Following the publication of the Future Arts Centres annual report for 2016-17, we invited Mark Robinson of Thinking Practice to reflect on his experience of working with us:

What happens when leaders of nine arts centres join forces to address the issues facing their peers and the artists and audiences they serve? I recently argued that contemporary artistic leadership is collaborative. (In a paper for Bluecoat in Liverpool, summarised in the diagram above.) How does the Future Arts Centre network reflect that? Does what I’ve seen and heard confirm or argue against any relevance for those ideas? And if I’m in any way on the right track, how are they doing it, and what are the barriers and enablers to them doing so?

Over the last year I have been lucky to work with the core group of Future Arts Centres. As ‘External Moderator’ on their Esmee Fairbairn Foundation-funded learning and development project I’ve facilitated strategic reflection and been a sounding board and calling point for ideas. It’s given me the chance to consider the group as an example of the ‘Inside Outside Beyond’ framework I described in that Bluecoat provocation.

Although leadership is increasingly collaborative, rather than ‘heroic’, it is still reliant on people who are more likely to think ‘If not me, now, then who?’ than ‘I’m sure someone is looking after it.’ From what I have seen, the individuals behind Future Arts Centre definitely fall into this category, in their different ways. Yet, what is striking is the amount of deep reflection on what comes with that stepping forward.

On the one hand the group have wrestled with a kind of privilege that comes with leadership. Modelling behaviours and techniques such as international co-commissioning or new-style partnerships with social housing providers creates new project and funding opportunities. Influence over the development agenda can also grow. Being seen as a sector leader may benefit the ‘brand’ of individual arts centres. However, for Future Arts Centres, these have come with a heavy burden of responsibility to use the opportunity well, and to share the learning and benefits across the broader network. A great deal of thought has gone into how best to do this, and the learning opportunities are now spreading.

The constant framing and reframing of purpose is vital within Future Arts Centres. This is a capacity I described in Inside Outside Beyond. Behind many of their discussions lies the question: ‘What is it we are doing here and why?’ People apply this to their impact on society, economy and their locality, and to the work of their organisation.  The group’s diversity of model, focus and situation allows for shared learning about the people, practice and business operations ‘inside’ the individual arts centres as well as more broadly. This ranges from issues such as box office systems and ticketing strategy to influencing local authorities. How centres work with local or international communities and artists to affect their changing worlds is a central pre-occupation, even where the demographics are as different as, say, Kendal and East London.

The group take seriously their own responsibility and accountability ‘outside’ in the sector. This includes advocacy and evidence of impact as seen in their new report. It also connects to sector debates and initiatives such as the Inquiry into the Civic Role of the Arts, and to academic research. They have challenged themselves to identify the spheres where they could have most influence. They demonstrate the clear line from ‘inside’ their arts centres to ‘outside’ in the sector and ‘beyond’ in policy-making and funding circles, often beyond the arts. Any broader impact is often built on a strong core. The connected leader may often be ‘out of the office’: but they base their external influence on success at home.

How arts centres’ visions of success, partnerships and business models have evolved in response to the funding/economic environment has been central to the network’s discussions. Positives such as growing internationalism have emerged from the challenges. This has been invigorating for individuals and their organisations or teams alike. How to use the reputational value of arts centres, individually and as a type of cultural practice, has been a persistent theme. The group has also focussed on the need for a flow of diverse talent into the workforce. This is experienced differently in different parts of the country, but is a shared challenge.

A network such as Future Arts Centre can, it seems, operate as a kind of sensor for the cultural sector. It has identified patterns relating to audiences, new practice in many artforms, and workforce development issues. Each ‘measurement’ asks questions about accountability, about context and framing, about change, and how to respond individually and collectively. So, for instance, the Future Arts Centre Annual Survey suggests 63% of turnover is generated from earned income and fundraising activity even though the average ticket price in arts centres is just £9, compared to a national average of £23.53. What does that mean? Is it an argument for more public funding and more partnerships of all sorts? For more or less commercial or risk-taking programming? Or is it an argument for raising prices, to earn even more and become even less reliant on public funding? Developing the answers requires leadership drawing on all four of the capacities I’ve described.

New leadership challenges have emerged. To make lasting change you need to galvanise people ‘beyond crisis’, as one person put it. A slow squeeze on funding is not the same as lack of opportunity, or even a sudden cut. The next challenge may mean a shift from managed leanness towards  investing in growth. But how to move from scarcity-mind-set to abundance mind-set, without falling into the traps of boosterism? This is an area arts centres are in a good position to share learning with the rest of the cultural sector. Indeed, one might argue, theatres, galleries and museums are increasingly adopting (or purporting to) characteristics typical of arts centres such as a broad ‘public welcome’ based on locality and access to cross-art form programming, community-use focus, and mixed models of curatorial approach. (Not to mention letting the public use their loos.)

There are two potential barriers to achieving more for the network worth considering. First is the fact that at some level, organisations are people too. By this I mean that a network of, in this case, arts centres, is actually a network of individuals with a brilliant variety of styles and skills, but also their own pressures and situations. Most crucially, individuals also move from one job to another, which means the network has to evolve as new people come in, or even potentially member organisations leave or are replaced. Future Arts Centres was initially a group that stepped forward. The organisation names remain the same, but the humans do not. This has meant reviewing and renewing purpose as the network progresses. This has been a challenging but healthy process, so far as I have observed it.

The second barrier is the coming together of two harsh four letter words often used in cultural organisations: work and time. Too much of one and not enough of the other. This creates pressure in all three domains of inside, outside and beyond. I would bet good money some people in the individual arts centres would like to see just a little more of their boss on site. I would bet similar amounts they also want them off being influential in the world. Getting everything done is a continual challenge.

The people I’ve seen hard at work recognise that their commitments outside and beyond must be valuable personally and organisationally if they to be sustainable.  They also know that they draw their credibility and creativity from the learning gained in their own arts centres. This balance requires skill as well as dedication. If Future Arts Centre can continue to avoid collaboration becoming into just another job, more or less, it may prove be the most valuable piece of learning it has to share with others, inside, outside and beyond.

Mark Robinson, Thinking Practice