them his email so he could give them any help or put them in contact with relevant people. His students told him that he was the first person who had given them give their email. Ivan was really surprised by this, “ I wanted to help, it’s not just tick a box exercise. Practitioners need to arrive with ideas but they also need to pay attention and be prepared to change be flexible. To make an impact you need to know about the people you are working with.
Samantha did not speak but thought that Ivan was expanding his students’ social capital and this was a generous and ethical thing to do. Underrepresented students needed skills and knowledge but they also needed connections to be successful.
Sharon summed up the discussion so far that practitioners could provide genuine, authentic interactions but needed to give an emotional investment, and consider the ethics of relationships when emerge oneself in a community. Roy asked, what is the point in a two month’s project? Ronan continued taking about personal investment. In a two months project where was the infrastructure? He pointed out that it was difficult but you need to talk truth to power because people will hear your voice. Two months is not enough time to understand the power dynamics at a local level.
Sharon said and Samantha thought that sustainability and legacy needed to be planned so projects could have a life after they end.
Julian shared his video project with a national homeless charity creating a collaborative comic from a libretto from After Winter, inspired by Schubert’s song cycle Winterreise (Winter Journey). It was intended that homeless people could be the performers. Due to the pandemic Julian’s students’ comic ended up being the legacy of a production that never was.
The opera project entailed being flexible and listening to the voices of other people. There was a positive impact when participants saw that their voices were valued and were listened to. Everyone including students were emotionally engaged. Recognition, validation lead to self-worth.
Julian also pointed out that paper versions of the comic were more sustainable then digital ones. Ivan added that the chain of production in the media is poisoning the planet. The text News from Nowhere by William Morris was recommended as being relevant for the current times.
Sharon and Roy argued that critical practice was key to understanding the ethics of a situation. However, the group reflected that the risk averse cultures, driven by some neoliberal higher education policies, decreased the opportunities for critical thinking.
Ben reflected on the strategies devised to counter extremism also de-politicised schools leading to socio-political undercurrents being unexamined. Diminished opportunities to study media in schools decreased the possibility of an education that nurtured critical voices. It was posed that academia interrogates, challenges and critiques and without this approach to learning courses could become primarily training courses.
Paul observed that the recent constraints placed on academia could be seen as anti-democratic. He remarked that a popular notion was that universities were ivory towers where blue-sky-thinking took place, and not the real world. However, he argued that they comprised real people with real jobs who facilitated others to develop their own careers and citizenship. At this point a publication by Mark Fisher (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? was recommended.
The group had at the point been talking for ninety minutes and needed a break so the discussion was ended. Sharon thanked everyone for their insights and sharing their stories of ethical practice in an open and generous manner.
Samantha Broadhead
Head of Research (Leeds Arts)
