 |
| An angry YBA contemplates his ethical position and the number of £Ks to add to his work |
This is what a former Arts Council chairperson Dame Liz Forgan told BBC Radio 4's World at One:
"The danger in what she is saying is that people actually start to believe that because art produces huge economic benefits, we should start directing our investment in culture for its commercial potential.
"That's not only philistine, it's self-defeating, because then you get accountants making artistic decisions, which is as silly as having artists making accounting ones.
"If you start to invest in art because of an identified commercial outcome, you will get worse art and therefore we will get a worse commercial outcome."
Now I'm a Fine Artist (BAHons Fine Art) who has exhibited from local galleries to The National Portrait Gallery and have been making a struggling living for 30 years turning my hand to all sorts of creative pursuits to survive, so I know and appreciate more than most the role of 'The Arts' in our society.
However, I strongly believe that a great deal of arts funding should be cut completely. Not reduced - cut. This would initially stall or destroy many projects certainly but then quality would survive and prosper based on real success rather than the 'life-support' of government funding.
Art History and the notion of commercial success
Let's examine some of the above statements; Liz Forgan says "...If you start to invest in art because of an identified commercial outcome, you will get worse art..."
I would say that's ludicrous. Based on the evidence of two thousand years of Art, creative activity constrained within a commercial need has produced (nearly) all of the masterpieces of civilisation up until the romanticisation of 'The Artist/outsider' in the 20th century which then lead to the notion that an artist's freedom from communicating successfully to an audience is almost paramount requirement to create great art.
Consider just a few historical examples. Whether it was Leonardo creating La Gioconda for a paying client, Puccini writing Operas that would pack the houses, Rembrant flattering his patrons in The Night Watch, Dylan Thomas writing Milk-Wood for mass market broadcast or Michelangelo making sure that his client was happy with the new ceiling decor, Art has for centuries been driven by payment of happy clients. And that has produced stunning, world shattering art-works, many of which stand as pinnacles of our civilisation's achievements.
Doing it for the money?
I'm not saying that 'cash' is the only measure of an art-work's value but simply that if an artwork is any good (be it challenging, unique, ground-breaking, controversial etc ), it will be successfully communicating that to some kind of audience or individuals that will want to pay to see, to own, to licence, to hire, to read, to listen, to publish or to simply experience it. If no one does... well then, perhaps it's not quite as great as some would like to make out.
But surely there great Art-works that are still great despite lack of commercial success? Yes, of course there are and these will always continue to be produced and will catch society unawares and will change our perceptions, break new ground and maybe only fully be recognised in the fulness of time. However that doesn't therefore equate to a justification for supplying funding to a thousand commercially unviable projects or artists in the belief that because they are uncommercial they must be producing exciting challenging or important work.
A composer friend recounted to me his experience at a conference where, as a composer of many years experience, building a living out of many micro-streams of revenue, he was disgusted at the number of attendees who's prime area of concern was that they should be entitled to get funding for their pursuits, based apparently on nothing more than they called themselves 'composers'. Many were genuinely irate that hand-outs were being cut or reduced or that their particular 'bright idea' couldn't get a big grant.
Success breeds money breeds success, or empty headed sell-out commercial crap?
Liz Forgan's statement: "then you get accountants making artistic decisions, which is as silly as having artists making accounting ones" is plainly illogical. It is no more true than saying "all herring are fish therefor all fish are herring" An accountant makes accounting decisions and that's all. Taking a view, on advice, that funding Theatrical Drama X will result in big audiences while funding Play Y will result in the Theatre going bust is a commercial accounting decision. The numbers don't care about whether Play Y is an exciting work from a challenging new talent or not. Neither do the numbers care if Drama critics slam either production, while all the time tickets are still selling like hot cakes.
And, of course, a successful thriving theatre replete with cash from Play X is then in the position to present less commercially accessible work, perhaps indeed by the new young talent such as the writer of Play Y.
This is not all about 'survival of the fittest' and 'damn the rest'; it's about accepting that being a commercial success is not an evil pursuit of scum artists who have sold-out to 'the man'. Equally, producing 'challenging' or obscure work that has difficulty in finding an audience does not by definition mean that it's any damn good. Sometimes it is, but not that often.
Could a major reformation of the UK Art scene where Artists make work that really does have to work, prompt a new Golden Age?
Could a major reformation of the UK Art scene where Artists make work that really does have to work, prompt a new Golden Age?
Working within the perceived restriction of achieving some (even tiny) measure of commercial success seems to frighten off many artists who survive on funding. My contention is that if it was good enough for the centuries of Artists before them, surely it is not too much to think they could create wonderful Art and still consider to some degree how successful it could be commercially.
Yeah - Blasphemy.
.... discuss
