In an atmospheric, wood-panelled room five individuals sit in a semi-circle on a small raised stage (Figure 1). They participate in a choreographed discussion, which reveals a shared interest in international immigration law. As the encounter unfolds, which is being documented and captured on film, it becomes apparent that each individual has expertise in this field. The camera moves in and out of focus as it shifts its field of view, helping us to notice subtleties of body language, including gestural hand movements, and as the camera pans our attention is drawn from one individual to the next. At points in the discussion the distinctive panelled room in the background disappears, replaced by a green screen, a device used for filmic fiction. The participants are displaced, we no longer know where they are, and at key moments the screen turns to black. Yet the participants’ voices remain. We still hear their words. It is what they say, their dialogical exploration of the subject, that really matters.
They have been brought together to discuss ‘legal fictions’; devices used in legal reasoning when something not true is believed or assumed to be true, legal fictions allow for the law to be applied without changing the text of the law. (1) They go on to use this device as a way of exploring international immigration law in the context of today’s global changes, with one participant asking:
Is immigration a fiction, a reality, or an abstract? I always ask myself that question and I cannot find the answer. When did immigration law come into existence? How did it come into existence? Who created it? When did this imaginary line appear that this country is this and that country is that?
Discussions move on to unpack issues surrounding land ownership, the creation of territorial borders, the free movement of people, the right to seek asylum, citizenship and universal human rights, all in an attempt to see how speculative legal frameworks could offer alternative ways of thinking, act as possible points of resistance, and work towards realising future societies that are more just and equitable. One participant raises: ‘sometimes we are unable to see things properly, we need that kind of lens that helps us to understand the way to solutions’. In this case, legal fictions are used as a lens through which to see and imagine alternative legal frameworks in relation to immigration law. The dialogue begins to collapse as they conclude that law is a social construct, exposing it as ultimately another type of fiction, which draws the conversations to a close.
This video piece, aptly titled What If As If, (2) is a work created by artist Alicja Rogalska and researched in collaboration with participants – Ammar Bajboj, Shah Jahan Baloch, Viridiana Delgado Cardona, Arnold Christo-Leigh and Kristin Tewes. The participants who feature in the work trained as lawyers in their country of origin—which includes Germany, Colombia, Sierra Leone/Nigeria, Syria and Pakistan—and are currently based in the UK. They are also migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Created as part of Rogalska’s bursary with UK arts organisation Artsadmin, and filmed in their Toynbee Studios, a former court room, the work featured in the 2017 group show Dreams & Dramas – Law as literature at NGBK, Berlin, Germany (Figure 2).
Rogalska describes herself as a Polish artist who lives in London and works mostly elsewhere. Her practice is interdisciplinary and involves participation and collaboration, often working with others who bring particular skills or expertise to the contexts and situations she creates. (3) Encompassing both research and production, her work is socially and politically engaged, taking the form of events, performances or ephemeral moments that act as catalysts for collective questioning, imagining, reflecting and testing different ways of being together. (4) Rooted in both specific contexts and speculative environments, her projects are located between what already exists and what is possible, inviting us to question our perceptions of the world and imagine alternative futures. (5)
Rogalska’s work What If As If is utilised to open this paper, that seeks to explore the potential role galleries might play in critiquing contemporary political situations, interrogate their responsibilities, and reflect on challenges that surround politically engaged practice. The paper firstly considers how galleries might reappraise expertise and encourage audiences to think in different ways; secondly contemplates how galleries can foster intellectual activism and engender more empathetic and reflective individuals; and finally presents an opportunity for galleries to create a space where audiences can imagine alternatives futures and enact civic roles to construct a better world. In the main, I will be writing from a UK perspective, but I will also draw from examples across the world.
In the context of a rapidly changing world and at a time when US president Donald Trump has refused to condemn ‘alt-right’ activists and imposed a ban that prevents citizens from predominantly Muslim countries from travelling to the US; when Kim Jong-un, leader of North Korea, is conducting missile and nuclear tests and tensions with the US are mounting; when EU-citizens face uncertainty over their rights and there is increasing ambiguity around the implementation of the Human Rights Act in the UK after Brexit; when there has been a significant rise in xenophobic attacks and resurgence of nationalism worldwide; and at a time when experts are being derided, what roles can galleries play, and what active measures can they take, to work towards nurturing a more equitable and just world?
How can galleries respond in uncertain and unpredictable times?
Rogalska believes that there: ‘is often a huge gap between declared and actual politics of art institutions’ and that: ‘unless the art world makes some effort to be relevant to other people and not just itself, not much can change’. She later goes on to suggest that: ‘there has been almost no debate about Brexit in the main UK art institutions, the majority of reaction was artist-led’. (6) Academic Janet Marstine in her discussion of artist interventions and socially engaged projects in galleries recognises the potency of contemporary art to mirror, and thus highlight, issues of democracy, whilst acknowledging the social and political roles that cultural institutions could and should play owing to their inherent constitution in society. She states that:
… the gallery is an inherent component of civil society and cannot ethically exist in isolation from difficult political conversations and activity. The gallery has roles and responsibilities in critiquing and transforming the state. (7)
Marstine, who draws from a museological perspective, discusses the gallery’s roles and responsibilities as a matter of ethics, stressing that as public institutions, with the capacity to enact a social and political purpose, they have a duty to do so. Although some UK art institutions have openly reflected on the potential consequences of Brexit, (8) many galleries remain reticent to actively engage in difficult political conversations. In considering Rogalska’s earlier argument where she suggests most UK art institutions lack actual political relevance, and Marstine’s point of reference, can galleries learn from the broader field of museology?
Through research and practice, museums have developed a sophisticated case for their role as agents of social change. The ‘change agenda’, although not without its critics, has in recent years gained traction and in 2013, the UK’s Museum Association launched its manifesto ‘Museums Change Lives’, encouraging museums to embed purposeful ‘change’ within their practice and mission, advocating the value of museums in enhancing well-being; creating better places; and inspiring people and ideas. (9) Beyond this, a number of museums have supported rights-based issues through asserting their values and taking clear political stands, recognising they are not ‘neutral’ spaces and that to: ‘sit on the sidelines is to embrace the status quo, and the status quo is increasingly perilous’. (10)
The current political situation is not only perilous, but divisive, as demonstrated by the dramatic rise in hate crime in the wake of Brexit, with a 100% increase of racially and religiously-motivated hate crimes in certain parts of the UK, (11) and a 147% rise in homophobic attacks. (12) Museums and galleries have a responsibility to side with those who face prejudice, as by choosing not to take sides in situations of injustice in fact means to side with the oppressor. Professor of museum studies Richard Sandell further problematises this, asserting that:
Taking sides on human rights issues requires a refinement of the idea of the museum as forum, in which the responsibility for weighing up the legitimacy of divergent moral standpoints is sometimes left to the visitor, towards the idea of the museum as arbiter. Museums, I suggest, might reasonably be expected to assess and choose between competing moral claims, declaring their support for universal human rights and opposing oppression and discrimination, in whatever form this takes. (13)
In light of changing political landscapes, particularly in the UK and US, museums and museum groups have assumed the role of ‘arbiter’, as seen in 2017 with action taken in response to Trump’s imposed travel ban, to cite just one example. This includes the UK’s Museum Association producing a manifesto for inclusion and tolerance; (14) the Davis Museum, Wellesley, Massachusetts protesting by removing or shrouding artworks in their collection displays that had been created or given to the museum by immigrants; (15) and the American Alliance of Museums issuing a public statement that made clear their position in treasuring international perspectives, embracing a diversity of people and cultures, and valuing the rich contribution immigrants have made to American culture. (16)
Galleries, like museums, can help shape public opinion through taking strong political stances, by becoming arbiters, and by taking sides with those who face oppression or whose human rights have been violated. Although complex in its undertaking, a growing body of research attests to the capacity for museums and galleries to not only stimulate, but also inform debate. Furthermore, galleries can take action, performing their declared politics by protesting divisive, oppressive, and damaging attitudes. One way in which galleries can enact their political values, contest the political status quo and challenge unjust practices is through creating a space in which different forms of expertise are respected and shared.
A space for reasserting expertise and encouraging alternative ways to think
Since 2015, there has been an intensifying increase in anti-expert rhetoric propagated by Trump’s presidential campaign and the UK’s EU referendum ‘Leave’ campaign, with the then justice secretary Michael Gove announcing that: ‘the people of this country have had enough of experts’. (17) This denigration of experts is often expressed as antagonism towards academics and elitists, and an anti-intellectualist stance. Intriguingly, although with different aims in mind, contemporary art and contemporary practices in both museums and galleries have also troubled traditional notions of expertise. In these cases, the challenge to conventional expertise, specialist knowledge, and the authority of the artist or museum and gallery practitioner is an attempt to democratise practice, reach new and diverse audiences, and to work towards equal representation. How can museum, gallery and artistic practices avoid giving credence to or leveraging right-wing agendas that discredit experts, and further marginalise people and divide societies? What can these practices do to become places that filter out ‘false news’ and challenge ‘post-truth’ positions (cultivated in an anti-expert era), whilst remaining as spaces for plurality and sites that represent multiple viewpoints? How can galleries reassert expertise without yielding didactic, authoritarian or even oppressive practice that diminishes the potential power of their audiences?
Here it is helpful to return to Rogalska’s work to draw inspiration from and inform possibilities in gallery practice. What If As If brings together seemingly disparate fields – law and art, fact and fiction. Through creating a space to question the constructs of law and through using dialogical artistic methods and legal fictions as tools, Rogalska offers opportunities to collectively search for emancipatory ideas for the future and to practise different political realities. (18) The strategies employed by Rogalska do not devalue the expertise of law, rather act as starting points and apparatuses for legal specialists, with diverse perspectives, to explore possibilities and ideas for change. In this work, there is a respect for and a trust in experts. This is of paramount importance and sits in stark contrast to anti-expert rhetoric, and unfounded ‘alternative facts’ originating from Trump’s cabinet. Rogalska’s work offers a framework that allows for critical thinking and questioning, imagination and dreaming, but is grounded in reality and fact, in expert knowledge and experience.
Interestingly, parallels can be made with gallery and museum practices. Galleries, and in particular contemporary art spaces, often deal with work that questions and debates issues of authority, truth, authenticity and reliability, with art that simultaneously challenges, confuses and provokes. (19) Museums, however, have tended to be understood as: ‘tried-and-true sources of understandable information, places one can trust to provide reliable, authentic and comprehensible presentations of … objects and ideas’. (20) A recent example of museums asserting their status as trusted institutions is the international online campaign #DayofFacts, (21) where cultural and scientific organisations (including museums), mobilised to counter ‘alternative facts’ using Twitter as a platform to share and reaffirm that facts matter.
Rather than view these as conflicting positions, galleries have the potential to be spaces that encourage critical thinking, allow for questioning, offer multiple viewpoints, and act as trusted sites of reliable sources and facts. Janes helps to further our understanding of how this might work in galleries, he states that:
All museums specialize in assembling evidence based on knowledge, experience, and belief, and in making things known … My suggestion for taking action here is for museums to become intellectual activists and begin to address the vexing issues of our time. Intellectual activism means activities which do not necessarily create new knowledge, but make existing knowledge more accessible, understandable, and useful to others. (22)
Exploiting the tensions between empirical knowledge traditionally presented in museums and creative freedom and critical questioning found in contemporary art practices, galleries can reassert expertise, whilst creating conditions where audiences can make fresh discoveries by seeing facts presented accessibly and from multiple, but crucially, expert perspectives. Here I use the term expert to mean both those with specialist knowledge and skills acquired through education, and those who have acquired expertise through lived experience. Through becoming ‘intellectual activists’ galleries can support people to see facts anew and trust in intellectualism and expertise, which, in turn, can lead to individuals developing forms of visual literacy where they read and interpret material, including ‘alternative facts’, critically.
A space for intellectual activism and for engendering empathy
Part of the power of Rogalska’s work lies in its ability to show the complexity of legal and political situations, whilst enabling audiences to understand and access the issues presented on many levels. In What If As If the visual cues help our understanding of the participants’ lived experience. Most of the time they appear sitting in the former court room, but occasionally they are seemingly situated elsewhere, a ‘green nowhere land’ (Figure 3). Rather than being superimposed in to an alternative location courtesy of the green screen, the participants are left in symbolic limbo, echoing the nature of their displacement and producing a sense of being out of place. Within this scenario they both belong and do not belong. The participants are immigration lawyers and migrants, asylum seekers or refugees. These identities are not presented as mutually exclusive, rather the work offers unique and personal insights in to issues surrounding immigration, belonging and citizenship, depicting the complexities of real-life situations. In this case, individual experts made vulnerable by the field that they are experts in, or lawyers made precarious by law.
Rogalska’s work complicates simplistic binaries. As the participants demonstrate individuals can belong to or identify as being part of multiple groups or affiliations, whether by choice or not. Politics and citizenship academic Engin Isin states that citizenship’s basic meaning is belonging to a group outside of family or kinship, including, but not limited to, membership in a nation-state, he further acknowledges that a citizen negotiates and struggles with their multiple belongings that can be and often are conflicting. (23) These conflicts are foregrounded in What If As If, the participants belong in terms of their legal careers, but their belonging in the UK as non-UK nationals has been thrown into question. Rather than attempt to resolve these tensions Rogalska amplifies them to provoke critical thinking around migration, citizenship, belonging and human rights.
In this current climate, these debates have gained new urgency. How might galleries support thinking around pressing concerns affecting the globe, such as migration and human rights issues? Sandell argues that museums and galleries as sites with moral agency have both opportunities and obligations to support the advancement of human rights for all and can contribute towards processes of social and political change. (24) He recognises that human rights have often been treated and presented as abstractions removed from everyday life. By focusing on the instruments (such as laws and policies) and institutional apparatus (nation-states) through which rights are formally conferred, the lived experiences of individuals and groups whose rights have been denied or violated have been overlooked. (25) Museums and galleries can, in part, rectify this through presenting highly personalised perspectives, experiences and accounts that ground the abstract, re-contextualising and helping people to understand rights in everyday and meaningful ways, as well as enabling people to express and exercise rights in settings outside of legal or political domains. (26)
Rogalska’s artwork cleverly does both, the video piece exposes issues within international immigration law, and amplifies the voices of individuals whose human rights have been and are currently under threat as a result of Brexit and changes in immigration policies and law. In unpacking and revealing legal complexities through the unfolding dialogue and grounding these seemingly abstract issues in real life, Rogalska enables the audience to understand human rights struggles in meaningful ways. What If As If also challenges lazy stereotypes, offering an alternative to toxic representations of migrants used in the EU referendum ‘Leave’ campaign and circulated in mainstream, mainly right-wing, media. By focusing on lived experiences of migration and through showing a complex picture Rogalska compels the audience to empathise with the participants and the current predicaments they face.
Empathy and an ‘unparalleled sensitivity to the needs of others’ is a trait that, journalist George Monbiot claims, humans inherently possess, but he suggests in contemporary society: ‘something has gone horribly wrong’. (27) Recent research argues that arts and culture hold a compelling capacity to help shape reflective individuals who better understand themselves and empathise with others. (28) Long-term and sustained involvement in the arts has the potential to bring about a primal change in individuals, one which alters perceptions of the wider world, enables questioning of the status quo, and generates more empathetic and receptive attitudes towards the unfamiliar, be that people, experiences or attitudes. (29)
Do galleries, alongside contemporary art practices, hold one answer to reigniting humankind’s capacity for empathy? Can galleries foster empathy through supporting individuals to broaden their horizons and, as previously discussed, to access and understand facts in meaningful ways? Monbiot asserts that humans are supreme co-operators, and: ‘through invoking our capacity for togetherness and belonging, we can rediscover the central facts of our humanity: our altruism and mutual aid’. (30) He believes that a ‘Politics of Belonging’ is key to finding solutions to the troubled world we live in. This, perhaps, reveals how galleries can play a part in realising a more just future.
A space for imagining and realising alternative futures
In reconsidering Rogalska’s wider practice, that is situated between what already exists and what is possible, could the gallery help people to venture between reality and imagination, between fact and fiction, pushing thinking forward to imagine and realise alternatives futures? Where people can collectively question, reflect and test different ways of being together? And where people can form affinities, develop a sense of belonging, and perform citizenship? As Rogalska asserts: ‘[T]he role of art should be to aid imagination that a different, better world is indeed possible’, she also suggests that: ‘[W]e urgently need new politics of hope, constructive thinking, and a strategy that goes beyond criticality or dissent … The future should not be discussed just on the level of what is technically and scientifically possible, which is too often the main focus of our narratives about it’. (31) Remarkably, Monbiot also recommends for political renewal the presentation of a new narrative is essential. He states that:
Without a new story that is positive and propositional, rather than reactive and oppositional, nothing changes … The narrative we build has to be simple and intelligible … It should explain the mess we are in and the means by which we might escape it. And, because there is nothing to be gained from spreading falsehoods, it must be firmly grounded in reality. (32)
This narrative should be accessible and grounded in reality, not ‘alternative facts’, yet, as Rogalska proposes, imagination could be utilised to look beyond what is currently conceived as technically and scientifically possible. Imagination, although an essential first step to realisation, on its own is not enough, we need to collectively develop constructive alternatives and take action to achieve a different future.
Through appropriating artistic dialogical methods and creative exercises in speculating, the gallery could bring people together, not only to share experiences and develop empathy, but to: ‘discuss contentious issues; to stress our common humanity (‘everyone matters’); to offer hope and to foster the notion that, collectively and through applying our imagination, we can create better futures’. (33) The word ‘collectively’ is key here, collective action is a powerful tool for change. Could the gallery be a space where affinities form and belonging takes place? If we remind ourselves – citizenship means belonging to a group outside of family, however, Isin suggests that inseparable from belonging is the other fundamental meaning of citizenship – behaviour. (34) He stresses that a citizen negotiates their belonging through following the accepted behaviours of the group. (35) Monbiot suggests that altruism and mutual aid are behaviours that reflect what makes us human. Galleries, acting as arbiters, can show their support for universal human rights and present new political narratives in order to persuade audiences that by empathising and caring for others we can build a more equitable and just future.
Could the gallery also enable people to practise behaviour and perform small acts of citizenship? An inquiry into the civic role of arts organisations suggests that art spaces can: ‘animate, enhance and enable processes by which people exercise their rights and responsibilities as members of communities’. (36) It has been argued that participation is a process that leads to democratic decision-making, the greater the opportunity to participate the more citizen power is gained. (37) Can practising participation and trialling different political realities in the gallery enable people to develop political agency? Crossick and Kaszynska assert that: ‘there is a crucial link between cultural engagement and an ability to act as a global citizen in a democratic system’, (38) though they recognise that this is a hotly debated topic and a difficult area to evidence. They go on to suggest that there is: ‘a growing body of evidence, mostly from the US, to support the claim that arts and cultural participation is associated with civic engagement, even if the mechanism is not well understood’. (39) Through offering opportunities to enact citizenship, can galleries encourage people to perform a ‘Politics of Belonging’, collectively construct alternative futures, practise alternative political realities together, and ultimately realise those future through taking action?
Conclusion
Although it would be naïve to suggest that galleries working in politically engaged ways (with artists who foreground political issues and employ dialogue and interaction as methodologies to elicit change), hold all of the solutions to these very large concerns, I have attempted to show their potential in nurturing more just and equitable societies. While I have written from a UK perspective, drawing on Western examples, these suggestions for galleries could cross the border of specificity and be adopted worldwide.
Through appropriating socially and politically engaged artistic methods, alongside drawing on museological approaches, galleries can strive to be more relevant and engaged in contemporary issues. Galleries can become spaces that resist and oppose discrimination; do not oversimplify complex realities, rather make them understandable; and inspire people to envision and shape alternative futures. Through collective imagining and a ‘Politics of Belonging’, galleries can offer a practice and a space where people can enact civic roles to explore and find workable solutions to our global problems. One participant in Rogalska’s work What If As If proposes: ‘sometimes we are unable to see things properly, we need that kind of lens that helps us to understand the way to solutions’. Could the gallery be that lens?
Notes
This article was first published in Contemporary Art Journal, South Korea.
References
1. Artsadmin, So-Called Law: Screening & Research Sharing, 2017 https://www.artsadmin.co.uk/events/4002
2. Alicja Rogalska, What If As If, 2017 https://vimeo.com/207446718
3. Alicja Rogalska, http://www.alicjarogalska.com/
4. Rogalska, Ibid.
5. Rogalska, Ibid.
6. Alicja Rogalska, email correspondence, 17 August 2017
7. Janet Marstine, Critical Practice: Artists, Museums, Ethics, Abingdon: Routledge, 2017, p.125
8. Hannah Ellis-Petersen, ‘Free movement of artists 'must be protected' after Brexit’, Guardian Newspaper, 13 July 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jul/13/tristram-hunt-nicholas-serota-protect-free-movement-of-artists-after-brexit
9. Museum Association, Museums Change Lives Manifesto, 2013 http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1001738
10. Robert Janes, Museums without borders: selected writings of Robert R. Janes, London: Routledge, 2016, p.378
11. Jon Sharman and Ian Jones, ‘Hate crimes rise by up to 100 per cent across England and Wales, figures reveal’, Independent Newspaper, 15 February 2017 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-hate-crime-rise-100-per-cent-england-wales-police-figures-new-racism-eu-a7580516.html
12. Mark Townsend, ‘Homophobic attacks in UK rose 147% in three months after Brexit vote’, Guardian Newspaper, 8 October 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/08/homophobic-attacks-double-after-brexit-vote
13. Richard Sandell, Museums, Moralities and Human Rights, Florence: Taylor and Francis, 2017, p.148
14. Museum Association, Manifesto for Museum Tolerance and Inclusion, 2017 http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1214164
15. Allison Meier, ‘In Protest of Trump’s Travel Ban, Davis Museum Will Remove All Art Made or Donated by Immigrants’, Hyperallergic, 15 February 2017, https://hyperallergic.com/358883/in-protest-of-trumps-travel-ban-davis-museum-will-remove-all-art-made-or-donated-by-immigrants/
16. American Alliance of Museums, American Alliance of Museums Statement on the Travel Ban Imposed January 27 via Executive Order, 2017 http://www.aam-us.org/about-us/media-room/2017/american-alliance-of-museums-statement-on-the-travel-ban-imposed-january-27-via-executive-order
17. Michael White, ‘Should we listen to the experts on the EU referendum?’, Guardian Newspaper, 8 June 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2016/jun/08/experts-eu-referendum-michael-gove
18. Alicja Rogalska, http://www.alicjarogalska.com/
19. Emily Pringle, Learning in the Gallery: context, process, outcomes, engage, 2006, p.7
20. John Falk and Lynn Dierking, Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning, AltaMira Press, 2000, p.2
21. DayofFacts, 2017, https://storify.com/dayoffacts/dayoffacts-58acd5a9fc1a59200b600cd5
22. Robert Janes, Museums without borders: selected writings of Robert R. Janes, London: Routledge, 2016, p.382
23. Engin Isin, ‘Framing the future citizen: The art of citizenship’, The Future Citizen Guide, Tate, 2015, p.15
24. Richard Sandell, Museums, Moralities and Human Rights, Florence: Taylor and Francis, 2017, pp.6-7
25. Sandell, Ibid., p.12
26. Sandell, Ibid., pp.17-19
27. George Monbiot, ‘George Monbiot: how do we get out of this mess?’, Guardian Newspaper, 9 September 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/09/george-monbiot-how-de-we-get-out-of-this-mess
28. Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska, Understanding the value of arts & culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project, Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2016, pp.7-8
29. Kevin F. McCarthy, Elizabeth Heneghan Ondaatje, Laura Zakaras and Arthur Brooks, Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts, RAND Corporation and The Wallace Foundation, 2004, pp.48-49
30. George Monbiot, ‘George Monbiot: how do we get out of this mess?’, Guardian Newspaper, 9 September 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/09/george-monbiot-how-de-we-get-out-of-this-mess
31. Alicja Rogalska, email correspondence, 17 August 2017
32. George Monbiot, ‘George Monbiot: how do we get out of this mess?’, Guardian Newspaper, 9 September 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/09/george-monbiot-how-de-we-get-out-of-this-mess
33. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Inquiry into the Civic Role Of Arts Organisations: Phase 1 Report, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2017, p.57
34. Engin Isin, ‘Framing the future citizen: The art of citizenship’, The Future Citizen Guide, Tate, 2015, p.15
35. Isin, Ibid.
36. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Inquiry into the Civic Role Of Arts Organisations: Phase 1 Report, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2017, p.22
37. Sherry Arnstein, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, July, 1969, pp.216-224
38. Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska, Understanding the value of arts & culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project, Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2016, p.58
39. Crossick and Kaszynska, Ibid., pp.60-61