In Defence of Our Homes: The Art of Resistance

Andrew, Tongues of the Working Class

The Social Production of Art

In his conference paper The Author as Producer, which he delivered in 1934 at the Institute for the Study of Fascism in Paris, the German critic Walter Benjamin argued that the political tendency of a work of art is not determined by the author’s personal ‘attitude’ towards the social relations of the time, but by the place of the work within those relations. The seemingly irreconcilable opposition between the formal qualities of the material work and its political or social content is revealed to be a purely abstract one when that work is situated within the material relations of production in which it exists. The meaning of a work of art is determined not by the intentions of the artist – however laudable, sincere or heartfelt these may be – but by the ideological functions the work serves within the relations of production of the society in which it is produced.

Benjamin was speaking in the context of the role of the revolutionary artist in proletarian revolution and combating the rise of fascism in 1930s Europe; but in today’s international art market, in which the artist has long since turned his back on the working class, individual rebellion is the order of the day. It seems that no exhibition is complete without the accompanying claim that the work questions, subverts, challenges, undermines or overthrows whatever artistic, social or sexual conventions the artist is typically intent on addressing. But situated within the critical and publishing apparatus that establishes the work’s market value and publicity, the patronage system that finances its production and advertising, the gallery system that brokers its display and sale, and the discursive procedures that establish its status and meaning as art, the ‘attitude’ of the artist has as much bearing on the actual social meaning of their work as that of a Taiwanese factory worker producing X-Men dolls for the UK market.

A banner, such as the one reproduced above, that is painted collectively on the street, displayed on a street stall offering information and support on social issues, carried on a political march or demonstration, reproduced on leaflets handed out to passersby, exhibited on council estates threatened with demolition, and used in theatrical productions for residents explaining why, has a completely different social and political meaning than the same image painted on a stretched canvas, exhibited in a gallery, framed on a wall, priced in a catalogue of the artist’s work, reproduced in an art magazine, sold to an investor and displayed in the reception of a multinational corporation. As producer – rather than individual genius, bohemian outsider, popular entertainer, or any of the other roles the artist plays under late-capitalism – the author is only one moment in the social relations that encompass the material work, its audiences, and the institutions in which it is produced, circulated, exchanged and consumed.

The Language of Resistance

I was thinking about the possible role of the artist recently while reading a new book by Robert Macfarlane titled Landmarks. It’s about the relationship between the impoverishment of the language we use to describe the natural world and the material impoverishment of that world. One of his points of departure is a new edition of the Oxford Junior Dictionary that includes new words like ‘broadband’, ‘voice-mail’ and ‘MP3 player’, but has removed ‘dandelion’, ‘heather’ and ‘ash’. Without the words and language to describe it, Macfarlane argues, we are less likely to appreciate, value and care for the natural world we seem bent on destroying.

One of his examples of this was the plan by the British multinational consultancy, engineering and project management company AMEC, in conjunction with British Energy (now the French owned EDF Energy), to build a vast wind farm on Brindle Moor, which runs along the interior of the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides. Across this upland expanse they wanted to build 234 wind turbines each 140 metres high and sunk into a foundation of 700 cubic metres of concrete. 210 pylons each 26 metres high would conduct the stored energy off the island. 104 miles of road and 9 electrical substations would service these pylons. 5 new rock quarries would be opened and four concrete plants built. 5 million cubic metres of rock and 2.5 million cubic metres of peat would be dug up and removed from the moor. 80 per cent of the residents of Lewis opposed these plans, so AMEC began a propaganda campaign in which they characterised and dismissed Brindle Moor as a wasteland, a barren wilderness of nothingness, empty of life, hostile and dead, dreary, depressing, oppressive, useless and without value. What possible reason could there be, they asked, for retaining the moor in its natural state against the vast wealth to be extracted from the winds that blow across it?

To counter this characterisation of their island and home, the Lewisians began a counter campaign that sought to describe, record, express and give meaning and value to Brindle Moor, and ultimately to their experiences of it. Some recorded their walks across its peat plateau, and began to name what they saw there: the infinite number and variety of plant, earth, rock, water, sky, weather and wildlife on land, under water and in the air. Through written descriptions, drawings, photographs and paintings, in maps, imaginary stories, poetic verses, narrative and historical accounts, they began to find and create a language to re-enchant the moor in the public’s perception, to fill the dead nothingness the money men wanted to see with the fullness and multitude of lived experience, to express a value beyond the facts and figures of the accountants, the financial benefits and profits of capital investment and return. After three-and-a-half years of campaigning and nearly 11,000 letters of objection sent to the Scottish Executive, the planning application was turned down. Brindle Moor was saved.

The Propaganda War

Apart from the success of the campaign, this story will sound all too familiar to anyone fighting to save their estates from councils and property developers. And in fighting for our own success against the similar denigration of our communities, our homes and our estates in preparation for their destruction for the benefit and profit of the rich, there are lessons to be learned from its example.

The fact that, like the energy company AMEC, Labour councils, housing associations, property developers, the Tory Government, the press and the media go to such lengths to stigmatise council estates, their communities and their homes as broken, come to the end of their life, as a failed experiment, a socialist dream turned nightmare, as architecturally flawed, as poverty traps, havens of crime and drug dealing, breeding-grounds for anti-social behaviour, the cause of rioting, as run down, mouldy, rotting, dirty, as full of immigrants and benefit scroungers, as disused brownfield land, industrial wastelands that need cleaning up and putting to use, as valueless and vacant voids from which wealth can and should be extracted – the fact that these images of the homes in which 17 per cent of UK households still live is propagated and repeated, over and over again, in every newspaper, BBC news item, crime report, soap opera, reality TV show, government announcement, political manifesto, council meeting, developer’s and builder’s conference, architectural presentation and academic symposium – in fact in every public discourse about housing estates – shows just how important representation is to the attack on social housing in this country.

By the same logic, however, if what is said about our homes and communities is so important to preparing the ground for the plans to destroy them, so too, then, does what we say in their defence. For far too long we have confined our campaigns to rebutting the arguments of our enemies. In doing so, we have limited ourselves to arguing over the financial viability of the existence of our homes and the architectural merit of their forms – rather than for the communities that call them homes; to arguing for the sufficiency of their existing housing densities and their ability to meet the demands of a supposedly rising population – rather than for the value and rights of the residents that currently live in them; to answering the barrage of facts and figures councils and developers throw at us to confirm their campaigns of slander, lies, stereotype, racism and class war – rather than demanding that they first justify their arguments to us, not only financially, but socially.

Anyone fighting for their homes knows that the words used in the propaganda war being waged against them have been twisted and distorted out of shape to mean something very different, and often the exact opposite, of their previously accepted meanings. ‘Affordable housing’ that no one but the rich can afford; state-subsidised ‘starter homes’ for property investors; ‘high-income’ households forced to pay market rents on a minimum wage; ‘luxury apartments’ with leaking roofs; disused ‘brownfield land’ on which working-class homes are built; ‘sink estates’ that have been deliberately neglected of maintenance; ‘subsidised’ social housing that was paid off years ago; ‘mixed communities’ of white, middle-class, buy-to-rent landlords; ‘robust consultations’ that ignore what residents say; a ‘housing crisis’ that has been engineered for the profit of those who benefit from it; and, of course, the ‘regeneration’ of estates that demolishes the homes of their residents and breaks up their communities – these are just some of the words and phrases that have been sucked of meaning, wrung out and redeployed as empty buzz words in a formalised, repetitive, unilateral discourse parroted by politicians, councilors, developers and architects alike in order to silence opposing arguments, objecting voices and different experiences.

There are many things we need to start doing to counter and oppose the ideological hegemony of this cross-party assault on working-class lives and culture, and which has the backing of the entire middle-class edifice of the press, media, entertainment, art and culture industries, and – to its eternal shame – the architectural profession. But we can start, like the inhabitants of the Isle of Lewis, by finding and creating new languages and forms of representation to give voice and shape and value to the experience of living on housing estates. We can speak, for example, of the socialist principles of their architecture, in which the size of the flats and the number of bedrooms are distributed to accommodate the needs of their occupants rather than their desire for social status; of the refuge they offer the working class from a real estate market that has turned homes into commodities for the profit of landowners and the rich; of the sense of community they retain and nurture, and the support network they provide for the millions of residents abandoned by the Neo-Liberal state; of their threatened existence as perhaps the last examples of collective living in the terraced ranks of London’s competing streets.

These, however, are only abstract ideas. They need to be written down, spoken, heard, recorded, drawn, painted, photographed, filmed, carved, built, planted, played, sung, acted, danced, expressed, shared, displayed, screened, read, performed and communicated through the particularities of lived experience – our experience. Resistance isn’t the theme of a contemporary art exhibition, the content of a performance poet’s speech, the form of yet another subversive work of art or the best intentions of a political artist: resistance is social practice. Collective, proletarian and political – three words anathema to the depoliticised, commodified entertainment that passes for art today – such practice is the real folk art of working class experience, and we are all inheritors of its history and custodians of its future. Find your voice, speak your words, tell your tales, defend our homes.

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

Illustration from a banner by Andrew Cooper (2012)

One thought on “In Defence of Our Homes: The Art of Resistance

  1. Dear Simon

    Your Blog is superb. I look forward to reading it and, in particular your most recent posts have been extremely powerful and pertinent to everyone the country – I’ve shared them widely.

    I’m based in Leeds, West Yorkshire and am a member of various action groups, primarily related to saving the greenbelt, but also with a very eagle watchful eye on the injustices of the housing market in Leeds, West Yorkshire wide and the rest of the country which are very much in alignment with many of the issues you cover in your blog.

    My intensive community and personal commitments don’t allow any time for a social housing blog for this area, or for outside London. It’s not an area of expertise for me either. Do you know of any similar blogs which cover the issues you raise on a more general scale, and are less London centric? Preferably Yorkshire – although I feel I may have heard of one if there is…

    Unless you know any different, I think there’s possibly a ‘gap’ for a blog like yours outside of London. But any pointers or suggestions would be really welcome.

    Also, are you aware of Community Voice On Planning (CoVoP)? the national group set up to unite all action groups fighting to be heard. AS you know, with no community right of appeal we are all stuffed. They are holding a national convention in Leeds in October. Greg Mulholland is a fairly local MP and he campaigns for a community right of appeal to be reinstated into the NPPF. He will be talking at the convention. Wondering if it might be something you’d be interested in attending, if you’re not already? Also be interested to know if you might give a talk and I could suggest it to them?

    I am Chair of Rawdon Greenbelt Action Group, which is how I originally got involved in campaigning for community rights on planning when our village’s entire greenbelt was destined for thousands of un-needed mass housing in 2011. Locally we need truly affordable homes, some social and houses for retired couples. It’s a fairly affluent area of Leeds but I bleoeive we need a better mix. However, Leeds target of 70,0000 houses includes a pathetic 1.4% of Social housing – and we have a Labour Council. The supposed ‘affordable houses’ planned for the city exclude so many working people it’s despicable. Obviously it all comes back to the NPPF and the government’a agendas for ‘boosting the economy’ and the neoliberalist approach they are using to do it. We were all led up the garden path about ‘The Localism Act’ being a way of having a say in shaping where we live in Leeds and countrywide.

    I just became co-opted on to Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development (WARD) to raisethe profile of their campaign to raise a fund to challenge Leeds City Council’s over-ambitious housing target of 70,000. We are ear-marked for a gross amount of dormitory estates of ‘affordable’ (completely NOT MEETING true housing need as you know) and ‘executive homes’ on the semi-rural fringes in between small settlements and surrounding the greenbelt of the city. If it was carefully planned, engaging with communities, meeting true housing need it would be acceptable to a point but it is the most undemocratic plan and strategy we’ve ever been subjected to.

    I’ve set up a national group called The Greenbelt Guard (akin to the home guard, but the Tory councillors were terrified when they heard of us thinking we were based on The Red Guard, no doubt..!). E’ve managed to build a good following from Glasgow to Cornwall, and we support each others campaigns and share stories and articles on planning challenges etc. I’ve organised marches attracting hundreds of local people, and marched to our Civic Hall with them when the Council officially announced they would not reduce the housing target, despite ONS figures suggesting a target of 45,000 – 50,000 max need by 2028.

    Basically I want to make you aware of what’s going on in this area, and to see if you have any interest in connecting with outer groups – not necessarily focussing on social housing but a wide range of activists with similar challenges because of government policy and legislation.

    I’ve instigated a meeting of the coming together of many community action groups to raise a fighting fund to challenge not only the Leeds and Bradford city Councils who together want to building 115,000, but also to eventually become a more national force for good. This might be under the banner of CoVoP.

    I’m trying to connect as many like minded campaigners and activists as possible, so that we can potentially become a true grass-roots tour de force of citizens who are sick of being ignored. Much in tangent with the current mood of the disillusioned Labour supporters and Brexiters but for the good of the UK, not for profit, and to represent a body which nationally battles for and attains the true housing needs of our country. And, as you so rightly detail – illustrates that the so called ‘crisis’ we have, are a gross exaggeration.

    I’d welcome your thoughts. If nothing else, if you can point me in the right direction of similar blogs to yours but outside London focus, I’d be really grateful.

    Keep up the awesome work you are doing!

    Best Wishes

    Briony Sloan Rawdon Leeds West Yorkshire

    >

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s