The 24 hour conversation is over.

My immediate reflections are positive. I really think that the organisers have pulled off a successful event, in what was a very challenging format. Proposing to host a continuous conversation with 200 people, multiple speakers, plenty of prominent Mancunian advocates and a number of celebrities (not to mention a couple of ego’s), was a brave move.

As a ’stop gap event’, the TWE has probably raised a good number of complications about how a more permanent memorial to Tony Wilson should take shape. Talk of a summer school was still evident in some quarters over the last day or so, plus calls from Peter Saville to repeat the conversation next year.

What Manchester City Councils stance is on that is yet to be seen. But everyone at the Council should be very happy with this weekend. Sarah Benjamins, the project manager at MCC, should be applauded for managing the City’s input. Similarly, Sir Richard Leese, Leader of the council has shown a side that most people would perhaps never see - the willingness to engage in open and transparent conversation at a forum like this.

I was particularly impressed with his interjection during one of the sessions, where he implored people to look forward…that’s what the ‘talent’ and the discussion was there for - to look forward and shape the city as a valuable part of the regional and wider economic development. At a time when many were in retrospective mood, I thought it was a timely reminder.

Similarly, everyone else involved in the organisation and delivery should be pretty pleased. Obviously, there’s always things to learn and build on…so from my perspective (and from talking to a few people in attendance) what could make it better next time?

I heard from a couple of people that the conversation was a little mono directional at times, with not enough opportunity for the talent to question the experienced. Indeed, I’m echoing Paul Robinsons comment that even when appealing for a little more chaos, the “rowdy ones were always shut up“. That’s a shame, as it seems that much about the people and activity being remembered were just that, a little chaotic.

A difficult line to tread. However, perhaps the active internet stream forum on Mogulus could have been fed into the tent for those who couldn’t attend to have had a chance to enter the conversation. This would certainly have opened up the dialogue a little and perhaps prompted more discussion inside. Generating lively discussion is difficult, especially for 24 hours and perhaps if the more ‘unconference’ style of some gatherings had been followed then the level of discussion may have been even lower. To have an agenda that just said “turn up and talk’ could have led to a very flat event indeed.

Having said that, there’s definitely opportunity for social tools and some of the methods used amongst the social media crowd to have more of a prominence next time. Some sessions could have been more like workshops and the restriction on photography and video lifted. Harnessing sites like Flickr and Twitter could have helped build more of a real time presence on the web than was evident this time.

Even more, a reworking of the green room could have helped as discouraging true mixing of the experienced and talented was sometimes reflected in the conversations. A bit of a ‘them and us’ feel that was commented upon a couple of times to me. Some more intimate break out sessions, wouldn’t have gone amiss and helped the talent get closer to the experienced. After all, we know that it’s difficult to walk up to someone you admire and strike up a conversation.

So, a difficult challenge. The organisers set themselves a format that was a tough ask. All in all, they pulled it off.

One final thought. I hope we at i4SM get a chance to talk to Peter Saville about our vision for the Institute.  That’s a conversation we’d really relish.

Over and out.

-pc.

Some background before we get into the next session:

Ben Kelly designed FAC51, otherwise known as the Hacienda. My wife, Jackie, spent many an evening and early morning in that building and it’s shaped, in some small part, her adult life. It’s not just about the music - the vibe must also have been created by the industrial feel to the Hacienda that was so starkly different to the standard look of the local discotheque. Me, I was into indie, but my club stomping ground was The Jenks Bar in Blackpool. It’s not quite as well known as the Hacienda.

Tom Bloxham is the founder and owner of Urban Splash, one of the most prolific property development companies in Manchester…and beyond for that matter. I’m itching to go to the Midland Hotel now that it’s been restored…and this is key to Urban Splash strategy - redevelopment as opposed to razing and rebuilding.

Peter Saville is joining them on the sofa’s. But first…

Frank Sidebottom has just been on doing, in his own inimitable style, a tribute to Manchester, Factory and Tony Wilson. I’m hoping that the video will be available after the fact…as it was quite a performance.

Fortunately, Mr Sidebottom came into the press room to see where all the action was going on. Not wanting to miss the opportunity, you can judge who has the bigger cranium for yourself.

16:25 - Urban Splash impact on Manchester - chance and accident. This is a recurring theme, it seems. Saville talked earlier about how Factory was just a bunch of people doing what they wanted, looking forwards and not backwards, whilst keeping it interesting. But chance and accident need to be navigated…need to be grabbed, or they’ll pass you by. “Lucky people are successful people”.

I suppose, for the talent dotted around the tent, listening, the message is always going to be follow what you think is the right path, the right thing to do.

Saville is making a nice point here. Urban Splash are keeping the ethos of Factory going - doing as much as they can, as opposed to doing it as cheaply as they can. I suppose when we look at the history of Factory, particularly in light of the case study that I’m determined to commission, this is a nice working title. Factory: Doing as much as it can.

Of course there’s a myriad of subtitles we could string under there, but we’ll leave that to the imagination.

16:45 - Peter Saville is talking about the Manchester Music Archive. I’ve not come across this meme before, but he’s ruminating about some sort of a Centre for Contemporary Arts. This is about recognising what cities have in the now, or the recent past before they destroy it. The Hacienda is a case in point, but as someone said before, the Hacienda meant nothing to most people. I suppose we could say that about any building. Recognising value in the here and now is incredibly difficult it seems.

But, the digerati can play a significant role here. Social tools give us the capability to archive what’s happening now and build an understanding of the current value of the artefacts around the city. We build a current understanding by engaging with the people who actively use or are influenced by their surroundings. The history of the Hacienda is anecdotal…there isn’t that much in the way of an archive of what that building meant to people who went there.

Sure, we can talk to people like Mrs Carruthers and get anecdotal evidence. But, if we could have captured and entered into a dialogue about the Hacienda, at the time, would the future of that building been different?

OK, so sounds like I’m advocating social media changing the world and maybe that’s naive. But if we follow Peter Saville’s point about better understanding the current value of a city’s cultural icons (be they buildings, people or just movements), I think there’s a valuable role for social media in that mix.

Plus, his vision about a Centre for Cultural Arts is a conversation that i4SM should try to get involved with.

-pc.