Each week, from all the comment pieces in the regular media I'm going to try and pull out an issue where writers have effectively gone 'head-to-head' and taken directly contrary views on something. The idea being to make a call on which case is the most robust, irrespective of where my personal sympathies might lie. This week Simon Heffer and Joan Bakewell on Government plans to introduce five hours of high-quality cultural activities to schools each week.In the Telegraph Heffer is appalled by what he sees as 'Stalinist' interference by New Labour, dismissing them en masse as "half-educated, boorish acolytes". He's doubtful that the government's definition of 'high-quality culture' is one that everyone would agree on but at root his objection is more fundamental than that: the idea that the state should provide this culture at all.
"If parents wish their children to be more cultured, there is much they can do about it for little or no outlay, if only they have the will or the imagination. They can switch on the wireless. They can take them to a library. They can take them to a gallery or a museum. If they can't be bothered to do this - and I can see that watching football on television of a weekend, accompanied by six-packs of lager and cancer-sticks, may be a superior priority - then their schools should do it for them. Why does this require the state to order these five hours?"He then reminds us that most of our cultural greats seemed to have reached the heights they did without the help of the state:
"How was it that we had Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton or Wordsworth without their having the inestimable benefit of Arts Council poetry workshops? Where did Constable, Turner, Landseer or Leighton come from without their first being community artists, on state bursaries? And how on earth did we get Jane Austen, George Eliot, Dickens or Graham Greene without their coming through the bruising testing-ground of a taxpayer-cushioned writership in residence at an ex-polytechnic?"Heffer's piece is typically rumbustious and we should remember the man makes his living by provoking a reaction. He even jokes at the outset that he's filled with such 'profound' and 'sulphurous' rage that this might even make him vote for Cameron. Cutting through all this though I think he makes his case reasonably well.
In the Independent Bakewell kicks off by dismissing criticism coming from the likes of Heffer as nothing but "cultural snobs who assert that 'there are just some people who will never be interested in culture'". She explains that children's natural inclination for creativity can be stifled by "pressures of formal education, with its targets and SATs" and that real life can "limit a child's scope for spontaneity and self-expression". In her view:
"Children's natural creativity, their spontaneity and pleasure don't deserve to be crushed out of them. The government now appreciates this, and is doing something momentous about it. It would be tragic if a sullen reluctance by teachers and schools to bring this about were to spoil a genuine attempt to make coming generations more fulfilled."Bakewell's piece is a far more measured affair and she includes an uplifting story about her eight-year-old granddaughter and a visit to the National Gallery as part of a school project. Joan seems to have first hand experience of the sort of good community arts projects can deliver and she's clearly a passionate advocate of the importance of arts & culture in children's lives.
So how do the two stack up? Although Bakewell didn't specifically lay the charge of cultural snobbery at Heffer's door she would, I suspect, have had some justification for doing so. Heffer's references to "watching football on television" and "six-packs of lager and cancer-sticks" strain at the boundary between light-hearted provocation and outright class snobbery. That his checklist of cultural greats should include Milton, Constable & Dickens but not Pound, Freud or Amis suggests his tastes are on the conservative side - perhaps Bakewell's charge that these criticisms often emanate from people uncomfortable with modern culture carries some weight. For her sins Bakewell seems to have ignored the central concern most people have expressed about this initiative - that it's the state that are doing it. She's a very eloquent advocate of the importance of art & culture to kids lives and almost everything she has to say in that respect is spot on. Indeed I'm sure Simon would concur with every word. But she doesn't engage with that central issue - there's a wealth of cultural opportunities already open to parents of any means so the issue isn't availability but will.
Although I often disagree with him vehemently I'd have to say Heffer makes the stronger case here and not just because I happen to agree with him. In fact, it's worth pointing out that since the 'five hours of culture' story broke I haven't read a single decent defence of it anywhere. Still, the idea with this feature is to see who makes the stronger case so perhaps next week it'll be someone I happen to disagree with anyway.
As with the Think Tank Roundup I'm not sure if the content or topics are there to allow me to do this every week but I'll give it a go. I use Newsgator to keep my eyes on lots of sources but if you spot a couple of articles that you think might merit this treatment let me know - any other feedback gratefully received also.
10 Comments:
I think this a great idea for a post and hope you keep it up, along with the think tank roundup. Keep up the good work
Many thanks Nick - will do my best...
I thought it was one of Heffers less succesful spleenothons myself because he doesnot make any sort of case about what we do to encourage cultural immersion( Which I value )outside the state.
Tax breaks for artists and ending the vile grant system would help as well removing all the absurd impediments to leal life events. I `m unimpressed with Heffers craven genuflections to what he imagines is high art .
All thats required is space and in this country surely we can give tax breaks to poetry...
PS Just caught up ..always a pleasure to read Cas
I do so hate the misuse of the Stalinist label by those who should know better. Perhaps the first point to not the similarities of the high culture that Heffer promotes with that which was encouraged in the Stalinist Soviet Union (or Nazi Germany for that matter) - ballet, opera, classical music and theatre all thrived - but the avant garde movement was slowly stamped out/liquidated. Also I don't think that encouraging a debate about cultural matters tended to be very high up Stalin's agenda - but of course this may well be the route of Heffer's objection.
As for the introduction of five hours per week of high quality cultural activities in schools - all I can say is what do those oppose this want the schools to do - spend 30 hours per week on low quality or non cultural activities? I would have thought that slipping in 5 hours of cultural activities into a normal school week shouldn't too taxing for most schools - do English Lit/Music/Arts etc count?
The point about parent's needing to encourage their kids is a valid one - but I'm sure that those who do will not mind the school undertaking cultural activities anyway and there will be no harm done to those that don't. These things tend to feed off each off anyway - my kids now encourage me to take them to galleries, museums, plays etc. after they have been on such trips at school.
Regarding the high/low art debate my own personal view is that a lot of people often don't realise how good much of the high art is - I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that until I was over 30 I had never seen/heard a ballet, opera or classical music concert - but I'm glad I then did when living in a country where access to such events was much more exclusive. If only more people were to see such events then I am certain they would change their minds - quality is quality. Perhaps the funding for such events, which are still very exclusive in the UK, needs to be more dependent on how outgoing such organisations - the more performances for schools, in local venues etc the more funding they get - perhaps free tickets could be distributed on a lottery type basis to fill up the many empty spaces at such events.
There is also a need for seed funding to help young artists develop - it is worth looking at how many actors (both in the high and low arts) spent some time at the national Youth Theatre. Such activities can hardly ever be commercial with the best will in the world.
TB- Seed funding only removes money and choice from the people who make culture ie all of us . Tax breaks are sufficient and a liberating atmosphere of bracing self reliance .
The funded Theatre is appalling and the funded film industry an insult to the critical mind. You are barking up entirely the wrong tree the moment the state starts ordering culture around then we will have culture according to elitist bureaucracies and committees. This means suppressing other culture snot approved of by the state . Funding for so called classical music has driven it up a blind alley as well by the way as has the contempt for popularity and by implication the “customer “
That is why it is Stalinist and with the record of the Brown Government for abuse of power no wonder people are horrified. I do not trust the government with such a weapon and absolutely not Goron Brown whose idea of culture is to invent Britishness for the transparent purposes of manipulating the electoral system and denying English people the government of their choice
( Your last paragraph is rubbish , it costs nothing to make music paint sing and wrote poetry. Your confusion of cultire with a The state and b a Profession ...is exactly the sort of thing that bothers me
Newmania
There isn't a single western economy where the state doesn'y provide some funding of the Arts and that includes the US.
Some of your remarks are just breathtaking. "The funded theatre is appalling" - does this include the RSC and National Theatre and practically every other theatre outside the West End. Even Glyndebourne in your neck of the woods gets a state subsidy.
"it costs nothing to make music paint sing and wrote poetry" - obviously you have never had to pay for music or ballet lessons - and while young artists are learning their craft what do you suggest they live on - thin air.
Tax breaks only work if you have enough income in the first place - and it is difficult to get people to pay the full costs of trainee artists.
Anyway I have to go now and watch 22 men kicking an inflated pigs bladder - another national art form which is not self financing and needs large sources of funding from dubious foreign sugar daddies.
I do not care what Europe does and The US is state by state and might be worth looking at in detail but you do not.I think you have to differentiate between the country maintaining resources (like Shakespeare ) and warping contemporary culture is this or that way.
Young artists ...? are no more importnat than anyone else and already favoured hugely in our further education. For the public to fund their largely rancid efforts after buying them skills confuses me.
Shall I list all the artists who thrived without this state dead hand ?
Shall I start with ooo Michelangelo,,,William Blake ...Turner ..... but no doubt you have pelnty of good examples of state art to set agains this shoddy collection
You're on very shaky ground there NM - Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Blake, Turner et al thrived precisely because they WERE in receipt of the contemporary version of state aid - wealthy patrons. Da Vinci was a full-time employee of the King of France when he died - a 16th century version of just the sort of public sector employee you love to dismiss here and elsewhere.
When you in a hole and all that...
I do not accept that Patron is the same thing as a state C . It is exactly the same thing as purchaser or customer spending their own money on things they admire or , as often , were religious in function. Its just a customer if a big one .
The state's justification would be that it was a 'people`s patron' and can see a limited role here but noone surely suggests it is the same thing.
US philanthopists are more akin to the patron`s of yore than the drizzly miserable collectivist hive art the socialists would like. Rich powerful individuals are not the same thing ss the state they are its opposite.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home