Real Participation or the Tyranny of Participatory Practice? Public Art and Community Involvement in the Regeneration of the Raploch,Scotland

Participation: Power, Process and Place

The move towards governance entails transference of responsibility from the state to community participants (Kearns, 1992; Lovering, 1995; Raco, 2000; Hickey and Mohan, 2004) that is fraught with difficulty, central to which are issues of knowledge and power. Fraser has argued that we should

question whether it is possible even in principle for interlocutors to deliberate ‘as if’ they were social peers in specifically designated discursive arenas, when these discursive arenas are situated in a larger societal context that is pervaded by structural relations of dominance and subordination (Fraser, 1996, p. 79).

Thus, with concerns raised over differing capacities to negotiate between stakeholders (Jones, 2003, p. 586; Taylor, 2007, p. 300), it is not surprising that doubt has been cast on whether devolution of power is actually realised in practice (Dargan, 2009; Foley and Martin, 2000; Healey, 1997). Some go as far as to imply a degree of instrumentalisation within the participatory process, particularly within regeneration, in that the

positioning of the community at the forefront of urban regeneration policy constitutes the medium through which the state continues to represent, problematise and intervene in the lives of citizens (MacLeavy, 2009, p. 871 after Rose, 1996).

In this, there is a danger that neighbourhood governance becomes perceived as a means to relegitimise the state (Raco et al., 2003, p. 279; Taylor, 2007, p. 302). Policy postulates that community empowerment

stimulates and harnesses the energy of local people to come up with creative and successful solutions to local challenges (Scottish Government, 2009, p. 6).

Rather than allow communities to forge their own direction, however, the various mechanisms by which they are engaged and empowered often encourage alignment with institutional and government objectives and a demarcation of local interests not driven by communities themselves, and thereby such means act as a “mode of subjection and means of regulating conduct” (McKee and Cooper, 2008, p. 134; see also Morison, 2000; Raco, 2000; Raco and Imrie, 2000; Raco and Flint, 2001; Atkinson, 2003; Taylor, 2007). Inclusion of individuals into pre-existing institutional forms of decision-making has been viewed as a domestication of the transformative potential of participation (Atkinson, 1999; Cleaver, 1999; Cooke, 2001; Sammers, 1998).

The push/pull between policy and advocacy, and whether aims are realised in practice, is reflected in the field of public art, particularly within regeneration. With the advent of New Labour’s social inclusion policies, in what Clive Gray has termed ‘policy attachment’, culture allied itself to a range of department portfolios, such as inclusion and regeneration, as a means to gain funding and, for policy-makers, public art became a vehicle to achieve the softer and more intangible objectives of social policy (Gray, 2002; see Belfiore, 2006). Integral to this were claims that engaging communities in artistic practices would engender cohesion, tackle exclusion and result in better place-making (Selwood, 1995; Hall and Robertson, 2001; Sharp et al., 2005), regardless of the lack of evidence for this. Although the language might have changed, the thrust of cultural and regeneration policy has persisted, as Belfiore elucidates

Despite the rhetoric of funding bodies (evolving around the keywords of participation, empowerment, social cohesion, personal and community growth, so reminiscent of the 1970s debate on cultural democracy), current policies in the cultural field are the direct derivation of the instrumental theories of culture that dominated the policy debate in the 1980s (Belfiore, 2002, p. 97).

Further concerns have been raised regarding the constitution of ‘community’ (Kwon, 2004; Bishop, 2004); the social, rather than aesthetic, terms on which such projects are typically considered (Bishop, 2004, 2006); and that such practices are vulnerable to institutional assimilation (Kwon, 2004).

As Raco and others have highlighted, place and time are core factors in this community mobilisation, which is often area-based in approach—perhaps inevitable in regeneration (Raco and Flint, 2001; Raco et al., 2008). Place is often undermined, however, by wider social economic and political processes and representation complicated by the relationships between geographical communities and communities of interest (Giddens, 1998; Raco and Flint, 2001, p. 588). Raco and Flint (2001) argue that places often become transmuted into bureaucratic spaces within processes of change, which raises interesting issues for public art which often aspires to anchor and encapsulate ‘place’ whilst also being implicit in and indicative of change itself. Public art, in its landmark form—most notably Antony Gormley’s Angel of the North (1988)—is synonymous with regeneration and often draws on past histories to mark/make current places, even though the place is in a state of flux. So, as communities are encouraged to aspire towards as yet unknown futures, the past becomes the focal point for hoped-for cohesion in the present and then immortalised in the landscape. Beyond this, the temporality of the public art process within regeneration is similarly fraught with difficulty, particularly if that process is participatory—the timetable for deliverables and outcomes not necessarily melding with the nuanced process of building trust. Thus, on several levels, the temporality of art and that of regeneration do not necessarily sit at ease with one another and much of this is underpinned by questions over exactly what the purpose of art within this context, openly or otherwise, is seen to be.

Creating ‘Creative Spaces’: Participation and Empowerment

Formally incorporated as a limited company by guarantee in 2006, the Raploch Urban Regeneration Company (URC) has been charged with transforming one of Scotland’s most deprived areas. According to the 2009 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, of Scotland’s 6505 datazones, three within Raploch were amongst Scotland’s most deprived 5 per cent: including western Raploch, Stirling’s most deprived datazone for income, health and education, and Stirling’s most deprived employment domain. ² Lying in the shadow of Stirling Castle, the Raploch’s history is that of an in-between place: the site of events of national historical significance—including William Wallace and Andrew Moray’s defeat of the English army in 1298, marked by the nearby towering Wallace Monument and ‘Auld Brig’—and a place whose name is synonymous with tales of drug addiction, alcoholism and social deprivation. Previous regeneration programmes instigated in the 1930s, 1950s and 1970s failed to overcome the area’s difficulties (see Robertson et al., 2008). Continual incremental development work meant that when the Scottish Executive launched its URC initiative, the Raploch was well placed to use its framework to deliver regeneration.

The URC’s vision statement is

To develop a 21st century connected community, consulted every step of the way. Through effective partnership working, we wish to build a community where people choose to live, work and visit, with new homes, education and health facilities, within an economically sustainable environment (Raploch URC, n.d.).

It is centred on five strategic objectives (property, place, partnerships, prospects and people) which echo the tangible and intangible benefits sought through the regeneration process. A key challenge throughout was activating a community that felt disenfranchised. The URC commissioned a ‘community signature’—a process where the community is questioned in order to produce a profile that enables policy-makers to understand challenges from the community perspective (Maginn, 2007). The signature revealed that 47 per cent of those questioned felt that decisions were made elsewhere and over half believed that the Raploch had a lack of visibility through squandered resources. The ability to counter this through community networks was limited as 67 per cent felt that local groups were not integrated (Raploch Community Partnership, open meeting April 2006). It has been determined that Local Strategic Partnerships are more likely to succeed if they build on previous experience of engagement (Taylor, 2007, p. 311) but here attempts to activate citizens took place against a background of mistrust. Although the signature revealed that an overwhelming majority felt that the area was neighbourly (93 per cent) and with a strong community spirit (73 per cent), drawing that into broader processes was inherently difficult. For the regeneration process to succeed, it required that “new forms of imagined trust” be created and demanded the negotiation of new relationships between institutions, agents and citizens (Raco et al., 2008, p. 2655; see also Raco and Flint, 2001; Taylor, 2007). These were formed structurally by the URC, which gained European funding for the Enhanced Community Support Project (ECSP). Although envisaged as embedded from the outset, securing funding for such key initiatives was not straightforward: the Raploch’s varying status as a SIP, CPP, then pathfinder URC ³ “created problems for funding and, with constrained budgets across the board, questions about exactly where the funding should be coming from” (Enhanced Community Support Manager interview, August 2006). The ECSP facilitated community engagement, liaison between the URC and community, and supported community-based initiatives through awarding grants to local community groups. As the manager explained, the ECSP was “able to work a lot within our own instincts and what’s needed locally and make it fit with the broader objectives” (interview, August 2006; emphasis added). This signals somewhat of a disconnect between the ‘bottom–up’ immediate needs and the ‘top–down’ longer-term objectives, in which the ECSP mediated that tension. The ECSP formed the Raploch Community Partnership (RCP), the body representing the community in the regeneration process.

The community mistrust had profound implications for the arts process, which was one of the first (visual) parts of the regeneration to materialise. The artist Peter McCaughey was appointed by the URC, RCP and design team to work with the community to realise a series of permanent artworks along a neglected piece of wasteland as part of a local riverwalk. Public meetings, however, were poorly attended and despite more interventionist consultation methods, such as erecting gazebos on wasteland and residencies in the post office, participation was limited

The locals had grown wise to officials presenting them with grand-sounding schemes that mostly came to nothing. Besides, what good was public art if they needed their kitchen renovated, a new back door or a leaky roof sorted out? (Fisher, 2009, p. 20).

In response, Claire Hunter, a community consultant who had worked on significant community participation projects such as Glasgow’s ‘Hidden Gardens’ ⁴ was drafted in. Her role had direct impact in providing the model for the URC Enhanced Community Support Officer (ECSO) in the ECSP—the “non-suit face. The person that listened” (ECSP focus group, August 2006). The RCP saw the ECSO appointment as pivotal; one RCP representative felt intimidated by the presence of ‘men in suits’ and was given no training to equip her to voice the community perspective at URC meetings (RCP focus group, October 2009), illustrating that

For all the rules of open and free exchange, and ideals of listening and mutual understanding, ‘invited spaces’ are always already permeated with the power effects of difference (Cornwall, 2004b, p. 83).

The ECSP was at the heart of activating citizens through extensive community consultation and using trained community animateurs at strategic points to canvas opinions from every household. Through this process, they sought to mobilise local knowledge in the creation and implementation of policy (Atkinson, 1999; Cochrane, 1986; Healey, 1997)

We should either inform local people so that they are participating in the knowledge or they are actually doing something constructive, literally constructive (ECSP focus group, August 2006).

They also tried to draw residents into the more formalised spaces of participation, such as the RCP

It’s about understanding process … what we believe is that if people understand the process, know that they’re part of a process, that we’re part of a bigger process that we dinnae have much control over but that we’ll fight for that and all the rest of it and hopefully we’ll get there. Even if we dinnae get exactly where we want to be or exactly what we want, the people have been with us all the time, so they’ve been through the whole process (Enhanced Community Support Officer, interview August 2006).

Building on areas of concern identified by animateurs, the RCP established interest groups aimed to encourage participation from those who might not normally join a more generic process. These remain the key driver for participation (URC and RCP focus groups, October 2009); some engaged through antagonism and others through an ambition to make something happen in a way relevant to the community. However, Cornwall warns that such

invited spaces have been transplanted onto institutional landscapes in which entrenched relations of dependency, fear and disprivilege undermine the possibility of the kind of deliberative decision-making they are to foster (Cornwall, 2004a, p. 2).

Despite the multiple structures that were put in place in the attempt to include local voices, the institutions structured community involvement rather than vice versa. Indeed, it could be argued that the multiplicity of agents and institutions added to a sense of complex governance rather than opening up a transparent space for representation. The meetings of the RCP and URC remained grounded in their respective territories and, although there was a productive dialogue between arenas, the institutional spaces came to frame the local socio-political relations and the activation of particular communities of interest and, arguably, the effectiveness of empowerment and engagement.

Against these institutional and power-infused spaces, the ‘Creative Spaces’ initiative offered an alternative opportunity for engagement. ‘Creative Spaces’ was intended to bring significant environmental improvement to a neglected area of land but, more significantly, it pioneered a system of ‘mentors’ and ‘mentees’ ⁵ whereby a group of individuals drawn from the local community would work with art-related professionals to gain transferable skills valuable in enabling them to become self-employed (Stirling Council/Gingko Projects, 2004, pp. 5–6). Although indicative of policy-driven instrumentalisation, this reflected the broader ethos of the URC; for example, the URC pioneered an award-winning ‘Breaking the Mould’ scheme, funded through the European Social Fund, which secured apprenticeships for local unemployed women with constructors carrying out the redevelopment and the URC also implemented a Community Benefit in Procurement clause ⁶ to secure employment opportunities for local residents when working with partners (see Shiel and Smith-Milne, 2007).

Not all of the mentees were drawn directly from the local community, although all had links, be it through working, childhood or fostering. While this demonstrated a more complex understanding of ‘community’ (Hunter, 2005, pp. 1–2), the transient nature of some mentees (job changes, living elsewhere) meant that it was unlikely participation would lead beyond individual empowerment to reinvestment in the community. Moreover, their motivations for involvement varied: although some were career-driven, the majority sought to ‘give something back’ to the community (mentee focus group, August 2006)—thereby going against the original skills and employability-driven concept. The mentees were divided on whether those involved should have been drawn directly from the geographical community: a resident mentee, mirroring the realities of the recruitment process, felt that, although ideally all should have been residents, realistically this would not happen. This cynicism was directly linked to the previous iterations of regeneration in the area

You’ve got to remember that the last time a major organisation came in, they knocked that side of the Raploch down, so it’s understandable that people, I mean, I know that I’ve thought ‘Aye right, prove yoursels’ and … they’ve got to prove themselves really because that was just a major catastrophe (mentee focus group, August 2006).

As Dodgshon (1999) argues, describing a ‘principle of persistence’, current policy needs to be grounded in and reflective of place and the socioeconomic contexts through which it has been shaped. A similar principle could be taken to apply to the extent to which current cultural interventions, which aim to engage and empower, actually consider—or have scope to consider—the context in which they are operating. ‘Creative Spaces’ highlights that, while best practice indicates bringing an artist into a regeneration process at the earliest opportunity is beneficial (CABE and Arts and Business, 2008), this can belie a more complex social dynamic that needs to be considered.

Permanent Art, Permanent Place?

As Raco and Flint (2001) have highlighted, the temporal is an integral but neglected part of the regeneration process. The significance of the temporal permeates a number of scales and areas—for example, the social dynamic of the community in its various iterations over generations; the relationships between communities and agencies at various periods; how the past becomes interwoven into present and future histories; and the changes brought by regeneration into a pre-existing social and physical landscape. While regeneration promised a brighter future and enacted virtually wholescale demolition of part of the Raploch—visually eradicating a problematic past—the palimpsest landscape persisted as a social dynamic held in the memories of those living in the area. While regeneration aspired towards ‘imagined futures’ relying on ‘imagined trust’ (Raco et al., 2008), the vision unfolded against a context of time-limited budgets and project-orientated strategies. Within this, the ‘future’ itself arguably becomes a politicised concept

used as something of an alibi for the all too polarising effects of property-driven developments. … used to deflect criticism and legitimate short-term, profit-seeking development strategies (Raco et al., 2008, p. 2654).

In this, ‘Creative Spaces’ was interestingly situated as the artworks themselves reflected the relationship between past, present and future, and their enactment and reception the tension between means of empowerment within a broader regeneration process.

‘Creative Spaces’ responded to both the aesthetic and participatory aims of regeneration. The community signature identified a dissatisfaction with design and general maintenance of the area and, mirroring this, the mentees’ annotated visual diaries imaged ‘their Raploch’ as one which was environmentally poor—broken benches, overflowing bins, neglected land—but socially rich—teenage friends and neighbours celebrating a wedding. While the artworks themselves addressed a visual element, in the process the widest possible opportunities for engagement were sought, involving groups meeting for sign language, education, walking (the Ochil explorers), stonemasons and local residents (Hunter, 2006). A key aspect was uncovering local anecdotes that could inform the content of the ‘spaces’ including the interpretation panel beside the historical Auld Brig and the adjacent timeline stones which punctuate the riverwalk. The inscriptions on the stones commemorate moments of national and local historical significance, locally born national heroes like Billy Bremner and unsung heroines. ⁷ As well as being embedded within a social history, the artworks become embedded geographically, as in ‘Viewpoint’, a kinetic sculpture, which allows the surrounding landscape to be navigated informed by a disc which marks real and legendary places of local significance as well as historical sites like the Wallace Monument (Figure 1). Similarly ‘Map’ is a local landscape-of-sorts that can be plundered for treasure hunts or, recalling a life-size chessboard that once stood in the Raploch, can form the basis of a chess game. Permeated by local vernacular and mythical locations, the artworks mediate between the community and wider audience using the riverwalk. The artworks tend towards a predictable public art aesthetic but in their content they reflect a more imaginative and intuitive process that, initially at least, appealed towards a wide community constituency. They attempted to be ‘of place’ whilst also reflecting the changing landscape, with space left for future timeline stones.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Peter McCaughey and the Raploch Community, ‘Viewpoint’ 2005–07, Riverwalk, Raploch, Stirling.

Although its early implementation raised problems of participation and representation, the opening of the ‘Spaces’ and the adjacent playground was attended by over 5000 people and, in a review of the URCs, was evaluated as: “a big boost to the community and gave them confidence in the URC. It was seen by the URC as an early win.” (Shiel and Smith-Milne, 2007, p. 47; Raco et al., 2008). ‘Creative Spaces’ had to succeed in this regard as, in a community often let down in the past, to fail would be to repeat a pattern that had contributed to the state of affairs the regeneration sought to counter. However, in its enactment and subsequent embedding into the community it demonstrated that non-institutional time frames “often sit uneasily alongside the formal time frames, visions, and objectives of a property-driven development” (Raco et al., 2008, p. 2565). As Raco et al. argue, in areas of high deprivation, benefits are often needed in the short term, going against the ‘trickle-down’ philosophy of the 1980s. This then becomes an inherently political process in the decisions over what is done when and for whom. ‘Creative Spaces’ was physically located in an area of the Raploch which, while being upgraded, was not being as radically redeveloped as that on the other side of Drip Road (Figure 2). Thus ‘Creative Spaces’ can be seen, spatially and temporally, as an attempt to mitigate any resentment one section of the community might feel and thus becomes a politically infused space which at once tries to address a particular facet of the community in its realisation and the whole community in its content. There is a delicate balance between community expectations and the realisation of the regeneration process which involves a “complex mobilisation of past, present and future space–time imaginations” (Raco et al. 2008, p. 2668).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The Raploch Regeneration Area. Map by Les Hill.

If, through the lens of regeneration, cohesion and community are seen as related to spatial proximity and place-based attachment, public art can then become a key determinant if seen to generate a sense of place and aspire towards social cohesion. Thus, if place is disrupted, it follows that the reception to public art might change. In April 2007, Drip Road, the major axis through the Raploch (Figure 2), was closed for extensive traffic-calming works. The initial plan was to keep one side of the road open for residents and businesses but, after a delay of almost a year to the project, this was shelved and the whole road was closed with little notice being given to local residents. The lack of consultation “set back the trust and undid a lot of good work” (RCP representative, August 2007). One resident commented

It was a’going OK and they [the URC] were winning us o’er ‘til that business wi’ the Drip Road. Bloody nonsense. If they were really listening to us folk, that would hae been dealt wi’ better. (interview, August 2009).

This then had implications for the reception of the artworks

The whole thing was a farce but. Like, like it’s okay to chat to us aboot art but nae aboot fundamentals. Then you think, what’s the point o’ that? The artworks n’ like, If they cannae build a … road. It’s windae dressing (resident interview, October 2009).

Cynicism and mistrust returned, highlighting the fragility of the confidence that the participative process had built against the pervasiveness of long-rooted suspicion. The perceptions highlighted by the community signature—squandered resources, general maintenance, poor communication and being divorced from decision-making—refused to go away.

Dissatisfaction began to be expressed in other ways as the community felt increasingly disenfranchised. One of the artworks suffered minor vandalism and people began to express the belief that, while brightening the place up, artworks would do little for the area’s prospects (interviews, July 2007). By the time of a local Funday in 2008, against the fundamental improvements of new houses and development of the community education campus, the artworks began to be seen as a tokenistic gesture—particularly with ongoing maintenance issues and untidiness of the general riverwalk area. One resident commented

The only time this place comes alive is when they do stuff like this, the rest of the time they just forget aboot us. All the stuff across the road is fair enough but what do we get? A path and some art which no one takes care of. Who’s gonnae fix our houses and clean up oor streets? (interview, August 2008).

Another community member involved in ‘Creative Spaces’ commented that, while she still appreciated that the artworks were infused with local history and involved local people, there was a lack of momentum to the process (interview, August 2008). During this time, mentee involvement declined (interviews, August 2007) and factions within the RCP resulted in poor decision-making and declining attendance at meetings (RCP focus group, October 2009). As has been recognised elsewhere, there is a danger of community gatekeepers taking advantage in their own interests (Jones, 2003, pp. 598–599; Taylor, 2007, p. 307).

Moreover, restructuring at the URC and pressures of the economic climate have meant that community liaison posts, such as the ECSP team, have disappeared, their tasks being assumed by the URC team. The lack of continuity in staffing broke down local connections and trust (Raco, 2003, p. 300). As one resident commented

Then they get rid of [the ECSM] and she was the only one who kenned our names, kenned what was goin’ on. The rest are just suits, ken (interview, August 2009).

For the RCP, the ECSP team had the background experience of community work, knowledge of the community and a willingness to support the RCP in finding its own feet—for example, the ECSM secured funding for a Community Liaison Engagement and Research project to enable local people to have the skills and confidence to represent themselves and steer local projects (RCP focus group, October 2009). Rather than consensus, antagonism has marked the latter stages of the participatory process, raising the determination within the RCP for greater independence. Asked whether the process and experience of recent years had benefitted them, the RCP responded that it had most definitely increased their capacity and belief in being able to ‘make things happen’ and had instilled a sense that “they [the URC] need us more than we need them” (RCP focus group, October 2009).

Conclusion

Urban regeneration will always be plagued by the tension between imagined futures, aspirations and expectations and the practical realisation of events on the ground. Moreover it remains vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the national economic climate. Early 2011 saw the emergence of ‘stalled spaces’, ⁸ areas scheduled for redevelopment which meantime lie unused and risk falling into dereliction. These spaces are effectively given over to the community for their creative interpretation and use. In Raploch, the URC together with Architecture and Design Scotland, Rankin Fraser Architects and the art organisation Wave (run by McCaughey) joined forces with the Scottish Arts Council (now Creative Scotland) to use the ‘stalled space’ known as ‘site seven’ of the Raploch redevelopment. On 22 April 2011, over 300 people came to the space to see film projections part of which showed past histories against future possibilities. The full import of ‘stalled spaces’ is yet to be seen, but they could prove disempowering as the process gives communities a sense of ownership of a space and then takes it away when the land is ready for redevelopment.

The spaces, whether ‘creative’ or ‘stalled’, in the Raploch show how empowerment through artistic process is increasingly instrumentalised and infused with top–down agendas, be it the employment of individuals or, arguably, getting the community to deal with a problematic area of land until such a time as the broader regeneration process can be reinvigorated. There is an interrelationship between macro and micro issues, but a lack of recognition that, for local residents, the micro issues are of the most importance and can have a determining influence on the role citizens then assume. However, rather than shared objectives and approaches between institutions and the community, here it was difference that engendered the greatest sense of empowerment. With ‘Creative Spaces’ there was an implication that participation could draw on and develop collective community involvement in the regeneration process. While ad hoc strategies demonstrated the potential of a public art process to activate citizens, its embeddedness within the broader, problematic regeneration process and the politicisation of the spaces meant that, by definition, the endeavour could not be wholly owned or determined by those it sought to empower.

Participation in this regard has been the incorporation of individuals into recognisable institutional structures rather than a rethinking of those structures; however, it is the shift in perception of bargaining power within the RCP that might ultimately lead to transformation (Williams et al., 2003). The effect of the ECSP—someone with a face, a presence in the community and who in turn knew about that community—was to create fractures in what might otherwise have seemed a monolithic and all-powerful URC. The RCP became a mechanism to activate and inform the community particularly through the animateurs, but as one artist noted, “You can ask everybody about something, but will it necessarily make it any better?” (professionals focus group, July 2006). This assumes that the “task of democracy is to settle rather than sustain, conflict” (Deutsche, 1996, p. 270), whereas something messier and contested may be required to facilitate transformation

What is at stake in the agonistic struggle is the very configuration of power relations around which a given society is structured. … An agonistic conception of democracy requires coming to terms with the contingent character of the hegemonic politicoeconomic articulations which determine the specific configurations of society at a given moment. They are precarious and pragmatic constructions which can be disarticulated and transformed as a result of the agonistic struggle among the adversaries (Mouffe, 2008, pp. 11, 9).

‘Creative Spaces’ as a process questioned the instrumentalised nature of its own aims and challenged the URC to consider whether “residents of communities participate in your process or do you participate in theirs?” (professionals focus group, July 2006). It is clear then that the process has not produced the regulated ‘docile’ subjects that McKee and Cooper (2008) anticipate from such socially inclusive governance. It goes to show that the outcomes of activating citizens are unpredictable. ‘Creative Spaces’ shows that participatory public art processes can be a means to activate and empower citizens, often on their own terms rather than adhering to broader political agendas, but that the project-based nature of the funding and the way in which it is integrated and implicated in other processes mean that achievements can be quickly unwoven. Encouraging communities to fight for ‘imagined futures’ can be a dangerous strategy against the reality of the everyday. As Atkinson has noted (2003, p. 102), “The danger is that, having signed up to achieve the unachievable, they will end up being condemned as the authors of their own exclusion”.

While much existing literature on public art evaluates on a short-term, case-by-case basis, what this study uniquely highlights is the significance of a longitudinal understanding of the contribution of public art’s contribution to place-making. This has led to the recognition that it is a product of, but might also conflict with, the policy agendas that brought it into being and thus has both intended and unexpected outcomes. Such a critical consideration of the purpose of participative art projects produced in a project-based funding climate rings a warning bell for advocates of regeneration projects formulating under the banner of the Big Society and draws attention to a potential contradiction at its heart: that regeneration is a long-term and costly endeavour requiring the continuance of expertise and the establishment of trust (Alcock, 2010a; Milbourne and Cushman, 2011). ‘Quick wins’ may be counter-productive. Furthermore, tying the ambitions of community-generated art projects to instrumentalising policy is difficult “unless you have a funding system which is absolutely disconnected from the idea of what it gets back in return, because what it might get back is a slap in the face.” (artist, professionals’ focus group, July 2006).