ARTS
Art
Never the twain shall meet ...
But Giles Auty feels both sides of the art divide are entitled to fairness in funding
Among the texts about art I have read or re-read in the past few weeks, six stick in my mind particularly. The first three, by Oliver Bennett, Sarah Kent and Ian Dun- lop, do so because I disagreed with virtually every word of them, and the second three, by Lewis. H. Lapham, Anthony O'Hear and Howard Jacobson, for precisely the opposite reason.
The two sets of texts comprise 'Exhibi- tionists!', Mr Bennett's recent panegyric upon the supposed merits of Goldsmith's College as an art school which was written for the Evening Standard Magazine, Ms Kent's adulatory catalogue for the latest exhibition of young artists at the Saatchi Collection and Mr Dunlop's passionate advocacy of the value of the shocking in art in the pages of this weekly (24 April). On the other side we have Mr Lapham's mea- sured rubbishing of the latest Whitney Biennial in New York in May's American edition of Harper's, Mr O'Hear's dismay at the intellectual shallowness of post-Sixties culture written for the next edition of Mod- ern Painters and the text of the Peter Fuller Memorial Lecture delivered and broadcast this year by Mr Jacobson, who attacks the growing dominance in visual art of the writ- ten word.
The point I make here is that what amounts broadly to two sets of views writ- ten by people with claims to intelligence may well be absolutely irreconcilable. The first set of arguments, which seem to me largely tendentious and rhetorical in nature, might seem quite otherwise, of Course, to any who find them convincing. By the same token, the second set of views, Which I thoroughly endorse, could appear merely cautious or negative to those who Style themselves as being on the side of Inexorable artistic progress. Since there has seldom been even the semblance of intelli- gent debate between the opposed factions
during my own adulthood, at least the causes of art do not seem likely to be advanced greatly now by the parties merely reiterating their positions. If they cannot kiss and make up, perhaps they should sim- ply agree to disagree. Assume for a moment that the positions of the two groups are broadly definable, if not absolutely clear-cut. We could define the first group as being convinced of the need and value of non-stop revolution in terms of living art, while identifying the second group as stressing the worth in art and education of acknowledging the value of guidance from the past. While the first group has faith in the inevitable efficacy of the new, the second believes just as strong- !Y n the continuing relevance of tradition In art and — very probably — in other aspects of life. While one group seeks to radicalise, the other desires to reaffirm existing values. If the adherents to the two causes were roughly equal in number, surely any sensi- ble government or lesser authority would wish to encourage both groups equally in terms of artistic opportunity and aid. In short, artistic radicals could enjoy the abili- ty to decide their own affairs, mount their own exhibitions, run their own art school courses, award their own prizes and so forth by access to a due proportion of such public facilities and funding as are going. That they would do so with my blessing would be some measure of my gratitude that they were no longer to be awarded the entire cake to carve up as they wished. For, at present, the legitimate artistic needs of the second group are not recognised at all, although they probably enjoy the support of by far the larger proportion of our citi- zens.
The result of this imbalance is a serious warping of our living culture in favour of artistic radicalism and at the expense of more durable art and values. Amazingly, for something so extreme in its effects, this bias is wholly unauthorised and, if what is really going on were understood better, would be deeply unpopular to boot. Radi- calist domination of the world of living art in Britain and elsewhere in the West is an example of the fallibility of democratic pro- cedures in the face of determined political manoeuvring. Another excellent example of this was the infiltration and control of Britain's trades unions some years ago by the extreme Left.
As I exposed in my article 'A New Life for Art' in The Spectator of 23 January, modernist hegemony within the realms of living art in Britain is a phenomenon that has been with us for some while. It is a domination that has slowly become her- metic as well as self-perpetuating, operat- ing through control by modernists of all our publicly funded outlets for living art: Arts Councils, the British Council, the South Bank — which has effective, cen- tralised authority over national exhibiting policy — art schools and universities.
Indeed, the only way to break up this deadlock and allow art and artists to devel- op naturally once more would be through a clear-cut division of public support between living art of a radical and non- radical nature. This is, in fact, the simplest and only answer to a major injustice which has been with us for a long time now. Indeed, here is an intelligent initiative the present Government could investigate and act upon. For once, in terms of recent gov- ernment initiatives in culture or education, the results of such honest and open divi- sion of funding would be well received by a majority.
The result of the present, modernist hegemony is that only the causes of a gen- erally unpopular minority — the interna- tional avant-garde — are catered for adequately, because in Britain modernists control virtually all public expenditure on living art. If you do not believe me, simply consider London's five major publicly fund- ed galleries which deal with living art: the Tate, Hayward, Serpentine, Whitechapel and ICA. Which of these consistently pre- sents living British artists whose work does not conform to international modernist fashions? The answer is none, nor are the causes of British artists who belong to European traditions of longer standing served consistently by a single one of our publicly funded provincial galleries. The spread of Tate branches to the provinces — Liverpool and now St Ives — merely increases centralised control by those who judge art by means which make the degree of modernism displayed an effective index of quality. The question is no longer whether art under consideration by our modernist masters is any good but whether it is supposedly radical enough to be placed yet again before a generally unwilling pub- lic.
The avant-garde is welcome to its own galleries and art schools for any who wish to visit or attend them. But the needs of art students, artists and an art-loving public who believe fervently that the history of significant art began longer ago than 50 weeks, 50 months or even 50 years also deserve proper and greatly overdue recog- nition now.
Previous page
