Advertisement

The Future of Gallery/Youth Organisation Partnerships

  • Nicola Sim
Chapter
Part of the New Directions in Cultural Policy Research book series (NDCPR)

Abstract

This chapter asks whether the youth and gallery sectors could work towards building a permanent co-working ‘field’, beyond the limited scope of short-term funded projects. Systemic issues in both sectors are identified to illustrate the scale of the challenge involved in creating radical change. Despite these obstacles, this chapter offers practical ideas for supporting long-term, integrated practice across galleries and youth organisations. These ideas focus on building intelligibility around partnership, generating mutual respect for practice and exploring the capacity for sustainable civic initiatives that draw on the ethos and principles of community development work. This chapter argues that more strategic regional and national relationships between the youth and gallery sectors can ultimately preserve the core values and practices of creative, open access youth work.

Keywords

Partnership Galleries Youth organisations Community development 

References

  1. APPG. 2018. APPG on youth affairs: Youth work inquiry. Recommendations and summary.Google Scholar
  2. Ashman, Lydia. 2015. Learning to doubt. Engage 35: Twenty-five Years of Gallery Education: 94–101.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, Rebecca. 2017. Museums fail to close participation gap. Museums Association. Accessed 3 May 2017. http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/03052017-museums-fail-to-close-participation-gap?dm_i=2VBX,G3CR,27M2Y6,1O28I,1.
  4. Barbican and Guildhall School. 2017. Building a collaborative future. London: Barbican.Google Scholar
  5. Bartlett, Helen, and Adam Muirhead. 2018. Community development with young people—Exploring a new model. In The Sage handbook of youth work practice, ed. Pam Alldred, Fin Cullen, Kathy Edwards, and Dana Fusco, 541–553. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, Claire. 2013. Radical museology: Or, what’s ‘contemporary’ in museums of contemporary art? London: Koenig Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, Pierre, et al. 1999. The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brook, Orian, David O’Brien, and Mark Taylor. 2018. Panic! Social class, taste and inequalities in the creative industries. London: Create.Google Scholar
  11. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. 2017. Rethinking relationships: Inquiry into the civic role of arts organisations. Phase 1 report. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation UK Branch.Google Scholar
  12. Charman, Helen. 2005. Uncovering professionalism in the art museum: An exploration of key characteristics of the working lives of education curators at Tate Modern. Tate papers no. 3. Accessed 3 March 2014. http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/03/uncovering-professionalism-in-the-art-museum-exploration-of-key-characteristics-of-the-working-lives-of-education-curators-at-tate-modern.
  13. Cisneros, Teresa. 2018. The tastes and values of arts workers. In Focus. Part of Panic! It’s an arts emergency, Barbican, London, 27 June 2018.Google Scholar
  14. Cousins, Mark. 2014. Middle-class rules deaden too many arts venues. Let’s fill them with life and noise. The Guardian, August 10.Google Scholar
  15. Currie, Ruth. 2014. Perspectives: A toolkit for working with hard to reach young people in cultural settings. Eastbourne: Towner Gallery.Google Scholar
  16. Cutler, Anna. 2013. Who will sing the song? Learning beyond institutional critique. Tate Papers No. 19. Accessed 2 October 2016. http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/19/who-will-sing-the-song-learning-beyond-institutional-critique.
  17. Davies, Richard, 2015. Partnership: A philosophical consideration. BERA conference 2015, Queen’s University Belfast, 17 September 2015.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2017. Schools, partnerships and policy: A Fourierian analysis. In Improving learning through partnerships: Policy lessons from community projects, BERA Annual conference, University of Sussex, Brighton, 5–7 September 2017.Google Scholar
  19. Decoteau, Claire Laurier. 2016. The reflexive habitus: Critical realist and Bourdieusian social action. European Journal of Social Theory 19 (3): 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de St Croix, Tania. 2015. Thinking critically about outcomes. In Defence of Youth Work. Accessed 7 July 2015. https://indefenceofyouthwork.com/2015/07/07/tania-de-st-croix-thinking-critically-about-outcomes/.
  21. ———. 2016. Questioning the youth impact agenda. Evidence and impact essay collection. London: The Centre for Youth Impact.Google Scholar
  22. Ellison, Jane. 2015. The art of partnering. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  23. Facer, Keri, and Bryony Enright. 2016. Creating living knowledge. Bristol: The University of Bristol and AHRC Connected Communities programme.Google Scholar
  24. Feinstein, Leon. 2015. What does an outcomes-led approach have to offer youth work? Centre for Youth Impact event. Bubble Theatre, London, 10 March 2015.Google Scholar
  25. Gilchrist, Alison. 2016. The short guide to community development. 2nd ed. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, Helen. 2015. In Heritage decisions. 2015. How should heritage decisions be made? Increasing participation from where you are. Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  27. Graham, Janna. 2012a. Ideas that have shaped the terrain. In Gallery as community: Art, education, politics, ed. Marijke Steedman, 43–62. London: Whitechapel Gallery.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2012b. Inherent tensions. In Gallery as community: Art, education, politics, ed. Marijke Steedman, 197–219. London: Whitechapel Gallery.Google Scholar
  29. Gregson, Nicky, and Gillian Rose. 2000. Taking Butler elsewhere: Performativities, spatialities and subjectivities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grenfell, Michael, and Cheryl Hardy. 2003. Field manoeuvres: Bourdieu and the young British artists. Space and Culture 6 (1): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heritage decisions. 2015. How should heritage decisions be made? Increasing participation from where you are [PDF]. Leeds.Google Scholar
  32. Hudson, Alistair. 2015. What is art for? Part two—The museum 3.0. Axisweb. Accessed 20 April 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9URRUEJ7Tg.
  33. Hunter, Shona. 2019. Exploring academic research about whiteness and identity. Unspoken #BlackSafeSpace. Accessed 27 April 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlsLFWZKoZw&app=desktop.
  34. Judah, Hettie. 2018. The art world is overwhelmingly liberal but still overwhelmingly middle class and white—Why? Frieze. Accessed 26 April 2019. https://frieze.com/article/art-world-overwhelmingly-liberal-still-overwhelmingly-middle-class-and-white-why.
  35. Ledwith, Margaret. 2007. Reclaiming the radical agenda: A critical approach to community development. Concept 17 (2): 8–12. Reproduced in the encyclopaedia of informal education. Accessed 3 April 2019. http://infed.org/mobi/reclaiming-the-radical-agenda-a-critical-approach-to-community-development/.Google Scholar
  36. Lingard, Bob, and Shaun Rawolle. 2004. Mediatizing educational policy: The journalistic field, science policy, and cross-field effects. Journal of Education Policy 19 (3): 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCarthy, Julie. 2019. Forming effective partnerships. In Circuit. Test risk change, ed. Mark Miller, Rachel Moilliet, and Eileen Daly, 51–53. London: Tate.Google Scholar
  38. McQuay, Marie-Anne. 2012. Inherent Tensions. In Gallery as community: Art, education, politics, ed. Marijke Steedman, 197–219. London: Whitechapel Gallery.Google Scholar
  39. Project Oracle. 2016. Learning report: Impact pioneers: Lessons in arts evaluation. London: Project Oracle.Google Scholar
  40. Simon, Nina. 2013. On white privilege and museums. Museum 2.0. Accessed 26 April 2019. http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2013/03/on-white-privilege-and-museums.html.
  41. Taylor, Mark, and Dave O’Brien. 2016. Culture is a meritocracy: Why creative workers’ attitudes may reinforce social inequality. Retrieved from osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/tyxz8.
  42. Taylor, Tony. 2015. What does an outcomes-led approach have to offer youth work? Centre for Youth Impact Event. Bubble Theatre, London, 10 March 2015.Google Scholar
  43. Wajid, Sara. 2018. Reni Eddo-Lodge in conversation with Sara Wajid. In Focus Part of Panic! It’s an arts emergency, Barbican, London, 27 June 2018.Google Scholar
  44. Walsh, Victoria, Andrew Dewdney, and Emily Pringle. 2014. Cultural value: Modeling cultural value within new media cultures and networked participation. Arts & Humanities Research Council.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Sim
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations