Why is it not the job of the government to promote culture and access to it? Should all national galleries be privatised?
Well, it's hard to say why something isn't the case. Why isn't it their job to promote healthy grass, the virtue of red wallpaper or skateboarding over roller blading? You can't really answer this sort of question without simply asking "Well, why
is is?" but I'll try anyway.
What culture? What art? If Damien Hirst decides to spend his not-insubstantial fortune on opening an exhibit with a giant dead shark masturbating in front of the telly, that's his prerogative; Would you want the government to use your tax money to do this? Rather than on all the many other things it could go on, like after school clubs or smaller class sizes or more non-job-title-specific NHS workers (holla Mr Git), better equipped fire brigades, better homelessness help etc. This is the yard stick against which we need to measure spending. So what about Damien Hirst?
Or what about my niece's Year 3 Art project with pasta shapes stuck to paper? What about the social club where my neighbour with down syndrome made his first music track which sounds more or less indistinguishable from his dog throwing up in the garden? What about funding a video game where you play the role of a northern Trade Unionist, whose gameplay premise is a series of Quick Time Events whilst you struggle to avoid being beaten by Thatcher's police whilst also trying to throw bricks at scabs? What about a stage play where Murdoch's control over the British media is explored in the form of a ganster-rap/gender-queer electro-acid mashup set to interpretive dance?
Now, maybe every one of these would have some cultural worth. Maybe none of them would. Who's going to decide? Ed mentions he's going to get a council of significant arts figures to help him decide, but does that sound appealing to you? A curated list of government-sponsored art for you to enjoy?
The problem for me is that with these wonderful grants come, basically, goals. They want to increase exposure to these sorts of things to those who currently don't go (ie everyone who isn't an old, white, middle class person, who are the ones that onerwhelmingly benefit the most from having their hobby subsidised by the government). This is such a significant goal that the DCMS actually gave specific goals to museums like the V&A to increase their poor demographic entrants by x% - what do you think this does for the quality of the exhibits? They're already free; If people aren't going, I doubt it's because it's all too simplified and dumbed down. At the end of the day, if kids don't want to go look at paintings or historical exhibits, they won't.
Which leads me to my actual point, which is that basically all people these days consume more media than they ever have before. A whole world of music and television and cinema is available to them at the touch of a button, and all the information and visual stimuli traditionally locked away in museums and galleries is a few keystrokes from their attention. Cinemas continue to make profits (as do many, many theatres btw), as do books and magazines and and and. Gigs have never been more popular, and "events" like the Secret Cinema are routinely sold out. The stuff that people go to - the stuff they actually like - doesn't need government subsidy because people actually like it. The stuff that the government subsidies is, by and large, shit no one likes.
I actually don't care about the money; It's a small amount. I care about the idea of the government convening a council, deciding what "culture" is, packaging it up and sending it out for the masses to enjoy, along with their cake and circuses. Or, rather, it is the circus. What I'd much, much, much rather they did with the same money is to actually put it into better arts education in the first place (where we're utterly shit. Shit shit shit.) so, instead of trying to get people who don't give a shit about Joseph Wright of Derby to go and see his paintings anyway, we cultivate a generation (and beyond) of people to whom this is actually interesting. Do that, and you won't need to subsidise "culture", because we can see from the media they actually enjoy that you don't need to the horse to water to make it drink.
I say all this as someone with a degree in a visual art and who works in the creative industries.
