|
Skip nav
Arts debate
Back to Features home
The best of the arts belong to everyone, says Andrew Nairne, Director of Modern Art Oxford
'Public funding' should be given to organisations which seek to serve the public. To those outside the art community this might seem rather obvious. And yet, as Sir Richard Eyre (former Director of the National Theatre) recently noted, the arts, perhaps especially the arts which receive public subsidy, are still perceived by many people 'as not for them'. What does that phrase mean? It could simply indicate personal choice, but I think it is more than that: surely what is really being expressed is the feeling that the arts are simply not designed for them.
So how can we 'redesign' the arts to involve more people? First, arts organisations need to ask some searching questions about whom they are currently attracting and whom they are not attracting.
Second, if we want to engage with those who do not currently attend or participate, we have to be prepared to change the rules. Over time theatres and galleries, for example, become shaped by their audiences and their particular tastes. This can of course include the art, but I am thinking more of the thousand details that constitute the experiences we offer, from the publicity material to the design of our buildings to the forms of interpretation we offer. So if we want to create a more universal service we need to look again at all the messages we send out about whom we want to attract. The staff we employ, the copy we write, and the activities we programme should reflect and be responsive to the communities we want to engage with. For all kinds of understandable reasons, many historical, this is not the case at present for many arts organisations.
Finally, I believe arts organisations need to actively seek to connect with the most excluded and impoverished communities. Where I work in Oxford we have it on good authority that the residents of one housing estate, with whom we are building a partnership, 'never, ever' go into the city centre. Since we are in the city centre, we have to be prepared to think outside the relative security of our own building. Long-term creative partnerships with schools and communities is one way of putting down deeper roots. At their best these relationships are generative - shared energy, ideas and expertise leading to all kinds of things happening, including the unexpected. You discover again that not only does art change people but that people change art; our perceptions of what it can be and of its ultimate value. And if these partnerships are at the heart of an organisation’s life, the art will be as thrilling, challenging and bold as anything else in the programme and involve many of the same artists.
This approach is in the air – just look at Antony Gormley's sculptural casts of his own body on buildings and walkways all around the Hayward connected to, but beyond, the gallery, dramatically altering the urban landscape. On a different scale, in Oxford, we are exchanging display space with each of our three partner schools. We will curate a programme of art displays for each school (working with pupils and the same international artists we are exhibiting at the gallery) and each school will exhibit their artwork and creative projects at the gallery.
So what is the role of the Arts Council here? If the arts community is to offer a service that has greater legitimacy within society more resources need to support artists and programmes which break out and engage with new and diverse audiences. For some, I know this can all sound too directed and restrictive. But I don’t think it has to be. That is surely the challenge to all of us who work with artists and audiences - to demonstrate that the absolute best of the arts belong to everyone and have the potential to be enjoyed by everyone. And if we recognise that our arts organisations are not neutral, but culturally and socially shaped institutions, it is surely up to us what they might say in the future.
Andrew Nairne is Director of Modern Art Oxford
Join the debate
* = required
Click on the image to access a PDF (990Kb) of the new summary report, What people want from the arts
News
-
Arts debate overall findings now available!
06 November
-
Open space event report
11 October
-
Final stage of arts debate fieldwork highlights the importance of quality of experience
28 September
more news > >
If we really are intent on engaging with the majority of the country we have to move toward a promoting of the enjoyment of the beauty of art and away from ridiculous halfbaked attempts at pushing boundaries of definition.
The Turner prize awards have done more damage and alienated more of the public the anything else.I am sorry but bloody `shed boat shed`is such prime example.
The public don`t care whether such a statement is art or not,the rationale behind it is boring and simple and it is obviously ugly.
Modern contemporary fashion and design has left the artworld behind.We need to see the aesthetic of beauty,joy and ore inspiring sheer wonder celebrated which connects purely subconciously on a visual level.
Public money should only be spent on projects which lift us and give enjoyment.
It may on the face of it appear that i`m advocating a shallow attitude to art but the creation of beautiful art is by no means easy and what each sucessive generation finds beautiful and why is an ongoing challenge for any artist.
A final thought,the `ART GALLERY` is such a old fashioned remote place to a lot of people.Maybe we need a programe of traveling exhibitions sited in shopping malls and town centers.
I agree with you Andrew,
ANDY MCPHERSON
Thankyou.
Art can't be defined by a particular social need or concern. If artists adhere to the principle that the public should determine their output then they become by-products of fashion and current political and artistic idealisms. The purpose of art is not to reflect society but to preceed
it - "Life Imitates Art", as a great man once said. Too much nowadays is accountable and susceptible to the most lurid of public interrogations. Art should be free to express itself without fear or retribution or, even more grotesquely, a cut in funding. Let's keep art out of the Pop Idol, publicly accountable, Simon Cowell-determined domain!
Establishments can do all they want to connect to the public, but I still don't believe that will acheive anything in the long term. The problem is not just the institutions, it is the entirety of our culture.
Art, music, dance - all creative pursuits - have no function to our lives any more. Going to a gallery or a concert or a ballet is lovely and pretty, but it's not fun.
Why should it be fun? Because no-one wants to see something they don't understand, otherwise it's boring. That they don't understand art is a problem with our education system and, to a certain extent, artists not caring to create for a public. Regarding Andy McPherson's point, I think some of this art does have something to say - if people cared about art then they'd care for the message.
What is fun? Fun is getting together and communicating with people amongst art, around art, in front of art, about art, maybe even through art. Art and the artist are not as important as remembering the humanity in the Humanities. It's PEOPLE that are fun, or exciting, or terrible - art is only a window to that.
Going into schools is not enough. If anyone has any kind of creative drive they need to help set up small, informal outlets for creativity - it doesn't have to be a gallery, it doesn't have to be official, it could be a coffee morning, a pub night, a singalong, an art jam, a theatre criticism group.
Where has the old pub culture gone? People used to sing to each other and get together to share in a sense of community and FUN. Art had a function then.
As a member of a socially engage art studio which has made art in some of the most deprived area of our town I can tell you that no amount of 'fig leafing' and worthy 'interventions' going to undo the profound damage done to the people living those areas. A system that refuses to nurture its citizens and concocts any notion of blame and marginalization it can to divert attention from it's criminal neglect and disrespect will never paper over the cracks with 'art interventions' , 'audience building' or any of the other blandishments of 'the cultural industries'.
To bring art to everyone, everyone must be involved. I believe, that grafitti is esentially an art form albeit used to deface and vandalise, but if the money behind some of these projects were to go out and engage with the community, this negative expression of art could be channelled into something more positive, and help the youth of today do something positive in improving our environment by enhancing some of the dull areas in our cities, like rundown railway sidings and bridges
I feel that art can never be so easily seen in terms of 'engagement' with a certain sector of society, and what does 'community' actually mean anyway? Surely a community is a veritable hive of diversity and taste, so what is attractive to me as a work of art or as a concept is not going to be seen in the same way by someone else, nor is my opinion or perspective always going to be representative, nor communicated in such a way as to always be understood by the majority of the society all of the time.
I feel if we have a policy which only funds art which is seen as ’accessible’ and therefore ‘popular’ to the public at large there is no opportunity to stretch their imaginations or the imaginations of the next generation of artists. Van Goghs work was seen as an aboration by the public at the time, so to was the work of Debussy, Stravinsky, Piccasso and Xenakis,. The list is endless.
An ‘artist‘, almost by definition, will observe their surroundings and feed back those observations as art, whether it be a negative , positive or perverse response.. . . . the art will always be a reflection of society and of an artists experience of society in some way or another. Unfortunately today many creative minds are being led into the cul-de-sac of popular culture where the concept of linking community with ‘sameness’ appears to be the norm, hence the increasing lack of original work, lack of substance and depth, ‘covering’ someone else’s musical composition, aping, repeating, copying, re-vamping, re-contextulising, and generally doing everything but create new work.
An Arts organisation should never give into the demands of commercialism, Its job is to protect the artist from commercial interests. If all art could be created, sold, traded and provide a living for the artist then we wouldn’t need the Arts Council at all. At the same time if all art was related to by the majority of the public, when do the public actually get to think , debate, explore their own minds, and question their own beliefs ?
What the Arts council needs to do is protect the interests of artists who are perhaps not finding immediate public gratification for their work, yet may one day be understood and interpreted as a definitive and vital part of the society they lived in. This will always be hit and miss, but we stand a much better chance of squeezing out art which is actually ‘ART’.
This may not be the most relevant place to post these comments but I couldn't find anywhere else to put them.
Firstly the closing date should not have been in the run up to end-of-year exams. I know there was a lengthy consultation period but it would have been helpful to have the deadline end June at the earliest.
I strongly believe art should be as accessible as possible to the widest community which usually means low or no admission fees. It seems to me that although some people don't like public money being spent on art, if it's done well, they come to appreciate and adopt it.
There is the well known concept of vanity book publishing but it appears to apply equally to the arts sector. Some of the work is banal and trite and the response generated in me is at times of feeling cheated. I sometimes feel artists should pay me to witness their indulgences but realise it can be hard to be objective.
I appreciate Sir John Tavener's words when describing Mozart's prodigy, which were something along the lines of 'great (art) work is a gift from the heart'.
Yes we can find meaning in anything if we try hard enough - ie on/off light, etc, and we can repeat well tried formulae - some of the Press Photographers Association award winners fall into that category, but in comparison to the startling art coming out of Africa, some of ours is looking inane and sadly insignificant.
That said, I love going to art exhibitions, concerts, free public events/festivals etc and they add enormously to my sense of well being and stimulate a sense of belonging. I'm also a mature arts student and have found the learning experience revelatory. But I've a curious, adventurous nature and can understand the intimidation and fear of disappointment/ foolishness/ boredom that others might feel.
Another point. I believe young people are under represented in 3D fine art although it is the opposite in music, photography, video, tv, film, fashion and novels. There is no problem getting young people into live music venues or shopping centres, etc. I suspect if the bigger art venues were more adolescent- friendly with works/installations that described the teenage experience in the same way as music does, they would be more popular. The only young people I tend to see in galleries and my local rep theatre are students who are being given guidance on how to interpret what's in front of them. We also need to be taking more of our art to them, to the territory in which they feel comfortable, not expecting them to come to us.
This debate is such a serious issue for artists and I'm surprised there are so few responses to an opening comment which quite frankly, not only shows complete ignorance of what art is. But apparently is from a man in a position to to actually influence the future of arts funding in the UK! Andrew Nairne, who amazingly has been given the job of 'Director of Modern Art' seems to think that art can be 'redesigned'? He also seems to think that art is all about putting bums on seats? This naive idea that public money should bring immediate and entertaining satisfaction to the public at large is frankly Victorian. Perhaps we should then abolish art and re-introduce the travelling trade circus, perhaps Andrew Nairne will be happier. For those of you who are lazy, here's what he says at the end of his rant "If the arts community is to offer a service that has greater legitimacy within society more resources need to support artists and programmes which break out and engage with new and diverse audiences" I think that phrase pretty much hangs itself, but for those who haven't considered these issues, the stance that artists "offer a service" and the ludicrous concept that there is art that is more LEGITIMATE to society (that word 'legitimate' is the most worrying part), are convincing evidence that the author has very little grasp of what creativity is, where it comes from, and how it functions in society. It is quite frankly chilling to think that people like this are in controlling positions in the arts in our country. Perhaps Andrews thinking is the sad legacy of the Victorian obsession with empire building. There is a reason why England (by comparison with other countries vs. population) boasts so few successful and celebrated artists (from all arts sectors), what Andrew needs to understand is that art isnt a product that can be bought and sold, and altered to suit consumer trends, its not there to entertain the general public. Its there to challenge them, make them think, and to document society in a way which historically has always been the most honest, interesting, and vitally human account of the human sociological state.