Why should I support the arts? It’s a serious question, I really want an answer I can believe in. Recently I’ve read a lot about funding cuts (I’m against them, aren’t we all?) and, frankly, the more I read the less I understand. Or want to understand even.
I’m as sympathetic as the next person. I spend a lot of my spare time encouraging people to do stuff, including a lot of arty stuff. For instance over the past few days I’ve been organising for new people to go to theatre, opera, the odd exhibition (probably what the Arts Council mean by “great art?) and write about their experience. This is what I always thought the Culture Vulture was about – getting people off their bums and out enjoying the amazing stuff that’s on offer wherever they live.
I benefit from my involvement in the website in all sorts of ways. I get invited to see lots of things that I wouldn’t normally get to see (ballet? Me?) and I really enjoy getting people along to events they’d never expect to attend (there’s a lovely post from Matt Abbott I’m publishing later that shows perfectly what I mean.) And I know where every free bar in the city is on any given night of the week. This makes me very popular indeed.
But I am a bit of an anomaly. In fact, most of the time I feel like a total imposter in the world of the arts.
Once I leave a play, performance, production or whatever, where I’m surrounded by people who all seem to share a similar tacit understanding of the issues around arts funding, I walk an hour back to Beeston where I actually feel more at home. Years ago, when Beeston was a thriving centre of industry, there was a massive cinema at the end of my street, a couple of big, well equipped halls that held regular amateur dramatic productions and gigs from local bands, several glorious libraries, and lots of working mens clubs that were the centre of local debate and grassroots radicalism (as well as post-payday boozing sessions, naturally.) Nowadays, the only way you could possibly guess there used to be a lively culture around here would be if you worked in the archive service. The nearest library is about three quarters of a mile away, the nearest pub a brisk ten minute walk (though you are best walking an extra five minutes to the nicer pub to avoid the fights.) The last cultural highlight to happen in my neighbourhood was when Iceland opened a new shop on Dewsbury Road.
Most of the people around here are on benefits or have low paid jobs. The reason we don’t have much to do with the arts is the same reason we don’t buy our underwear from Harvey Nicks or our carrots from Waitrose. Nothing to do with any supposed elitism – intelligence is not in short supply, and accessibility isn’t the issue. It’s what I’d have called in my Marxist days, “the dull compulsion of economics”. We just can’t afford it.
In my case I’m fortunate. I’m subsidised – or rather I trade my meagre scribbling talents for the odd ticket. There is just no way I could afford any artistic pretensions otherwise. And even I am limited by walking distance, which is why I rarely do anything in Wakefield or Bradford, it’s simply beyond my means.
So, my question is, how do you talk to me and my neighbours about arts funding without coming across as if you live on another planet?
The argument that the arts are good for the soul can sound a bit patronising. I could walk out of my house and knock on a hundred random doors and not come up with one person who even knows where Northern Ballet is. As I walked through Beeston last night there were plenty of TV’s blaring away, but not one that I noticed had the live Tate Prize on. Yet, mostly people round here are kind and decent and manage not to behave like savage beasts. They seem to get along just fine without the benefit of subsidised culture. Indeed, in my own case, I once went for a whole twelve years without seeing a single play, exhibition, or musical performance, and I’m happy to say there was no noticeable damage to my moral fibre. Recently I haven’t been able to go to see a film for over two years and suffered no spiritual detriment – I don’t feel even the slightest bit dubious. Though perhaps I’m not the best person to judge. Who knows, this website could shut down tomorrow and I’d be left to my own devices, circumstances really are that precarious. Certainly I’d miss it. Fact is though we can live quite nicely without great art, we just find something else to occupy our leisure time. If a theatre closes I can always read books. If a local cancer ward shuts down, however, I can’t choose to have a new disease.
The economic argument doesn’t make any sense to anyone living in a place like Beeston. Simply, nobody around here would notice if arts funding lost four percent or forty. I was talking to my neighbour about investment in the arts the other morning. I informed him of all the fabulous stuff that we got for 23 pence a person per week; he informed me that he “didn’t care if it was twenty three pence or twenty three pounds, it’s what I have in my wallet that counts, and my wallet doesn’t stretch to opera!” Whenever I talk to artists about what the economic impact actually boils down to, they generally seem to think that more arts equals more bars and restaurants, and more bars and restaurants mean that artists can get gainful employment and hang around the creative quarter when they are between gigs. I’m not sure how another over-priced theme bar in the city centre helps us round here. There’s not even a Wetherspoons in Beeston.
For those of us who are not part of the art world, who are social class P (for “pleb”), whose income bracket is such that their weekly income could comfortably fit within these ( ), most of the arguments circulating on Twitter and in the Guardian (and don’t get me started on that ridiculous Nicholas Hytner hagiography disguised as an interview! A more ludicrous, overblown, pompous piece of prose I haven’t been subjected to for some time) just don’t wash. I’d like to be supportive, I’m more than sympathetic, and I’m on arts side, but right now I’m stuck. I want to be able to go in my local pub and not be embarrassed when I have to defend the arts against funding cuts. Please, just give me an argument that won’t get me clobbered in The Tommy Wass tonight.
This is a great post Phil, but I could not help but think ‘really?’ when I read it. We have to justify the place of the Arts in society? Again? Again again?
There are lots of things I could list as justifications in support of the Arts here but that’s all it would be – a list. You would probably agree with some of them and disagree with others.
In short though it boils down to this: imagine our world without the Arts (and it’s history for that matter).
I think the points you raise about access and interest in the Arts is far more interesting and pertinent, though not an argument against them – it drives me crazy when people use the argument that something should not be done because not EVERYBODY likes it. I don’t like reality tv or eggs but I do not see this as a reason to cease production of them.
In relation to cost as well – I agree at the moment it is a barrier, but then if and when the Arts funding are further cut the cost of attending will only go up (even artists need to eat) and in turn narrow the accessibility of shows and events.
Finally, as well, I think that ignorance of an experience is also not a reason to bash the Arts with a stick. As you admirably encourage yourself, more often than not, when you introduce somebody to something they not previously experienced they enjoy it. They want to do it again. Recently my 5 year was horrified at the thought of swimming lessons – it just wasn’t on her radar before – now, we cannot get her out of the pool – a pool, interestingly enough that is under threat of closure.
Perhaps the answer to your post is to argue for MORE arts funding not justifying the small portion it already gets. That way the Arts could become more accessible more affordable and in some cases even free so that everybody could experience what we (sorry for the assumption) love – then we wouldn’t need to go round and round ‘justifying’ the Arts and just enjoy it instead.
No, I don’t think we do have to justify the point of arts in society. But that’s not what I was on about. I was on about funding cuts. I simply want an argument that’ll make sense to the folks down the pub.
And I do mean that seriously. I do test everything I say on this website with the people I happen to come across in my daily life (when I’m not doing the pretentious arty stuff.)
I read the Danny Boyle thing to a bunch of friends in the (Wetherspoons) pub. Result, derision.
Talked about that Nicholas Hytner interview with a mate (actually shopping in Iceland) and was told in no uncertain terms never to mention that name around these parts again.
And I regularly show the neighbours and the people I live with what’s the latest gossip on twitter … they usually turn away, put the kettle on and politely ask if I could pass the Jammy Dodgers.
Point is, mostly the arts world is talking to itself and congratulating itself on its massive contribution while the rest of us just shrug and get on with it.
Great post Phil. You describe powerfully consumption of ‘the arts’ at a variety of economic ‘levels’ (opera, TV, theatre etc). You also show the dependency of some forms of art on public subsidy from tax payers, while others have found business models that allow them much more autonomy and freedom. In the long run ‘dependency’ is usually a dumb strategy.
The importance of art to the economy is the main narrative in Leeds as far as I can make out. Without a ballet, several theatres, cinemas, arenas and the rest how can we expect large corporates to locate here and create ‘jobs’? It is of course unthinkable that a vibrant grass roots community of cultural and artistic producers might ever make us interesting enough to be an attractive proposition…So we invest in the large high profile institutions frankly because they play well in brochures designed to attract investment and look great at MIPIM.
In short, if we have ‘world class’ artistic and cultural infrastructure, then we will be able to build around it a world class economy and a world class city…
But there is a school of thought that see things almost the opposite way around. It sees artistic and cultural infrastructure as the product of strong economies, and strong economies as the product of strong communities, and strong communities as the product of good civics and good civics being based on the artistic, economic, social and cultural competence of citizens.
It is strong communities that support strong economies that support large institutions like theatres, ballet companies and orchestras.
Phil, this sort of lower common denominator argument is really beneath you.
I grew up in a particularly shitty bit of my home town and although I attended my local grammar school there were still no culture at home.
Then one day the heavily subsidised RSC came to town on one of their regular ‘let’s visit the plebs’ tours they did in the 70s/80s. Watching Alun Armstrong in The Crucible was the moment the penny dropped about the power of live theatre. It was also the moment I realised that understanding art is not a passive process but something you have to do yourself.
The powerhouse subsidised theatres can only do so much if people are too thick/idle to bother and cower behind the tired ‘it’s not for me/they won’t let me into their world’ argument which is frankly a bit lame.
I know that many at – say – WYP might think me an undereducated oik but like I give a shit what they think. I pay for it so I am going to use it.
I don’t know if you were at the Spring launch at WYP but I was encouraged by the commitment from the new artistic director to re-engage with communities across the city. Calm down Mike Chitty but he did say it.
Time will tell if he is serious or if WYP will reach out to your mates in the pub or Beeston. If you were there you missed a great chance to get up and take to task a man who benefits from subsidy. If you weren’t there then you should have been to raise what in a lot of ways are some valid criticisms of public subsidy.
BTW..WYP are introducing £12 tickets for some shows if you book early which is roughly the cost of a cinema ticket plus popcorn and a bucket of coke. Or a round of beer with your mates in the pub.
Your mates in the pub might laugh at Danny Boyle but he s like them except he didn’t wallow in self pity and got off his backside to make something of himself. Not easy but doable.
I didn’t mean to be lowest common denominator, it’s a genuine question.
When I’m in town doing the arty stuff – or on twitter in what is essentially an echo chamber – the argument seems bleedin’ obvious. But when I get back home and talk to my neighbours there’s what the Americans call “a disconnect”.
The post came about from a couple of conversations this week – one with a couple of artists who seemed to think that economic regeneration simply meant more work for artists (and more city centre bars) and another with my neighbour about that silly piece in The Guardian.
Totally agree about people getting off their arses – that’s kinda what this site’s about – and I missed the WYP event as I was busy arranging for some of the people who don’t normally do culture to get to see some theatre (tend to think it’s better doing it than sitting in a room chatting with a handful of like-minded liberals.)
£12 a ticket? That’s six pints of beer or two bottles of wine in Wetherspoons … don’t know where you drink, but that’s a night out!
All I was trying to say in the post was how the hell do we talk about the arts to people who don’t engage, for whatever reason (I’d say class, but I’m an old Trot) because patently, right now, the arts are losing the plot. Anyone who repeats the line about the economic benefits of investment in the arts clearly is repeating a comforting cliche rather than thinking things through.
Historically flourishing Arts movements have been as a result of flourishing economy’s saying were cool as well as rich. We don’t have an economy or one that’s built on local money. Until we have a local economy we can’t expect more than we have got, like. The idiots of chattering will still keep complaining though. To no avail.
Not sure I agree with your historical analyses James. Once we had economies who could support a rich class they began to patronise and shape an artistic and cultural elite. While this undoubtedly allowed a small number of artists to turn pro and really push some boundaries it is a moot point as to whether this actually was progress, or a progress trap. It was the start of the professionalisation of art and culture and of its appropriation by a certain group. Mass involvement and production was suddenly 2nd class. My point is that art and culture were part of the civic process that enabled the process of economic development, and the emergence of the patron classes in the first place. From civics, culture and community springs the economy.
Sorry. Was mixing a bit of flippancy with candour. Get your point and agree with it.
Often get a bit annoyed that there is an implied expectation for macro institutions to support micro arts. If it were to happen then we all know who would benefit. Those who have time to play the system. #vanillamiddleclass [I hate the vanilla reference btw and people who want a conformed sets of hashtags]
We need people who ‘can’ to help present the ‘how’ [apologies for bullshit use of ‘]. We are in midst of a technological revolution. And so we have a rich amount of information on how it can work. I just wish the people who can could use this to help those who need it to explain simply (without corporate or arty speak) the right steps. #lessintrospectiveleeds
A lot of the arts that is funded by the taxpayer is free at point of use. Leeds art gallery, the central library (& others), the HMI, the Armouries, using the (often very quiet) bars at WYP & Northern Ballet, Leeds City Museum. They’ve been paid for already, so why not use them? Use them *hard*, ask questions, nag curators, write letters to the management, read the captions, look at the catalogues, then go to the library and read about the lives of the artists, the processes they used, the people they influenced. Then read about them, or have a go yourself. You paid for it. Use it, find out why you paid for it, and then make an argument against arts funding.
OTOH, you could point out that all the old cinemas, music halls, public rooms were all funded out of the historically equivalent purse. As that funding dried up they vanished. If they were here today, would they be used? Probably. Public lectures are now held at Seven or the Carriageworks. Am Dram has to be fortunate enough to get a church hall.
The problem is TV. It is (seen as) free (it’s not, but that is a whole other argument), it is easily accessible, it provides better quality drama than the local Am Drams, better audio than a kid tinkling on the ivories in someone’s parlour, better sports than a pub 5-a-side match in the park. And it is there, it is all-pervasive, and it gives people what they want in an age of infinite choice.
Perhaps the problem is that we have *too much* choice, and we (humanity in general) stick to what we know. The pub, the footie, the comfort reading, the period drama. Getting people out of that comfort zone is incredibly difficult. But then, nobody said that a worthwhile enterprise should be easy.
(gosh, I’m rambling a bit today.)
Oh, and if you’re looking for an argument for Tommy Wass’s, good luck because it’s being gutted and refurbed at the mo. 😉
ha, brilliant point! We are getting that wine bar we have hankered after for so long.
My point though was just about having a half decent, believable response to arts funding cuts – the current arguments obviously aren’t that effective, and I’m rather sick of hearing them repeated by the usual suspects as if they were sacrosanct. They don’t work.
Don’t talk to me about art, I live near Castleford. And while its the birthplace of Henry Moore it’s an art desert as far as I’m aware.
Great post Phil. Best thing I’ve read in years.