With regard to its canal network, Birmingham is often compared to the great city of Venice. But today it reminds me more of Florence. Florence in February 1497. A radical cleric, Savonarola, organised a great pyre onto which some of the most beautiful works of art produced in the early Renaissance were thrown.It has become infamous as one of the greatest barbaric acts in the history of art, The Bonfire of the Vanities. Accounts recall Botticelli, weeping, as he walked towards the blaze with his own works in his arms. We know nothing of what was burnt that day, but our picture of the art of the Quattrocento will forever be tinted with sadness.
You may begin to see where I am going with this...
Yesterday, Nicholas Serota warned in The Guardian of the damage that Jeremy Hunt's cuts would do to the visual arts in this country. He wrote of "blitzkrieg on the arts". When people like Tracey Emin talk about politics, most people ignore her. When Nicolas Serota speaks up, you pay attention. The same was true today when the head of the National Theatre, Sir Nicholas Hytner warned of the closure of numerous smaller playhouses if cuts in the sector went ahead. One man's bonfire ....
Culture is important. There is no doubt about that, and we must not be distracted by New Labour arguments that the arts are simply good economically, for tourism, or as tools of social change, in youth projects. The arts are simply the mark of a civilised society. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: the arts are unnecessary, like friendship, like philosophy ...
"It has no survival value. Rather is gives value to survival."
John Maynard Keynes, the creator and first chairman of the Arts Council realised this. He did not found the Art's Council on an economic basis or for reasons of health or social inclusion but rather that the war that had just been fought was for civilisation. And what was that without the arts.
The attitide of this Coalition government and of one man in particular worries me. Jeremy Hunt is a very ambitious man. He was clearly disapointed when the Coalition cabinet was formed and he was left with the Culture brief. Rumour had it that he had been angeling for the Chief secretary to the Treasury position which went to David Laws, and now Danny Alexander. One can just imagine Hunt fuming in his office about how such upstarts could have been given his position. Therefore when news was leaked that Hunt sought to review departmental spending with a view to cut far more than most departments, up to 50%, I saw it as a move to try and create a position of Prime Minister's Pet. "Oh look David, I cut the most."
Of course this is a ludicrous thing to do. The DCMS's budget is tiny, and compared to others, relatively streamlined. As Serota quotes Nick Clegg saying in his piece:
"The idea that you can cut a £180 bn deficit by slicing money out of the budget of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport is frankly absurd".
I see no reason why he should have changed his view. The solution to art's funding triumphed before the election was philanthropy. Yet just yesterday, the FT reported on how the Arts and Business report proved that this could not make all the loss and that few steps had been taken towards this Big Society approach by the DCMS.
In years to come then, historians may end up seeing this Conservative conference as a Bonfire of the (New Labour) Vanities, saying farewell to a universal benefits system and to the advantages of tying ourselves in with EU legislation. Art historians will see it in a similar way, with Conservatives quaffing champagne in Birmingham, while their minions lay kindling in Parliament Square. Artists are already visually commentating on the arts cuts, as demonstrated by the powerful piece heading this post by Corneila Parker. She depicts The Angel of the North, with it's wing cut.
At least Savonorola destroyed the arts doing what he believed was right by God and Man. Hunt seems to think that cuts are an acceptable way to progress his career. (He is now the favourite to succeed Cameron as party leader).
Posts
I believe that the arts should not be propped up as they have been by the state. There are masses and masses of arts graduates doing the same boring old 'arts workshops' for children and the 'community' and being funded for it. It is art that has to be pre approved by the state. It's only there so local authorities can tick the boxes of 'social inclusion' and 'culture'.
ReplyDeleteIt brings very little to the communities and children it claims to benefit. It really only benefits the middle class 'arts professionals' who are on to a nice little earner at the expense of the tax payer.
It's created a system where arts professionals do workshops with children who will in turn gain arts degrees and instead of producing art will all go and become arts professionals doing workshops with children. This does not encourage a vibrant arts scene, it produces state dependent arts workers.
The Arts is an industry just like any other and should at least try and stand on its own two feet, rather than being the funding junkie it is now. Aside from the really big projects the arts have been reduced to a meaningless job creation scheme for failed artists. Before anyone assumes I don't care about the arts I very much do and I don't see that funding has done anything much, outside of big projects, it has in fact dulled the arts. They are less edgy, less meaningful, all too comfy.
If enough people think the arts are important enough to pay for, then government handouts are unnecessary. There is already a great way to collect revenue: pay to visit a gallery. Cinemas work that way, so why shouldn't theatres?
ReplyDeleteWhy should the government use my money to pay for art that I have no intention of ever looking at? Let people spend their own money on the art they want to enjoy. If I have a burning desire to see a picture then I will happily pay to see it. I already pay for the films I chose to see or the show I want to see at a theatre.
Even when times were good and New Labour were throwing money at left wing causes willy-nilly, "The Arts" were always complaining that they didn't have enough of my money to spend on interpretative dance. The big problem for "The Arts" is that it's just not as important to people as it thinks it should be.
Please explain why the government should take money from me and give it to self important stars of the industry like Emin & Hirst, when it is these people who should be reinvesting in the industry that has made them millionaires.
By all means flame me here or on my own blog http://warlordofdidcot.blogspot.com I would actually like to be wrong on this so someone come up with a better argument than "an important arty luvvie with a vested interest says so".
"Why should the government use my money to pay for art that I have no intention of ever looking at?"
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether one agrees with the article above, this is a stupid "argument" and certainly not one that should be used to justify any cuts.
The government uses my tax money to help pay for all sort of things I don't use or perhaps don't even like. But this is how taxes work. This is what makes a society: people joining their financial power (through the state) to make things better for everyone, not just for themselves.
And you don't get to choose what your money goes toward.
The arts are essential to the functioning of a healthy society. But that does not, ipso facto, demonstrate that they must be state-funded.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with the argument that "the DCMS is tiny, its budget is insignificant" is that there are very many budgets for very many things, all of which have as good or better a claim on the public purse as the arts. Add them all up, and soon the money is significant. DCMS may be small, but the fact remains that it is spending money we don't have.
The solution adopted by Hunt may seem harsh, but it is still far more generous than the subsidies enjoyed by (say) a certain William Shakespeare...
It is, of course, very easy for any area to suggest they should not be cut as much and other areas should bear the brunt instead (normally without suggesting what should be cut instead). I am keen on the arts and support theatres and art galleries etc personally but should we spend more money on the arts rather than giving some young person the skills to get employment?
ReplyDeleteIncidentally I believe Jeremy Hunt is a good example of what the big society means. He built up a number of successful businesses, including Hotcourses the educational publisher and then set up a charity supporting AIDS victims in Africa and then standing for parliament.
He may not be implementing all the policies you agree with but is generally a force for good in government.