How Should the Culture Sector Respond to the Climate & Inequality Crisis? featured a panel of four creatives involved in various aspects of the cultural industries, from trustees to freelancers, each discussing their work and how the cultural industries and nature are interlinked, as well as what they can and should be doing to help respond to the climate crisis, from divestment to new ways of doing business and education, outreach and awareness of the issues that our industry can impart that others may not be able to.
I struggled with this event, in all honesty. The technical issues were frustrating at points, but given the hybrid nature of the panel (two of the guests were dialling in) and the acoustics of the venue, I actually think they made do very well. A lot of good points were raised by both panellists and audience members alike, and hearing about what work each of the panellists are doing, have done and plan to do in future in their own unique ways was inspiring. From the interconnectivity of humans mimicking mycelium to new initiatives to connect farmers with artists, and even entirely new ways of doing the arts industry, each was bursting with ideas.
However, I did have issues with some of the substance that was raised, which manifested itself mainly towards a discussion surrounding arts funding from industries such as fossil fuel companies. It was asked by an audience member, with reference to the National Gallery being part-funded by BP, what their take on this was. The panellists agreed that this shouldn’t happen (I’m with them so far). But then several went on to say that arts should refuse funding and donations from industries such as this, avoid using “blood money” (which they then said that all money was dirty to some extent) and take a stand against this, with several referencing how they refuse partnerships and deals for this reason, making their own careers more difficult.
I don’t disagree with what they said in this regards per se, but I definitely think it represents a very privileged view that some of the panellists took. I’m sure many, if not all, in the creative industries would love to just not take donations or sponsorships unless they’re from entirely green, positive-impact sources. But this is not always a possibility. Many, especially small and independent creatives and groups, aren’t often in a financial position to be hugely picky about funding. For many, funding is an essential to survival.
And how can these groups advocate positively if they are forced to close due to lack of provision? I think it’s definitely an end goal to work towards but in the current economic climate, this is a long way off for many small groups. And the interventions that several refuse to work with certain people or entities for these reasons and then saying how this makes their lives harder, I think is a bit disrespectful to those who cannot make those same decisions. These are incredibly successful individuals, but to be able to turn down financial backing and stay afloat puts you in a privileged position that many aren’t able to do, and getting the feeling that some believed that puts them in a higher moral position than others honestly didn’t sit well with me at all.
I think this event was a good way to bridge the gap between two sectors which largely can appear unrelated, especially given the relatively low environmental impact the creative arts have, but some of the comments made by the panel and some of their solutions felt very disconnected, especially given that some of them having roles such as trustees and freelancers means they have a lot more freedom and agency than others in the sector do.
Rating: ★★☆☆☆
How Should the Culture Sector Respond to the Climate & Inequality Crisis? was held on May 24th at Soft Ground. Other Festival of Debate events can be found here
