cinemaIMAGE c. Stateless 2006STATELESS: Old HayMarket Liverpool 1.

“Launch ruined by vandalism

4 COMMENTS

  1. I read your article with growing dissent.

    How conveniently your header and the article confirm the stereotypical image that people seemingly still have of Liverpool.

    What is missing is the realisation and acknowledgement that Liverpool and its people have come a long way and that the average Liverpudlian’s reaction to art work is not to vandalise it.

    I am living and working here in Liverpool in the creative industry since seven years now and the changes that have been taking place, not least through well invested European Objective 1 money and subsequent funding strands and initiatives, have been so constructive and successful that for the first time Liverpool has been rewarded for its positive development by receiving Capital of Culture status.

    This title has been awarded not for the low marks in housing, health, education and culture but for tackling these issues, addressing and proactively working towards solving them with and for the people of Liverpool.

    But obviously this new Liverpool is very inconvenient for some, its new artistic and cultural voice too large a threat it seems as we clearly still have too many people who would like to see nothing more than for Liverpool to sink back into the cliché run down city with its stereotypical scally inhabitants.

    The question is how can the new Liverpool shake off narrow-minded people, decision makers even, who appear not really to be interested in the wholesome and holistic success of this fantastic opportunity, which is the Capital of Culture?

    I am also surprised about the “discreet launch”. My work places me at the very pulse of what is happening in the arts scene in Liverpool, particularly in terms of new media, film and video, yet I never heard anything about this art cinema never mind its launch until I read your article about the vandalism of the exhibition space.

    Maybe instead of a “discreet launch” it would have been an idea to actually communicate this new initiative and invite Liverpool to attend, allow the people to claim the space, but that would of course require an understanding about the importance of consultation with people, utilisation of established networks, partnerships with local artists and arts organisations and thus the willingness to integrate rather than descent upon the city as the supposed saviour of its assumed derelict arts scene.

    We don’t need this kind of stereotypical writing and more importantly we don’t deserve it. I am sorry to hear that your exhibition space got broken into and your equipment stolen and rest assured that this is happening to long established arts organisations as well. But it is not an indication of what to expect of the Liverpool Capital of Culture and certainly not part of Liverpool’s cultural expression but rather a symptom of the careless way how this initiative has been landed and executed in the city.

  2. Many Liverpudlians are upset by this work. I am not surprised that they feel duped. I know for a fact the “Queen Mother Swab” is completely bogus. I had lunch with the Queen Mother myself and told Mr Hewitson of the event but I did not touch Eric Hewitson in the days following so any claim that he has the DNA of the demised Queen Mother is untrue as well as unpleasant. Many claims made about his works and background are flawed. I think it is a shame that the good people of Liverpool are duped in this way.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here