Lord Claus Moser, Culture, National Identity, and Public Policy Introductory Paper

Culture, National Identity, and Public Policy: what role should governments and business play in the arts?
Villa Monastero, Lake Como, Italy, 6-14 September 2002

Introductory Paper
by Lord Claus Moser

Introduction
The more I thought about the subjects we will be discussing, the more confirmed I became that they were indeed central to our lives. Culture in its widest sense defines the very context of our background. And in the narrower sense - namely the arts - who can deny that they are around us from cradle to grave?

But since culture is the opening word of the Conference title, we need to be clear what we mean by it. The trouble is that it can genuinely mean very different things.

In its widest sense, it can refer to the overall nature of a society - its values, institutions, life-style, religions and racial attitudes, its eating habits and so forth. This is what one might call a social definition, relating, overall, to a community's make-up and ways of life. It is what one has in mind in talking about a multi-cultural society, a society composed of different national, racial and religious groups, each with its own values, beliefs and ways of life. In its grandest sense, culture means civilisation. The British Museum, where I work, can be described as collections of the cultures - ie civilisations - of the world.

But then, more specifically, there is the arts-related meaning of the term. Even here there are gradations. When one refers to a person as cultured, one is, as it were, complimenting him or her on intellectual, artistic refinements. A nation - or a community or group - can be described as cultured because it gives high attention to cultural, in the sense of arts, activities. I suspect that France or Germany pride themselves on being cultured nations because they feel their identity reflects the best of intellectual and artistic values.

Talking of the intellectual aspects of culture recalls yet one other concept. Years ago the distinguished scientist and novelist C P Snow wrote a lecture describing what he saw as the wide and harmful gulf between science and the humanities. His lecture was entitled "The Two Cultures" and led to an enormous - and, to some extent continuing - controversy. So this is another sense of the term, referring to.

For us in this Conference all these concepts are of interest. We need not shrink from the wide meanings of culture, since we do come from different societies and environments; or, as one might say, from different cultures... Indeed, how would we individually characterise the "cultures" from which we come, and our national identities?

Be that as it may, at the heart of this Conference lie cultural activities as defined by the arts, and that will be my focus for the rest of this introductory paper.

Do the arts matter?
With this focus in mind, we should reflect on the arts scene in our respective countries. What is going on; what seems to be the national attitude, from government down (or up) to the general public; what are the priorities; how much is there of the new, the innovative, perhaps the provocative in the contemporary scene; what are the high points, and what are the main concerns? Above all, what are the main threats endangering the arts?

And let me be clear that we are thinking of any or all of the arts: the performing arts such as dance, opera, theatre, music; the visual arts and their institutions like museums and galleries; literature in its many forms; the world of film; architecture; the media such as broadcasting, and others less obvious. Just to list these art forms raises the spirit, and is a reminder of the richness of what we are discussing.

It is not only different art forms that we will cover. It is also their place in society, ranging from the most to the least popular, from the often mis-termed "elitist" arts to the populist, from the "high" to the "low". We think of amateur as well as professional arts, indeed of what goes on in every corner of society.

But first, we need to face what may seem to be an awkward question: why do we think (if we do) that all this matters? Are the arts of anything other than marginal importance?

Personally, I answer this question without hesitation. For me, the right attitude is that of the late President Kennedy, who said, "the life of the Arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of the nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose, and is a test of a nation's civilisation".

In explaining this view, however, it is difficult to find words that sound neither pretentious nor self-evident. My belief is simply that it is the arts, their cultural life, that help to make countries, indeed civilisations, great. Nations are ultimately remembered less for their politicians, their industries, their battles or their economic ups and downs than for their creative legacies - it is the great painters, architects, composers, writers and so on who vitalise their own times and leave behind a lasting inheritance.

The arts help to bring a society to life and vitality; they make for a better and more human society, create bonds between social and racial groups, improve and regenerate the environment and produce joy and pleasure for all parts of society. They are the best counter to materialistic values.

In dark times - whether war or personal grief - they can provide support and raise morale. They give a nation pride and self-confidence, and a feeling of identity. And of course they can make vital economic contributions. The arts are a significant employer, and create major national earnings, whether through their business products or, indirectly, through tourism and for that matter taxes. The economic case is strong, and "cultural industries" - eg recording, the media etc - are significant. But it should not be in the forefront, as it tends to be when politicians talk. The economic case comes second after recalling the fundamental contributions the arts make to our quality of life.

To me, this fact - that the arts are a hugely beneficial feature of life - is indeed a fact, which hardly needs arguing. But such a cavalier attitude will not do for this Conference. We have to remember that there are many people who would argue otherwise, not least in high government and business circles. So we need to confront the case, the pros and cons.

Certainly I am aware of less enthusiastic attitudes, often in high places. I mean people of a philistine nature who regard the arts as at best marginal to life. On my own country, let me quote Benjamin Britten, no less, "The average Briton thought, and still thinks, of the Arts as suspect and expensive luxuries". Such attitudes are not uncommon. They link with a certain suspicion of intellectuals, of creativity, of abstract ideas - a suspicion less prominent, say, in France. As is obvious, it is the grander, "high", arts that may suffer from negative attitudes, the "pop" arts - by definition - being less vulnerable. We should certainly try, early in our discussions, to understand, almost philosophically, what is at the root of human attitudes to the arts.

Funding
Of course the negativism is most pronounced in relation to funding arrangements. After all, it is understandable, even for people who accept the importance of the arts, yet to feel that they should be paid for by those who actively want them - not by the taxpayer, the State or business.

But, suppose one agreed with the Germany philosopher Nietzche, who said, "Life without music would be a mistake", and substitute "the arts" for "music", even that does not necessarily mean that the State or business should stump up the money.

Undoubtedly, the extremes - total supporters for the Arts on the one had and the Philistines on the other - conflict most is on funding. And this is also where countries differ most. In some - perhaps Germany and France are good examples - the main source of support is the public sector, central, regional or local government. In others - such as the United States - the public sector is a minor player, most of the support coming from the corporate sector and above all from individuals.

Great Britain, which I know best, is in the middle. The approach is "pluralistic", the arts depending on a mix of public sector, corporate and individual support. In principle, this is a good arrangement, as long as the respective sources can be relied on. In practice, unfortunately, each source is fragile. Public sector support depends on the government of the day, and individual Ministers, a danger since high arts standards take years to achieve, but a cut can destroy them overnight. Even under sympathetic governments, the arts remain seriously under-funded, with evident consequences on closures, cuts, standards and the ability to be adventurous.

It is obvious from international experience that other countries are in equal trouble - the Louvre in Paris has substantial gallery closures, Berlin is experiencing widespread cuts in music and opera, and the US is showing post-September 11^th difficulties. How does State support look elsewhere?

Arts must flourish locally, so the support for regional and local governments is also critical. A lively arts scene can transform the life of a city or region, but again local support - at least in some countries - is chancy, depending on local personalities and political priorities. Does regional and local support look dependable in other countries?

Another important source of funding in many places is business sponsorship. Without this, many arts organisations would have had difficulty in surviving. But here too nothing is certain. In the last year or two the corporate sector has cut back in sponsorship, especially where the arts are concerned. When the stock markets fall, companies get more twitchy, and sponsorship suffers. The arts - regarded by many as a luxury - are particularly vulnerable, more than, say, education and social problems. Much depends on tax arrangements. The United States leads the way (also for individuals) and happily the British government is now following similar lines.

I don't think we should spend much of our time on details of funding arrangements, which are matters of fact and practice. But we do need to get a sense of where in our respective countries, arts support comes from, and what the pressures and problems are.

The role of the State
Funding arrangements, after all, reflect deeper issues, namely national attitudes towards the arts and views about the role of the State - whether in general the power of the State should be rolled back. Not my view, but followed by many.

The question for us is whether the arts are, in the economist's language, a public good. No-one will hesitate in regarding, say, education, health or transport as such, simply because they are part of a society's infrastructure and quality of life, meaning that ultimate responsibility for their survival and quality must rest with the State, so that sufficient funding - allowing for other realistic sources - is made available to ensure that the public is well served.

The same, in my view, applies to the arts. If we accept that they are a central part of our quality of life, of community vitality, that they create a lasting heritage, help in urban regeneration, that they contribute to the country's wealth creation and so forth, it follows that their health cannot be left to consumer demand. This is not a matter of economics, but of values.

Agreeing with the principle is one thing, translating it into a practical balance is tougher. And if I were to caricature the situation in some countries, what we find is that State support is limited, interference ever more threatening.

I favour generous and enthusiastic support, plus encouragement and guidance, though I accept there has to be an eye on the ways government money is spent. But one should look to the State for protection of the arts against interference, rather than having to fear interference from the State itself. That is the ideal, but how does it look on the ground? For example, should the government have policies on the arts, and if so, how far should it go in ensuring that they are implemented? What in reality are the dangers of excessive intervention, and how can the arts be protected against them? Such issues should be at the core of our discussions.

It follows from my own assumption - namely that the State should be a key source of money - that there must be a policy role. One cannot expect the public purse to dish out money without some say. That applies whether we are talking about central government, or regions, states, provinces, or local authorities.

Some broad policies will have political undertones. The government can reasonably make its influence felt through policies affecting the balance between the nation's capital and the regions, or in policies to encourage local partnerships to help creative cultural developments. There can be crucial policies bridging the arts in education. Taxation policies, as I have already said, are critically influential.

In short there are many such "macro-arts" policies, which one can expect from governments, for good or bad. If they have political undertones - such as policies geared to widening access or helping urban regeneration - I see good rather than harm. In that sense, public sector support for the arts is no different from other public expenditure. But is this too complacent? Should we be more worried about the political undertone of policies?

What are the danger signals where policies merge into artistic influence? At the extreme there are issues of censorship. One recalls examples of direct political censorship in non-democratic societies, with the written word in literature and theatre, occasionally with the visual arts and music. Have such extreme forms of intervention disappeared? And if not, what are the counter-forces to attack and eliminate them?

In any case, there are less extreme forms of direct intervention. I recall attempts by a London local authority responsible for subsidising our National Theatre to interfere in a production for reasons of homosexual explicitness; and recently, by New York City to stop what was regarded as an offensive exhibition. Are there other such explicit examples known to any of us? What tend to be the issues - political provocation, sexual ethics, racial offence? And what are the protective shields against such interference?

My hope is that such attempts to interfere are too blatant and transparent to survive exposure. I am more concerned with more subtle forms of intervention from governments, more subtle but also worrying. They come under the heading, so to speak of "he who pays the piper calls the tune". I have in mind bureaucratic interference, for example, in appointments to arts institutions, in influencing organisation in spending priorities, and so forth. A government may pressure museums to give so much priority to visitor numbers and services that crucial activities, such as scholarship and education, may suffer. Many such examples will come to mind.

Of course, this is not a black and white issue. If public money is involved, the government is entitled to argue broad political objectives such as widening access; also public accountability must be expected and provided. But there are subtle difficulties between an arts organisation in receipt of government support having to disclose details of its operation to its paymaster, and that paymaster having too much control over spending priorities. The cry of "cost effectiveness" can become too dominant. The dangers are obvious, and my instinct is that, across our countries, governments may be tempted to interfere too much for artistic health?

If that is so, how can the arts be protected? One way is via "arms-length" funding councils, paid for by governments but protecting the arts against excessive state interference. They can work to spread the arts throughout the community, and to raise standards. But, as a funding council's own budget from government grows, and therefore its power, so one as to be on guard against temptations from this "intermediary" body itself not to become too interventionist with its artistic clients.

It is all part of the same dilemma. Arts organisations need public money to thrive, but like to be artistically free. Governments are willing to give support, but wish to show that the money is "well" spent, so they want to "be involved". What is the ideal balance?

The role of the private sector
The same applies to other paymasters, such as the business world. As I have said, the increasing involvement of the business community has been most encouraging, though here too life is not without hazards.

Indeed risks of interference may be even greater. A commercial business, after all, does not have the same duty as the State to support the arts. It may regard its support more as a "good social deed" against which it expects good returns and no harm to profits. If this means getting access to the arts for the company's staff, clients and management, that is something we are all at pains to involve - supporting corporates fully in our operations. But just occasionally, as I have experienced, a company seeks a "quid pro quo" in influencing the artistic nature of what it supports. If so, the offer of support has to be declined. More generally, the corporate temptation to "play safe" has, if possible, to be resisted.

Increasing closeness between the arts and the business world is to be welcomed. It will be interesting to discover in our discussions what we can learn both about strengthening bonds between business and the arts, and about risks in such relationships.

Should we also ask ourselves whether the arts industries - such as the record companies, or the commercial media - should be expected to play a more beneficial role in support of the live arts.

Broadcasting
An area of enormous power over the arts, and one with links and conflicts between public and private sectors, is broadcasting: radio and television, cable and satellite, public sector and private.

On the one hand, broadcasting can be more helpfully influential than perhaps any other source of involvement in the arts. In Britain, certainly in the past, the BBC has been the finest promoter. But even the benign influence from broadcasting is fragile. The pressures of finance and of populist demands are ever hard to resist, so there has been a tendency to shift the balance from "high" to "low" arts, certainly in commercial broadcasting. The excessive domination of viewer/listener numbers is ever present. Is public-sector broadcasting, as in the American Channel 13, the answer? But how can such ventures escape constant financial crises?

I am conscious of the vast technological changes facing broadcasting, mysterious to most of us (certainly to the writer). Hopefully, by the end of this conference, they will be less so, and we will have a sense of what their implications are for the future of the arts. The same applies to the future of the Internet, and its vast - and equally mysterious - possibilities.

In this context one topic cannot be avoided. For better or worse, broadcasting is a major feature of our lives, and is dependent on creative freedom. The less impeded that freedom, the more likely we are to experience fine, innovative outputs. So where does that lead us as regards government regulations over our broadcasters?

The great and the popular?
Thus far in this introduction the arts may have emerged as a single, almost separate activity. This may make sense in an administrative context - how much does a nation or community spend on activities called the arts, how many people work in them, how are they organised, and so forth. Such categorisation is understandable, but is not the reality on the ground.

First, they obviously embrace a range of very different activities - the performing arts are very different in nature and experience from museums and galleries; what happens on the airwaves and screen differs from live experience; for the public there is a wide variety of active and passive involvements; and not least the arts range all the way from the most popular to the "minority" arts.

In saying that, I try to avoid emotive terms like elitist and populist, high and low. But whatever language we use, here are some of the most interesting issues for our discussions. Let me illustrate them in relation to music.

My own background is in classical music, and that is the origin of my passion for the arts generally. It is a passion for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bartok, Britten, and countless other great classical composers, ancient and modern. It is a passion for what are undeniably some of the greatest feats of creation achieved by man. Undeniable, even though their enjoyment is a minority experience. Sadly so. And for me it is a passion - and experience - I would like to be shared by everyone.

So how is it that this kind of music - "high art" with a vengeance - is only enjoyed and indeed experienced by so relatively few? That it is readily caricatured as "elitist", exclusive, snobbish. Such views may be held even by many people who are passionate about other kinds of music - whether ethnic or world music, jazz, rock, or pop music.

Indeed, we have never been surrounded by so much music. From the Beatles onwards, pop music has been enjoyed by countless millions. One can't enter a supermarket or airport without hearing music. Our increasingly multi-cultural societies are enriching us via world music. Leaving aside the pain (and medical consequences) of excessive noise levels, all this is surely a happy circumstance. Music in general is infinitely more popular than in my young days, so why worry? Because, as I see it, much of "the best" is losing out, because of "dumbing down", because of Americanising the products.

This leads to difficult issues, above all the question whether Mozart is "better" than the Beatles or the present-day Britney Spears or Kylie Minogue. To me the answer is an unarguable yes, but yet one has to argue it to convince others. Mozart goes deeper into a person's soul or intellect or experience; is more demanding to grasp or enjoy; is more permanent and lasting in its influence and survival, results from greater creative efforts; and so forth. One could debate similarly in relations to all the arts. It is an age-old argument about greatness and taste, and I will be satisfied if, without resolving it, we can agree that the great - Mozart, Dickens, Rembrandt and so on - deserve more 'popular'/populist attention than they receive. That is more easily said than done. By definition the popular versions of an art-form make more money, and sell more seats, records, books, pictures; they are the backbone of commercial broadcasting; they appeal to many sponsors; and, let us not forget, are more "politically correct". Arguing for the "high arts" does not come easily to top politicians. So advance for those arts has to jump many hurdles.

Which in turn leads to a different question, what the different forms of a particular art have in common. After all, taking music, the components of tune, harmony and rhythm are common to Mozart and to the Beatles, to jazz, classics, world music and the rest. So how can we advance the cause of one, say Mozart, via the others, say world music? Certainly, that is where some of today's influences are exciting - treating the different styles of an art as related, and focussing on these relationships in existing people. That is where music education, and music in the community, comes to the fore. But care is needed. The links are clear (eg harmony, rhythm, and tune), but ultimately some music is better than others, not just different. Put as a question, is a move from classical to pop music a "descent", or just between "equals"? My prejudice is clear - these different kinds of music may have the same technical components, but there are levels of greatness which must be realised, and should be promoted, even if they are hard to define. This is not to do down the popular versions, just to advance the cause of the less popular, which by definition need more support.

Arts and the Community
But wherever one's interests in the arts may be, one thing is certain: their roots, and their greatest potential vitality, lie within the community. We may rightly think of some institutions - the Louvre, the Royal Opera House, the Berlin Philharmonic, New York's Museum of Modern Art - as national institutions, but even these link in many ways to their capital communities, as well as to tourists from the regions and abroad. They are also the pinnacle of arts activities throughout the land, in each city, town and village. What makes them thrive ultimately is the involvement of every part of such local communities - each school and college, each business and shop, each social service and voluntary organisation.

This takes one to a basic issue for our conference. On the one hand, the arts are a sector - as I have said above, this makes sense in administrative terms, but is not, certainly should not be, the real world. In a community - think of a town or a village - they are part of a glorious mix of activities. They can take place in any street or area, and do so even if there is an "Arts Centre" dedicated to the cause. They take place at any time of day. They can, and should, involve every part of the community, the oldest and the youngest, the best-off and the poorest, all racial, religious and national groups, the professionals and the amateurs, and of course all the types of institution listed above, including the arts themselves. And the more multi-cultural the communities are, the more enriched they are by arts from the world over. Indeed the changes brought about by increasingly multi-cultural communities are of particular interest to us here.

So, in the real world the arts are not a sector. They relate to, and intermingle with, every part of a community. They give the community pride and confidence, and are a key route to regeneration. All this is why I believe the increasing focus on what are called community arts is vital, in Britain encouraged by governmental funding of new Creative Partnerships, and such organisations as the Foundation for Youth Music. Of course partnerships need to be based on the arts themselves - orchestras, museums, theatres and so forth - but, as I have argued, they should cease to be a separate sector. They should be integrated with the rest of communal life so that they become an almost undistinguishable part of it. It would be particularly valuable for us to exchange experiences on this.

Arts in Education
I have never had any doubt that the most important part of any society is the education it provides for every child and adult - indeed from cradle to grave. I mean formal education, in the classroom, but also much else that happens educationally outside, again throughout life.

And one can't doubt that this is vital to the arts. On the one hand, access to the arts can be crucially enhanced by what the arts organisations themselves - theatres, museums, concert hall - do to open doors, and enhance the artistic experiences through educational projects. The other side of the coin is what the educational system itself does to give children and adults experience of the arts. Let me recall a remark by Jennie Lee, the first British Arts Minister after the war, "If children at an early age become accustomed to the arts as part of everyday life, they are more likely in maturity first to accept and then to demand them". That is the right vision, without which I see a danger of breeding new generations of Philistines.

To discuss possible advances in education for the arts would take a conference in itself. But it is an area we should encompass on this occasion, hopefully learning from one another about models of best practice - to give all children opportunities to experience the arts, and to know enough about them truly to enrich their lives.

And who can doubt that in education lie the roots for creativity of all kinds, and where seeds are sown for taste, judgement and therefore discrimination. This is the note on which I end this paper: enjoying any art, say music, can be done at many levels: very superficially, just as background noise; or it can go deeper, helped by knowledge and understanding. That is the role of education.

Without such a basis in education, much else covered in this Introduction, all reflecting an unresistable passion for the arts, will not come about.