Junk

Someone’s come up with the idea of building a Chinese Junk to promote Guernsey.
 
Hang, that must have been a good party!
 
You can imagine the conversation.
 
“We need something that says Guernsey.”
 
“Tradition.”
 
“Ship building! That used to be really big here a while back.”
 
“But we need to think commercial as well. Where’s the biggest market for visitors?”
 
“China of course.”
 
You can see how the conversation degenerated from there can’t you.
 
For the hard of thinking, here’s a news flash.
 
Chinese people aren’t that interested in junks just as Dutch people aren’t that interested in canals and windmills. They can see that sort of stuff at home and don’t need to travel to a small obscure Island for the privilege.
 
“But it’s going to be built by this well known Chinese artist.”
 
A Chinese born artist who has lived in New York since 1995 and who is hardly a household name outside of the rarified atmosphere of contemporary art.
 
“But it will sail all over the place taking the name of Guernsey with it.”
 
This idea should be a non-starter but of course in the cosy closed world of Guernsey Arts it’s easy to find traction for such whimsy especially given the potential for exploratory talks, investigative visits, and grandstanding to the Press.
 
Does Guernsey need this junk?
 
No.
 
“But think of all the free publicity we got with Gormley’s statues and Goldsworthy’s balls.”
 
And how much revenue did this “free exposure” generate for Guernsey? I seem to forget the hordes of art lovers flocking off of the planes and boats panting for the sight of these art treasures.
 
You could hire a blimp to drag a banner over Central London saying “I love Guernsey” and get it seen by hundreds of thousands. Doesn’t mean a single one of them will come visit us.
 
But what about the other idea? Making the old slaughterhouse into a contemporary arts gallery.
 
Does Guernsey need it?
 
No.
 
“But what about the Bilbao effect?”, the regeneration of an area because a famous museum set up there.
 
The hint’s in the word famous.
 
Who’s going to travel to Guernsey to see a third rate and frankly tiny museum? We are not Bilbao, or St Ives, or even Margate.
 
“But we  can exhibit local artists as well.”
 
Ah, the fig leaf of community participation. The leaf that the Arts Commission uses so well to justify their existence. “Arts Sunday”, “Art on the Beach”, missionary trips into the estate jungles to bring the natives paint and lanterns.
 
Here’s another news flash.
 
None of it is needed and none of it is necessary. It’s nice and generates a few good photo opportunities but the money could be better spent elsewhere.
 
Art, in all of it’s many forms, exists and thrives on this Island without the interference of the Arts Commission.
 
People will paint, dance, act, or make music because they want to, because they need to, and they will do it no matter what. They don’t need organising by an expensive Commission with it’s own agenda.
 
If we needed a contemporary arts gallery, then we would already have one. The wave of public opinion would have overwhelmed any resistance.
 
The slaughterhouse could make a great intimate theatre space to replace that lost to Youth Theatre when their old home got redeveloped by the States into housing. Their new States allocated space really isn’t the same and we have lost an outlet for good contemporary theatre using talented local artists. Maybe also use such a new theatre for other arts events. Maybe even for gigs by local bands on some nights?
 
Then there’s the Sea Cadets needing a new home as well. 

Something a short walk away from the slipway would be ideal.
 
Or maybe we could do with a proper local market space for home producers with good nearby parking.
 
All good ideas and none considered before this project was allowed the go ahead.
 
Ah, the good old Guernsey way.
 
It’s not what you know but who you know and what you know about those in the know.
 
Not much scope for overseas jollies from the Sea Cadets is there?
 
It’s a shame that such a potentially iconic site will be squandered on something with such little scope for real local participation by the wider community.
 
You might see a fig leaf flapping but this isn’t about local community. It’s about a privileged few pursuing their individual interests and other potential good uses for this space can go hang.
 
Maybe I’m wrong.
 
Maybe we need a man of vision with a passion.
 
Build it and they will come.
 
Maybe.

A proper education

In an earlier blog I posed the question “What do we want from our schools?”
 
This is an attempt to answer that question.
 
Let’s start by looking at the end product. What do we want our 16 year old school leaver to look like? Once we know the goal, then we can figure out how to get there.
 
This individual should be healthy and fit and have a respect for their bodies. They should know how to maintain themselves in terms of basic modern survival skills. By this I mean the ability to groom, feed and clothe themselves. Maybe even live by themselves if the need arose.
 
Yes I know that’s traditionally part of the role of parents but so much of what is now lacking is, and it still won’t happen unless someone else does it.
 
Be able to budget and manage their finances which in turn means having a good understanding of numbers and basic arithmetic. 

Mathematics based on real world problems.
 
The ability to hold a conversation with anyone of any age. This brings in a whole range of personal skills including thinking, listening, and presenting your own ideas in a coherent fashion.
 
Our school leaver should have an understanding of themselves, their surroundings and the wider world. This means having the ability to both read, comprehend and think about what you have read.
 
This leads on to thinking in general.
 
The ability to seek out information and consider its veracity. So much of the modern e-world seems to involve people peddling dubious opinions and shallow thinking. They get away with this because most people do not know how to spot illogical or poor thinking.
 
Note that I haven’t even begun to consider any subject specific knowledge. Most of what we need from individuals are skill sets rather than knowledge.
 
Creativity is another area where we might like to see our school leaver shine both mentally and physically. The skills to attempt to create physical things of beauty and not just ideas.
 
The ability to think and work collectively. Ploughing your own furrow was an enviable trait in previous centuries but now we all work as teams. Collaboration is the key to boosting creativity these days.
 
As a team player, our school leaver will have a sense of community and a willingness to help others. The ability to see the wider picture rather than just the parochial.
 
This widens out into a respect for both themselves and for everyone they have contact with. Respect doesn’t mean obedience or blind acceptance. Just a willingness to consider the other persons position rather than just your own thoughts and needs.
 
A willingness to make mistakes. The best way to learn and stretch yourself is by trying; and trying will always bring mistakes if you are entering new areas. Anyone know a baby who stood and walked at their first attempt? No. We try, we fall over, and we try again until we get it right.
 
The other part of the equation is admitting mistakes, which in my book also includes admitting that you don’t yet know the answer to whatever you are being asked. Admitting temporary ignorance until you are able to rectify that situation rather than trying to blag your way through life.
 
I’ve still not drilled down to information acquisition and everything so far isn’t even age specific. Most of it can be applied equally at the primary or secondary level, tweaked of course to the age appropriate circumstance.
 
How about having a positive attitude? A can do approach, or at least a willingness to try approach?
 
A love of learning. Much to every school leavers disgust, exams do not stop at sixteen; they just take different forms. Lifelong learning is with us for our foreseeable future so get used to it. Mind you, if you have a love for new information, then learning is something that you will do for fun anyway.
 
Adaptability is already a major asset to anyone’s arsenal these days. 

The world is changing so fast that we can’t even imagine the skills that will be useful in twenty years time. Fletcher, cooper, blacksmith, printer. All good and essential trades until the world moved on. Learn from history; death and taxes are not the only certainties these days. Change is up there too.
 
Self motivation has got to be on the list somewhere. For most of us the world does not come on a plate and we will only realise our dreams by our own efforts.
 
The ability to dream. A willingness to aim high. Not being satisfied with following the family business, be it mining or doctoring. This also means having had the chance to know what’s out there or at least being given the skills so that you can go and look for yourselves.
 
I guess that by now I should be looking at subjects which actually exist in the school curriculum.
 
Geography. A knowledge of the world which is not US-centric. 

Sadly, most people can name more US states than European capitals. I’d rather our school leaver knew where most countries in the world were and have some idea of their current situation if even at the most basic level. An understanding of climate and the effects of mankind on the environment would be useful and hopefully might promote a better awareness of modern needs and more especially Island needs regarding conservation and environmental controls.
 
History. An understanding of Island history, then European history and then world history. Again, it is better to have a broad brush understanding rather than a detailed knowledge of only one small aspect of the world.
 
Language. An appreciation of language and an ability to use it in both the written and spoken form. Start close to home and then work outwards. Let them experience the best of British, European and then world literature, in translation of course.
 
This can broaden out into the performing arts where the individuals get the chance to express themselves creatively.
 
Art appreciation. An understanding of the major visual art movements in history. 
 
Religion. An understanding of all of the world religions and of their critics. Comparative religion rather than indoctrination.
 
The idea in everything is to get a world framework. With that created, the individual can then decide which areas to pursue into greater depth.
 
One of the big problems with these ideas is that a lot of it can’t be tested. How do you examine if a person is becoming a team player or more positive and self confident? Without testing, how do you know if a teacher or a school is performing well? How do you reward? How do you maintain standards?
 
The answer is of course to spend time in the schools and to talk to the pupils. Two or three weeks in a school, observing lessons and playtimes should give an insight into the schools success and talking to pupils will soon establish what sort of individuals they are turning into.
 
Of course we would need teachers proficient in this new curriculum. People with real world skills rather than individuals who went from school to uni and back to school again. But to do that we would need to pay teachers a real world salary otherwise why would a success want to move into teaching?
 
But back to our school leaver. If you saw someone with even half of the skills we’ve discussed walking out of the school gates, wouldn’t you want to employ them?
 
Isn’t that enough of an endorsement to move towards this end?

Cultural death by a thousand cuts

Is the Schools Music Service worth £600,000 pa?
 
It’s a good question especially when the Island seems to want to save money wherever it can find a soft target.
 
The Education website tells me that the service caters for some 700 pupils, so that’s about £900pa per pupil, assuming of course that the big figure is correct. 

Doesn’t sound very good value for money does it?
 
But what do we get for that money?
 
A music service that’s the envy of every specialist teacher visiting from the UK. A general standard of musicality which is again the envy of those who know about such things. A vibrant Guernsey music scene across all genres.
 
Would we still have these things without a Music Service?
 
Look to the UK where most were scrapped years ago, and where incidentally, they would love to bring them back. How many counties hold Eisteddfods which reach Guernsey levels of skill and professionalism?
 
None!
 
Every year, visiting adjudicators, who work nationally and internationally, tell us that we have a jewel in the crown and should cherish and nurture it.
 
But with only 700 pupils this service is an elitist luxury and anyway, most of the parents can afford to pay for these music lessons so why should the taxpayer?
 
Yes, it is a luxury but if you are just counting pennies, then so are most things. Let’s scrap all of the Arts funding and, while we’re about it, let’s do the same for Sport. If you want to participate then pay for it yourself. In fact let's just close down Culture and Leisure and use the budget elsewhere.
 
We don’t need that many doctors, lawyers, teachers. In fact we could import the few that we do need and save the cost of sending our youngsters off for expensive training. Then there’s all of those useless degrees which we’ll never have need for; let’s stop funding those as well. Tertiary education is elitist so let the parents pay for it or bring in student loans and let the youngsters themselves learn to live with debt early.
 
This is all patently absurd but where do you draw the line?
 
Let’s return to music. What benefits are there in keeping the Service?
 
These 700 students do not live in isolation. They use the skills they are learning to enrich our cultural life. They feed back into their own schools and provide a backbone to their school’s own music making activities. They become better individuals, better team players, and better role models for their peers because music has taught them discipline, how to work as part of a team, and how to become creative.
 
Some will go on in later life to use their skills to teach others and to help generate music making at all levels. Some even go on to become professional musicians.
 
But music is taught in schools. Leave it to the teachers and they’ll do a good job.
 
Yes they will, but music after the basic level is a specialisation and you can’t progress a whole class to become musicians at the same time. You need specialists to teach music and you need specialist musicians to teach specific instruments.
 
But if we can’t afford it then perhaps we should rejoin the third world. Hold on a minute though, Venezuela has a world renown children’s orchestra and their El Systema movement is looked on as a model for development in lots of countries, even Scotland.
 
The third world appreciates the importance of music and don't regard it as elitist. Perhaps we should do the same.

Nowt so queer as folk

 I promised to return to the question of homophobia in Guernsey as reflected in the recent arguments over two canvases depicting cartoon same sex kisses.
 
One strand of the debate places homosexuality in the wrong because it is not normal either in society or biology. But what is normal?
 
Normal is only what is acceptable to the majority of a group or tribe or society. Normal might imply, but does not mean, that it is right and all else wrong. Normal just means that it accords with what most others are doing.
 
What is normal today was not so in the last century and may well not be in the next. Normal might be so here in Guernsey but not there in another country. What is normal in your social circle may not be so in mine.
 
Normal often ends up being “like me and my tribe, or what I perceive my tribe to be”.
 
As you may have figured out by now, there is no normal; that is to say, no normal in the sense of being right.
 
Normal is only what you find acceptable.
 
Homosexuality is a fact; it exists. It has existed for millennia and is not confined to the human race. Why it exists has yet to be satisfactorily answered but we cannot just label it wrong because it is not the norm for the majority of the world.
 
Sexuality does not split neatly into two groups no matter what “normal” biology suggests. Indeed, sexuality is more a state of mind than body and you may find yourself anywhere on a wide spectrum with your position shifting slightly (or for some, radically) over time.
 
Some argue that gay is gay and that you’re born that way. Others favour nurture over nature but I suspect societal pressures have more long term influence than familial ones. But to a degree this is irrelevant to our argument.
 
Sexuality in its many forms exist and we define ourselves in part by our acceptance levels of it.
 
Society is still tribalistic and you cannot belong to my tribe unless you think and act like the rest of us. So we are in essence talking about inter tribal relationships. How we get along with the neighbours.
 
Our tribe might be aggressive and want to teach the world to sing to our tunes or we may accept that there are other songs which can exist without our singing them.
 
We might be closed to new membership if not self generated or be more inclusive and friendly.
 
We may tolerate next door provided they don’t flaunt their gang colours in our neighbourhood or we might encourage diversity and seek to learn something from it.
 
None of these stances are normal or right per se. They are variations on a theme and all playable whether we like it or not.
 
Normal is where we place the barriers to our neighbourhood be they physical or social.
 
In some societies today it is perfectly acceptable for people of the same sex to hold hands in the street. It just means they are friends; most probably heterosexual friends.
 
In Guernsey, such behaviour is not currently generally acceptable unless the participants are both very young and female. That is our society as it is at the moment.
 
A lot of us aim to be tolerant but sooner or later we will all find ourselves with our backs to the barriers, the very things which define us and our society.
 
Let’s explore that tolerance and find out where exactly to put the border line. For extra bonus points, read each question twice and substitute another word for “gay” the second time through. Chose black, or fat, or maybe ginger.
 
Part One
 
Do you object to seeing gay people on the High Street? (This assumes you have excellent gay recognition skills and can spot them without the aid of glitter or builders boots).
 
Would you invite gay people into your house?
 
What if you have young relatives present?
 
Would you object to your daughter having gay friends who are boys?
 
What if it were your son?

Part Two
 
What is your reaction when your middle aged cousin introduces his new girlfriend who looks about 25 and is Latvian?
 
Does that change if she is 19 and Thai?
 
How about if she is 15 and from St Peter Port?
 
At what age do you draw your line?
 
Now replay those scenarios with your cousin’s twin sister who is gay.
 
Where do you place your barriers now?

 
My point is that some behaviour is unacceptable regardless of sexuality and my objection does not of itself make me homophobic. 

It is just that my barrier has been breached and I’m pushing back.
 
Let’s start wandering back in the direction of the initial concerns.

Part Three
 
Do you object to adverts showing adults wearing the new seasons clothes?
 
What if they’re all the same sex?
 
What if the models look teenaged?
 
Or 12?
 
Now make the clothes sexy underwear and replay the questions.
 
Then assume your young and impressionable children are with you.
 
At what point, if any, does it cease to be acceptable?

Part Four
 
Ignoring the question of artistic merit, do you object to a painting of two adult cartoon characters kissing?
 
What if they’re the same sex?
 
What if they are both very young?

What if only one is young?
 
Now replay the questions with photographs of real people rather than cartoons.
 
When do the barriers come up?

 
Each of us finds some behaviour unacceptable and it is our strength of opposition which defines which tribe we belong to. We may seek to impose our tribes views on everyone but that doesn’t automatically make us right or wrong.
 
If we are certain in our belief then it is also perfectly logical for us to want to persuade others to join us. However, that way can lead to extremism and we are all too painfully aware of the modern day consequences of taking that path.
 
But what is extremism?
 
It is behaviour which tramples and mangles our barriers.
 
However from the other side of the fence, this extremism is just their normal behaviour. 

It’s been a long journey but hopefully one worth taking.
 
 Don’t get me wrong. Some behaviours are always unacceptable in any civilised society and we may have touched on some of them.
 
Hopefully the discussion regarding homophobia can now continue with a little more light and a little less heat.

Can you tell what it is yet?

As usual the Press are trying to brew a storm in a teacup, this time  over two canvases shown during the Arts weekend, featuring Disney characters in same sex kisses.
 
The debate, and occasional slanging match, on line and now in print, has divided into two camps; one questioning homophobia and the other asking whether the paintings are actually any good.
 
Both are generating lots of smoke and heat but little light.
 
As with Education, nobody can come up with any one agreeable definition of what Art is nor its use in modern day society.
 
To my mind these paintings are simplistic and whilst showing some draughtsmanship, exhibit little in the way of artistry but that is merely my opinion.
 
At times I despair over the state of modern art where seemingly the ability to talk the talk is rated far more than any amount of walking. 

But as Duchamps proved with his “Fountain”, Art is what you make it, or in his case where you find it.
 
I suspect that his exhibition entry was somewhat tongue in cheek but modern “artists” find so much more in his statement; whether it is there to be found or not.
 
In some ways Fountain is like Carl Andre’s infamous pile of bricks (“Equivalent VIII”) which rates as a most audacious con trick according to some commentators; mostly of the red top or right wing press kind. It sounds rubbish but on viewing asks the observer to think about Art and how it is defined.
 
Why is this pile of bricks Art and my patio not? If the bricks were arranged differently, how would that affect matters? Does removing one or two bricks make it a more powerful statement?
 
Looking at the Guernsey Disneys I feel nothing and am not challenged in any way.
 
It’s two sets of cartoon characters kissing.
 
So what?
 
Add two same sex children in the foreground holding hands and looking at these images and then you have some meat to chew over.
 
Or two realistic and modern equivalents echoing the kiss with the cartoon behind them. Again, something to get you thinking and talking.
 
But on their own, these paintings are mute and would not rate further attention if not for the media spoon stirring.
 
If they were meant to challenge our prejudices then it is clearly aimed only at the homophobic because the rest of us don’t care. I might not like to see the real thing on the High Street but that reflects my general distaste for people trying to chew the face off of their partner in public, regardless of their sexuality.
 
But what is Art for and is this Art?
 
Art for me is anything which strikes a creative chord and resonates within me. I liked the pile of bricks but not the urinal. I actively dislike the kitsch of Jeff Koons yet it sells well at auction so perhaps I’m missing something.
 
I appreciated Gormley’s figure looming over Castle Cornet but see little that is praiseworthy in Goldsworthy’s balls.
 
London’s National Gallery can leave me cold and overexposed through yard after yard of religious masterpieces yet pull me up short in front of something small and exquisite.
 
There is no rhyme or reason to my choices other than that inexplicable chime of recognition. I cannot explain art nor my appreciation of it.
 
That doesn’t mean that I don’t have an opinion or don’t recognise good art (on my terms) when I see it.
 
To use the definition which makes all critics cringe “I know what I like”.
 
So for me, these cartoons are not Art especially as I feel the artist could have done so much more with the idea.
 
Let’s see how she develops.
 
As for the homophobic debate, I’ll leave poking that hornets nest for another time.

Cutting the Arts budget in Guernsey

Do you remember that chap who stuck up those statues of himself on Guernsey’s Castle Cornet?
 
Gaunt, stick like figures looking out over the ramparts.
 
When they left after two years, one of them wandered over to Herm to go for a paddle for a year.
 
How about that other chap who constructed some big balls in Alderney. Huge things made to slowly decay.
 
Both were projects by internationally recognised artists.
 
So, how much has your life been affected by these works?
 
Were they worth it?
 
Or to expand the question, what use are the Arts to us?
 
Now, I’m afraid that I’m one of those who regard the majority of modern art as just so much hot air. I also think that a lot of arts degrees are exercises in how to talk the talk rather than walk the walk.
 
I can hear the cries of "Philistine!" already.
 
But we need to raise Guernsey’s Arts profile. We should be grateful that these internationally recognised artists are gracing our shores.
 
Why?
 
Think of St Ives, think of Bilbao, think how Guernsey could be developed as an international centre for modern art.
 
I’ve been to St Ives but sadly found more of interest in the museum building itself than in it’s contents. But maybe that’s just personal taste.
 
The town wasn’t up to much either and I bet that any real artists still there just love those tourists.
 
What I’m suggesting is that there are more important things to spend public money on at the moment than Art. There’s even more important things to spend private money on too.
 
But if Art is to be financially supported, then there will always be private money available to do so.
 
There will always be a marketplace where there is profit to be made.
 
But art isn’t about making a profit.
 
Why not?
 
If you are an artist, you will find a way to express your art regardless of money. You will find what you need, to do what you must.
 
You do not need conferences or commissions to make your art.
 
If money will make your life easier, go find a patron. Just don’t look to the public purse.
 
Don’t get me wrong, Art and Culture are important.
 
Important at the grass roots level.
 
Important to those who can’t afford the oil paints, dance classes or drama lessons.
 
Important to those who have never seen the inside of a theatre or gallery, even if they don’t know or value it’s importance yet.
 
So, if we are to spend on the Arts, let’s keep it at ground level. 

Bring over teaching practitioners and let them get involved in workshops. Better still, use some of the local talent to deliver at local level.
 
And keep doing it. If it’s a pottery workshop that works well, then repeat it two months later. If it still works well, repeat it again and set up a self sustaining group to keep things going.
 
Then move on to something else.
 
Create artists, not art.
 
Create opportunities.
 
Don’t create jobs for administrators or talk feasts for arts professionals. We don’t need them and we can’t afford them.
 
Finally, if Art is to serve the people, then it must begin with what they want. Give the kids on the estates some street dance before ballet, and rap before poetry. Get the Mums painting, or writing, or whatever. Get families involved.
 
The creative talent is out there and it needn’t cost a lot to develop it.
 
Just involve the passionate practitioners we already have.
 
Then be proud of the Arts in Guernsey.