The Milk Bar and the Cow
HAPPY is the people which needs no Arts Enquiry. Who in Bali would think of instituting one? Like seeking a medical diagnosis, it implies that something is wrong. The wrongness cries aloud from every part of our urban environment ; from the festering exteriors of most of our leading stores, or, when necessity forces us inside them, from the serried ranks of garden goblins and the tables crowded with china Aberdeen terriers, Alsatians and flouncy ladies. It is no better, only different, in the sixpenny bazaars or in Old Bond Street. The wrongness cries aloud and insults and injures us every moment of the day. Perhaps an Enquiry, like a diagnosis, may be the first step towards a cure? This one was begun four and a-half years ago, largely through the enthusiasm of Christopher Martin, of the Dartington Hall art department, who, in spite of severe illness, continued to work on it until his death in 1944. Officially it started as no more than a fact-finding survey, but it was always recognised that the compilers would be led to make recom- mendations, and now this first report (others on Music, Drama and the Factual Film are to come), although the greater part of it is an account of the condition of the visual arts in this country, begins with Conclusions and Proposals. To some this arrangement may appear symbolic, a suggestion that the conclusions were drawn before the facts had been found. Be this as it may, the seven factual chapters give a mass of information on the ways in which painters, sculptors and industrial designers make their living, on art schools and art in general educatio'n, and on museums, galleries and publica- tions. These chapters represent the main work of the Enquiry, and, although specialists will find errors here and there, they should be a useful guide for the formulations of policy.
When one turns back to the Conclusions and Proposals, however, there is a disappointing lack of fresh analysis. That the two new institutions recommended in the proposals—the Councils for the Arts and for Industrial Design—have in fact already been established during the publication of the report is no cause for embarrassment ; it only shows how far we are all children of our moment, how we shape it and are shaped by it. But a more penetrating analysis might expose some of the difficulties. To begin with, how far can a modern indus- trial State directly further serious creative art and the conditions for its diffusion and enjoyment (i.e. civilisation)? Perhaps, given a livirtz; tradition, quite a long way, but there have been many failure,, and it would seem that of all the arts the visual ones are, together ith literature, the most difficult for successful State patronage Those that have an executive level—music, drama, opera and the ballet—can be helped by no more than lavish expenditure ; good executants can be found for good jobs, and such arts at least appear to flourish. The visual arts, on the other hand, have nothing between original creation and the mere preservation and display of past creations. That is why totalitarian countries may make a good show on the executive level, but in the visual arts tend towards eagles and fasces in petrified soap, and the vast sentimentalities of proletarian sculpture.
The State can have two main functions in its patronage of the arts, distinct though continuously interacting. The first is to help the artist to live (and happily we have some good ones to be kept alive); the other to help the consumer, both by the education of his senses and by the provision of ample food for them. It is important td distinguish between these functions, for a popular Government may be inclined unduly to favour the consumer—" everything for the. Milk Bar, nothing for the Cow" as Palinurus has said. Not that this is a failing of the present report. Among the duties of the proposed Arts Council, I calculate that five are mainly directed towards the Milk Bar, four towards the Cow—but they are nowhere distinguished. Most of these recommendations are individually unexceptionable ; to the artist, the State should grant more studentships and main- tenance grants for the beginning of his carter, should give more commissions and make and encourage more purchases ; for the con- sumer, it should provide better art-teaching in schools, better museums, galleries and circulation services, and more publications. Encouraging though the achievements of C.E.M.A. have been, the setting up of a highly centralised organisation with a virtuous programme will not in itself work wonders. It is as well to reflect that many such bodies established during the past century now look like milestones on a downhill road. There is, after all, no State but only individuals, and individuals with highly trained discrimination and sympathy are rare, and are probably becoming rarer, or at least more isolated. Recent years have shown how much two persons of fortune and leisurely background (one in an official, one in a private position) could help the arts. It is quite possible that in the long run the State may do more harm by destroying leisure with taxation than it can repair by spending a fraction of the
Previous page
