In his most recent art blog at the Guardian, Jonathan Jones writes on the art world’s “Faustian Pact” with commerce. He argues that the link between art and big money, exploited most obviously over the past fifteen years by artists such as Damien Hirst, means that the visual arts in particular have lost their right to legitimate protest at the reduction now planned in public arts funding. I commented:
“…but one of the most encouraging things about the past fifteen years was the way that new, challenging artists and ways of working were brought to significant public attention. Those of us in the provinces who were not talentless watercolourists or old-fashioned portrait painters did actually benefit from genuine public curiousity and interest in what we were doing, how we were doing it, and why. The real fear now among many working artists is that without that kind of stimulus, there will be retreat to familiar, “safe” subject matter and ways of working, and that the creative directions and feedoms that have made a meaningful and quantifiable contribution to things like drug and crime rehabilitation programmes, education, local economic development, cultural tourism, etc. will vanish. One of the most important things we need to ensure in the visual arts over the course of the next Parliament is that the upcoming cuts in public funding do not endanger the visibility, social integration and genuine innovation that has been nurtured over the past fifteen years.”
Other commentators pointed out similar objections – that Damien Hirst and his ilk were unrepresentative of the vast majority of working artists, and that cuts in arts funding may have more serious and more lasting repercussions than simply culling the art world of highly visible, independently wealthy artists. Ironically, although he is being held up here as a poster boy for justifying dramatic cuts to arts funding, Damien Hirst doesn’t owe his success or his fortune to public funding – but many innovative and creative artists do. More importantly, sustained public funding for artists creates – as it does with museums, libraries and national collections – an environment in which creative freedoms can develop and flourish.
The point of public arts funding surely should be to develop and sustain a nation-wide cultural biome in which the arts can flourish. This means supporting the arts ecosystem at foundational levels – ensuring access to collections, access to arts education, and access to working artists. Artists at the top of the food chain can look after themselves – those further down need sustained support, encouragement and opportunities to work. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the private purse to create that kind of environment. The 40% cuts now looming will do far more than damage this cultural landscape now – they will create the kind of deep-rooted, environmental damage which will warp the cultural landscape of the future. The top-level predators – the Damien Hirsts, feeding among the wealthy elites – will survive, but we could be looking at mass extinctions elsewhere. Regional arts, arts education, community arts – all these will inevitably be desperately affected by the inevitable cuts.
Our response must be ecosystemical: we must preserve, conserve and adapt – but ultimately the final resort of any threatened population is migration. China, Asia, Indonesia – these economies are hungry for global recognition, status and prestige. We have already seen over the past decade the Gulf States attract and absorb artists for national promotion; might we see a similar exodus from culturally-failing states like the UK to the culturally active east? If the arts cannot frame meaningful opposition to the coming cuts, nor coordinated survival strategies, much of the best of the visual arts in this country may end up seeking new, greener pastures elsewhere.
Leave a Reply