We seem to have a generation of young artists who have been indoctrinated by decades of public funding policy to believe that art must have a purpose beyond itself; that public subsidy of the arts can only be justified on the basis of economic or social outcomes. I believe the pursuit of such justification is not only futile – it is wrong-headed.
That art is of economic benefit and creates social good is a deeply ingrained assumption. However, demonstrating any causal relationship for social outcomes is tricky to say the least and the evidence for the impact of arts activity in economic regeneration is sketchy. Still, most of us feel instinctively that the arts are a good thing. That’s not the same as saying that they ‘do good’ though, and is a very long way from saying that the value of the arts can be measured through the good that they do.
The dangers of trying to judge art on such a basis seem clear when one accepts the elusiveness of any demonstrable linkage between cause and desired effect. Most importantly, it completely bypasses any consideration of the merit of the art in its own terms. Yes, this is fraught with difficulties, but can’t we in the arts sector have a crack at it?
The insistence on instrumental outcomes also sets up a dissonance in our public discourse between the arts as ‘charitable’ and the ‘value’ metrics that are applied to the arts in public policy. ‘Promotion of the arts’ is recognised in law as charitable in itself (and therefore of public benefit), yet arts organisations are still required to demonstrate impact in terms of social and economic outcomes in order to justify public subsidy.
Even ticking the ‘social’ boxes is giving in to HM Treasury’s hegemony, as the social impacts looked for simply seek to quantify an economic benefit to the state. This may be in terms of young people in employment, training or education; or in savings associated with less state intervention (statutory services), because arts activity (purportedly) supports social cohesion, more stable family relationships, community building (regeneration), crime reduction, improved intercultural relationships, etc.
Intentions and outcomes
The question of intention is also critical if one is considering measures of success. What did you intend to achieve? Did you achieve it? Art, except for some ‘applied practices’ consciously constructed to ‘do good’, is not created for social or economic ends or even with those ends in mind, at least not as a primary motivation. The fundamental answer to ‘What did you intend to achieve?’ will be expressed in artistic or aesthetic terms; and there are a range of ways to address the second question in that case.
If the primary motivation is not artistic or aesthetic, then the question of measuring the value of the art becomes peripheral and the activity may as well be judged alongside any other type of social intervention. Any social good resulting from a work of art is incidental/accidental/fortuitous and not necessarily proportionate. It is illogical and unfair therefore to judge how ‘good’, ‘valuable’ or ‘investment worthy’ a work of art is by measuring, or attempting to measure, its social benefits.
What about all that money that the arts generate then? Well, yes, the arts do attract tourists to the UK, generate jobs and all the other stuff that’s regularly trotted out as justification. But it’s a very unhelpful way of looking at the overall health of the arts. There is a vast unmonetised economy that underpins the more visible arts institutions and successes. Artists regularly work for nothing up and down the country, including in subsidised venues; many cultural institutions rely on unpaid internships and volunteers to do work that should be remunerated.
Without all of this invisible activity, the international successes would not happen. We are told in a recent report from the LGA (Local Government Association) that local authorities are keen to invest in ‘partnerships’ (yes, the heart sinks) with the arts as generators of economic growth. This is part of the same woolly thinking and entirely in line with national government policy: local authorities will reward success or, in other words, they will feed the top, leaving the rest of the arts ecology to fend for itself.
But highly skilled and creative artists, producers, curators and technicians do not spring up fully formed. The notion, enshrined in Arts Council policy, that the big fish will help the little ones displays a staggering naivety. What they will do, of course, is swallow them up. That’s what big fish do in the free market ocean.
Time to ask different questions
So if not these measures, then what? We could ask questions of arts activity (or a work of art) that might go some way to measuring its worth in its own terms. Not all of these questions will apply in all cases and there are surely many more questions we could legitimately ask, but for a start:
– Is it interesting?
– Is it exploratory?
– Is it well-constructed?
– Does it demonstrate an understanding of the form and history of the particular discipline?
– Is it helpful in furthering that artform?
– Does it present content in a new or interesting way?
– Does it explore new or interesting methods of creation or construction?
– Does the artist show skill and integrity in the creation of the work?
– If it ‘fails’ (whatever we mean by that), does it fail because it is attempting to do some these things?
– With more work and development, might it succeed in achieving something new or interesting?
– Might it usefully provoke other work?
All of this of course requires well-informed judgements of the work by people who know the artform intimately and have seen and deeply considered the works in question, and understand how and why the artist arrived at them. This is in part what the Arts Council, for all its faults, tries to do. It is hamstrung, however, by the exigencies of its masters in government who are demonstrably not interested in these questions, and insist on the boxes being ticked.
Time for some new approaches, then; time for artists to set the agenda.
This is an edited version of an article originally published at shaunglanville-arts.blogspot.co.uk
