François Matarasso

The photo shows the Performance Ensemble in Leeds, in 2019

---

Whatever else it might—or more likely might not—achieve, the current argument about how to ‘save’ the arts shows how hollowed out the whole subject has become. There is little intellectual or political coherence in the ideas put forward by Sir Nicholas Hytner or Sir Nicholas Serota. They use words like access, excellence and participation as scenery, flown in to make the speaker look convincing as they declaim solutions from stages they dominate. But the solutions, if you can call them that, essentially come down to more money for the arts.

Both men think that the arts in England (and the UK) need better funding; most people who work in the arts agree. Now the Guardian has joined the chorus. But the problem is why. What is the money for?

The obvious answer is to pay artists and the organisations that help them create and present their work. Fine. But still—what for? What do we gain, individually and as a society, by paying artists to create art?

Unless we can answer that question, we have no real idea why we’re supporting artistic creation or whether we’re achieving our goals. 

In the 1950s, the answer was cultural democratisation. Public funds were used to make the fine arts more accessible to more people, as part of the welfare state. For many people it was—it still is—like access to education, health care or housing: the mark of a decent society.

In the 1960s, the paternalism of that idea was challenged by an argument for cultural democracy, which saw culture as diverse, and valued each person’s contribution to it. That was a complex and contentious idea, but it was real politics. Like the policy it opposed, it had a vision of a decent society. 

Until well into the 1990s there was a real political argument about which of those ideas should underpin cultural policy, not just in Britain but in most European countries and elsewhere. No longer. Those ideas have not just fallen into disuse: it seems they’re no longer understood by the people responsible for cultural policy and decision-making in England.

We live in a post-ideological age, without political ideas or courage. That doesn’t mean ideology is absent, only that it’s hidden, because those in, or seeking, power find it convenient to seem pragmatic, neutral and disinterested. (In reality, anyone with an opinion about obscure questions of cultural policy is likely to have a personal interest in the matter.)

But no one frames the debate in terms of cultural democratisation or cultural democracy. No one recognises that cultural policy implies a political programme, though it does. And no one can propose a new idea or theory that might better guide cultural policy in our complicated time.

Those responsible for cultural policy use words from the past (access, participation, diversity) like interior decorators use the aesthetic forms of the past—for a veneer of sophistication. Their plans essentially come down to more, but a bit better or a bit different. Mostly more, though.

There is no substance here.

The language of cultural democracy has become fashionable in the past five or eight years, but I see no understanding of what it means in practice. The result is an impossible document like the Arts Council’s Let’s Create Strategy. It reads well but enacting on its values would imply a radical shift in arts funding. The resulting political fight would make current arguments over English National Opera seem like a polite discussion over cucumber sandwiches. Which, I suppose, is what they are. 

We are left with performative debates between interested parties pitching elites against communities, excellence against participation, us against them. And nothing, really nothing changes. Which is the point.

Until someone actually explains what good will come out of funding the arts, and can make a convincing political argument about why that use of resources is justified in a country where people depend on food banks, I’ve no interest in listening to them. We need a grown-up debate about the arts and culture, not more play acting. 

---

You can read more about in cultural democratisation and cultural democracy here:

Old Words #6 – Cultural Policy in a Post-Political Age

(Or listen to the essay as a podcast from MIAAW.Net)