Framing the Future – But Who’s Holding the Brush?
The publication of Framing the Future: The Political Case for Strengthening the Visual Arts Ecosystem arrives at a pivotal moment for the cultural sector. It sets out an articulate argument for embedding the visual arts more firmly within national policy priorities, positioning them not as an afterthought or adornment, but as a necessary component of how society addresses its wider challenges—from education and mental health to regional inequality and economic growth.
For those of us whose work is grounded in participatory and community-based practice, this report represents both a source of encouragement and a prompt for further reflection. It confirms what practitioners, facilitators, and community organisers have long understood: that cultural engagement is most powerful when it is collective, when it grows from shared experiences, and when it supports individuals and communities to express, connect, and navigate change on their own terms.
While the report is framed around the economic and strategic benefits of a well-supported visual arts ecosystem, it also contains a deeper current—one that quietly acknowledges the cultural labour taking place every day in community centres, libraries, schools, hospitals, and temporary studios. This is the work that happens between people, often without public attention or institutional endorsement. It is the work of participation, and its significance lies in the relationships it fosters as much as in the outputs it produces.
The report’s case studies offer clear examples of this. Project Art Works in Hastings, the NewBridge Project in Newcastle, and Take A Part in Plymouth are not simply delivering programmes or exhibitions; they are sustaining spaces where creativity is relational and embedded in the life of a place. Their achievements are not only artistic but social—cultivating trust, expanding access, and giving form to experiences that might otherwise go unacknowledged.
In the field of health and wellbeing, the report makes room for participatory practice through its attention to arts-based interventions in mental health and dementia care. It cites initiatives such as Hospital Rooms and The King’s Trust’s placement at John Hansard Gallery as evidence of what is possible when people are invited to engage with the arts in supportive, non-clinical settings. These are not quick fixes or diversions. Rather, they reflect sustained efforts to create environments where individuals can rediscover agency, rebuild confidence, and find moments of recognition and connection through shared creative processes.
In education, too, participatory approaches feature prominently, even if not always by name. The examples drawn from the National Saturday Club, Baltic’s early years programmes, and Newlyn Art Gallery’s support for teachers all rest on the premise that learning happens through doing, and that creative engagement flourishes when it is inclusive, responsive, and rooted in dialogue. These projects challenge assumptions that art education is the preserve of the talented or the resourced, and instead work towards more democratic models of creative development.
Despite these examples, the report tends to describe such work without fully naming it as participatory. This absence matters, not for reasons of branding or professional territory, but because what is not named is easily overlooked. Participatory arts practice—whether described as community-led, socially-engaged, or co-created—is not simply an extension of the visual arts. It is a distinctive and vital field in its own right, with its own methodologies, ethics, and forms of expertise. It relies on skills that are not always visible in exhibition catalogues or economic statistics: facilitation, listening, negotiation, care. These skills are often undervalued, yet they are precisely what make this work impactful in the contexts of social care, education, and place-making.
What this report makes possible is a more open conversation about how the visual arts ecosystem might better account for and support participatory practice. If the visual arts are to be seen as infrastructure—as the report argues they should be—then we need to ask what kinds of structures are required to support the fragile, relational work that participation entails. This means considering funding models that are not solely tied to project outcomes or visitor numbers, but which allow time for trust to develop and for collaborative approaches to take root. It also means valuing artists who choose to work in community settings not as a fallback or stepping stone, but as a sustained and committed practice in its own right.
The report’s proposals for a grassroots fund, a cultural investment partnership, and the expansion of education programmes all contain potential for strengthening this part of the ecosystem. However, this potential will only be realised if these measures are shaped in dialogue with those who work in and alongside communities. Structural investment will be important, but so too will be the quieter forms of support: opportunities for reflection, peer exchange, and long-term accompaniment.
At ArtWorks Alliance, we see the visual arts not just as a sector or an economy, but as a social field—one that comes alive through participation, and one that draws its strength from the diversity of those who contribute to it. We welcome the clarity and momentum offered by Framing the Future, and we encourage those leading its implementation to keep participatory and community-based practice in view. The future we wish to frame is not one in which a few speak for the many, but one in which everyone has the means and the space to speak, create, and be heard.
