Art and gimmickry
Sir: Surely the Minister respon- sible for public expenditure on the Arts is right to maintain that. 'Members of the public are en- titled to expect that the money is spent for a valid artistic purpose'.
After all, every valid concept has its orthodoxy, which con- stitutes the very nature of its ideal: not to accept this would be to ac- cept anarchy; and in this instance also to abandon the social burden of ministerial responsibility.
The directors of the Arts Coun- cil however have, evidently, deci- ded to adopt a 'catholic taste':
even to the extent of exhibiting the unidentifiable and the unintel- ligible—to judge by recent exhibits at the Tate and Hayward Galleries. Certainly some of these exhibits would be more appropriate adorn- ing the walls of a kindergarten or of a funfair, than those of a national gallery of art. And all this gimmickry is being lighted, heated, and guarded at public ex- pense: the majority of whom are blissfully unaware that such infan- tilism is being paraded, at their ex- pense, as art.
This, of course, refers only to a very small aspect of the real and invaluable service to education and recreation provided by the scholar- ship and enterprise of the members of the museum and art gallery staff in this country; but it is neverthe- less costing the state a good deal of money; which could, so obvious- ly, be more wisely and usefully spent.
The tyranny of fashion, and the prevailing craze for innovation, at any cost, are together reducing the Arts to mere 'exotica'.
F. E. Isaac
124 Lexham Gardens, London w8
Previous page
