State Patronage

This essay will examine some of the problems associated with state patronage in contemporary Britain. Evidence will be presented to support the argument that state patronage is necessary and should continue.

In contemporary debate, it is sometimes suggested that the arts should be free to thrive or dwindle as public taste and choice determine. It is possible to argue that this leads to greater public freedom of choice and to cultural evolution, with art forms discarded when no longer ‘popular’. However, there is a parallel argument that without state intervention, the interests of minority groups might not be served and that some non-commercial art forms may disappear, resulting in an irreversible cultural loss. This argument places the state in the position of defender of public freedom of choice. This is the key issue in discussing any and all problems associated with state or public patronage.

Barnard (Art, Design and Visual Culture, 1998) 1 identifies public and state patronage as synonymous in one sense, as both represent governmental actions, yet different in another, with state patronage being national and public patronage the action of smaller, local authorities. In addition he says that to describe both bodies as fulfilling the wishes of the wider society makes ‘the definition of public bodies as patrons either difficult or impossible’2. For whilst these bodies may be described as ‘public’ the public has little to do with the decisions made in their name. The Millennium Dome is a case in point. This project uses vast amounts of public funds, yet due to its location is not easily accessible to most of the population. Another aspect of the debate surrounding this project has been that of inadequate public consultation as to its nature despite almost universal compulsory contribution through taxation.

Whilst state patronage can be seen as benevolent, if state patronage is dependent on state approval, then it might also be said to represent an effective if implicit means of censorship (where state disapproval results in patronage being withheld). This has possible implications for public freedom of choice. For example, in local exhibitions (typically in libraries), the final decision about what works may or mot not be displayed rests with the local authority. This means that for the public the only significant choice to be made is whether or not to look, rather than what to look at. It is seldom feasible to say that public art is the result of patronage as public opinion is not usually sought and the artworks themselves may be seen, as Selwood suggests, as ‘a combination of rampant profiteering…and arrogant professional individualism’3. Nevertheless, whilst public patronage must always have its limitations (you can’t please all of the people, all of the time) few would argue that it is intended to be other then benevolent. A positive example of public patronage is Artabout. This is a partnership project between various local councils and local professional and amateur artists to work in the community. This project incorporates mainstream and minority interests and certainly appears to fully support public freedom of choice at a local level (see appendix 1).

The state in Britain, having accepted its position of defender of public freedom of choice, recognises a responsibility to ensure that the interests of minority groups are defended and represented. This responsibility extends into the arena of public patronage of the arts. There are several categories of minority groups whose interests benefit from state intervention. These groups include religious; cultural; ethnic; special needs and special interest minorities. There is no significant resentment voiced toward public patronage awarded to special needs groups, and little resentment is evident towards that support offered to religious, cultural and ethnic minority groups, except in areas and at times where racial disharmony exists. Resentment over the issue of funding for these groups is sporadic and local. However, considerable resentment is generated often, and at a national level, towards public patronage of special interest minority groups, such as ballet and opera. On a superficial level at least, it is perhaps a simple matter to understand this resentment: both ballet and opera are arguably elitist interests. Certainly they receive more support from public funds than other interest groups. This investment can be seen as necessary to keep costs down and therefore accessibility up, in order to make these art forms more truly available to all and therefore less elitist. Indeed, Harris (Government Patronage of the Arts in Great Britain, 1970) argues that ‘few observers of contemporary Britain will deny that of all the arts, those most urgently in need of patronage are opera and ballet’4. However, there is a strongly subscribed school of thought that suggests that a vast majority of the population of Britain have no interest in either ballet or opera. It is this school of thought that leads to the argument that state backing should be removed from these elitist areas, forcing them to find alternative financial support and if necessary to evolve in order to attract this support. With the advent of the national lottery, public funding for the arts has changed significantly and there currently exists an uneasy consensus about the issue of public funding for ‘high-brow’ art forms. There is also an equally strong school of thought whose subscribers argue that art forms such as ballet and opera represent something truly sublime and that they are innately valuable. To abandon these art forms to market forces may be to consign them to extinction, the result of which would be a tragic and possibly irreversible cultural loss. It is for this reason that public funding for these art forms continues with a broad base of support from among those interested or concerned enough to comment on the issue.

State and public patronage are not the only means of support available for and to the arts and artists. The church, the court and private collectors (who may be individuals or groups of individuals) also offer patronage to the arts, particularly to the visual ‘fine arts’. Prestigious independent private collectors and patrons of the visual arts, such as Charles Saatchi, are able to exert a significant influence over the availability, accessibility and acceptability of art that is seen by the general public. The media attention surrounding exhibitions like Sensation influences public awareness, which arguably influences or is able to influence public patronage in turn. This influence from the free market on public patronage ensures that there is an accountability to public taste in the allocation of public funds for sponsorship of the arts. This very accountability, or rather its absence, is usually cited as a major factor in arguments for the removal of state backing for the arts, however it is unlikely that private sources of patronage would be able to generate the volume of support which would be required were they to replace state patronage. This same accountability to public taste also represents the key to ensuring that the integrity of those artists who choose to accept public patronage need not necessarily be compromised. Those artists for whom this accountability is insufficient guarantee of artistic freedom remain at liberty to reject public patronage and trust in market forces. However, there are not many Damien Hirsts: faced with the options of a possible partial compromise of integrity or freedom and the inability to practice ones art due to financial difficulties, few artists would choose the latter.

Education is the principal way in which the arts have been patronised by the state for they (the state) have ‘employed fine artists as teachers, either full- or part-time, for many decades, thus enabling them [the artists] to survive and subsidise their studio work’5. Similarly, an artist attending a full-time course receiving a grant toward their tuition fees (regardless of any other support they may or may not receive) is in direct receipt of state patronage of the arts through the auspices of education. For artists receiving patronage through the education system there is a ‘pass or fail’ element to this patronage. As a consequence of this, there is a perceived pressure to produce works that conform to the standards required for assessment. Failure to conform to these standards is likely to result in censure and ultimately the withdrawal of patronage. Provided that there is no pressure to produce work of an ‘approved’ nature or type, then this ‘pass or fail’ pressure can be said to be beneficial. Indeed, it can be argued that the state deliberately upholds a particular standard in order to develop a greater understanding, increase the accessibility and improve the standard of execution of the fine arts. It has been said that the ‘ability to develop and sustain a high level of artistic achievement lies at the centre of any national policy for the arts’6.

That the state recognises a responsibility to inform and educate the public about the arts is further demonstrated by the inclusion of art in the national curriculum. However, at infant level one hour in twenty-five spent in the classroom is allocated to art. At junior level this becomes thirty-five minutes per week. This is in sharp contrast to the seven and a-half hours spent on english and the five hours on mathematics. This contrast has become more marked since the advent of the literacy and numeracy hours recently introduced in primary schools. Whilst the importance placed on raising national standards in literacy and numeracy are understandable, this loss of time for the teaching of art is to be regretted. More alarmingly, a recent Ofsted report of a local primary school said that whilst teaching in most areas was satisfactory ‘the quality of art teaching is…unsatisfactory’ and that ‘the school needs significant curriculum support, training and advice in…art if it is to raise standards and improve the quality of teaching’ (see appendix 2). This poor standard of teaching in art might appear to give cause for concern, but the very fact of its inclusion in the Ofsted report suggests that in fact the state, through the department for education, is addressing this problem appropriately, as far as time constraints allow.

This essay has examined some of the problems associated with state patronage. It has been demonstrated that it is necessary that state patronage should continue, because even combined, the other sources of patronage that exist could not hope to take on all aspects of the role that the state currently performs, particularly in the areas of education and community access to the arts. State patronage has been shown to be benevolent, accountable to public taste and unlikely to represent a significant threat to artistic integrity and innovation. It has also been shown to have accepted a responsibility to defend public freedom of choice for both artist and audience. It can therefore be seen from the arguments given and the evidence presented that despite some limitations state patronage of the arts in Britain is necessary and should continue.


Bibliography


ARTLEY, A. (1980) Artist, Architect and Patron London, The Architectural Press Ltd.
AYTO, J. (1990) Dictionary of Word Origins London, Bloomsbury Publishing.
BARNARD, M. (1998) Art, design and Visual Culture London, Macmillan Press Ltd.
CHAPLIN, S.
& WALKER, J. (1997) Visual Culture: An Introduction Manchester, Manchester University Press.
COLLINS, M. (1997) Blimey Cambridge, 21.
CORE, P. (1984) The Original Eye London, Quartet Books.
FORD, J. (1979) Arts Council Collection London, Arts Council of Great Britain.
FOSTER, H. (1998) The AntiAesthetic New York, The New Press.
FRITH, S. &
HORNE, H. (1989) Art into Pop London, Routledge.
GOODING, M. (1998) Public: Art: Space London, Merrell Holberton.
MIRZOEFF, N. (1998) The Visual Culture Reader London, Routledge.
OSBOURNE, H. (Downloaded 1998) Aesthetics and Art Theory The Internet.
PEARSON, N. (1982) The State and the Visual Arts Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
READ, H. (1945) Art and Society London, Faber and Faber.
ROGOFF, I. (1991) The Divided Heritage Cambridge, Cambridge University.
ROBINSON, O.
FREEMAN, R. &
RILEY, C.A. (1994) The Arts in the World Economy Hanover, University Press of New England.
SELWOOD, S. (1996) The Benefits of Public Art London, Policy Studies Institute.
SHEPPARD, A. (1987) Aesthetics Oxford, Oxford University Press.
TURNER, G. (1996) British Cultural Studies: An Introduction London, Routledge.
WHITING, C. (1992) A Taste For Pop Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WILLIAMS, R. (1981) Culture Glasgow, Fontana.

Other Sources of Information

The Internet