ninme

The Times - Mass-Market Medicis
Government can support excellence in the arts but not define it

The arts do more than just lift a nation’s spirits. They also raise its profile, boost its tourism and create a virtuous circle of intellectual excitement and economic prosperity, as Glasgow proved and Liverpool is now demonstrating. Britain already has an enviable reputation as one of the most exciting centres of artistic excellence in the Western world. For the Government, therefore, to announce an extra £50 million for the arts is not only fitting reward for excellence; it also makes sound economic sense.

Such a bold investment necessarily demands a thoroughgoing reappraisal of government policy. Sir Brian McMaster has drawn up a report on state funding of the arts that suggests without a hint of irony that Britain on the verge of a “new Renaissance”. It announces a determination to recapture for this country the verve and creativity of Italy six centuries ago.

Such grandiosity aside, the report outlines two guiding principles: to broaden access to the arts and to focus money on pinnacles of proven excellence. Each is a worthy goal. They are not, though, the same. James Purnell, the Culture Secretary, declared that “the time has come to accept that the highest quality and the broadest audience can go hand-in-hand”. Excellence and popularity sometimes coincide, but often they do not. Bold investment in inspiring talents is admirable enough, but it will not always sell tickets. The wisdom of crowds cannot be relied upon in arts funding.

No kidding.

The Government is setting itself up as a grand patron of the arts. It is proposing that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport identifies a rare breed of artistic genius, which happens to be both currently alive and widely admired. Arts cannot easily be directed from above. Local initiative is the patron. Competition to be heard is the spur.

It is not the job of the Culture Secretary to be a modern, mass-market Medici.

Article mentions that the National Opera is getting funding, but the Birmingham one will not. Whole thing reminds me of that episode of Yes, Minister, when Hacker tells Humphreys that arts funding is just a government subsidy to cultural snobs like him, “subsidising self-indulgence”. And you know that argument is going to start up again.

Personally, I think a great place to start is architecture. Promotes tourism, creates jobs, boosts the economy, and everyone can look at the front of a building. Where’s Robert Adam when you need him?