Clacton: ‘This isn’t art, it’s an insult’ (From Gazette)

What's this, has be "built" another one?

I doubt it'll make it 'til February. Like most people, i'm against arson, though i could easily make an exception in this case!!
Come on Ivan, break out the petrol and firelighters!!

ha--ha--ha----
jerry, we have enough eeediots without that matey.
OK, if you talk about something long enough, you kinda accept it as the norm.
Never has just one piece of anything, installed or not, given so much anger or hatred in my jaywick,
EXCEPT the regeneration plans that failed 2 years ago..
Art IS used as a catalyst everywhere when it comes to regeneration, so the piece does set out what its set out to achieve.
Get people talking...

Have you seen this on youtube;

http://uk.youtube.co

m/watch?
v=RwruwHDqxOU

its a bit of an eye opener...
Our Tower cost in excess of £680,000
for its regeneration, with ongoing costs thats not cheap..
But yet again, it has local groups inside talking, and working in groups.
(what it set out to achieve)

what do you say now on the vid clip jerry.?
Are we getting there or not..lol

"Never has just one piece of anything, installed or not, given so much anger or hatred in my jaywick"

How many times? - IT'S NOT YOUR JAYWICK!

"How many times? - IT'S NOT YOUR JAYWICK!"
"Shadow Demon, Colchester"
My My SD, well wrong side of bed you got out today.....

well well well SD,
now the penny drops...
Its MY Jaywick, because you profess to the world, you are from Colchester.
Its MY Jaywick because I live here.
Its MY Jaywick because i support it.
Its MY Jaywick as i carry on behind the public face, with many meetings about MY Jaywick, the place I live, the place I retired to, the place I love to live.
Go play in the dark dark dank shadows of Colchester SD...

I post from Colchester i am not from Colchester.

The penny certainly has dropped it is now apparent that you do all of these things purely to boost your own ego I'm sure that there are a lot more people that do a great deal for Jaywick without banging on about the place at every opportunity.

I appreciate that you are proud of where you live, half of the problem is a great many of your fellow residents simply don't care as long as the benefits are there each week they couldn't care less where they lived. You are often very quick to slam the decision to build the new toilet block in Frinton, as you think the money could have been better spent elsewhere (Your Jaywick) but take into account the thousands in benefits that go to the residents of Jaywick each month.

SD and your assumptions put jaywick as an island surrounded by stepford type communities leading simular type lives.
Oh how the accusors are blind to indiference that surrounds them,
get of that godlike pedestal SD
go look into any community that surrounds mine, for you will see the daily lives that replicate many of the underpriviligedge residents that have been placed by authourity into the care of jaywicks island living.
If you care to remember SD
Pier Ward WAS equalled with Golf Green as to being the 3rd WORST area in our country.
That was why Town Center recieved money allocated for Regeneration for BOTH wards.....
For those that have listened to me from day 1 nearly 3 years ago,
when i stood up infront of the many quiet residents and stated,
if i had a bulldozer, i would bulldoze the worst 2 unfit homes then.
SD, what did i just say...

It has got little better since then, nearly 3 years ago, but wait,
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE in them nearly 3 years ago....

S D your answer ?

Sooy SD, typo,
"i would bulldoze the worst 200 unfit"........


SO, if 200 went, where would the money and new space be provided for replacement new 200 homes...

Its a bit like chess,
you can scream and shout, to try and force your pieces into non existent spaces,
but in reality, until you move you piece, no other can move yours either,
to take possesion of your opponent, you first have to move....

It's funny how these stories get reported. Several different newspapers all report that Nathan Coley's 46 Brooklands Gardens is an unmitigated disaster that is hated by the locals. Although, of course, it isn't several different newspapers - they are all local Essex variations of the same paper - all our "gazettes". And the fact that each report is "written" by somebody different is also something of a misnomer insofar as each version of the story in each newspaper written by each journalist just simply cuts-and-pastes from an original text. And even today's East Anglian Daily Times has managed (it was so difficult to do) to cut-and-paste from the Gazette newspapers.

Things hardly change when one looks at the story itself. About 4 or maybe 5 people who live in Jaywick are interviewed. And as for the blog responses, well, looking at the different Gazette websites, we seem to have the same 7 or so people voicing their anger. All and all, then, it is a bit of a non-story. If Coley's installation is to be judged by the actual number of stated negative responses (Neither I nor anybody else can speak for everybody without being simplistic), then it would seem Coley's work has actually elicited very few bad reports.

There are, generally, two kinds of negative response to Coley's installation. The first is that it's not art (or it's bad art) - there is not much that can be done about such responses. To a large extent, Kant was right in thinking that aesthetic judgments are "disinterested" - in other words, whether you think an artwork is good or not is not a voluntary judgment you can choose. The question of whether the work is art or not is partly aesthetic, but more primarily an epistemological or categorical decision. These questions tend to be complex, philosophical, and too extensive to cover here.

The second kind of negative response involves the issue of funding. The number "£40,000" is frequently mentioned (is it true? Where does that number come from?), and the implication is always that this funding should have been used for streets and lighting. A corollary to this thought is that this funding comes from Essex County Council, and so it is even more shocking that they have paid for this work when they could have done the necessary repairs.

To be sure, EEC arts funding did pay something towards the work. But much of the funding comes from Henry Moore Foundation (a Yorkshire-based charity set up by the famous sculptor in 1977 that specialises in sculptural works) and the Arts Council. This is worth noting because the money involved in this Coley project was arts' money to begin with - it was never earmarked for residential improvements - and as such stems from sources different from those that pay for streets and lights. Mistakenly thinking (and being angry) that this artwork has stolen money from residential funding is a little bit like complaining about the fact that HMV doesn't sell hammers and saws, or that Simon Cowell's X-Factor winners aren't fixing potholes with their record sales receipts (maybe Strictly Come Dancing is a better example). It seems odd to expect a charity that funds public sculpture to pays for streetlights.

While it is true that arts funding does receive some government money, it is a considerably small amount. Indeed, the arts receive funding on the basis that they are able to mostly self-fund themselves, and therefore act in a business-like manner. Many galleries make money from selling books, gifts, t-shirts, coffee and cakes; galleries also attract people from far and wide, and these people will spend money in the local economy. With regard to Coley's work, it is likely that because he is a nationally and internationally respected artist, people will come to Jaywick to see the installation, and hopefully buy a cup of coffee or a fry-up in the Dolphin. Instead of taking money from the community, Coley's work might allow money to enter into it.
To put matters another way, what is taking money out of society is the government's folly in persisting with an over-expensive and doomed to failure ID card scheme, or the 70 billion pounds the government wishes to spend on renewing the Trident missiles. Maybe we ought to be angry with that, instead.

The issue of Firstsite perhaps confuses matters. Firstsite has unfairly received a lot of bad press in the last few months; much of that press has been appallingly misguided and not always truthful. It hardly needs to be said that the best way to sell newspapers is to stoke public anger and outcry - the Daily Mail are masters of this. Such a sales tactic (for that's what it is) is pathetic and treats the public as a mob; it also drowns out moderate voices and debate. And the Gazette has benefited, it seems, by regularly attacking Firstsite (the one-sidedness of the above story is just a continuation of that). It is important to understand here that Firstsite is not paying for Coley - it is not a question of getting their VAF finances in order before spending £40,000 on Coley; instead their role has been to facilitate the installation and introduce Coley to local people.

Ah, the local community. The above story finds 4 people who dislike the work. Well, I am in Jaywick most weekends, and I can think of 5 people (who also live in Jaywick) who like it. I also like it, but I don't live in Jaywick, so perhaps my view doesn't count. Perhaps the Gazette couldn't find any positive voices, or perhaps they couldn't be bothered. Last weekend's opening was well attended and there seemed to be many positive voices there. Coley, realising that he is an outsider, also worked hard to meet local people and involve them in the process; and it seems he has made several friends because of this. This doesn't mean that every local person should like the final artwork, but it does mean, I think, that one should that into account. Coley, Firstsite, Jaywick Martello Tower, and the Friends of Brooklands worked hard to involve as many local people as possible - and that was as much a part of the artwork as the metal and wood structure itself.

The creation and solidifcation of communities is something art has always done - it might even be one of art's defining features. In this regard, Jaywick Martello Tower, a contemporary arts centre in Jaywick, has worked tirelessly to embolden the local community through arts-funded projects - for example, it played a major part in 2008's The Summer Fayre. Sure, some exhibitions and events are more successful than others, but that is par for the course. But I tend to think that Jaywick has becoming an increasingly confident and aspirational sea-side resort in the last few years, and that arts funding has played a vital role in that. Indeed, regeneration projects up and down the country have often been spearheaded by the arts because the arts is great place for experimenting with social issues. Dare I imagine that without institutions like Jaywick Martello Tower or Firstsite, or the many artists who have genuinely found Jaywick and its people inspiring, that Jaywick would physically and socially be in a poorer state today than it is?

I am sorry to write such a long comment - virtually an epic in blog terms. But it strikes me that the Gazette newspapers have been lazy in reporting when it comes to the arts in Jaywick (and Colchester), preferring to play to prejudices rather than challenge preconceptions. And these are issues that can't be dealt with in empty soundbites that sound so honest ("telling it like it is") and yet rest upon huge simplifications, distortions, and misreporting. People have a right to dislike art, but lets get the reasons right. And the Gazette newspapers have singularly failed to do this. But hey, I guess they got to sell newspapers somehow - and maybe, just maybe, with their profits they could fix a pothole in Jaywick, or set up a streetlamp.

Okay, looking at my comment now, it is the Blog-equivalent of War and Piece. . .

By the way (I will shut up after this!!), who on earth took the photo above? Was the photographer drunk? Or is there a reason why the picture is wonky, making a horizontal street into a bottom left to top right diagonal? Was the photographer actually trying to photograph the road surface and, quite by accident, include Coley's installation. And why is the installation only placed at the top third of the picture and off centre? Any work of art can be made to look terrible through bad photography. And this is atrocious photography; a child could do better. Or maybe the photographer, like the journalist, wanted to cynically portray 46 Brooklands Gardens in the worst way possible? Alas, I can believe it.

Well that was a hell of a read.

Matthew, you say that government money to the arts is a 'considerably small amount'? £1.6bn last year to the Arts Council alone is a lot of public funding, far more than t-shirt and coffee/cake sales would make i should imagine?

Nathan Coley may be a national and internationally renowned artist, but i doubt many living in Jaywick had ever heard of him before he built his shed there. I may be wrong, but i doubt it. I also doubt his structure will bring anyone to view it, apart from other local artists, who are unlikey to want to have a fry up at The Dolphin and take in the 'sights'.
I really don't see what ID cards and updating Trident missiles has to do with the story, but i do understand the need to protect this country from attack.

I would imagine the photographer was using his 'artistic licence' to lead the viewers eye up the pathway and to the shed. Many photographers use the rule of thirds so i can understand the positioning of the shed too.

I believe you meant 'War and PEACE'?
Sorry, couldn't resist.

As for Firstsite, well that's another story altogether!!

The local press accurately represent local views and it is Colchester Council that tries to mislead the public. Council reports made public often exclude the unpleasant facts and the so called independent consultants just say whatever they are paid to say.

Firstsite could easily clear the confusion by stating exactly where the money comes from. However this secretive organisation refuses to face the public and holds all its committee meetings in secret.

Firstsite never consulted the public before plonking their wacky wooden framework in Jaywick. I am sure the locals would have been happy to tell Firstsite where to put their so called "art". At least it will be gone in three months time or perhaps earlier if the wood is put to a better use!

Firstsite made a rare public appearance at the Council Strategic panel meeting 4th November. Their incoherent presentation was the worst I have ever heard – short on financial facts but long on overblown hype.

I heard at the Council Finance meeting 25th November that they only got the lease of the Visual Arts Facility because they persuaded the Arts Council to help fund it. Firstsite cannot make the VAF viable and it is the taxpayer who will be lumbered with the running costs and expensive repairs of this structurally deficient project.

At the Council Cabinet meeting councillors will vote to squander £2million more on the golden banana in the Bus Park. Even worse they are speculating £8.2million by buying Rowan House despite knowing it is will be at the end of its economic life in 14 years.

Come to the Council cabinet meeting on 3rd December and express your views. You get three minutes. I will be there to object to the blatant misuse of taxpayers money on a failed project and property speculation.

The money spent on this project came from an arts budget, not a Jaywick regeneration fund.

If the money was not going to be spent on this arts project it would be spent on another arts project.
If arts money is to be diverted, it is greedy of Jaywick residents to think that it should be spent on illuminating their streets (some might even say that Jaywick looks better in the dark) when there are so many other needy causes in this world.

My personal opinion of the sculpture is 'what a lot of rubbish' but that is just my opinion - Art in all its forms is subjective and can be, as in this case, challenging but the world would be a much poorer place without it.

Jerry61,

Many thanks for you comments, I shall try to reply.

Oooops! You know, as I was typing the second blog I was thinking "please don't type 'War and Piece' because that would be daft!" Guess I should have dispelled the thought because I did exactly what I didn't intend to do!

I, too, doubt that many people in Jaywick, had heard of Coley. But I don't see the force of that criticism. Most people have only heard of a few artists - and most of would be dead. I would say, though, that is a good thing for people to have their horizons broadened by discovering ideas, practices, and people that he had not heard of before - otherwise intellectual life is filled with intellectualised ghettos; so again, I don't see why it's a negative the people had not heard of Coley before. But Coley did recognise this fact, and worked hard, and managed, to meet people in Jaywick - and establish friendships with them, and work with them. I think that's important, and as important as the criticisms the installation has garnered; yet it seems to me that side of the story has not been told. If he had just turned in Jaywick, said I going to plonk this sculpture down whether you like it or not, and left, then I would agree with you. But that didn't happen, and I don't think the Gazette papers have actually made that clear. As the saying goes, there is two sides (or more) to every story.

By considerably small amount I actually meant relatively small amount. The arts in the UK tends not to get all that much compared with many other countries, and certainly not compared with other areas of activity in the UK. Of course, it is possible it is 1.6 billion too much, but I happen to disagree. With regard to Trident renewal and ID cards - well, the former is a expensive and largely useless deterrent that, if used, would be the UK's opportunity to commit genocide; and the ID cards is an expensive project which most security experts are sceptical about the value of - and certainly does not justify the expenditure. I admit the relevance was somewhat loose, but the issue here is that it seems odd to me to complain about an arts project, which costs little in relative terms, when more money is wasted in other areas. ID cards and Trident were just examples; I am sure you can think of (non-art!!!) examples.

Yes, I know about the compositional technique of using thirds. I studied photography as part of my undergrad degree, and used to be a dab hand in the darkroom and with a camera (back in the days of film!). But, having actually seen Coley's work in Jaywick several times, I do honestly think the photo is slightly dishonest (obviously a lot of photography is), and is intended to show the work in the worst way possible. Again, I think there is a lack of balance in the story.

Andy in Lexden:

Again, thanks for you comments. The money is from the Henry Moore Foundation, Arts Council, and EEC - no secrets there; and I don't think that ever was a secret (I mean, I know about it and I am not involved!)

"Firstsite never consulted the public" - well, the project has been underway for 2 years, and both Firstsite and Coley have been meeting and working with members of the local community for that time - especially with The Friends of Brooklands. Jaywick Martello Tower has also been involved, and that has spearheaded arts in the community. So you seem squarely wrong in that comment, and not sure where you got that idea from.

As Jimmy right says, the money is from an arts budget - and it would have been spent on an arts project somewhere. I am glad it was spent in Jaywick. Everybody is free to think the artwork is good or bad, and they may conclude that it was or wasn't worth the money; but I think it's more problematic if one is suggesting that the existence or amount of the arts budget is a waste of money - that I would hotly disagree with.

Oh dear, another "War and Piece" (!) written. For my next trick it will be a rewrite of Proust...!

Hi Andy Hamilton

I just wanted to draw your attention to something - I don't think it will have much interest for you, but it seems worth making it clear nonetheless.

On 28th October the Clacton Gazette wrote an article about two artists, David Cotterrell and Alex Murdin, showing works at Jaywick Martello Tower. In closing they mentioned the forthcoming Nathan Coley work. Their journalist Dominic Bowers wrote:

"A piece of artwork from Turner Prize nominee Nathan Coley is set to be unveiled in Brooklands Gardens in November 10 until February 2.

It is funded by the Henry Moore Foundation and run by Colchester -based firstsite."

This is actually correct. When Claire Owen writes "The project cost £40,000, a sum paid for by Colchester-based arts group Firstsite – which relies heavily on taxpayers’ money." She makes an error - it is run by, not paid by Firstsite. She makes an error and thereby contradicts the earlier report. We should also quote Frances Leate's equally confused remark from the Halstead Gazette:

"Colchester-based organisation Firstsite – which gets some private donations but relies heavily on tax-payers’ cash – handed internationally-accl
aimed artist Nathan Coley £40,000 to put up the sculpture in Brooklands Gardens, Jaywick. "

I'm afraid there was nothing particularly sinister about the funding, and nothing secretative. I'm afraid to say, also, that the tax payer probably didn't pay £40,000 for it.

I don't mind people thinking Coley's work is rubbish - but lets be honest about the facts. And perhaps you might leave your Lexden (or Colchester) retreat and visit Jaywick. You will find some people that will hate it. And you also find some who are pleased with what it sets out to achieve.

ivan burit wrote:
SD and your assumptions put jaywick as an island surrounded by stepford type communities leading simular type lives.
Oh how the accusors are blind to indiference that surrounds them,
get of that godlike pedestal SD
go look into any community that surrounds mine, for you will see the daily lives that replicate many of the underpriviligedge residents that have been placed by authourity into the care of jaywicks island living.
If you care to remember SD
Pier Ward WAS equalled with Golf Green as to being the 3rd WORST area in our country.
That was why Town Center recieved money allocated for Regeneration for BOTH wards.....
For those that have listened to me from day 1 nearly 3 years ago,
when i stood up infront of the many quiet residents and stated,
if i had a bulldozer, i would bulldoze the worst 2 unfit homes then.
SD, what did i just say...

It has got little better since then, nearly 3 years ago, but wait,
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE in them nearly 3 years ago....

S D your answer ?

My Answer and my advice to you Ivan is:-

"If you haven't got anything sensible to say don't say anything at all."

You spend all day clogging up this site with pointless rambles
("For those that have listened to me from day 1 nearly 3 years ago,
when i stood up infront of the many quiet residents and stated,
if i had a bulldozer, i would bulldoze the worst 2 unfit homes then.")
and youtube links, often your comments are in no way related to the story.

Find somewhere else to use as your Jaywick soapbox because i'm pretty sure i'm not the only person that is fed up with your nonsense!.

Andy, what time and where is the council meeting and do you know the times and date of ther next one after December please?

Next Cabinet meeting is 3td December at 6pm. Normally they are held at the Town Hall but this time it is held at Rowan House, Sheepen Road - bottom of North Hill.

Other Council meetings are subject to change of date but the Diary of meetings is on the Colchester council website. Best to check the agenda and date of a particular meeting when it is days away. The agenda and reports for the meeting can be online more than week before but sometimes only a couple of days.

Reports are pdf files and I find it faster to save them on my computer than to read online.

The council meetings are like a social club for these elderly councillors. Everyone is very polite and the public are allowed three minutes each without any interruptions. Someimes the councillors comment then or promise a written reply.

Regretfully there are normally only about three members of the public. The rest are councillors and staff. Often I am the only member of the public who speaks.

It is a pity the scretive Firstsite never bother to defend their behaviour or explain whose money is being spent on what. They really do not care what the public thinks.

There is only one thing I would like to know. That is how many Brooklands residents attended the opening? From all who I have spoken with the only people who had invites were those in neighbouring streets who had been disterbed by the work. No one else recieved invites. When one of the organisers was asked why, the answer was "It was advertised in the free paper" Brooklands doesn't recieve a free paper.

I just got my Colchester Courier through the door. turn to page 9 and look at the artists impression of the St Botolphs regeneration. The new low carbon residential housing looks like it was drawn by either a child or fungus the bogeyman.

At the Cabinet meeting the only person to support Firstsite, the Jaywick chicken shed and the Visual Arts Facility was a well known Darios. No one representing Firstsite bothered to attend.

Even our MP turned up! Everyone blamed the last Conservative administration for the contracts they signed. There were two Conservative councillors but they refused to speak. The public are still refused access to the VAF reports, contracts or the Firstsite so called "Business" plan.

No one will be punished by losing office. All the liberals demanded was an apology. £25million of public money squandered on an unviable project and there is no penalty for any councillor.

However council taxes will remain low because the latest £2million for the VAF and the property speculation of £8.2million for Rowan House are all on 50 year fixed rate loans. An instant solution but the money has to be repaid some day.