Photo Opportunity

One of my duties at work is to carry out some of the annual teaching observations. I am sent into a class in any area of the college and asked to make a judgement on the quality of the teaching and learning that takes place.

The session that I was to observe last week was in photography - an area that I am interested in, and an activity I take part in when time allows. So already this particular observation was looking positive. When I arrived at the session I found the base room for the photo students had been set out lecture style (at least I wasn't going to be observing a session in the darkroom!) so I knew that this was a session in which I would learn something. The tutors on our photography courses are all working professionals and the head of the course is an internationally renowned photographer, so the students are very lucky to get real life, up to date, relevant information on their chosen industry. But this session was even more exciting as it was to feature a guest lecture from Donovan Wylie.

Donovan Wylie is a highly regarded photographer from Belfast. He began his professional career at the age of 16 and by 19 was a member of the prestigious Magnum photography agency. The talk he gave was about his approach to working in the creative industries; he briefly discussed his own background and early days, showed some proofs for his latest work and took questions from the floor. His relaxed and informal manner belied the seriousness of what he had to say. As I listened to him talk, feeling lucky to have had the opportunity to hear his views, I noted down some of the things he said. All of them apply to anyone working in the creative sector, from whichever discipline, and I have summarised them below.

"Photography was a wall for me to hide behind but I could speak from behind it with confidence"
The word 'photography' here could be substituted with any creative endeavour. It is a common feeling amongst artists that they hide behind their art, that they express things much more confidently and eloquently through their work than they do in real life. Donovan made the comment that being a photographer allowed him to be present but somehow removed from the moment at the same time.

"The buzz is something in me, something missing in me"

This comment intrigued me because it articulated something that I have seen my students have trouble expressing. It described the feeling of finding oneself through the portrayal of or interaction with another. Many people, when they meet someone that they know only through watching them on TV or through some other achievement, are struck by how much smaller they are in real life than they seem on the screen. This is because the person is somehow a conduit for the greater creative forces; they become, literally, greater than the sum of their parts.

"Failure is more normal than success"

This is a statement of an overlooked fact - it is much more the norm to fail that it is to succeed. We must get used to getting things wrong. The frustration and anguish of falling on our arse regularly has the benefit of teaching us about balance and the effects of gravity. The lessons learnt through failure are much more beneficial than any gleaned from success. This leads us neatly into the next comment which needs little or no elaboration.

"The more that you recognise failure and learn from it, the more successful you will be"

"Immerse yourself in the subject; look at other people's work, experiment with your own work, enjoy doing it - it is fine to copy others for a while, it allows you to engage with what you love"

I was glad to hear Donovan make this point to the students as it is something that I always go on about with my own. If you have any interest in and a desire to work in any branch of the creative industries, you need to immerse yourself in it. You have to read about it, watch it, think about it, argue about it and dream about it. Take a look at the history of what it is you want to do, learn from others, develop your skills, and keep honing them. As Donovan put it with reference to his own field, "do you love photography or do you love the idea of being a photographer?"

"Know your market, work with what people want, as there is always a commercial imperative, but don't make something without yourself in it. Once you know the market you can start to control your place in the market"

This was an important point about being self-aware in your awareness of the business side of the profession. You have to do the research, there's no point making great art for yourself; without an audience it becomes pure self-indulgence. Be mindful of the business side of things, the commercial imperative, but be true to your own voice too. If you are hired for a job, it is you that they want, your ideas, your creativity, your voice. Once you understand the context within which you work you will be much better placed to take ownership of your place within your chosen field.

"Have the ideas, go follow them, get the work done"

A simple truth but a universal one. It is fine having lots of ideas but they are useless unless you act on them. Make the work, to the best of your abilities and true to your vision, but get it done. The act of creation is a sacred one.

I was very fortunate to be present at the session and was inspired by what was said. It was a lucky opportunity I had to listen to a successful and respected artist discuss their work, their motivation, and their ideas. I am grateful to Sue Griffiths for letting me observe the session, to Trevor Griffiths for organising the talk, and especially to Donovan Wylie for giving me permission to quote him slightly out of context but, hopefully, in the spirit in which his words were intended. You can find information on Donovan and his work here The first year photography degree students are raising money for Marie Curie Cancer Care by holding an exhibition of their work. Prints are for sale, all monies raised will go to the charity. Here is a gallery of their work where prints may be ordered online.

An Open Letter to the Younger Generation

Open Letter to the Younger Generation.

It must be hard growing up in today's world. So many conflicting ideas, so much confusing information, so little help and guidance. As a young person you are facing an uncertain future, perhaps more so than any previous generation. Time and resources are quickly running out and those responsible for squandering it all are leaving you to pick up the pieces and make the best of what is left.
For that, and on behalf of all of us who have failed you, we are sorry.

We are sorry that we have left this planet in such a parlous state; that we have taken advantage of it's many rich resources. We are sorry that we have taken and taken and taken, and given precious little back. We are sorry that we have ruthlessly exploited those resources for our own selfish ends with no regard for the other people or creatures or plants that share our home.

We are sorry that those of us who have benefitted from a free and rich education are now making you pay for a much more limited experience. We are sorry that we have instigated a regime of testing that does not serve any educational purpose but merely creates work for bureaucrats. We are sorry that the curriculum is now so narrow that you will not get the opportunities to discover the joys of history, art, music or drama. We are sorry that we have not provided you with welcoming and inspirational school buildings but, instead, have given you versions of corporate headquarters so that we might make you in our own image. We are sorry that we have sold off your playing fields and introduced ridiculous health and safety policies that do not allow you to learn through play or enjoy sport or socialise. And we are sorry that we now complain that you are a lazy generation.

We are sorry that we have tempted you with seductive images of a future that you will not have. That we have raised you to have materialistic desires so that you can consume more so that we can earn more. We are sorry that we have designed gadgets with in-built obsolescence so that you have to update and upgrade constantly. We are sorry that we have created a culture where status is conferred on those who have the newest, the fastest, the sleekest or the most expensive. We are sorry that your values are now so skewed. We are sorry that we have not taught you to value one another for who you are and who you can be.

We are sorry that we have created an economy where the richest will continue to get rich at the expense of the poor. That we have built a tax system that will benefit those that have money and cripple those that do not. We are sorry that your future is now mortgaged to provide huge bonuses for the very people who gambled away your future. We are sorry that we have run up so much debt that you will be paying it back for the rest of your lives.

We are sorry that we are selling off your woodland and countryside and limiting your access to open space. We are sorry that we are developing urban housing with no gardens, no space and no privacy. We are sorry that whilst we are doing this, the very richest of us spread out in our country estates and second or third holiday homes.

We are sorry that we have created a culture whereby the only way you c an feel that you are enjoying yourselves, or validated, or anything much at all is by drinking yourselves into a stupor. We are sorry that we continue to sell the alcohol to you at the cheapest possible price to ensure that you drink yourselves to an early death. And we are sorry that we then shake our heads disapprovingly at your squalid binge-drinking behaviour and console ourselves that we were never so bad.

We are sorry for the relentless sexualisation of all aspects of your life. We are sorry too that this continuous representation of the ideal female form and endless male virility has left you feeling confused, scared and inadequate. These airbrushed images and unrealistic expectations are contrived to distract you from what really matters and keep you obsessed with the carnal and the erotic. In this way we can speed your journey through childhood and take away your innocence all the quicker. We are sorry that this has left you unable to maintain relationships, unable to set aside your own desires, and at the mercy of other people's. We know that there is no such thing as 'the perfect relationship' but we struggle so much with this ourselves that we are damned if we are going to make it any better for you.

We are sorry that some of you have been enslaved by us, helping us to manufacture our fortunes, made via a throwaway culture, in sweatshops across the world. We are sorry that you have been forced to fight for causes that you neither comprehend nor believe in. No child should ever be required to fire a gun or wield a machete. We are sorry that you have not always been able to trust those adults in whose care you are placed. We are so sorry that some of these people have stolen your innocence. We are sorry too that there are some adults who have used you for their own sexual gratification.

We are sorry that religious belief (so often cited as a guiding light) has been turned instead into a political issue; and that politicians have lacked the moral fibre to work for a better, fairer future for you. We are sorry that your only role-models now are either criminals or so-called celebrities. Fame is a fickle thing; do not seek it. If you have a true talent, and you all have at least one, then use it to the best of your ability and for the good of others. In this way you will be recognised for who you are and what you can do, not only for how much money we can make out of exploiting you.

We are sorry that we have obscured the truth from you. The world is a place of infinite wonder. There is beauty and joy in abundance. As future guardians of the world you should see it in those terms. Each and every one of you has the capacity to change this world for the better. It will not take something extraordinary to do it; just each person making their own contribution and looking after their own piece of the earth. Treat one another with respect, listen to each other and work together and you will be able to counteract the damage we have wrought. If we can at least guide you in this way, you have a chance of avoiding the mistakes that we have made. We hope that you will not ever have to write such a letter as this.

Sense not Censorship 1 - Film

Back in November I attended the Annual Network event of the Bradford City of Film organisation held at The National Media Museum. We spent a pleasant hour catching up with the various projects and events that had taken place during the previous twelve months, and networked over coffee and biscuits in the foyer of the fabulous Pictureville Cinema.

After the break we reconvened in themed groups to discuss how each specific area might approach the next year or so. The groups included local businesses, tourist and hospitality and heritage services and, the group I was in, education and training. Some of the discussion was the around the logistics of learning about and through film. With the cost of digital camera equipment and editing software coming down considerably, most schools now have the kit to make their own films and use them as learning tools. In an increasingly visual and technology driven society this seems like a good thing. And no doubt it could be. But there was a slightly awkward silence when I mentioned that I thought what needed including in any level of education about film, from primary to PhD, was the moral and ethical aspects.
What prompted me to make this observation was a comment by someone else in the group who worked at a local primary school. She noted that children were now coming to school more 'film literate' than they were able to read or write. So great an influence on their young lives were TV and DVD that the children were more comfortable (and indeed more able) discussing their experiences using visual and filmic references. I hadn't really thought about this before but it certainly got my attention.
Film and the moving image, be it animation, television or computer generated, has enormous power and influence over people. Cinema propaganda was used by all sides during the Second World War to instil fear or national pride in their citizens. TV was said to be the new family hearth during the 60s and 70s, with 'must watch' programmes regularly pulling in audiences of 20 million plus. The satellite revolution that began in the late 1980s and has exploded into a multi-million making, multi-channel maze in the last few years has proffered more choice of viewing than we could ever desire. The technology around plasma and LCD screens and services such as BBC i-Player have revolutionised the way we watch and engage with the moving image.
Anyone who goes to the cinema knows that film is an immersive experience (even if they don't quite understand the concept) and with bigger screens, 3D, and surround sound, the experience is even more of a sensory overload. Even on the average domestic TV set with a 42inch screen the viewer can be affected. Imagine the effect on a child. The complexity of the imagery used nowadays coupled with the speed of the editing combined with increasingly sophisticated and augmented sound has the potential to do untold damage to the developing brain. So, we must all act responsibly; parents, teachers, film-makers.
I am not advocating censorship - this is not about curtailing creative freedom or stifling speech. I just think that we should be conscious in our decisions, and take time to consider any implications. If film literacy is to be taught in schools then a moral and ethical aspect is essential. If you understand the power of the moving image then you are better equipped to deal with it. The codes of genre, the politics of representation, and the rules of narrative structure should be discussed. This is not to take away the 'magic' of cinema, nor to diminish its artistic merit. Rather it is to make sense of what we are presented with (not only as children but as adults too) and to enjoy it from a secure base of consciousness.

Image and logo (c) Bradford City of Film

Who is really responsible?

The recent violent protests against the Government's policy on University tuition fees and other aspects of student finance have divided opinion. For some, the sight of students protesting on the streets of the capital is a welcome sign that, at last, the younger generation have engaged with politics. For others, the protests are an indication that society is on the verge of collapse.
Of course, neither view is entirely correct. Images of criminal damage being caused, violent clashes between police and demonstrators, and (especially it seems) the attack on the car carrying Prince Charles and his wife, The Duchess of Cornwall have been beamed all over the world polarising opinion. Once again, one particular image will dominate the front pages and news bulletins whilst the more complex story goes under-reported. And many people will call for tough sentences to be handed down to the culprits when they are arrested - and such a high profile incident will almost guarantee a series of arrests. How many of those people demanding such justice will ask the question of who is and was actually responsible for the behaviour witnessed recently?
The uncomfortable answer is that we are all responsible. It is too easy to accuse others, to point the finger and apportion blame. It is satisfying to be able to claim the moral high ground and watch someone else take the wrap. The truth of the matter is that we have failed in our duty to nurture and teach our young people in such a way as to make them conscious of and responsible for their own actions. We parents, teachers, older relatives and siblings, in short society as a whole have allowed this situation to occur. If we do not act swiftly to address then we shall be reaping a bitter harvest for some time to come.
Young people today are constantly bombarded with conflicting information; the media and advertising selling them an unobtainable dream of success without effort, rights without responsibility, and the ideal figure. Instead of asking them what they want or, more importantly, what they need we simply tell them what they should have. Young people have precious few opportunities to express their feelings or concerns, and lack the ability to do so in a coherent and cogent manner. Rather we feed them a hybrid diet of hyperbole and 'newspeak'; bite-sized chunks of information sensationalised and packaged to give maximum impact with minimum content.
Instead of listening to young people we ignore them, preferring them to plug themselves into technology that isolates them from others and promotes the self above all else. We provide them with an unlimited cyberworld where anything is possible to be experienced vicariously but do not provide them with real places to go to meet and interact with one another in a safe, secure environment. We feed them images of darkness, misery and horror (without context or explanation) and make ourselves feel better by telling ourselves that it is what they want. We sexualise virtually every product and service in order to make them consume more and then criticise and condemn teenage parents.
Reality TV - an oxymoron in itself - promotes the ideals of fame and wealth without work. When someone who was unsuccessful in one TV competition can win another one and become a millionaire by eating insects, what kind of aspiration do we set up in our young people? The X Factor perpetuates the myth that whatever your level of talent you will get your fifteen minutes of fame. What it does not show is the level of dedication and practice that it takes to be successful. When we have a host of so-called 'celebrities' who are famous simply for being famous it is no wonder that our young people will play up to a camera. Acts such as those seen at the Cenotaph are as much about getting seen on TV as they are about actual protest.
This brings us back to the student protests. The core issue is the tuition fee rise that will inevitably go ahead, and the impact of them on those from low income households. Many people feel that this is a direct attack on the poorer members of society - a method of social engineering to maintain a status quo and make Higher Education the preserve of the wealthy or well-connected. People are very angry about this but they lack an adequate means of expressing it. They don't trust the political system; after all what faith can you have in a system whereby the Government do not represent the opinions of the majority and the supposed leaders of that Government lack all moral fibre and the courage of their convictions?
So we may look upon the recent protests with disgust, we may condemn those few idiots who acted in criminal and violent ways, and we may call for swift and serious retribution for those acts, but we must also take the time to ask ourselves, honestly, who is really responsible?

Protest? I Predict a Riot!

The recent scenes of so-called 'anarchists' smashing their way in to the HQ of the Conservative Party caused much consternation across the National Press. One recurring image of a black-clad miscreant aiming a kick at the already buckling plate-glass window was featured on nine separate front pages. It summed up the aggression and anger present in the act but also raised many more questions. What the image did most successfully was to shift focus away from what should have been the real story of the day - that 50,000 + people had calmly and peacefully protested at the Govenrment's plans to lift the cap on University tuition fees. Instead, what the world saw was a small minority of protestors acting in a way to guarantee front-page coverage. There is no news in peaceful and considered action.

But let us take a closer look at this image. Taken from the Guardian website and cropped to fit their front page, the first thing that strikes the viewer is the scrum of photographers and cameramen lined up to capture the action. One then notices the police officer standing behind the press and seemingly making no attempt to intervene. Could it be that the action was, if not exactly staged, then certainly encouraged by the media desperate for the right image to fit their news agenda?

That agenda seemed to be to direct the attention away from the fact that as a result of the changes to University tuition fees, many, many fewer people will be able to afford a University education. Current estimates are that the prestigious Universities (Oxbridge, Durham, Manchester and the like) will soon be charging tuition fees of £9,000 per year. Other institutions will follow suit, fearing that to charge less will somehow signify that they offer an inferior brand of education. In comparison with other countries in the European Union and further afield, it is already more expensive to educate your child at a British University. If the situation goes on unchanged then by 2012 it will be cheaper to study for a degree in the USA than in the UK. This fact takes into account the travel and accommodation costs.

How can we have got to this point? Back in 1991 I was at Middlesex Polytechnic as was - it was due to become Middlesex University with the granting of its charter in 1992. The then Conservative Government planned to introduce tuition fees and the idea of the student loan. Up until that point a means tested grant system meant that all but the wealthiest had their fees paid by the state. Students protested against the introduction of student loans and Middlesex was one of the first institutions to be mobilised against the plans. A student sit-in took place and many of us joined a rally and march through London. It was a peaceful and quite jolly affair with students and lecturers from all over the country chanting slogans and waving banners. The event attracted some media attention and, because our University had been in from the start, other institutions that took action were said to have caught 'the Middlesex disease'.

Three weeks' of sit-ins, meetings, discussion and speeches from Politics undergrads and the whole thing fizzled out. Many of the students had taken the opportunity to go home early for Christmas. Only a hard-core remained until the last day when they ambled, tired and dishevelled from the University buildings and went to the Student Union bar for a pint. Early in 1992 the student loan scheme was introduced. Our actions had had no impact whatsoever. Education was moving slowly, almost imperceptibly, towards commodification and commercialism.

In May 1997 I was back at Middlesex University, this time directing a student production. We were still drunk from the night before when we had watched New Labour sweep to victory in the General Election. One of the sweetest moments was watching Michael Portillo lose his seat in the local Southgate constituency to a young gun called Stephen Twigg (until quite recently he had been the President of the National Union of Students). New Labour came in and Tony Blair gave his famous 'Education, Education, Education' speech, and we really felt that this was a time of change. Ambitious plans for 50% of all under 30s to be in Higher Education by 2010 were laid and the sector ballooned. But the student loans stayed and the threshold for having to repay them crept lower. New institutions sprang up to meet demand for places and more and more young people saddled themselves with the equivalent of a small mortgage just to get a degree.

And now, here we are in 2010, with Government spending on education being slashed, thousands of jobs in the education sector at risk, and the prospect of a minimum of £27,000 worth of debt facing the majority of students. Debate rages about the 'value' of a degree and what effect having one has on one's potential earning power. Business and industry talk of a skills deficit and the focus is moving away from a breadth of provision to a concentration on Science, Technology,Engineering and Maths. Arts and Humanities faculties are bracing themselves for lean times ahead.

All of these changes (and some change is undoubtedly necessary) are being forced through by a generation of politicians who never had to pay for their education - either because the state paid for it or they were from a wealthy enough background not to have to worry. The future generations are being left with the debts. As I have said before on these pages; it is crucial that we invest in the future. To starve the education sector of cash, or to price many bright and able students out of the market does not make any sense. It may do in the columns of a spreadsheet but in human terms it does not add up. It does not become a so-called civilised country to treat its young people with such disdain. Education in general and University education in particular is about creating a well-rounded, interesting and interested citizen; someone who engages with the society that they are part of and contributes something back to it. To reduce this process to a monetary transaction demeans it even further.

So, there is much to get angry about. For many young people currently applying for University entry in 2011 there is the prospect of a heavy debt burden. Funding cuts will mean fewer places available and higher fees wil be necessary to cover the costs. It is to the credit of the 50,000 protestors that they did remain calm in the circumstances. That a minority made the headlines and obscured the real story may lead to larger numbers using the same tactics to get the message heard.

Uncomfortably Numb

Last week at my place at work, I received a rather unwelcome wake-up to the plight of some of my new intake of students.

We are six weeks into the teaching term and the students are beginning to settle in. Practical classes are moving on from the ice-breaker 'getting to know you' exercises into more demanding and challenging areas. The dance classes are stretching the students (pun intended) and testing their stamina and strength. The theory classes are encouraging the young people to think more broadly about their chosen subject and the world around them. The acting classes are asking them to look at themselves critically and to engage with one another on an emotional level. I'm not talking the Strasberg Method here, just to give a little of themselves and connect with their peers on a human level; to listen to one another, to drop prejudice and assumption, and to begin to empathise with someone else. As adolescents they are naturally self-centred, egotistical and judgemental. It is part of our responsibility as adults to help them navigate their way through that minefield of social interaction.

One of the exercises we use to get the students to engage with one another is to put them in pairs and ask them to tell one another a brief story about their life, likes, dislikes or interests. The speaker can choose at what level to do this and how much they want to give away. The listener just listens only asking questions if clarification is required. They must pay attention to the facts of the story, the kind of language used and to observe the physicality and facial expression of the storyteller. In this way they not only develop active listening skills but also attention to detail. The roles are then reversed and the listener tells their story whilst the first person listens.

The next stage of the exercise requires each person to re-tell their partner's story as accurately as possible - not only in terms of facts but also tone of voice, expression and physicality. This is not an act of impersonation but rather a re-creation of the emotional content in the teller. The re-telling can be done to the whole group, small groups or just another pair depending on the confidence and comfort levels in the group. It was at this stage that the first signs of a deeper problem emerged.

We asked the pairs to focus on something positive as the subject for their stories - this tends to keep the session lighter and less scary for the least confident members of the class. A long, uncomfortable period of silence followed before the first stories began to be shared. But it was clear that the young people were finding the task difficult. On speaking with several of the pairs it became apparent that these bright, creative 16 and 17 year olds were having difficulty finding anything positive to talk about. They were literally unable to identify any aspect of their life as positive apart from coming to College.

We were gobsmacked. Gentle prompting and guidance on possible subjects (birthdays, holidays, family, nature, music) still only inspired a few students to speak about something positive. The most common thing we heard was, "There is nothing positive, my life is sh*t!" Now we all know that teenagers can be nihilistic and gloom-laden at the best of times, but this was coming from so many of them that it seemed to signify something more serious than just the usual adolescent 'no-one understands me' navel-gazing. After hearing the same kind of comments coming from all corners of the room we pulled the entire class together to discuss what had emerged.

To their credit, the youngsters all engaged with the discussion and there was a sense of relief in the room that someone had opened the conversation and that they could all share their feelings and frustrations. This was still an awkward experience and, at times, was emotional. It wasn't a woolly, liberal, touchy-feely therapy session; it was difficult and uncomfortable but very valuable. We all learned about the difficulties some class members face, heard about barriers to learning and dampened expectations. Some of the stories were literally heartbreaking. But the positive outcome of all of this was that so many of the young people had already grown in confidence at College, so many of them viewed coming to study as a was of transcending their current situations.

What is modern life doing to young people? Why are we not investing the time, care and, yes, money in giving them the best start in life? It might sound trite but these people are literally our future. Instead of demonising them, bombarding them with imagery of how they should look, what they should own and forcing them to grow into materialistic consumers, we should be nurturing their imaginations, reigniting that wonderful curiosity that all childrren are born with. When a 16 year old with their whole life in front of them, the energy to enjoy it, and the potential to do anything instead feels numb, needs to cut themselves just to feel anything or has to drink themselves into oblivion just to 'have a good time', then we have failed in our responsibility to that child.

What started out as an exercise in sharing experiences and observing others became a session on facing up to how we feel about ourselves, about how we are perceived by others (and how we perceive the way others perceive us) and a realisation that we all have a responsibility to be the best that we can be and to allow others to be the same.

I Value the Arts

"A Cynic is a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing." - Oscar Wilde

There has been much made in the British press recently of the Government's plans to slash public spending across all areas. Education, science, the NHS, Public Services are all facing budget cuts of up to 40%. The Arts are no exception; in fact, in many people's eyes, they are the first place the axe should fall. 

One of the (many) criticisms levelled at The Arts is that they cost a lot of money - money that could be better spent elsewhere on social services or the road infrastructure or, I don't know...defence. Another criticism is that there are no concrete 'outcomes' to prove that the artform is giving good value for money. 'Outcomes' are the bane of anyone's life who has to write funding bids. It is nigh on impossible to accurately predict the number of people who will 'engage' with a painting, or listen to a piece of music, or even attend a play. The only outcome that should matter is that the piece of art should provoke some kind of response (ideally a positive one) in the people who come into contact with it. 

The people who hold the purse strings obviously have a problem with this concept - that Art has a value of and in itself, that defies quantification and does not sit comfortably in any tickbox. They want proof that their small but valued contribution has been spent wisely. They want to be able to account for their investment; to ensure value for money.
What they cannot understand, and therefore cannot account for, is that The Arts have a long-term, organic, and creative value to society. An auction house may put a price on a Van Gogh but what value can you put on the impact that painting has had on countless people, many of whom may have gone on to create artworks of their own?

There are some instances where a 'value' in the monetary sense can be given. There is a wonderful and very hard-working organisation called Dance Utd. that regularly works with young people who are either in danger of offending or have already been through the Youth Justice system. Dance Utd. takes these youngsters and via a 12 week dance training course instills in them increased levels of self-confidence, co-operation, problem-solving and fitness. This is as well as increasing their awareness of healthy eating, exercise and self-discipline. Some might think that a dance class is a 'soft option' and that it is hardly an effective deterrent against re-offending, but this is not the case. Many of the young people who have been involved with Dance Utd. say that it is the hardest they have ever worked at anything.  The difference in the young people who stay the course is marked. Their confidence is improved as is their ability to express themselves. To see the graduation performances after the 12 weeks is an inspiration and is often an emotional event for the parents of these 'bad lads and naughty girls'. Several young people from each cohort progress onto further education or training, and a number have been offered places at some of the most prestigious dance schools in the country. 
The cost of taking a young person through the Criminal Justice System is immense (not only in hard cash terms but in the workload and time spent) and custodial sentences rarely work in stopping the cycle of offending. If even one of the young people involved in Dance Utd. no longer offends, no longer needs a case-worker, will no longer re-offend and face prison, then the cost of funding Dance Utd's work has been saved. There are many examples of such projects across all art-forms, each one giving something back to society or allowing people to find some belief in themselves. I would suggest that each of these is worth its funding. 

I had a conversation recently with someone about the Save-the-Arts and Value-the-Arts campaigns currently galvanising support to oppose spending cuts. They said that they valued the arts but didn't think that public money should be spent on them. They also said that they preferred the Value-the-Arts approach as 'Save-the-Arts' implies that we actually have to DO something. Herein lies a problem; there is a perception amongst some people that The Arts are something that other people do and therefore are not their responsibility. They happily watch hours of television, visit the cinema, listen to the radio, read a book, buy a CD and not see the connection. 

There has to be a sensible approach to arts funding, we can't expect bucketloads of cash to be handed out to anyone with a paintbrush or a guitar. But we can seek to redress the inequalities. We can reaffirm ourselves as a civilised nation that sees The Arts as an important, even vital, part of life. We can be less cynical and stop asking what things cost but how much are they worth.