Lessons from Russell Brand #1

When Mark Field, MP, came to speak to a group of sixth formers, I don’t think he was really prepared for what faced him. Perhaps he, like many members of our society, fell into the trap of considering young to be synonymous with immature and uninformed… or perhaps he simply hasn’t met very many “feisty women” in his lifetime.

He admitted that he finds engaging young people in politics difficult and many other politicians would concur because, of course, it is difficult to nourish a passion for politics in a generation of young people that feel increasingly disaffected and stigmatized by our society and political system.

The idea that British politics is middle ground, middle class and middle aged is entrenched in society and the public, particularly younger people, are conditioned to feel dissociated from their political representatives. It is no wonder that in a climate such as this, in which rhetoric and tradition have taken precedence over principles and progress, that young people increasingly seek their politics from figures like Russell Brand.

And is that really such a bad thing? Sure, his suggestion that we should boycott elections because all politicians are homogenous was rash but one can’t deny that at least it got people talking. Because no one talks about politics! ‘Politics is boring, politics is stupid, politics is the unknown and, anyway, what difference does it make what I think? No one cares.’

And the truth is that fair enough, it doesn’t seem like any one does care.

Young people are poorly represented in parliament because they are often not yet voters and in the tussle for power that is party politics, it is those of voting age that the politicians really want to win over. Politics in our current climate is not about securing long term support for your party or introducing long term solutions, it is about the quick fix, the next PR stunt, the next ballot box.

Russell Brand offers a form of politics that is about revolution, that stems from a desire to sweep aside the web of bureaucracy that is entangled with our democracy. He is not condescending, he is animated. He questions the authority of our government and urges us to discover our autonomy. Certainly, his political motivations and ideals are controversial and I do not suggest that the only way to enthuse young people to start a youtube channel and start yelling “come the revolution” from the rooftops of London, but our central party politicians could learn a thing or two from Russell Brand’s attitude. A bit less tiptoeing round the issues, a bit less shifting the blame, a few less U-turns and Freudian slips and, more than anything, a few less beige policies aimed at gaining the support of the older voters at the expense of the younger.

Politicians NEED to engage young people because our voices do matter and the excuse that it is young people’s responsibility to engage of their own account simply does not cut it anymore. Yes, every citizen has to take a certain amount of personal responsibility for keeping up with politics and engaging with it but this problem is not about individuals not making an effort- this is about a whole demographic of people being side lined. This is about young people being passed around by politicians and used as a device to win the support of their parents rather than being addressed directly or consulted. This is about young people being empowered to hold politicians accountable for the bad decisions they make. This is about young people not being stereotyped or patronised. And this is about recognising that young people are still people… they were just born more recently.

A toddler probably could've written this

Where the hell have you been, i hear you cry! well, I have been sitting on my bed with my laptop perched on my knees, drafting and deleting, thinking and rethinking, crying and screaming with frustration. As my feminism has become more profound and developed, i have been focussing my attention on exploring those ideas more than digging my teeth into current affairs. But I'd forgotten that the point of this blog is that it is not limited to just exploring politics or current affairs or anything in that field... And that is why I am back.

Today's topic: Art (which is arguably more charged with actual politics than most of the beige blue-sky drivel than we are submitted to every week in westminster... so i suppose everything on this blog is political to some extent... because everything in life is political to some extent... but that is a post for another time.)

Art is a complex, subjective thing that is, frustratingly, tricky to define but instead of all of the bodged definitions we so often get from dusty classical art historians, I offer one that I hope will be satisfactory:

Art is whatever is made as Art.

Let me explain. 

Art is not really that difficult to define. If someone says they have made a piece of art, it is art. It might not be 'good' art but it is still art. And yes, that does extend to signing urinals, letting cows heads decay in glass boxes and splattering paint seemingly randomly on canvases. Yes, an elephant can make art. Yes, a 7 year old can make art. Yes, even- god forbid- a normal human being, without a gimmick, without going viral, can make art. They might not win the turner prize... in fact, they almost certainly won't, but it is. still. art. 

And, with that in mind, are you sitting comfortably? then I'll begin.

The White Cube, 15th November 2014. 

It is the last day of Tracey Emin's "the last great adventure is you" show and the gallery is full of earnest creative types comparing the work to something from the Parthenon and feeling thoroughly liberated. The fourth wave is moving through the space. I am standing in front of the one big painting in the exhibition. It is huge and wild and hard to follow. It looks like mountains and people and both together. It is not my favourite piece in the show (that award goes to the huge embroideries, which quite literally took my breath away... as in, i was coughing hopelessly) but it is, undeniably, art and, i think, good art, at that. I have certainly been looking at it too long- it has started to shift and move in my mind's eye and I take a step back. As I move away, two young women- probably a bit older than me- step into my place. I am a little annoyed that they have completely obstructed my view but dismiss it- the place is, after all, heaving and i did, after all, move away. I take a step to the right so that i can see the painting again, heave a little internal sigh and am about to forgive them when one of them turns to her friend, raises an eyebrow and says... 

"I'm sorry but a toddler could've have done that."

"A toddler could've done it" is the most pathetic bit of art criticism ever. It hardly constitutes criticism to be honest. I know plenty of toddlers who make fantastic art so there. humph. 

But honestly, that is one of the fatal flaws of this phrase. Comparing an artist's masterpiece to a toddler's is not really an insult. It's just a poor comparison. Toddler art is surprisingly good sometimes but it rarely bares much resemblance to the abstract pieces that is so often compared to. Some toddlers work in a series of tornado like scribbles in crayon, some in strange potato figures, some in glitter glue and stamps. They are sometimes more figurative than some of the artist's work that they are compared to. Not always, of course, but sometimes. 

And that brings me to my next qualm (it's quite a long list by the way- just a heads up): not all toddler art is the same. How dare you suggest that all toddlers paint in the same way! If people started saying "This piece looks a bit like that painting of a fairy that 3 year old Jane Brown from down the road did last week" i would have less of a problem because at least an actual comparison would be being drawn rather than just some loose, patronising insult. 

AND it is patronising. Not just to the artist, either, but also to the general, unspecified toddler in question. The fact that "a toddler could've done it" is considered to be insulting annoys me. It is as if because a toddler could have done it, it renders the art less valuable, less 'good', less arty. But some toddler art is really rather good, in my humble opinion. And it is just that- toddler art. It is still art. I refer to my earlier definition of art- if the toddler was making art, then the product is art. In defence of toddlers, can you stop using their art to degrade other artists' work? It's just not cool. 

Now for the artist who is being criticised. I understand that not everyone likes abstract art. I understand that not everyone considers it to be quite as aesthetically pleasing as figurative landscapes, still life or portraits. I understand and I recognise that some people just don't care about concept. I understand, I recognise and I disagree. To me, all i look for in art is that it invokes a response from me- that I feel something, think something, see something a little differently. 

And let's cut to the chase:

"A toddler could've done that."

Thing is, they didn't.

Address of GP: somewhere between a rock and a hard place

I hate going to see the doctor.

The smell of disinfectant, the slightly rubbery floors, the waxy chairs, the abrasive crispness of disposable paper towels and sheets, the whir of wooden beads on childrens' toys in the waiting room that seems to be the perfect frequency to turn a dull headache into a biting migraine... it is ghastly.

I am probably the most squeamish person anyone has ever encountered... ever. That may sound somewhat absurdly hyperbolic but, honestly, i nearly punched the (sweet, kind, lovely, supportive) nurse who gave me my HPV jab- even writing the word 'jab' has made my spine feel all weird. uaogbsbgjsvgsmgmnvgmgn. < That's what it feels like. And because i am so squeamish, visiting my GP is the WORST experience in the world for me. It is an attack on all my senses that makes my tear ducts fill, my wrists fold in against my neck (apparently my body's (completely rational) response to the smell of TCP is to guard my neck and wrists because TCP poses an impending risk to those body parts? go figure.) and my tongue seem far too big for my mouth.

This is why I avoid going to the doctor at all costs. If i am riddled with some mysterious illness, i am one of those people who likes to hide inside and wait for it to go away. I have never had antibiotics. My mother actually had to drag me to my GP to register us. My tetanus booster jab last year was traumatic. I still get flash backs.

BUT, surprising as it may sound, I love the NHS. It is what makes me happy to live in the UK over anywhere else. There is a certain altruism about it- caring more about people than about their purses. I love that if i wanted to consult a medical professional about the aforementioned mysterious illness, i could and i wouldn't need to double check that my health insurance was in order. I love that my GP is a 10 minute walk from my house and that i know that if i needed/wanted it, it is always there. I love that in the UK if you have a toddler and backache, while you are slumped in a waxy chair in the waiting room cursing under your breath, your child is being entertained by wooden beads strung on a maze of metal frames and is, thankfully, utterly oblivious to and unfazed by your pain. I LOVE that i am protected against HPV, tetanus and a multitude of other illnesses because someone bothered to vaccinate me, even if i did have to grit my teeth and battle through the queasiness and urge to swipe them round the face.

I love that in Britain, you don't have to choose between meals and medicine.

That's why i am so angry that we are letting all those things dribble away. The NHS is disintegrating. The people who make it up are clinging onto it, struggling to keep it afloat and juggling austerity, increased work loads and structural changes with continuing to uphold the fantastic standard of care.

Major A&E departments are being closed down. The system is being privatised and commercialised. And now? now our GPs- the very face of the NHS, the foundation on which our care system is built- are under threat...

98 surgeries could be under threat of closure according to NHS england in february. To many of us that is just another doom and gloom statistic hovering in the news, not really affecting us just giving us fresh fuel for groans and moans and middle-finger flicking. BUT think about it. Take a moment to consider what it would really mean, to you, if your GP closed down. If you had to register with another practice. Aside from the paper work (tell the school, tell your boss, have another form...), it would be hellish. Every time you had an ache or pain that you suspected wasn't just an ache or pain but something rather more serious, you'd have to shuffle through piles of paper looking for addresses and phone numbers to make an appointment with a new, strange face in an environment that you weren't accustomed to.

One of the most important things about our NHS is your GP. It is the first point of contact with the NHS for most patients. And it is the one that you, and I, are most comfortable with because we recognise it and appreciate in all its blue-walled, squeaky-floored glory. Continuity is undervalued. Seeing the same doctor really can make a difference to how positive you feel, how at home you are and how good the care you receive is- it is like someone knowing exactly how you like your tea; you are reassured that this person, this God-send, really knows you and what you need. I'd rather be stabbed with a needle by a familiar face than by a stranger, in a strange office, in a strange area, at a strange time of day because my old familiar surgery has been beaten into the ground by inadequate funding and resources combined with bulging patient numbers.

That is what is happening to the Jubilee Street Practice in East London (read more here). There is a choice in this situation and it is a grim one: compromise patient care by increasing patient numbers so that the care provided would have to be detached, bureaucratic and common (the old one-size-fits-all approach) or look forward to a rotten and undeserved end. In the meantime, excellent care providers sacrifice their incomes to maintain the practice. In the meantime, a career as a GP becomes unviable. In the meantime, patients wait to find out if they'll be seeing the same face for their next annual check up.

I hate going to see the doctor.

But at least I have a doctor to go and see.

I hope it stays that way.

For everyone.

Good morning Mr Gove? Enjoying the 4am start, are we?

fuck Austerity, Welcome to Exhausting Britain:

"So a future Conservative Government would help state schools - just like independent schools - to offer a school day 9 or 10 hours long - allowing time for structured homework sessions, prep, which will be particularly helpful for those children who come from homes where it's difficult to secure the peace and quiet necessary for hard study."
                                                -Michael Gove

So Gove, I assume you've done the maths and you're aware that a 9 or 10 hour long school day does not mean a 9 or 10 hour long DAY. 
It actually means we get up 2 hours before school starts and will still go to bed, no matter how much 'prep' you force down our throats, at least 6 hours after it ends.
No, classic tory error. completely understandable: It's actually not because we like to stay up for the fun of it. 
Yeah, i know, shocking. 
It's because eating and finishing homework and spending a couple of hours climbing down from the mountain of stress that a ten hour day would create in order to be able to sleep for a few measly moments takes up most of an evening.
You'll understand when your daughter starts her GCSEs. (Or whatever strange, new-fangled, pseudo-germanic assessment you've come up with by then.) 
Yeah, that combined with the fact that most students are exhausted anyway from working our fingers down to the bone to try and keep up with your new linear exam system and the new qualifications you keep on springing on us- a spoken word half-GCSE? separate from english language? Half way through the course? are you fucking kidding me?!

sorry.  

NOT TO MENTION the poor teachers:
Will their hourly rate be increasing now that they will be required to add 3 or 4 hours onto their already extensive days? 
No. I thought not. 
SO, where are you going to find all of these eager teachers who don't mind being incapacitated by tiredness on a daily basis, more so than ever and still earn very little?
Oh yes. I forgot. You'll be hiring ill-equipped, under-prepped graduates with little to no training and no experience whatsoever.
Yes, throwing them in the deep end, clothes and all, is the best way to teach them to swim and all that. 
Got to say i don't quite see the logic.

And how were you planning on maintaining, and improving, attendance in school when all the students are suffering from fatigue? 
Or had that not occurred to you?
ah. I see.
You haven't really thought it through have you?

I mean, i'm sure your daughter won't mind spending 10 hours in school every day plus travelling time and the odd detention and/or after school commitment.
I just hope she doesn't take art what with all the coursework...
OH YES! Art is a soft subject in your eyes, so she won't even have the option. Particularly if her school decides to divert the arts funding to maths.
So, let me rephrase, when will she fit in her 3 hours of kumon?
I mean, when exactly are students supposed to do all these plays and debates and orchestra rehearsals you've been such an advocate of?
And when am I supposed to be developing my independent study skills if i'm being confined to a room for structured homework each day?
Oh i'm not. 
right.
silly me.
free thinking is just... liberal bollocks, of course.

And what about those poor underprivileged children you are so charitably considering?
Because the main thing, in those situations (which you so cheerfully degrade), is to ensure they focus on their 'hard study'.
Oh i completely agree.
Pastoral care is... superfluous. 
Why have a happy population when you can drive it to its knees with exhaustion, instead?
excellent plan.

And even if you sorted all of that out, the question still remains,  just what were you planning to do about holidays?
Because, i hate to point it out, but you want holidays to be shorter AND you want to replicate the private school system?
BUT private schools have famously long holidays?
right. So we are not going to be like private schools then?
oh..?
More like.... prisons? or... borstals?
well.
that's lovely.

i'm sure parents are going to love you for making their little angels into exhausted, frustrated, embittered, hypoglycaemic devils with a complete loathing for authority?
yeah...?
Oh. but of course parents aren't going to have to deal with that because they simply won't be seeing their children.
ever.
well, maybe i'm exaggerating a little.
half an hour to quickly munch some dinner before going back to the millstone?

Well, little blessings eh?

Manipulation of the facts? nah, i'm alright.

I find it distinctly worrying that in this day and age particularly, facts have become almost more subjective than opinions. The attitude of the public and the politicians that omission and manipulation are somehow different from lying shocks me and yet i am even more shocked by how rarely other people feel this way- there appears to be a growing blind acceptance of an enforced ignorance that truly is... soul-destroying. Perhaps, though i am choking on the very idea (no. literally choking as i type. i just took a very large and aggressive, rant-writing gulp of tea.), we even enjoy just swallowing the- if we're honest- bullshit that we are fed on a daily basis. 

What Bullshit, you ask? Well, I see it everywhere. I see it in how quick politicians and public figures are to play the blame game rather than really targeting the issues our world faces and how often the stories and statistics are warped in the press to suit an objective that is ridiculous, unfeasible and dishonest in the hope that the story is more commercially viable or better suits the tastes of their readership; surely we should be able to access raw and impartial news and facts! The BBC is as close as we get to this and relying on one source seems... limiting. We are (gladly) prone to sugar coating and being blinded by well-intentioned but superfluous 'neutrality'- why do i live in a world were people are afraid of saying that someone has "fucked up" but favours the "oh dear. hmm... seventeenth chance?" approach. 

We are building a society in which facts are synonymous with opinion and in this technology-driven, information and opinion heavy world this is even more dangerous than it was in the past because we are raising a generation of people who quote their ideas and thoughts from blogs and articles more than they form their own, that accept the "facts" offered to them and assume that they substantiate and validate the opinion that they are paired with and, worst of all, cannot distinguish projection, prediction and deduction from evidence. How can a jury hope to offer a verdict untinged by publicised opinion and speculation when we encounter this spiel of assumption on a minute by minute basis- scratch that, second by second! 

Nowadays if you want to have an opinion on something, you don't research facts or reference other opinions, you plagiarise people's very THOUGHTS. It worries me that if some form of neo-nazism were to gain any sort of real popularity or acceptance today, it would probably either grow twice as quickly or fail instantaneously depending entirely on what side the most popular tabloid press took. We don't need poster and rally propaganda any more. A google search buzz word is enough. Once you are the most read article, you are one of two things: the most despised and humiliated or the most accepted and celebrated. It's all terrifying. It's all just PR. 

I am not a cynic. I do think that humanity is still clutching onto its autonomy. But the threads are wearing thin and it is just so much more convenient to join a trend of thought and blindly accept all its ideas. We are a society of whole-hearted acceptance and commitment to ideology. We are no longer pickers and choosers or formers and creators. We are becoming far too lazy around idea generation. And as a result there is no call or desire for raw facts. We want them condensed and summarised and to come as part of an all-inclusive idea package. We are rarely prepared to trawl through entire books, essays and records from various sides and perspectives because it is so simple to choose one essay and search for a single phrase in a single paragraph and from that sign up to everything else. But ideas are not like package-holidays or contracts. They should be flexible, multi-layered, patch-worked and new. 

I am not telling you to stop reading or listening to others and their views. But I am encouraging you to go one step further. I am begging you to engage in debate. To think about other opinions and then discard, develop, adapt or absorb them (or parts of them) and, above all, please make sure that you aren't just nodding along (and if you find yourself doing such a thing, please remember: Human beings are not, surprisingly, nodding-dogs). 

We shouldn't be manipulated by manipulated facts. We shouldn't commit to an idea without thinking it through. We shouldn't bend our own thoughts to fit with the norm or please the powerful (i'm looking at you, Nick Clegg). We shouldn't be so easily convinced by speech-writing and rhetoric. Politicians should not be able to swing public opinion by pointing a finger and moaning without really saying anything (i'm looking at you, David).

We need to start saying things when we talk.

And the things that should be being said, should be.... interesting. 

BUT most of all- they should be OUR OWN.