10th August 2009
Democratic culture and the arts
It is good to see that my critique of WNO continues to generate debate. In the latest contribution to debate – where else but in the land of Song could opera become an issue of contemporary controversy – Newport Lib Dem activist Jeremy Townsend lambasts my ‘protective and parochial” call for the W and the N in the WNO to ring out more clearly. There is much to take issue with in Mr Townsend’s piece:
Firstly, I think that his dismissal of the role of ‘national’ culture - that he dismisses as ‘national flag-waving” - in the classical musical tradition betrays an ignorance of the history of music in general and opera in particular. Verdi’s operas were synonymous with the movement for Italian unification - so much so that the chorus of the Hebrew slaves – the unforgettable Va pensiero - became the anthem for Italian independence. Indeed the connection between the Romantic movement in music and liberal nationalism (or national liberationism) was a consistent theme throughout the 19th century. In Czechoslovakia Smetana, Dvorak and Janacek all produced operas in the Czech language - while incorporating progressive musical ideas - and saw the creation of a distinctively Czech opera – which they more or less created from scratch – as part of as wider project of Czech national consciousness building. The earliest – and most dramatic precursor for the role of music – and opera in particular – in nation-building was Auber’s La Muette de Portici – that railed against foreign oppression and so sparked the Belgian Revolution of 1830. Other examples though abound in Norway (Grieg), Finland (Sibelius) and Poland (Chopin). Though not Romantic nationalists in the same way, it is very difficult to imagine many of the great Russian (Mussorgsky; Rimsky-Korsakov; Tchaikovsky; Shostakovich) or Austro-German (Beethoven; Wagner; Strauss) composers without reference to their national contexts. In the UK context, the opening piece by the Saddler’s Wells Opera (that later became the English National Opera) after the end of WWII, Benjamin Britten’s Peter Grimes, the first English opera since Purcell to achieve international acclaim, was a deliberate attempt to re-found an avowedly English operatic tradition.
Mr Townsend’s attitude to Welsh cultural production as ‘culturally regressive’ involving ‘male voice choirs and traditional Welsh costumes” and Eisteddfods “held in the middle of nowhere” (a reference to the Bala) that are less deserving of public support it seems than ‘more ambitious’ cultural forms like jazz, sounds as if it has been lifted straight from the pages of a Matthew Arnold diatribe circa 1850. It also sits uncomfortably with his defence of the WNO’s programming policy which, though it can be accused of many things, is certainly not path-breaking and innovative. Instead, as even the WNO themselves would freely admit, because of the need to ensure a 85% ticket sales target for every production, it concentrates exclusively on the classics of the opera cannon. It is by definition a very conservative repertoire. What I am calling for is more original work – yes, commissioned by Welsh-born or Welsh-based composers but not necessarily on stereotypically Welsh themes (whatever that means) featuring people with pointy hats. Personally I would rather have a modern opera on a modern theme by a contemporary Welsh composer than the two last commissions by the WNO which have been by a Scottish (MacMillan) and English (Maxwell-Davies) composer on stories based on Welsh medieval folklore.
Where I fundamentally disagree with Mr Townsend is that politicians or citizens should not have a ‘political’ debate about the quality or relevance or purposes of publicly-funded art, nor indeed culture in general. It was that greatest of all our cultural thinkers, Raymond Williams, that taught us that ‘culture is ordinary” – i.e. it is not some separate, privileged, rarefied, autonomous sphere of human activity – it is part and parcel of everyday life and there is no reason therefore why it should not be the subject of ordinary politics. The much-lauded ‘arms-length’ model of British arts policy – and the myth of impartiality on which it is based – which Mr Townsend defends – is just as subjective and value-laded as anything that I or any Culture Minister (and on this name-change I would agree with him – a Department of Heritage was a Thatcherite neologism, why on earthare we perpetuating it?) might say. The difference is that an arms-length model is unaccountable and so prone to elitism in the type of art produced or the audience served. That surely is not what democratic devolution was meant to be about. “God help the minister that meddles with art” said Macaulay. For art read culture; God Help Us if a Welsh nationalist minister didn’t.
2 Responses to “Democratic culture and the arts”
Leave a Reply
You can comment on this article. but you must register first.
Your reply will be moderated and not appear immediately.
You can prepare your text in a word processor before pasting it into the box, but formatting such as bold and colour will not appear.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mike Powell says:
August 11th, 2009 at 11:31 am
My theme for a Welsh opera is one based on the introduction of a highly subsidised North South air link to make sure a Plaid Deputy First Minister can get home intime for tea whilst the rest of the people can struggle up or down the A470! I’d like it to be called “Gone with the Windbag”.
jntownsend@googlemail.com says:
August 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Yes, perhaps, the arms-length model of British arts funding is not ideal, but the charge that it makes it elitist is not so much a criticism as a description od its stated purpose. Since most popular art forms can survive commercially and need little public aid, then almost by definition, anything publicly funded will be ‘elitist’ to some degree.
But while there may be a place for a political debate about the arts, I would argue that this should remain at the level of broad-brush principles – perhaps what type of arts to support, whether to fund community projects or larger institutions, whether it needs to be coupled with education, etc – rather than what the content of that art should be.
Direct political involvement in the arts should never be considered as a serious option. The totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century should have taught us this – official arts policies of this sort can only be stifling to artistic invention: think of the limitations placed on the music of Shostakovich under Stalin or poor old Lutoslawski in Poland who was unfortunate enough to have to deal with Nazi and Stalinist diktat – then think of the audible relief in both composers’ music upon the death of Stalin.
The fundamental defining feature of the nineteenth century nationalism of Smetana, Sibelius et al is that their music was not officially endorsed – or funded – by the state.
Whatever the political circumstances for the development of this trend in music, the crucial point is that it was funded privately, or by royal or aristocratic patronage. In situations like that, any amount of political bias is fine, because those parties have no democratic responsibility. The Welsh Culture Minister does.
So yes, nationalism has an important place within musical history, but that does not mean we need to try and recreate that period. One of the reasons I mentioned the Metropolitan Opera in my blog piece is that the Met is as much a source of national pride for Americans as anything written by Copland or Gershwin. It is not always the music itself, but the wider involvement in the arts that carry as much cultural weight.
In the late nineteenth century, the Americans tried to break away from the European musical tradition and struggled to forge a uniquely American music. But after various forced (and failed?) attempts, it became clear that the best way to develop a musical culture unique to that country was to build a society where the arts could grow naturally – so institutions like the Met and Juliard began to spring up in all major cities, and that created the conditions for American opera and classical music to flourish.
This is the kind of model I would love Wales to follow. Unfortunately, we are not blessed with the levels of wealth or philanthropy that allowed most of the American arts to succeed, so we will have to rely on state funding. But I truly believe that the role the state should play is as a facilitator, rather than as an arbiter.