 |
| The Countess of Albemar |
Over half a century ago, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation asked some fancy English people to help it figure out a policy for supporting the arts in Great Britain, much as the Oregon Community Foundation is now formulating policy on the use of the $150 million recently given by the Fred W. Fields estates in support of the arts and education. The following report from 1959 is illuminating for many reasons, not the least of which is its parallels with arguments for arts funding that are still alive today. The full report follows, but let me jump to the conclusion for those readers with short attention spans:
What
is lacking, and still seems to be lacking, notwithstanding the significant
advances made in recent years or months is adequate support or patronage. Even
today, far too few people seem to recognize the place which the arts should
play in the life of the nation as a whole, or if they recognise it, show a
marked reluctance to meet the cost. If
this should be thought too harsh a general judgement, let us say rather that
the arrangements for support of the arts seem to us rather scrappy and patchy -
some things are well done: others almost wholly neglected. The synoptic eye
does not seem to have been at work: or if it has, its vision has not yet
stimulated enough action from the nerve centres of the brain."
The full report follows, with highlights added by me.
HELP FOR THE ARTS: A REPORT TO THE CALOUSTE GULBENKIAN FOUNDATION
The
Board of Administration of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation asked Lord
Bridges, the Countess of Albemarle, Mr. Noel Annan, and Sir George Barnes to
review the needs of the arts in Britain so that the Foundation might formulate a
policy for their support.
WHY THE ARTS SHOULD BE FOSTERED
The
reasons why the arts should be fostered may seem so obvious that there is
little to be gained by discussing them. But to leave unsaid the basic
assumptions often leads to misunderstandings.
Put
very briefly, the arts represent much of the finest achievements of the human
spirit in all ages. Enjoyment of the arts is not confined to those who have
themselves outstanding artistic gifts; it is something which in varying degrees
brings insight, delight and pleasure to countless men and women.
We
believe that this latent power of enjoyment is far more widespread than are the
opportunities of awakening it, and that when awakened it can open channels of
communication between individuals and groups who share few intellectual or
social sympathies and who are unsuspecting of the powers which they possess. It
is something which, if left dormant, leads to impoverishment of human nature.
Charles Darwin put the point well in his autobiography. Speaking of the time
when he had lost his powers of appreciating poetry, pictures and music he
wrote:
“The
loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to
the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the
emotional part of our nature.'”
Through
the arts people acquire some sense of the past and of the heritage of their own
and other nations. The arts can also awaken people to the beauty and the
infinite variety of life. In learning to love art men and women not only
sharpen their emotions and relate them to intelligence, but they learn to
discriminate between different pleasures and to prefer what is of lasting value
to what is fugitive. Enjoyment of the arts is something which our civilisation
should make available to all who are capable of it.
Today
this reasoning has greater force than ever before. For the trend of our social
conditions means that a far greater proportion of the people of this country
will, in years to come, have leisure and the means to enjoy the arts. Moreover
as education and knowledge become more scientific and technical, it is even
more important to encourage delight in poetry, painting, drama and music. For
the reception of facts alone, without the feeling which is necessary for their
due realisation, will lead to public indifference. It is art which can bring
facts to life and make them real in our imagination.
Opinions
may differ about the proportion of the population of any country which is capable
of enjoying the highest forms of art. But few will dispute that there are
marked differences in the prestige and degree of support accorded to the arts
in various countries. These differences depend in part on national tradition
and in part on the manner and extent of the patronage exercised in the past.
Thus the prestige which the arts enjoy in France is bound up with the part that
they played in the 17th and 18th centuries, when France was mistress of Europe
and when her culture dominated civilized society. In Germany artistic activity is
widespread, partly because each court fostered it in the days before the
unification of the country, and today each provincial city has behind it a long
tradition of princely or aristocratic patronage. The same is true of the cities
which were the capitals of the Italian states from the days of the renaissance
onwards. Again, in Italy
opera is a popular art, and the agelong pilgrimage of travellers to admire the
buildings and the pictures in her towns persuades people that art is important.
Traditions
such as these are not nearly so strong in this country. In the provinces they
are often conspicuously weak and patronage has been much less widely exercised.
Nevertheless, since in no country and at no time have the arts flourished
without patronage, our starting point must be the present methods of patronage
in this country. It may be of help if we state briefly at the outset the main directions
in which our enquiry has led us to think that present methods do not achieve
all that should be done, and that further help is needed by the arts.
The
first is that far greater support is needed for the arts than in the past. Nor
is this a temporary need. Once high standards of artistic creation and
performance have been established, an increasing sum is required to maintain
these new standards. This means that over the years public authorities will
have to find more money for the arts. The second is that far more needs to be
done today to render the arts accessible, particularly in the provinces. The
third point is that there should be more scope for experiment in order to
invigorate the arts. The fourth point is that we think that more should be done
to foster appreciation of the arts among the young. The introduction of music and
drawing into primary schools has been of the highest importance. But in grammar
and secondary modern schools, the practice and appreciation of the arts is apt
to be crowded out after the age of 14; while little incentive or encouragement
is given to boys and girls after leaving school to develop whatever interest in
the arts they have acquired. The best means of doing this is something which would
well repay enquiry.
WHAT ROLE CAN A TRUST
PLAY?
Above
all a trust can and should be prepared to back individuals, whether artists or
those who follow other callings. It should never forget that artists, and not
institutions, create art; and that however desirable it is to foster the growth
of a public for the arts by spending its bounty on education or by supporting
institutions, that public will evaporate unless its interest in modern art is
continually stimulated. And how better can this be done than by encouraging, by
its patronage, composers, poets, painters and sculptors? Backing individual
artists is a risk, and often a disappointing venture. But the winners justify
the process, and if trusts will not back their fancy and be bold and be
prepared to face ridicule, how can State patronage, which is accountable to
public criticism, be expected to do anything more than play safe?
Another
important duty of a trust is to give help which would enable the promoter of,
say, a series of concerts or a dramatic production to employ artists who will
make the venture outstanding and superlative. By pursuing the highest
standards, art flourishes; wheareas dim second-rate ventures drive people away
and do more harm than good.
Unlike
public bodies, trusts are accountable to themselves only. They give decisions
but do not have to give reasons. This gives them a freedom of which they should
make the fullest use.
It
is, of course, wise for a trust to concentrate its resources on certain broad
purposes and to form certain general conclusions as to how those purposes can
best be served. In other words a trust is bound to develop a policy, and it is
as a help to that end that the suggestions which follow are made. But trustees
should never allow themselves to be dominated by that policy. They should not
allow themselves to slip into a position in which their decisions are governed
by precedents, like most public bodies, and they cease to be free to exercise
an unfettered judgment on each case as it is presented to them. A trust must
therefore be ready to change its policy at short notice and to back novel and
promising schemes outside its normal scope. For we believe that one of the
chief aims of a trust must be to seek out and give encouragement to movements which
are significant and creative and to support schemes which others may not feel
bold enough to support.
A
more general, a more humdrum, but nevertheless an equally valid way of stating
the general position outlined in these paragraphs would be to say that it is
the duty of a trust to encourage and foster new developments or growing points,
where there is a reasonable chance that the new development will later on
either be self supporting or will attract permanent support whether from public funds
or from elsewhere. It will be well advised to help these growing points by
grants either of a capital nature or for a fixed term of years.
To
say that a trust should encourage new developments does not mean that it should
give all its support to newly established organisations. This would be a
mistake. It would put too great a premium on mere novelty, and would be
wasteful of the wisdom acquired by those organisations which have built up
valuable experience in a particular field. Opportunities will arise in which a
well established organisation which has outrun its original impetus, or perhaps
has lost some of its effectiveness through shortage of funds, can be given a
fresh start or encouraged to pursue a promising new line by, for example, a
grant for re-equipment, or a grant to tide over a difficult period.
Yet
no trust can allow itself to get into the position in which its resources, or a
substantial proportion of them, become, as it were, permanently mortgaged to
the support of particular institutions or objects. Its support must, therefore,
be given to meet particular emergencies or needs, or to provide help over the
initial periods of a new scheme after which it will be either self-supporting
or will obtain help from other sources.
It is
important that money should be given in a way which does not weaken the
responsibilities of those who receive it. We are entirely opposed to the
practice of giving grants to meet annual deficits, more particularly where
grants on this basis are made over a period of years. The results of this
course are plainly mischievous. Grants should usually be made for fixed amounts
and for fixed periods. The receiving organisations will thus know where they stand
and can make their plans accordingly. If they get into debtin the first year,
they will have to adjust their plans for later years. If they make a profit, or
a larger profit than expected, that is surely something which should be welcome
to receiver and giver alike.
One
further point. There are, of course, instances in which a grant by a trust to
meet quite a small proportion of the sum required for a particular scheme will
attract help from others and will make the thing go. Indeed there are many
instances in which it would be inappropriate for a particular trust to do more
than give a helping hand to a scheme to which others, whether individuals or
corporate bodies, could be expected to make larger contributions.
But a
trust which goes far in this direction will soon find that it is being milked
of a large proportion of its resources without having to its credit any notable
or worthwhile achievements. It will have lost its opportunity of doing something
which would not otherwise have come to pass. On the whole, we think it is
better to aim at giving generous help to a small number of worthwhile objects
rather than to spread the butter thinly over a large piece of bread.
Much
more needs to be done to persuade people that pictures on walls are as
necessary to a house as furniture. It is noticeable that in the New Towns,
houses which are furnished with contemporary furniture, fabrics and wallpapers,
have bare walls. Here an example could be set by institutions, and (as
suggested in paragraph 74 above) universities and colleges could do much by
establishing picture-loan libraries so that the coming generations learned to
put modern paintings, reproductions and lithographs as well as pin-ups in their
rooms.
In
putting forward these suggestions we recognise that money alone will not give
birth to good art; but it can provide, for those artists who have proved their
worth, a respite from debt and from the necessity to spend long hours at other
work in order to provide for a family.
THEATRE
The
other line of approach is that, even if good theatres are provided, there can
be no certainty that they will be used for good plays worthily acted. There are
at present about 30 repertory theatres which receive help from the Arts Council
and about half as many again which receive no such help at the present time.
The standard of performance of these companies varies considerably. Undoubtedly
a proportion of them do first-class work and it would be a great pity if their
continuance or progress were to be hampered
by
financial difficulties.
The
chief difficulties which beset these companies are as follows: first the labour
and cost of continually putting on new plays after the very short runs usual in
repertory: secondly, the balance on which these companies operate is so
delicate that one failure may upset their finances for a whole season: thirdly,
adventurous programmes of plays do not pay, and this imposes caution on all but
the most daring managements: fourthly, television not only reduces audiences
but draws the best repertory actors from the provinces to London, because
touring or acting in repertory companies is both less lucrative and more
obscure than work which can be picked up in the London studios, where they may
become known to an audience of millions.
Again
if a promising scheme were devised for an experimental theatre, whether in London or in the
provinces, it might be thought worthy of support by the Foundation. By an
experimental theatre we mean a theatre in which a producer can try out new
plays and
playwrights,
relying on outside financial support.
It
might also be possible to give financial help to a limited number of
managements which both need and deserve it. Surprisingly strong stimulus can be
given to the theatre simply by helping one brilliant and imaginative producer.
Such seasons have an influence on the theatre out of all proportion to the
number of people who take part in the productions or even see the plays.
PLAYWRIGHTS
Playwrights.
The English theatre is greatly hampered by lack of good playwrights. We do
not believe that there are many original and skilled playwrights who cannot get
their plays produced on the London
stage or elsewhere for lack of interest in new plays by managements.
Playwriting is governed by technical considerations hardly less severe than the
composition of music; but, whereas musicians study composition in academies,
there is no place where the technique of playwriting is studied. The drama
department at
Bristol University, however, is doing pioneer
work in providing courses on the drama and acquainting students with the
problems of the living theatre. It seemed to us that this initiative could well
be followed by other universities. Indeed, it is remarkable that many of the
present distinguished generation of American playwrights have, at some time,
been members of drama departments in American universities. It would obviously
be otiose for all universities to establish such departments but one or two
would serve as growing points. They should be genuinely concerned with the
problems of production and the technique of writing plays and not primarily with
the academic study of drama already fully catered for in the language
faculties.
CHILDREN’S THEATRE
One of the surprising omissions in the cultural life of this
country is the proper provision for children's theatre, which flourishes in so
many parts of the world. There are very few adult professional companies giving
dramatic performances which are planned and produced specifically for children,
although where they exist they receive support from local education
authorities; but for lack of a central body and funds for initiating companies,
children's theatre depends on the spasmodic efforts of a few enthusiasts. Another
inhibiting factor on its development is the lack of playwrights who understand
the mind and reactions of the child today. Any private patron would find a
comparatively untouched field for pioneering experiments both in playwriting
and play production for children.
CONCLUSION
If
this country was failing to produce artists of the highest quality, the outlook
for the arts would be gloomy indeed. But that is not so. British painters,
musicians, composers, sculptors, ballerinas - to mention only some artists -
all these are now held in the highest repute internationally.
What
is lacking, and still seems to be lacking, notwithstanding the significant
advances made in recent years or months is adequate support or patronage. Even
today, far too few people seem to recognize the place which the arts should
play in the life of the nation as a whole, or if they recognise it, show a
marked reluctance to meet the cost.
If
this should be thought too harsh a general judgement, let us say rather that
the arrangements for support of the arts seem to us rather scrappy and patchy -
some things are well done: others almost wholly neglected. The synoptic eye
does not seem to have been at work: or if it has, its vision has not yet
stimulated enough
action from the nerve centres of the brain.
Posts
