THE WEAKNESS OF ART

BEING A PHILISTINE THE NAME David Shrigley means very little to me stuck as I am in the flat and barren wilderness of Norfolk. Mr Shrigley however, being at the epicentre of our cultural life has just made an animation defending public funding of the arts. He, along with such luminaries as Hockney, Hirst and Gormley (all of whom are wealthy enough between them to subsidies the arts) , have started a petition at savethearts.org.uk. to prevent cuts to the arts budget; although, to be fair to them, they are prepared to accept some belt tightening. What this means in reality the three minute animation does not spell out.

What is happening is the beginning of an orchestrated campaign to subvert the Coalition’s autumn statement on the departmental cuts needed to alleviate our £170 billion deficit. The arts budget has more influential and extremely wealthy supporters than any other department of government; and no doubt these dignitaries will wield their considerable influence upon the chancellor on behalf of Messer’s Shrigley, Hockney, Hirst and Gormley.

Whether the Chancellor, George Osborn, will listen to such siren voices remains to be seen. In the past such a wealthy oligarchy have managed to ‘persuade’ previous chancellors of the vital need for the nation’s culture, that particularly tax payers money should at least go towards their particular favourite…opera.

The animation makes the point that, like the BBC, our cultural activities are the envy of the world and bring in more finances than the state dishes out. Well, if so, why the need for subsidy in the first place? Art in particular, throughout history, has survived quite well without the state’s dirty hand extorting tax payers money for the purpose of financing the arts.

Has Hockney, Hirst or Gormley ever received an Arts Council grant. If so they should be ashamed of themselves. If not then they prove my point. If you are sufficiently gifted as an artist you build for yourself a reputation within the world of the artist, and in so doing attract purchasers of your (I am sorry for using that appalling word among liberals) product. Hirst’s relationship with the Saatchi brothers is well documented and in the tradition of art…and the Saatchi brothers have done far more good for art in this country than the state could ever do.

The state is the comfort zone. It is a kind of comfort blanket that every artist, given the opportunity will always cling to, for they, like the rest of us, are only human. We have more people calling themselves artists today, than we have scientists or engineers. However, how many of these artists are working free from state bondage?

The arts are indeed important to any culture, but are they as important as the Overseas Aid Budget for instance, which amounts to, according to various estimates, between £7 and £9 billion per year. Think how useful such an amount would be to the Culture Secretary.

Would David Shrigley forgo the ring-fenced Oversees Aid Budget in order to allow the Art’s budget to prosper in the era of belt tightening?

I myself regard our Defence Budget as sacrosanct, even to the exclusion of our Oversees Aid Budget. I based my decision upon the fact that this country’s defences take priority over all else. Can Mr Shrigley make the same argument for the arts? I think not. Art, and great art, has prospered well enough without the State’s intervention. The artist has always furnished his or her identity by their talent in the market place. More often or not, the artist has had to die before their true worth has been recognised - another awful reference - commercially. For it is the business-relationship of art that sticks in the throat of the likes of David Shrigley. How many banks throughout the world, for instance, have bought a Hockney or Hirst painting to display before their clients? The corporate sector are among the largest purchasers and supporters of art. The Sainsbury family, for instance, is about to give £25 million to help build the new extension to the British Museum.

If we go deeper than cheap liberal rhetoric, we will see that Sainsbury’s as well as all public companies, have needed the stock markets and the speculators to provide capital and promote the expansion and wealth of the company; much of which has fallen into the hands of the arts.

But you should not expect Shrigley to be grateful. Shrigley and his ilk seem to look upon such contributions with what amounts to disdain. He blames the very system that built our cultural heritage, in the form of our great museums, galleries (the Tate) and theatres for future cuts to the arts budget.

GIFTED ARTISTS HAVE done very well from the free-market system. Of course many artists have resented the commoditisation of their art; yet they have never turned away a generous commission or refused to sell a work for a sum that many ordinary taxpayers would take 10, 20 or even a hundred years to earn. Yet it is the hard earned taxes of such people that Shrigley wants to hang on to, with a mere tip of the hat toward cuts.

Shrigley blames corporatism in the form of banking for bringing us to the position where cuts in the Arts’ budget is now needed. The thing with artists is that they are, on the whole, of a liberal sentiment. Ask them where they would make cuts, they, almost en-mass shout TRIDENT!

With me, as a conservative, I would shout OVERSEES AID! We all have our national priorities as far as public spending is concerned; but historically, the arts and the artists have been at their best when left to flourish in the market place: while our nation’s defence will always need the support of the taxpayer.

The starving artist living in the garret used to be the stereotype until the liberal state took a hand. Of course no artist ever starved to death within such a system, but there is no denying they suffered for their art at either the emotional or financial level. But because it was more than a hobby, than, (unlike many who paint today) a means of livelihood, the artist in the past was placed in a more perilous state than those ‘hobbyists’ practicing today.

Art has always fared well under any free market system, than under a medieval system of the type of which David Shrigley seeks to hang on to. Art, like any other commodity, has a market price – wherein exists a price which someone is prepared to pay. If Shrigley cannot accept this then he should return to his cave painting.

A modern painting should convey the artist’s opinion, and it can only do so through its narrative style. Just as literature is the written word, today’s art should also seek the narrative element to express contemporary society or even times past.