I have many issues with the Olympics. If you are going to spend upwards of £9 Billion on something then its impossible to do it without questions being asked. Its nigh on impossible to assess whether that sum achieves any sort of value for money as nobody can really agree what the ultimate purpose of the shindig is. Are we striving for a sporting legacy or is it just about a 'national' feelgood factor? Will there be broad economic benefits or is it about local regeneration?
The evidence from previous games suggests that the quantifiable benefits will be slight. Legacy is nebulous and few games make profits. Certainly a neglected quarter of London has been substantially regenerated but from the perspective of this little corner of Northern Britain it is hard to get too excited about further massive taxpayer funded investment being siphoned south yet again. Even if one accepts the principle, has this regeneration been done well? From the lens of television coverage and extensive features in the architectural press my answer is no. The park and the athletes village look like a messy collection of fairly shoddy temporary structures arranged around an intellectually rigorous but ultimately flawed and aesthetically arid stadium. The temporary flat pack nature of many of these venues could be a virtue in these depressed and resource conscious times but that doesnt quite tally with the quite astronomical sums spent on the enterprise as a whole. Overall it looks to me like another example of how we just cant do planning on a grand scale. This might be a particular cultural issue to do with how English cities have developed in a piecemeal manner but the picturesque if not quite wacky stylings of the Olympic park are just crying out for someone to apply some sort of rigorous order to them in my view.
But. But. While there are issues it is clear that on many levels the games have been an absolute triumph. The organisation seems to have been thorough and efficient and punters have embraced almost every aspect in an enthusiastic manner. And of course there is the sporting success. It takes a cold cold heart not to have found some joy in the many stories of commitment, talent and inspiration that have filled our screens over the last few days. Bolt, Rudisha, Farah, Ennis, Kiprotich, Dibaba. There have been some breathtaking performances.
Where i do find myself bemused though is the haste with which people will suddenly discover an interest in dressage or pentathlon or BMX or whatever minority sport happens to be likely to yield a medal to the UK. I don't buy in to the notion of the UK so i have no particular affinity to 'Team GB' so their medal performance means little to me. I have therefore not had the same sort of way in to some of these odd sports that others have. Having said that, i take little more interest if there is a Scot involved so perhaps i ultimately have fairly narrow interests...
I really shouldn't begrudge these sports and their participants their day in the sun. It struck me earlier this afternoon that once upon a time it would have been perfectly normal to see minority sports on national TV as the BBC filled its Grandstand schedule with them. We have lost that now and we only hear about these things when there is a broader context to provide people with a hook. Media plurality has actually had the opposite effect to what one might expect and made such things less accessible than they used to be.
And accessability is really the key here. When people can speak positively of the fact that a still disproportionately small 70% of the Scottish medals went to those educated in the state system, we still have an issue of representation. However inspired someone is by dressage they are going to struggle to take it up. Equally while kayaking might look exciting on telly its a larger leap from the sofa to paddling down a river than it is to just strap on some trainers and get out there and be active. The current system has focussed funding on the greatest opportunities for medal success. This has had an undoubted effect on national pride but is it the best use of resources from a public health point of view? If legacy is really the objective why dont we focus our attention most firmly on the kind of things that people can actually identify with? A nation that fails to fill places with qualifying athletes at an Olympics because they dont have a strong enough medal chance doesnt value participation enough. What is that Olympic ethos again?
Around the fringes more interesting things happen however. Speed of Light is one of those and it places participation front and centre. Operating on the relatively uncharted fringes between sport and art, Speed of Light is a new work by NVA which uses LED clad runners to create patterns of light and movement on Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh. The audience themselves are also particpants in the event, walking through the work with light sticks. This is no passive spectacle and it would lose much of its resonance were there a more traditional audience/performer distinction. By emphasising taking part and the process, the artwork extends its reach beyond the performance, back to the streets where the runners train, to the workshops where the technology was developed and even to the management of the event itself. The whole thing gives off a positive communal vibe through its use of social media but also in the safety briefings which emphasise the need for particpants to look after each other. There is ultimately a very social, if not political grounding to all this and that feels particularly satisfying in this location, surrounded by the symbols of power and patronage.
In the best traditions of land art though, while the process lends resonance, the triumph of the piece is ultimately in how it alters one's perception of its context. Here the lights on the hillside end up subtley co-opting the lighting of the city beyond. All of a sudden strips of street lighting become drawn in to the composition. The fireworks above the castle become part of its narrative. Even coming down off the hill i was briefly disorientated by the lights on a passing bicycle which appeared to be a new element of choreography. As a participant there is then a very strong sense of place and time. Landscape, the city, the weather and the community that one has been drawn together for this all come together in a particularly satisfying way. Most pleasingly it does so without the obvious heavy hand of a guiding high concept. On the surface, it is about light and running and movement, it almost finds its own meaning beyond that.
Quite apart from all that, it is an absolute hoot to take part in. Without doubt this is the most fun i have had running outside of a marathon and most instructively for the Olympic legacy and our current politicians who are again missing the point about competition in sport, it is inclusive and accessible. This is running for the sheer joy of it. We are not competitive runners out on the hill, we are collaborative. That is new and quite thrilling. Somewhere in this is a way to get people involved in sport who turn aside from tesosterone fuelled competitiveness. Utopian? Perhaps, but each of us out there has a story to tell about how running has in some small or large way made us better people. Whether that be the hardcore fell runners or those who trained specifically for this event and found themselves growing in confidence with every step as they found that they could meet the challenge. Running is not snake oil. Running makes the world better and Speed of Light proves that.
No comments:
Post a Comment