Pride Legacy Project

End of Year Report

April 2006- March 2007

 

 

 

Tim Redfern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E timredfern@gmail.com

M 07766 745 363

 
 

 
 


Pride Legacy Project funded by Arts Council England 

 

 

 

Contents

 

Introduction

Executive Summary: How The Project Went

Evaluation: Next Steps

Objectives: Details

Appendix 1: Audience Response Summary

Appendix 2: Venue Response Summary

Appendix 3: Queer Artists Response Summary

                       Future Networks

 

 

Introduction

Pride Legacy Project (PLP) undertook to examine the need for a cohesive partnership strategy in London to celebrate and support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and queer (LGBTQ) programming amongst venues and institutions who seek to develop activities within and about this community.  Its overriding aim was to:

 

Explore the opportunities available to engage a spectrum of LGBTQ community in a broad range of arts as audience and participants (particularly where nothing is happening).

 

The project was founded and commandeered, managed and co-ordinated by Tim Redfern and Dr Justin Varney as Directors.

 

To help focus and guide this project, Pride Legacy Project formed a Steering Group consisting of:

 

With this report I aim to follow a brief summary by identifying both the successful outcomes and the difficulties faced to the 10 objectives we sought to fulfil.  I will be paying particular attention to those objectives which have been redefined or altered as a result of the progression outcomes of the project.  I will be including some anecdotal responses to our research which looks at the attitudes of new and existing audiences, and venues to this work, both within and outside the community itself.

 

Executive Summary:  How The Project Went

One of the main concerns in the development of this project was to establish to what extent LGBTQ awareness was delivered in the context of policy and programming within arts organisations.  One purpose was, therefore, to see if there was a ‘gap in the market’ and whether, as a consequence of our research and development, PLP could then move on to a phase 2 strategy of providing a supporting venture to fill this gap.

 

Overall, the project proved this point; that there is evidence of a massive disparity between arts venues and organisations who adopt an all-encompassing (holistic) approach to diversity programming and policy and those venues which,  when asked whether they have any provision for LGBTQ community, did not know what the term ‘LGBTQ’ meant.  For a summary of venue, audience and artist responses please see appendices.  Our project exceeded all expectations in terms of its reception by institutions and subsequent demand for our in broader arts establishments, both creative and heritage.

 

Evaluation: Next Steps

 

Our research demonstrates that there is a role for an LGBTQ network to support local arts venues in London around village theme.  Pride Legacy Project proposes that this be done by providing:

·         Opportunities for new audience development

·         Access to wider involvement for artists in cross-fertilisation events such as larger annual events and festivals

·         To provide greater awareness and access to LGBT arts practitioners and policy to integrate LGBTQ diversity awareness in venues and as part of programming as a matter of course.

 

In order to define a concept of an LGBTQ artistic legacy and explore the potential to develop the role of arts venues in local LGBTQ networks (e.g. London) around a village theme, we must create access to a relevant resource which enables arts practitioners to consider the following.

 

 

Our work to date has demonstrated that there is a demand for the service that PLP can provide.  What PLP needs to establish is a clear focus on

 

Objective 1

To define a concept of an LGBTQ artistic legacy and explore the potential to develop the role of arts venues in local LGBTQ networks (e.g. London) around a village theme

 

This objective provided PLP with the opportunity to explore existing models of regional LGBTQ artistic networks and festivals and juxtapose these models with London.  In so doing we examined existing arts networks, LGBTQ resources, and venue practices in London. 

 

Defining the LGBTQ Artistic Legacy Concept

The concept of LGBTQ Artistic legacy is to invigorate a common sense notion of LGBTQ Culture and History as part of dominant (or mainstream) culture past, present and future.  To do this PLP explored existing arts venues and cultural resources to examine collections and programming of LGBT cultural content, where collections or programmers seek to represent or promote an LGBT or Queer aesthetic.  PLP sought to scrutinise

 

Defining ‘Arts Venue’

Arts venues come in two categories:  creative arts venues (e.g. theatres) and heritage arts venue (e.g. museums).  For the purpose of this project, PLP also considered other cultural resources such as local and (specifically) LGBTQ.  Creative and heritage venues work in different ways both in terms of their role, their programming, cultural output and policy making.  These dynamics in turn have an implicit relation to their perception of the audience.

 

Local LGBTQ Networks around a ‘Village Theme’

The idea of the ‘Village theme’ comes from our understanding of adopting local (regional) models of LGBTQ arts practice, usually manifesting as an arts festival or season.  This is not to be confused with a PRIDE event.  Regional festivals (such as Homotopia/ Liverpool, Glasgay!/ Glasgow and Queer Up North / Manchester) take mainstream venues to present LGBTQ content work, the onus is more about integrating new and existing audiences and overcoming local demographics and geographic boundaries such as ‘Gay Village’ or ‘Scene’ (urban business centres made up predominantly of (usually and exclusively) Gay establishments).  The village theme suggested by Homotopia and Glasgay!  is about creating a local network of platforms for (LGBTQ) artists who then pass ‘from village to village’, as is the case for regional festivals. 

 

In London, however, due to its vast geography and diverse cultures should (and in some cases does) provide numerous regions (or villages) providing similar platforms.   However, whilst on the outside the perception is that of profile-driven independent arts venues, festivals and artists themselves what often exist underneath are frustrated, under-resourced and isolated practitioners.  What we are also finding is that fundamentally what remains unsupported is a cohesive and strategic network specifically to support LGBTQ art providers, both in London and more vitally, nationwide. 

 

However, artistic partnerships between London venues’ programmers do exist.  An example is Ben Evans at Oval House and Gavin Barlow at The Deptford Albany who have established Iron Hoof Theatre Company.  Once again a more cohesive and widespread practice to support this type of symbiosis is suggested, to deal with issues such as pigeon holing and escaping conventional stereotypes of this [LGBTQ] kind of work and delivering it in the mainstream. 

 

‘[Oval House] recognises that queer artists get pigeon holed in terms of their subject matter.  It is about allowing people to criticise or critique the gay world and lifestyles around that.  It is also about Queer culture moving from being grateful for seeing themselves on stage to investigating what’s really being seen- to question, to challenge and provide other ways of living.  As a venue programmer, it’s about supporting risk and understanding the challenges faced by queer artists’

                                                -Ben Evans, Programmer, Oval House Theatre

 

Objective 2

To secure funding to source the appointment of a project co-ordinator and resource phase one of the project

Pride Legacy Project was supported by a Research and Development grant courtesy of Arts Council England.  This has funded a project co-ordinator/ administrator to facilitate project research and development as well as to initiate planning for phase 2 of the project (which is in progress). 

 

Pride Legacy Project has also been supported in kind by Audiences London, to support the research and data evaluation methods and use of office space for the duration of phase 1 of the project.  We have also taken on a volunteer from the corporate sector to scrutinise the outcomes of this project into a workable product to take forward in phase 2.

 

 

Objective 3

To develop relationships with a small group of key-stake-holder venues and organisations to anchor the Legacy project in current provision and activities

 

At the outset of the project we engaged with a range of key potential stakeholders and partners to gauge the potential to develop the project as well as engage with current practices within different arts sectors.  Over the course of the project we have worked (and continue to work with) with The National Portrait Gallery, adult learning centre arm of the Science Museum The Dana Centre, West End Theatre producers Ambassadors Theatre Group, Oval House Theatre and audience development agency Audiences London.   

 

Ambassador’s Theatre Group http://www.theambassadors.com/trafalgarstudios/sp_p3014.html

PLP had a brief spell supporting an outreach programme for London LGBTQ Youth groups for Ambassador Theatre’s production of Martin Sherman’s BENT at Trafalgar Studios.  This has benefited PLP by:

 

Audiences London

http://www.audienceslondon.org/

PLP brokered provision for in kind support for project research and office space with Audiences London in exchange for data sharing and peppercorn rent.  This relationship was also recognised in part by Audiences London’s awareness to the lack of resources within the sector.  This has benefited PLP by:

 

The Dana Centre

http://www.danacentre.org.uk/

PLP supported Dana through a series of events coinciding with (but not necessarily pertaining to) London Europride festival in 2006.  This benefited PLP by:

 

The National Portrait Gallery

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/index.asp

The National Gallery approached PLP to provide a season of work devoted to developing links with the LGBTQ community, which at the time (early 2006) was deemed by their funders to be a local ‘community’ in central London (Soho) whom they should be attracting.

PLP benefited by:

 

Oval House Theatre

PLP has partnered with Oval House Theatre to develop and produce a Queer Artists’ Salon event which aims:

·         To understand what it means to be a Queer Artist

·         To understand what Queer Artists need to develop/ produce work.

·         To establish whether the cultural values of our Queer experiences/ culture are understood and acknowledged by broader arts establishments, venues and funders so that they can understand and meet our needs  

40 Queer artists, programmers and practitioners from different backgrounds attended the event.  Feedback was overwhelming in implying that more resources should be available for queer artists particularly in the context of:

 

A full list of response notes can be found in appendix 3.

 

Objective 4

To work with key stakeholders and Audiences London to develop, pilot and implement audience evaluation methodologies for LGBTQ and mixed Audiences

 

Audience evaluation forms were provided at all Pride Legacy Project events.  The evaluation form was adapted from the design issued by The Dana Centre assisted by Audience London’s Monitoring Guidelines.  For the purpose of Pride Legacy Project, it was decided that this questionnaire would be crucial in providing the following information:

 

Pilot questionnaires were distributed at events at The National Portrait Gallery and Dana Centre.

 

Response from the questionnaires showed us that our audience development work had not only created new audiences (69% at Dana Centre and 14% at the National Portrait Gallery) but that of these audiences, 78% would like to see more Queer content cultural events (NPG)[2]

 

Objective 5

To engage with LGBTQ Youth Groups to explore current awareness to artistic opportunities and the underpinning desire and approach for future opportunities.

PLP established links with two key pan London LGBTQ youth organisations with the intention of accessing a plethora of potential new audiences via LGBT youth groups and services (Freestyle and London LGBTQ youth Council).  Moreover, PLP was approached to deliver and audience development package by Ambassador’s Theatre Group for Martin Sherman’s play BENT at Trafalgar Studios.

 

Freestyle is a regional project based with the Consortium of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Voluntary Sector Agencies which aims to link and support LGBT youth projects in London.

 

During the initial year of PLP this dialogue was limited by internal challenges to the Freestyle project and they are currently without a project worker. However prior to this we were able to build some initial exploratory engagement around the performances of Bent at the Ambassadors Theatre. This generated some direct engagement with LGBT youth worker and start a dialogue with Freestyle about how better to support involvement of LGBT youth groups with the Arts and how PLP could build on this first contact experience in the future. We hope that if PLP continues to receive funding support we can build on these links and develop further learning on the challenges and opportunities for involving LGBT youth groups and individuals.

 

Justin Varney is currently in discussion with London Consortium Freestyle Project regarding possibilities and development with regards to documenting final outcomes and implications for PLP.  The outcome of this objective is to investigate where this communication breaks down in order to make sure that young LGBTQ folk can be made more aware of their queer heritage and in turn be empowered by this knowledge.  Realistically, this is a development for future PLP post April 2007.

 

Objective 6

To engage with disabled, older and ethnic minority groups to explore perceptions of current provisions and expectations or arts venues and opportunities outside of those who have already attended our events to date. 

 

This objective works on two levels.  The first examines the visibility of marginal groups within our own LGBTQ community, particularly in terms of engaging with resources.  However, the second is identifying these groups as part of the broader ‘LGBTQ target market’ in terms of existing audience make up and development.  All of the groups below deal with the issues of mainstreaming, both in terms of being marginalised from it as opposed to being part of it

 

Engaging with disabled groups

We sought advice from SHAPE Arts Exec Steve Mannix (on our Steering Group) specifically with regards to existing policy/ provision to see how this might be appropriated/ adapted by PLP.   However, we did not target specific LGBTQ disability groups to explore their own experiences as audience and audience development.  In terms of delivery within this sector, there is a more immediate issue of how venues deal with disability and access.  It was important to get the message out about LGBTQ awareness before then venturing to issues to disability within an already marginal culture.  What was overlooked for example was approaching GRAEAE to explore their experiences touring Martin Sherman’s BENT in 2004. 

 

Engaging with older members of the community

Working with museums provided access to older members of the LGTQ community, particularly those who don’t have access to (or desire to access) the internet and also don’t feel part of ‘a scene’.  This was particularly evident in our work with the National Portrait Gallery.  9% of questionnaire respondents said they were between 24 and 65 years, as opposed to 7% at Dana Centre, while 3% were over 65 who attended events at Dana, with none over 65 who filled out a questionnaire at The National Portrait Gallery.  Whilst these findings demonstrate at least a presence of these groups at our events, I also recognise the difficulties faced by PLP in managing the feedback forms, which we will come to. Anecdotally, where elders have been greeted by facilitators or I at these events, feedback has been hugely encouraging.  What remains is a consistent and manageable means of maintaining outreach to these individuals, who are less likely (unlike their younger forebears) to go out ‘en masse’.

 

Approaching BME groups within this sector

Towards the end of the project, I consulted Wise Thoughts, an organisation based in north London who deal with the scope of welfare within the LGBTQ (and particularly BME) community through artistic productivity.  Their concern was the importance of supporting mechanisms with which to sustain their work and to provide opportunity to take their workshops to wider audiences particularly at regional platforms.

 

What these issues demonstrate as a matter of urgency is the importance of arts organisations and venues to adopt a far more holistic approach in order to deal with all far reaching aspects of diversity awareness, programming, planning and community involvement. 

 

In terms of the broader issues of demographics with the LGBTQ community,   I have explored existing programming content, artistic and outreach policy as well as issues involved with marketing and servicing this group through a spectrum of arts venue amenities (such as membership programmes, brochures), creative network organisations and commercial marketing events,

 

Objective 7.  To explore the representation of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and new queer voices in policy & programming in London.[3]

 

PLP instigated a questionnaire campaign with the aid of Audiences London, which aimed to ask venues where they stood in the context of LGBT diversity awareness.  We made the questionnaire available on line and distributed it to 180 London arts venues and organisations to ask them about their ‘relationship’ with LGBT issues.  We discovered that:

 

Therefore:

·         If venues and organisations cannot communicate fearlessly within themselves about LGBT issues, how can they communicate fearlessly with their public?

 

Our conclusion here is that there is a demand for LGBT support in terms of policy, programming and diversity awareness of the LGBT sector amongst arts venues and organisations.  What is more, communicating LGBT as a bona fide ‘Culture’ overcomes the ‘fear factor’ by both de-sexualising and demystifying the subject.

 

What this process also demonstrated was that it was difficult to get people to respond without badgering, but the eloquence of the badgering did bring out reasoning and honest discussions with venues about their views and practice with regards to policy and programming within arts venues.  However, it also raises a number of outstanding issues to consider for those we were unable to get in touch with or did not respond to the questionnaire:

Lack of familiarity

Fear

Demonstrates what’s not being addressed

Were there any issues in filling out this form?

Low response when people don’t get the idea

Respondents (venues) deemed to be one step ahead already in terms of integrating LGBTQ awareness to policy/ programming

Assimilation myth- a belief that LGBTQ is not an issue any more.

 

With overall regards to Qualitative responses what is visible is a varying agenda from different venues. While most venues who responded had dealt with LGBT media to promote events, not all venues felt properly disposed to deal with (say) LGBT audience development.  Conversely, certain venues seek not to programme events by any agenda but instead by the merit of the work.  Whilst some venues and organisations have co-opted events (e.g. with Duckie) they also maintain that events are not ‘issue based’.  Most responses were more concerned about engaging with and sustaining LGBT audiences but know really knowing how to do this.  16% of respondents of venues had no current LBGT activities indicated that they were ‘considering’ future events or activities.

 

There was a huge gap in terms of BME arts groups not responding to our survey

 

Once again, this process of consultation was taken up with the Steering Group.  They also suggested:

 

A complete set of venues’ responses is available upon request

 

 

 

8. To explore the LGBTQ communities’ awareness of the Arts and opportunities within the field.

 

A Queer Artists’ Salon was organised by PLP in conjunction with Oval House on March 17th.  The aim was to create an informal networking opportunity for Queer artists and programmers to get together and discuss the current issues, challenges and achievements dealt by Queer Artists today.  Through a broad net of promotion via numerous creative and artist networks, it was also an opportunity to examine whether such an event was warranted.

 

The event attracted over 40 artists and programmers.  Though mostly London based, the event also attracted the interest of regional venues and organisations from as far afield as Liverpool.  It was also attended by LGBTQ BME groups, as well as Arts Council England.

 

The event overwhelmingly achieved its aim to draw on the experience of LGBTQ arts practitioners and programmers in order to explore current artist opportunities as well as the underpinning desire and approach for future opportunities for LGBTQ artists in London and beyond (see appendix 3).

 

It was the conclusion of everyone involved that a more comprehensive resource and broader cultural understanding of the LGBTQ community is needed throughout the arts industry, amongst venues, organisations and particularly artistic and creative network resources.  This evidence is further supported by our research examining the awareness of arts venues (including regular funded bodies of Arts Council England) and outreach to the LGBT community (see appendix 2)

 

Objective 9

To work with key stakeholders to review partnership and cross pollination

approaches [to develop audiences] across LGBTQ London

 

Our work with The Dana Centre and National Portrait Gallery has sought to galvanise and affirm the enthusiasm of venues to adopt a more comprehensive attitude and approach to understanding and programming LGBTQ themed events for all audiences.  It is hugely encouraging that such venues have been involved with the project and seek to continue such diverse programming.

 

It is with this in mind that we hope to address the needs of further venues and organisations in order to not only promote audience outreach and development but also to cross pollinate audiences from and to new venues and events.

 

Pride Legacy Project is continuing a programming consultancy with The National Portrait Gallery and devising new events with Dana Centre.  We have also been asked to provide audience development support for Scamp Productions’ 2 Men Talking at Whitehall Theatre, as well as associate programming at Homotopia Queer arts Festival, Liverpool.  PLP also is in discussion with Creative Capital in order to strengthen LGBT diversity awareness presence within London cultural creative networks and to facilitate the inception of LGBTQ diversity awareness workshop and support resource for partners and member arts venues and organisations.  We are also considering taking this pilot to the educational sector (2008).  PLP continues to be nurtured and located Audiences London.

 

The overshadowing issue that remains with this objective is sustaining methods of good practice within and amongst venues.  Whilst they may seek to ‘be more diverse’, we must also understand that steps must be in place to support venues and organisations in sustaining principles of best practice in terms of policy and programming diversity within all sectors of the community but including LGBTQ.  To which end, PLP will seek to identify ways in which these principles can be upheld by establishing LGBTQ networks within the greater creative community,

 

Objective 10: Evaluation

To analyse the engagement and feedback in Summer/Autumn 2006 to review the continuation and potential outcome of a future Pride Legacy Project.

 

In light of the outcomes to our ground research amongst venues, organisations and artists (see appendix notes), it has come to light that there are a variety of services that PLP can offer potential clients.  These key areas are:

 

1.       To offer guidelines for venues in terms of best practice and/or

2.       To present and support LGBTQ diversity awareness workshop within arts venues and orgnisations both in terms of

3.       Provide access and guides to resources for LGBTQ artists and venues/ organisations alike

4.       Provide consultancy for marketing and public relations tools and methodologies for events:

 

If you would like further information about Pride Legacy Project or are interested in discussing involvement or would like to support or partner the future work of the project please contact timredfern@gmail.com

 

A full history and account of the project in available at www.pridelegacyproject.com

 

Accounts for the year end (2006-2007) are available from the author.

Appendix 1: Audience Response Summary

 

Appendix 1: Audience responses: Dana Centre & National Portrait Gallery Events

 

 

 

 

 

Summary: Key Findings

 

 

 

 

1. Three quarters of respondents would like to see more LGBTQ events in mainstream art venues.

2. Over 50% of audience members identify as heterosexual. This presents an opportunity to develop extended audience for LGBTQ events.

 

 

 

 

 

Motivations for attending

 

Dana Centre

National Portrait Gallery

Personal interest in the subject area

71

74%

19

66%

Having an opportunity to learn

50

52%

0

0%

Having a fun night out

35

36%

3

10%

Spending time with friends

33

34%

4

14%

Having an opportunity to discuss

27

28%

0

0%

Work related interest in the subject area

23

24%

3

10%

Networking opportunity

13

14%

0

0%

Other

4

4%

0

0%

 

96

 

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

New visitors