Great Britain: Tempest at the British Council cultural office
/ February 17, 2008The British Council is in charge of Great Britain’s social and cultural relations with other countries. Cultural work forms an important pillar of the council and is the responsibility of the “Arts Group” at the London headquarters. “Arts” includes separate departments for art, architecture, dance, drama, film, literature and music.
After taking up her post in 2007, the current director of the cultural office, Venu Dhupa, proposed that in the new year that the individual departments should be dissolved and reorganized under new categories. Instead of being divided by art form, the cultural office would be made up of various working areas such as “Progressive Facilitation”, “Market Intelligence Network”, “Knowledge Transfer Function” and “Modern Pioneer”. The department directors were asked to apply for the new posts thus created.
These restructuring proposals first ruffled feathers internally and then, after becoming public, caused quite a stir outside the British Council as well. More than 100 British artists put their names to an open letter protesting the reorganization, published in the Guardian on 12 January 2008. The signatories – among them artists such as Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, David Hockney, Gilbert & George, Sam Taylor-Wood – are especially concerned about the future of the visual arts department in consideration of the fine work it has done thus far in organizing international exhibitions and international cultural exchanges. In the artists’ view, seasoned professionals and a dedicated department will be required for this work in future as well. In their protest letter they also complain that the changes were planned without prior consultation.
The changes already undertaken namely include the abolition of the Visual Arts Advisory Panel, an independent advisory body. One member of the panel, Richard Dorment, had already voiced harsh criticism of the proceedings in public (“crass bureaucrats are placing the arts in real danger”).
Also affected by the changes is the film department, which already forfeited a portion of its autonomy when it was relocated from its own premises to an open-plan office shared with other departments. In addition, two longstanding staff members were made redundant at the end of 2007. The British Council’s worldwide work in the film scene was thus shifted onto the shoulders of only a few remaining specialists and primarily assistants and trainees.
These tasks have to date included conceiving and organizing film programmes, retrospectives and workshops for the over 70 foreign institutes, as well as cooperation with foreign film festivals and cultural institutions involved in film. This kind of work requires not only knowledge of film, but also experience with specific local structures as well as longstanding relationships of mutual trust with the professionals in the partner countries. This also applies to domestic relations: For British filmmakers, the British Council offers an important, professional source of support in publicizing their work abroad – support from which artists and up-and-coming talents in particular stand to benefit, along with all those who are not part of the regular film industry.
In the past few years, Great Britain has seen a whole series of restructurings in the field of artistic film in particular, almost all of which turned out to the filmmakers’ disadvantage. This was the case with the fusion of the London Film and Video Development Agency and Film London as well as with the discontinuation of promotion programmes in the field of artistic film. This development led many filmmakers to turn away from film and cinema, only able to work if they could achieve success on the art market. The planned restructuring at the British Council is an ominous reminder of the dissolution of the film department at the Arts Council, which was likewise preceded by a fusion of departments.
Especially in the field of artistic short film, one traditionally neglected by the industry, the British Council has done some vital work in past years. Unfortunately, film culture, in particular that of short film, does not enjoy a strong lobby in Great Britain – unlike visual arts, for example. Nevertheless, there was at least an inquiry as to the future of the British Council’s film work voiced at the January session of the Lower House of Parliament.
As a result of the public discussion that has arisen, the British Council has felt compelled for the first time to make an official statement, indicating that the reorganization has been suspended for the time being. A decision on the future of the cultural office is now to be postponed until Easter, pending a period of internal and external consultation.
Whether the work of the film department is to be continued, and what form it might take, remains to be seen in the coming weeks. One can only hope that the deliberations will lead to a solution that affords adequate professionalism in foreign relations while integrating the interdisciplinary aspects desired by the new management in the internal work organization without destroying the structures that have proven so successful in the past.
Info on the work of the film department
(rww)