With some degree of tardiness I have also now reflected on the Culture Matters conference in Norwich. I spent the Thursday morning sitting in on the Income Generation seminar, chaired by the Chief Executive of The Heritage Alliance, Kate Pugh. The four presentations came from quite different perspectives, but raised in my mind a couple of key issues: income generation strategies are vital for heritage organisations, which goes without saying, but those income strategies need to be properly ‘owned’ by the whole organisation and must be demonstrated to support the whole organisation’s aims and objectives. Secondly, the definition of income is wide, and an understanding of where and why the money or its equivalents flows in, out and around organisations could often be better understood. Leading on from this, recognition is needed that it isn’t all about money, but the equivalent, be it time, ‘in kind’ support, engagement and PR or other type of activity should wisely be able to equate an economic value (for those who do think in those terms). This was described by Ruth Towse as accounting for the ‘whole income’, and put into my mind the work by the New Economics Foundation on social return on investment (SROI) which could be explored further in a heritage context. A particularly insightful point (which is obvious if you think about it) was made by Alice Marsh, who was talking about gallery and museum shops: often the shop provides the most interactive element of an exhibition, and that staff in the gallery shop may be seen as more approachable than staff elsewhere who they have encountered. Therefore the shop staff are far more important than most organisations give them credit for – and should be more integral to thinking about the visitor experience.
The afternoon’s plenary sessions, kicked off by Loyd Grossman, saw in typically bombastic style, an assessment of where the heritage sector is and why it still feels undervalued. Loyd pointed out that the ‘burden of evidence’ required for heritage to argue its case for attention seems higher than for other sectors, and that we can do so much more with the plethora of evidence we already have available. It was pleasing to hear the sometimes derided tourism income link played up as a key provider of evidence, and a reminder that the Heritage Counts research programme which reaches its 10th anniversary this year. (I helped establish this back in 2002, as a successor to the annual Heritage Monitor and, subsequently advised on the equivalent ‘Heritage Audit’ in Scotland). Advocacy remains a key challenge – with killer facts that need to be deployed at an instant in the right kind of policy language – I hesitate to use the word ‘spin’, but that’s what we still need to improve.
Loyd Grossman, chair of The Heritage Alliance, gave the keynote address today at “Culture Matters: The International Cultural Heritage Conference”. This was a passionate and articulate plea to value heritage in our society.
He initially posed the question, “Why is it hard to value culture?” This raised the concern that there are some in our society (or societies) who do not value culture and cultural heritage. The talk ranged from “flagship assets” (like the Tower of London and Stonehenge) to “the less aesthetic” such as bunkers from the Cold War. Interestingly “aesthetic response” was a theme that emerged from the “Not praising, burying” seminar at the McDonald Institute seminar in Cambridge last week.
Heritage has played its part in urban regeneration, but Grossman posed another question, “Why do we measure cultural value?” He suggested that we live in “an audit society” where heritage competes alongside health, education (and defence).
His strongest section was the reminder that heritage policy making is not hampered by a lack of information. He cited the examples of Gateshead and the formation of creative industries, or of Liverpool as capital of culture. Indeed tourism is the fifth largest industry in the UK. What was important was that heritage drives tourism: tourists come to see the castles and the stately homes (and more!). Grossman urged the conference to articulate the link between heritage and tourism. He wondered if the ever increasing demand for more data and information was intended to ensure that the heritage sector was “kept busy” and not raising more difficult questions.
Grossman made it clear that there was a hunger for authenticity and tradition, and this is why heritage in the UK was so important. He felt that the heritage sector “had lost its voice” and had rather taken comfort in the arms of statisticians. His main concern was that the cuts to the heritage sector, and English Heritage in particular, could be very damaging.
Grossman also reminded us that heritage adds to our quality of life, a quality that cannot always be measured.
This was a strong case for why Culture Matters to the people of the United Kingdom (and beyond).
The Culture Matters conference in Norwich has made a vital statement. It was reported today, “… the UK’s rich heritage helped bring in £114 billion of visitor economy and supported more jobs than the car, film or advertising industries” (Kate Scotter, “Norwich’s unique character is worth millions of pounds to local economy“, Eastern Daily Press 15 November 2012). The Westminster Government, as well as devolved governments across the UK, need to acknowledge the unique and significant contribution that is made by the heritage sector to the UK economy. This was the clear message emerging from the International Cultural Heritage Conference meeting in Norwich.
Norfolk as a county recognises the benefits: “heritage tourism is worth £2.4b to the local economy and supports 35,000 jobs”.
Two Heads of Division representing two aspects of heritage at UCS attended the
Culture Matters conference in Norwich today. There were some passionate words from Loyd Grossman in the plenary session. We will be reflecting on some of the sessions here.
I had to reflect on audience. One of the things that I gained from my Swansea undergraduate and postgraduate students was that however good the technology was, if they could not see the value, then they would not be keen to use it. So we need to be pragmatic about how we use technology. My Swansea postgraduate students on my “Digital Antiquity” module made me realise that we have to anticipate changes in the technology. We need to learn how to evaluate and to apply to our research and our projects.
Mobile computing has changed. How many people at the conference would have had an iPad (or smartphone) a year (or two) ago? How did the virtual interactions enhance the papers? Did those tweets lead to (unexpected) face to face interactions? For example, I had a helpful discussion about authority and reliability of Twitter. Do we expect Twitter to be “reliable” – or does it point us to reliable Web 2.0 sites?
Open Access was a major theme with a very positive presentation from Ubiquity Press who publish Papers from the Institute of Archaeology. Will future REF exercises insist on Open Access? There was related discussion about IPR, not least over the publication of e-offprints on personal websites.
There were great insights into the use of social media, in particular Facebook, to engage with archaeological projects. Those interested in crowdsourcing and crowdfunding should look at the DigVentures project at Flag Fen.
On a final note I was struck with the inspirational quality of the “Adopt-a-Monument” scheme from Archaeology Scotland. It brought the best of Web 2.0 and community archaeology together.
Are archaeologists creating digital environments and engaging with new audiences? The workshop clearly showed that they are.
I have been much taken with the approach of Phil Smith (alias Crab Man) in the recently published ‘Counter Tourism: a handbook‘. I am brave enough to admit to a little academic jealousy here, as it is a book I rather wish I had written, as I have a habit of looking at sites the ‘wrong way’, or from angles that shouldn’t normally interest the visitor. I can always be found taking pictures of the interpretation panels, closely looking at the uniforms worn by site stewards, and undertaking a mental archaeological excavation of the visible remnants of interpretation and visitor management schemes. I am hoping to work the latter into something slightly more formal, as the modern archaeology of visitor management leaves a very tangible reminder of how sites continue to have dynamic lives after becoming supposedly static heritage sites.
Smith approaches the visit to heritage sites in a creative response / reaction mode, against the management of visitors by site managers, which in many cases for operational management purposes are expected to conform within the relevant authorised heritage discourse (cf. Laurajane Smith writing in ‘The Uses of Heritage‘). Organisations such as the National Trust are making great efforts to allow and encourage multiple engagements and interpretations of the site for the complex audiences which it attracts, but this pushes Smith towards further subversion via his counter-tourism approach. This has gained some traction via the website and facebook page. An interesting and thoughtful exploration of the relationship between the advocates of the Crab Man approach and ‘managers’ of sites comes at the end of the handbook, and is great way into thinking about the interplay between site operational management and site interpretation and presentation. Other artistic responses to sites can be seen to have similarities – the works of Slinkachu which was displayed at Belsay Hall in the Extraordinary Measures show a couple of years ago come to mind.
Tomorrow (Tuesday, 6 November 2012) will see the Ipswich launch of Caroline Gill’s poetry chapbook, The Holy Place, at Arlington’s in Museum Street at 7.00 pm. (Arlington’s was originally the home of the Ipswich Museum before it moved up the hill.) She will be reading her prize-winning poem, ‘The Figure at the Phoenix Mine’, based on the World Heritage site around Minions Moor, Cornwall. She will also be reading ‘The Ceilidh House’, inspired by the Skye Museum of Island Life.
All welcome to the launch! (£3 for Poetry Café funds.)
How do you explore decorating a rounded, three-dimensional object? What can inspire you? The Cambridge ‘Not praising, burying‘ workshop drew on inspiration from 8th century BC funerary pots decorated with Geometric figures. The texts acknowledge the ‘signatures’ found on much later Athenian black-and red-figured pots, and allude to the poetic process of creation in this stimulating environment.
David Gill joined a day workshop at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge last week to explore themes emerging from Artful Crafts, co-written with Michael Vickers. The day, “Not praising, burying” had been organised by Dr Alana Jelinek, Arts and Humanities Research Council Fellow in the Creative and Performing Arts with the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge.
Participants will then attempt to understand its implications through a process of making, not replicas of past red- and black-figure pottery, but renegotiations of the proposed type of object in the light of this new understanding. Other formal contributions to the discussion will include an art historian’s and a philosopher’s response, though every participant is expected to participate fully in the discussion in order to understand afresh these supposedly well-understood objects. The process of making and thinking, where thinking informs making and making informs thinking, will be highlighted in this workshop, not the newly created vessels as product. These are to be understood as mere by-products of a larger artistic process. The process used in the workshop will be documented and presented as an artwork at a later date.
There is a follow-up seminar at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge on Thursday 8 November 2012 (see BBC).
We are very excited to be the first UK University to join The Heritage Alliance. Our plans for developing heritage teaching, research, knowledge transfer and community engagement fit very neatly with the Alliance’s longstanding expertise in working as the umbrella body for historic environment third sector organisations.