RSA Comment - Latest Comments

Re: Justifying Arts Funding

Elizabeth Motley — Sun, 19 May 2013 08:53:48 -0000

Very thought provoking article and you might be interested to know that the (now abolished) RDA Yorkshire Forward - was in the processing of mapping out both the economic and other benefits of the applied Renaissance Methodology to the Renaissance Towns. There were 13 measures applied, both qualitative and quantitative which were intended to be measured over time (25 - 30 year span because it sometimes takes that long to see the full impact). These measures were compared against 'non-renaissance towns'. However, this initiative was terminated (as far as I know) at the point of abolition of the RDAs two years ago, however, the results that were already emerging were demonstrating how both the economic results tied strongly with the other less easily measurable results such as social, environmental, and cultural indicators.

The value of an emphasis on quality placemaking, combined with the 'town teams' - people being involved with the reshaping of their places, was proving to hold strong and positive outcomes.

However, to demonstrate this within a funding application with its reliance on empirical data alone would be misleading and short-sighted.

Re: How cities learn

Katie Barnes — Wed, 15 May 2013 11:28:29 -0000

A most interesting article. The concept of 'ideation' as described here is, I think, an example of the growing trend towards co-creation, in which users and other stakeholders are invited to contribute to the design of products and services. One wonders why it took society so long to realise that this is worthwhile! In fact, one wonders if a change at this end of the process will lead to a concomitant reduction in the need for all-pervasive 'change management'..!

In terms of benchmarking, I'd make the observation that there's often a temptation to conflate the concept with that of blueprinting (ie, assuming that there is only one ideal). Learning from others can be immensely powerful, if the lesson has been sufficiently deconstructed so as to understand cause, effect and required conditions. Aspiring to something that others have achieved without making sure of the desired outcome and suitability of solution can lead to disillusionment and a sense of failure. Maybe Tallinn will never quite emulate the methods of its Stockholm counterparts, but if they wisely evaluate, choose and reject options based on a deep understanding of themselves and their intrinsic qualities and aspirations, they can forge their own route to success.

Re: Justifying Arts Funding

William Wingate — Tue, 14 May 2013 14:57:59 -0000

I wasn't intending to suggest that the transport framework would work unchanged for the arts, and you are quite right that simply replacing "transport" with "arts" in the framework would be largely meaningless (but if you want to do it, the link is http://goo.gl/bOCTY), nor was I trying to imply that art is only about economics (as per your tweet).

You are absolutely right about all the "non-measurable" (for want of a better word) attributes of art. Like it or not, though, the arts has been thrown the challenge of producing an economic justification of some sort, and I simply wanted to point to an example of a respected and established evaluation framework which might form a useful model. One of its strengths is the inclusion of non-measurable factors, meaning that even if they aren't measured they are at least acknowledged and articulated. One or two of them are not completely irrelevant in fact, for example Townscape and Heritage are both on the list.

The other lesson from the ever-expanding body of research is that it is possible to value and measure more than one might expect, albeit imperfectly.

Re: Justifying Arts Funding

Carolyn Black — Tue, 14 May 2013 02:40:23 -0000

This is an interesting idea but it is difficult to see how one can use such a framework to measure intrinsic satisfaction - meaningful intellectual stimulation, sense of wellbeing, emotional impacts such as enchantment,
passion, raising political awareness, human rights, excitement, intrigue –
basically the many things that art can engage us with as humans, whereas a transport system is, well, a transport system. Not everything in life is about logic, not everything is measurable.

A good test would be to take one of these frameworks and switch the words transport for art – where can I get a copy please? I doubt it would make much sense.

Maybe a New Approach to Transport Art Appraisal could financially justify arts existence, but as arts purpose goes far beyond economic efficiency and logistics it may be a meaningless exercise.

Re: How cities learn

lynn broadbent — Mon, 13 May 2013 13:27:49 -0000

Eddie - many thanks for this interesting article. You might be interested to read what Fellows are doing in New York and London in this series of events "Examining the Future City". http://www.blog.rsa-us.org/201..., organized by the Urban Research Unit.

Re: Justifying Arts Funding

William Wingate — Thu, 09 May 2013 08:16:45 -0000

You are absolutely right, of course, that this is essentially an application of multi-criteria decision theory. The difference, however, is that in the transport appraisal framework, all the quantifications are absolute. The non-quantifiable variables tend to be scored on a "strongly positive" to "strongly negative" scale and function more as a prompt to ensure that the project isn't doing nasty things (or if it is that there will be costs associated with mitigation).

This means, as you rightly spotted, that the appraisals can stand on their own and are hopefully free of some the biases which come in traditional MCDT, where there is a risk that people will score the projects they like more highly regardless of merit. In reality, of course, they are used to compare competing projects, although the prioritisation will take affordability into account as well.

Re: Justifying Arts Funding

Katie Barnes — Thu, 09 May 2013 07:33:22 -0000

Interesting piece. It's not just the transport sector that has evolved a robust framework, but it's as good an example as any. I've used similar frameworks in both IT and business project approval. In both cases, we had to create a framework such that projects are assessed against the same set of variables as others of similar scale. Some small scale projects will never have an enterprise-wide benefit so will always 'score' badly if in competition with others with a more pervasive reach - in such cases we removed those categories and sought to compare like with like. However, this was because we were choosing which of a number of candidate projects would receive a share of limited funding. As a standalone assessment of valueyou wouldn't have the comparison bias to deal with.

If I'm reading your piece correctly, the key takeaway is that project-focussed commercially-driven industries have come to know how to do this kind of appraisal and would do it almost instinctively, whereas those with a more artistic focus don't necessarily have the commercially- or financially-focussed vocabulary with which to convince prospective investors that their project will give a big enough return on investment.

A good example of cross-sector best practice sharing.

Re: Justifying Arts Funding

William Wingate — Thu, 09 May 2013 06:55:18 -0000

The original NATA framework was developed by the DETR as it was then. The current WebTAG framework is "owned" by DfT, but has evolved over time on the basis of input from the wider transport industry, including operators, consultants and academics, and changes are generally initially published as consultation drafts. My personal view is that a centrally imposed framework would probably never have worked as well. It might also be that a framework such as this would have value in approaching other, non-governmental, funders. So it perhaps isn't quite obvious (to me) that total responsibility lies with DCMS.

I confess I wasn't previously aware of the O'Brien report which is obviously an important part of developing the "theory". But the thrust of my piece is more about highlighting that there is a practical framework which has been implemented and developed and has consensus support, and which could be a valuable example to draw lessons from, in terms of process as well as structure.

Re: Justifying Arts Funding

ABO — Wed, 08 May 2013 12:10:02 -0000

Interesting, but the big question is who commissioned the New Approach to Transport Appraisal? Presumably the DoT. Which means it is the DCMS's responsibility to commission the 'Arts Appraisal Framework', which is what they are meant to have done in commissioning the Dave O'Brien report and the as-yet-unpublished Claire Donovan report.

Re: Zero Growth Fiscal Policy

Gordon — Wed, 08 May 2013 04:26:51 -0000

Are there any brains out there that aren't blinkered with solutions that involve a financial system? If the big brains of the world decided to look outwith a financial solution then we may start to get some traction in regards to having a crack at "solving" some of the big issues that face mankind today. Why are we always looking in the same places for solutions? Why are we always looking at the past for solutions? From the conversations I've had with the odd person here and there, there is a much bigger conversation that could be had and a conversation that leads to a solution that is by far easier to decide upon and implement than any financial solution that can be dreamed of. I implore the big brains to look forwards and to look for solutions outwith the need to have a financial system depicting the value of everything that grows. You big brains are in a position to do it. You big brains must realise that there are alternatives that don't involve segregating society based on the amount of money that they have on their bank. You big brains must realise that the deaths of the starving boil down to those people not having the money to pay for food. Take off the blinkers and give the next generation a crack at a REAL future... not a debt filled, money fueled free for all where only the "deserving" get to have a large slice of the pie. It's not as though our economy is intergalactic. Just a few billion folk on a spinning rock trying to find a way to survive. Please have the conversation.

Kia Kaha.

Small brain

Re: Zero Growth Fiscal Policy

Jayarava Attwood — Tue, 07 May 2013 09:26:46 -0000

In the UK we won't be seeing growth for many years. And it is nothing at all to do with public debt levels. Public debt is a red-herring in Britain, and the recent debunking of Rogoff and Reinhart ought to have made us change our tune on this - the theory was and is bunk.

We need to look instead at Private debt. It is very high - 440% according to the 2013 Budget report, with no change in 2012. Thus while we are busy paying off debts, demand will remain low. With demand low it makes no sense to invest the piles of spare capital that are sloshing around. It also makes no sense for banks to increase lending. Investment basically means increasing supply. And in a market with chronically low demand, increasing supply would be a disaster.

Govt fiscal policy has made the situation worse - as is now universally acknowledged outside of the Treasury. It has reduced what pitiful growth we have had to an average of just 0.04% since 2010. Since figures are quoted to 0.1 of 1% this is effectively zero.

There will be no substantial recovery in the next 10 years. Indeed one could argue that we had our period of above trend growth (which is part of the definition of a recovery) in 2009-10 and we are now following the new trend of zero growth.

Thus we had better start finding ways to operate in a steady-state economy. This is not so bad. The UK still turns over £1.5 trillion per year. We have a problem with inequality and tax evasion, but basically we're doing OK if we stay where we are for a while.

So I broadly agree that we need to begin preparing economic policies that are in line with reality. But I doubt it will happen this side of the next big crisis.

Re: Is free will just an illusion?

Runyan Wilde — Fri, 03 May 2013 13:30:23 -0000

I observe that the term "free will" is a trap: no one can know what we mean by it because it was created to inculcate the notion of guilt and 'sin' in Sunday School children. To illustrate the ambiguity, I like to ask the question, "Who has more free will - Jesus Christ or a stray dog in the street?" Forgiving me for the irreverence, you realize, in attempting to answer the question, that the dog can do whatever he wants with impunity (other than being run over or poisoned), whereas J.C. has that one single fate ahead of Him - to die on the cross, etc. Neither of those choices satisfies. From my studies, in order to have Will in the first place, I must be single-mindedly committed to whatever my goal is, and to then have *free* will, I would have to know all of my possible choices and their consequences, which we never do - and even if we did, we may realize that our only real choice is only what mood to respond with to the inevitable consequences of any choice we make. Anyone agree?

Re: A Second Renaissance?

Bill Colohan — Wed, 01 May 2013 10:58:57 -0000

I would like to be as optimistic as the authors of this article. The reality is, though, those in control will not allow such individualism to evolve. Why do you think incessant wars are happening? Because it allows those at the top to maintain control.

Re: A Second Renaissance?

Chris Ormell — Wed, 01 May 2013 08:12:24 -0000

Yes, but the first renaissance was not associated with a radical change in the form of the economy. It was, rather, a ‘renaissance’ of thought and artistic inspiration. In the original renaissance there were very few people who had the education and the economic freedom to think along new lines, but those who did were able to think about all aspects of the human condition. A degree of convergence began to appear to the effect that Aristotle, Galen, Ptolemy, etc. were wrong on many points. Empiricism offered new hope about finding the truth.
Today the only people who have a comparable education and freedom are philosophers, but the public philosophers of the past are virtually extinct. Instead philosophers have been institutionalized in universities and forced to specialize by idiotic government research exercises. Some specialize in linguistic analysis, others in formal logic, others are paralysed by angst ---brought on by the feeling that there is no hope of any convergence of credible thinking about how humankind & the universe can co-exist. None of these lines of philosophy carry an iota of optimism of the sort which was unleashed at the renaissance. We urgently need a new way of thinking about both ourselves & science, but I’m afraid it won’t come from those who will push 3D printers and micro-capitalism to the the limit as Aatonen & Jensen say. Ormell

Re: A Second Renaissance?

Raúl Bertolino — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:58:38 -0000

Foucault we need you!

Re: A Second Renaissance?

Roger Cherry — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:51:58 -0000

So, correct me if I'm wrong, the author is saying that even if you fail to make it on Britain's Got Talent you can still become famous by inspiring the next Renaissance? Cool, it's got to be better than teaching a goldfish to juggle.

Re: A Second Renaissance?

Joel Frese — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:33:44 -0000

Excellent article! Jeremy Riftkin, who also spoke at the RSA, talks about the distributive communication and energy revolution. I would certainly call it a new renaissance!

Re: Wastes as Resources

Rosa Lía González — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:11:44 -0000

Such a good article!! Very interesting :) Thanks!

Re: RSA Animate – Choice

R. Eric Swanepoel — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:22:06 -0000

No. In fact a friend told me she had had this experience the other day. I don;t like the overwhelming choice. I am increasingly shopping in small local shops and ordering a veg box.

Re: The way to a Fellow’s heart (and mind)…

Mitchell Torok — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:28:26 -0000

And still we go! The last events (with Fiona Millar and John Thornhill) were splendid. It's 20 May next time (with Michael King FRSA and from FoE and the University of Liverpool) - and then 25 November (with Gemma Bodinetz, artistic director of the Liverpool Everyman-Playhouse theatres). AND that's when I will bow out of organising these events. So be there or be square....

Re: Do the Public Understand Criminal Law?

Rayalhumpi — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 03:42:07 -0000

I am very happy to
read your articles it’s very useful for me,

Rayalhumpi

Re: RSA Animate – Drive

Observer — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:25:06 -0000

Totally great! One small nit (sorry): At 9:48, the narrator says "disruptive" but the animation spells "destructive." "Disruptive" is clearly the appropriate word in the context of the narrative.

Re: RSA Animate – The Power of Outrospection

Jeremy Broun — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:42:52 -0000

No boulder unturned in our plight for what! Empathy used as a tool? My experience tells me that empathy is largely innate and not part of capitalist jargon.

Re: Do the Public Understand Criminal Law?

Jerry C. Allen — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 04:46:35 -0000

Good article on criminal law, yes this is right that general people know that crime means police action custody etc, but they do not know more about this, not only criminal law as a Personal Injury Lawyer in Tacoma my experience says most of common people has a little idea about law.

Re: The Inequality Crisis

Derek — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:52:39 -0000

The Uk statistics show that when the trade unions were at their strongest i.e. in the mid 1970's, inequality was at its narrowest