Those London theatre lovers living south of Watford might not have noticed, but Scotland’s small but lively cultural sphere has recently become the latest contested territory in the UK’s unrelenting culture wars. It was revealed last week that a part-time literature officer working for Scotland’s arts body, Creative Scotland, contacted staff at an Edinburgh bookshop to advise them against stocking poet Jenny Lindsay’s forthcoming book, Hounded. Dr Alice Tarbuck did not make her views known in her professional capacity, it is understood, but nonetheless, that a member of staff working for the organisation responsible for supporting Scottish artists went out of her way to try undermining the career of a Scottish artist should ring alarm bells.
The apparently objectionable book promises to detail Linday’s experience of being accused of transphobia by fellow poets a few years back. After she called out a magazine for publishing a transactivist defending their call to harass and intimidate women at Pride, many of Lindsay’s former friends in the poetry scene turned against her.
For those well initiated in the dynamics of this conflict, and the specifics of Lindsay case, this is already pretty cut and dry. If you’re an intersectional trans-ally, fuck Lindsay. If you’re a gender critical feminist, she is basically Nelson Mandela.
That’s not the whole story though. There is another dimension here: the story of the petty and vindictive competing factions in small tight-knit creative scenes, and how their rivalries find expression as intense culture-war conflicts. There’s plenty to disagree with Jenny Lindsay about, but anyone working in the arts in Scotland already understands how running ideological battles both major and minor can dictate which of us are granted opportunities and which of us aren’t.
This latest stooshie erupted just days after Creative Scotland announced it was cutting the Open Fund — a pot of money ring-fenced for individual practitioners. The announcement has created an atmosphere of anxiety among artists, now less likely to take the morally correct position on Tarbuck’s gentle lobbying of bookshops, which was, at best, deeply unprofessional. This endemic insecurity, engendered by 14-years of austerity, also played a role in many looking the other way when Lindsay tumbled from atop the Scottish poetry community four years ago and speaks to the unwritten cultural commandments which must be adhered to if you wish to survive as a creator in the current climate. Thankfully, as an artist and writer who has never depended on Creative Scotland for much, I am not afflicted by this anxiety.
Since my twenties, I’ve been publicly criticising Creative Scotland for one reason: being tone-deaf to working-class creators. It’s a criticism common among artists from deprived backgrounds, rooted in our experience that the arts as well as the bureaucracies that oversee them favour artists, works and processes generally that reflect their own middle-class sensibilities. There’s a safeness, for example, in much of the work that gets supported, as well as a tendency among many in-vogue artists across the various disciplines to expressively dance around the real causes and conditions of the issues being tackled.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFollowing on from yesterday’s evisceration by Mary Harrington of the bodies charged (or self-appointed) to oversee the public distribution of taxpayer’s money to artists in England, this article by a very different writer does the same for their Scottish counterparts. These quangos (in this case “Creative Scotland” – my inverted commas) all p1ss in the same pot, as the saying goes. I think most people understand what’s meant by that.
As mentioned in Comments yesterday, the idea behind these bodies is to act as gatekeepers in the culture wars. I have to be honest and view any ‘creative’ who takes patronage from these bodies as irredeemably naff and a producer of faux-art which will be forgotten within a generation – at most. I challenge anyone to identify a single piece of artistic endeavour/output by those sucking at the teat of these quangos which will have any historical importance.
This also connects to Ms Harrington’s previous article about the Fabian Society. It is an example of the Middle Classes telling people what is right and wrong. We see it everywhere. Bored people with too much time on their hands start a movement, meet friends, produce leaflets, etc, and they feel energised, important for the first time in their lives.
This is a disease of Britain, not just Scotland. In Wales there is the language. In England, local councils donate some of their taxes to good causes. Basically, people are over-educated and bored – Guardian readers probably.
Having no real talent but a desperate desire to be seen as an artist is one of the curses of the age.
Even more so when Charles Saatchi is providing the funds and Craig Martin the apologia.
It’s impossible for a government-funded body not to be political.
The whole point of an institution like this is to force consumers to indirectly fund artists (coercively via taxes) that consumers don’t choose to fund directly via purchases.
When you consider that the average person pays at least half their income in taxes of one sort or another, perhaps if taxes were much lower consumers could afford to fund artists directly instead of being forced to pay technocrats to do it on their behalf.
And don’t get me started on “austerity”… since when is it immoral not to heap debt upon the shoulders of our descendents to pay for our consumption spending?
Withdraw all public funding from the arts. The world doesn’t need another masterpiece. Arts funds go into the pockets of a lot more than just artists. If the people like the work they’ll come. If not then you’re irrelevant or unnecessary. We don’t need an industry to write and publish a poem, nor do we need the same for someone to address a blank canvas. Shakespeare’s play are stories, they don’t need big budgets to be told. If you’re in the business of putting on musicals, operas, big productions, travelling art exhibitions, then you’re in the business of business, get your money from business interests. If art is not for the people, who may or may not attend shows or exhibitions, then who is it for? If it’s not for the public then it shouldn’t come from public funds.
I’ve been in the arts all of my life, and I completely agree. If an artist can’t sell his or her work and needs to be subsidized, then the work has no genuine value. I personally dislike hip hop, but there is a massive audience for it and its creators are financially rewarded, no subsidies needed.
In his lifetime, Van Gogh couldn’t sell his paintings because people didn’t like them. They’re only valuable now because we’re told by “experts” that they’re masterpieces. How are Picasso’s hideous cartoons more worthy of our admiration than those of the brilliant and skillful Calvin and Hobbes?
Art is defined by the viewer. If government funds it with taxes, you can be sure it’s cr*p.
No genuine value? Strong words indeed.
I’m quite interested to hear you say that, given your career in the arts. Is it not the case that all the greats of English literature, from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Milton – up to and including the modern era – have had to rely on patronage of one kind or another?
Paradise Lost was singly unloved in its authors lifetime.
Do you sincerely contend that Mumble Rap has a greater value than, say, the Holy Sonnets of John Donne merely because the one sells well and the other did not sell at all?
Or perhaps I misunderstand you.
I am afraid a lifetime working in the arts has given Allison Barrows no powers of appreciation or discrimination only an unwarranted faith in her own critical acumen.
I suspect the time for self-reflection is long past.
“Is it not the case that all the greats of English literature, from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Milton – up to and including the modern era – have had to rely on patronage of one kind or another?”
But not, as far as I’m aware, from government.
Funding perpetuates artistic delusions at the tax payers expense. Funding from National Lottery sales is a tax on the poor to subsidise the Middle Class. Add to this Arts funding bodies are now staffed by ideologically driven people, who no longer see the simply funding as a way to line their own pockets and put a roof over their own heads, but to change the arts themselves to present the world in the way they wish it to be.
Many years ago New Zealand did away with all farming subsidies. A brave and risky thing to do given the nature of New Zealand farming and its distance from all markets. Yet New Zealand farming not only survived, it prospered. Perhaps it’s time we tried a similar experiment with the arts.
If we stopped all Arts funding now, what exactly would we lose?
Im not sure I would say art is defined by the viewer, but the market value of art is defined by the viewer who buys. To be very good at anything requires a huge amount of dedicated time. Having to work for a living cuts into that time. Having a source of income allows for that commitment. Hence artists need to sell their work or services. Van Gogh had financial support but he still couldn’t sell his paintings. So income isn’t everything. If he had a government grant it would have made no difference. Nor would it today as support for artists. Selling is the mark of success. Selling means more time committed to working which leads to more sales.
If people don’t want your work and it has to be subsidised then you’re now in the rarefied atmosphere of “Art”, that which no one wants and no one understands.
To pretend that artistic value is synonymous with marketability is a pretty ingorant stance. By that measure I guess Andy Warhol, Taylor Swift, Dan Brown, and Rod McKuen rank among the greatest creative minds of all time.
If a painting you were at first unimpressed with sells for $10 million does it suddenly make you see it with admiring eyes? Truer than your statements is that a genuine or inspired artist had better not be in it primarily for the money. It’s great, and somewhat rare, when artistic merit and material reward overlap—often they don’t. A “day job” may be needed to avoid a life of penury. But the magic hand of the mass market doesn’t determine true merit, nor does one or two generations alone. William Blake was both a better (though weird) visual artist and poet than nearly anyone but himself allowed until well after his death.
And for all his excesses, Picasso was indeed a better and more inspired artist than Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes. And Pablo’s output was incomparably more important and brilliant than the known work thus far produced by the creator of PreTeena. Take your mesmerized gaze off the bottom line and get a little more real.
Of course the world needs another masterpiece or two. Every generation does. It’s true that not every great work will fail for lack of funding, and that you can you buy artistic greatness. But some public payment for museums, symphony halls, and art class once a week for public schools students is well warranted, and a good investment. Taxpaxers in effect subsidize the selfish interests of huge business and corporate interests, upon the thinnest grounds of public benefit. Why not pay a few pence for something a bit less mercenary, whether the art suits you or not? Even Shakespeare benefits from a good production. Local and privately funded presentations are good too. It needn’t be one or the other.
The plays of Shakespeare are not mere “stories”, nor Bach’s keyboard and cello sonatas just “tunes”.
Why should any of us be surprised by this?
Of course a publicly funded activist felt entitled to encourage censorship of somebody who expresses opinions she doesn’t approve of, in the name of “inclusion”.
Doing evil behind the masquerade of doing good, then punishing anyone who notices the evil, is what these people and organisations are all about.
There is an economic case for public funding of museums and galleries in that might provide positive externalities, that is the cafes and bars around might get a bit of extra income. I’m sceptical; if true let the bars and cafes help.
I see no value in public funding of the arts, save through schools introducing children to literature, theatre and the rest. While, in life, the arts matter, they should live or die by their own hands. Not the taxpayers.
If a poet doesn’t make money from selling their work, that’s a pretty good sign that that works is no good.
There may be a place for funding of national institutions, such as the National Gallery or National Theatre. If a poet or painter really wants to produce work that reflects the world around and within them (i don’t mean figuratively, necessarily) they should get out into the world and work alongside others, until such time they ‘make it’ in their chosen medium.
Just graduating from art college / English degree / drama school and expecting to be publicly funded is the road to being submerged in the shallows of that culture. Even taking the academic route in the first place may not be their best option, if they have a fire that fuels them.
Worst of all, of course, are those who seek ‘administrative’ roles in the arts. There’s a place for such roles, but which would be much better served by time spent gaining experience in a commercial environment, with all the demands that requires, before moving into the art world.
“Just graduating from art college / English degree / drama school and expecting to be publicly funded is the road to being submerged in the shallows of that culture.”
It’s a good starting point for a career as a school teacher. I’m sure it’s a good thing to have teachers of art, literature and music in schools.
Don Cox
A quick google reveals that Dr Alice Tarbuck claims to be a witch, yet she doesn’t seem to notice the irony of engaging in a witch-hunt against a fellow writer.
“Artists remain free, of course, to express their dislike of one another’s politics, but a signal must be sent to those who apply for financial support that public money is not a supplement to tide them over while they work to deny another artist’s right to earn a living.”
To be honest, I’m not quite sure I even agree with artists being free to attack each other’s politics. That is to say, I recognise that it’s a defacto liberty for anyone in the obvious sense, but in what sense does being an artist in any way make one’s political opinions relevant?
We all have political opinions of course, but how many of us have jobs in which we’re somehow free to include activism around those opinions during the working day? We all know that we’d eventually get told to shut up and just do our jobs, and rightly so.
So I’m sorry, but I don’t see why artists get some sort of free pass here. Produce your art and shut up with your politics, and this applies whether or not you’re getting public money to support you while you’re doing it.
The problem with artists is that they think they have a heightened sense of awareness and understanding of the human condition, something they feel obliged to pass on to the great unwashed through their art. So they’re educating us, helping us to see, explaining things, but in the most humble way of course, it being “a privilege” to be in that position.
The real issue isn’t whether artists can or should make political activism part of their job description, but what has happened that has made it even possible to be a problem in the first place.
I don’t usually read Terry Eagleton’s contributions to Unherd, but I did many years ago read his book, Literary Theory, having started reading it under the impression that it would explain things like comparativism vs structuralism etc (which it does, to be fair, and which I found rather fascinating). What struck me as unexpected about it however was how the history of literary criticism was – as far as Eagleton is concerned anyway – bound inextricably to political history and described essentially as one of a number of ways of exerting political influence. At no point did Eagleton explain how such an assumption came to be generally accepted; he just treated as axiomatic that this is the point of literary criticism, or at least one of it’s essential roles.
I think a great many people might disagree with artists in general that they have any business trying to be politically relevant, but it is also clear to me that many artists would be amazed that anyone should expect them not to be. From what I can tell, it’d be like telling them they can’t use the oxygen in the air to breathe with. I think that’s idiotic and indefensible, but then again who’s going to listen to me?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making political statements in art. The problem is that they think by making political statements they give their work credibility, when in fact it’s very bad art in so many ways. Literary critics or art critics are just another cohort hanging on to the artists coat-tails. It might be considered political in the sense that what they say serves their own interests and those they support within the industry. In terms of the politics of government or society I don’t think they or writers/artists have any effect at all. But it is interesting that artists feel that their political opinions are important enough to be pronounced loudly in their art.
“how many of us have jobs in which we’re somehow free to include activism around those opinions during the working day?”
Depends where you work and what form of activism. If I said what I really think (all quite legal viewpoints) I’d be out the door in no time. That’s The Blob for you.
If artists artists weren’t allowed to attack eachother, we wouldn’t have had the glorious feuds of the 18th century. There would have been no Alexander Pope.
I’ve read it. It’s boring. Who cares?
“When I hear the word “Creative” … I release the safety on my Browning”
[ with apologies to Hanns Johst]
There’s nothing wrong with creative. Maybe reach for your gun when “the arts” are mentioned.
I’m reading the current Forward Book of Poetry, as I do every year in an effort to keep up with the latest and supposedly best poetry writing in the UK. Over half way through and I haven’t found any poems in it yet: just lots of chopped up prose of a hand-wringing or whimsical bent. I can’t believe that any of this stuff actually sells.
It doesn’t sell, at least not very much. If it did, the poet wouldn’t need government subsidy.
the unwritten cultural commandments which must be adhered to if you wish to survive as a creator
For those who obviously need to hear it; that’s not how creativity works. It’s not subjected to a Ministry-style filter of appropriateness. Art is supposed to challenge and provoke, to illicit thought and stir response, and to do more than parrot the ideology of the moment.
I think you mean “to elicit thought” although in the context of the very valid point you make, the thought itself could indeed be “illicit”!
Creative Scotland has recently blown itself up by funding some sort of ‘art’ which involved recruiting people to have sex in public. Is that too middle class? CS’s problem is that they are hopelessly incompetent and have been for years.
I hate to make light of any abuse of power and, indeed, the opressions of petty tyranny are often the hardest to bear – however it’s hardly Cardinal Beaton hanged from the ramparts of St Andrews Castle or Archbishop Sharpe knifed at close quarters in the Coatbridge Road for having the wrong ecclesiology
Scotland used to have a flair for these sorts of things.
What would Rabby say eh? All he ever longed for was ‘a decent competence and literary leisure’.
Quite so. Much of Scottish history appears to comprise tales of intemperate Minsters going about chibbing each other.
I thought this article was spot-on and its suggestions good.
There is certainly a debate worth having around arts funding, whether or not it should exist. I work in the arts and I’ve seen many examples of public money being wasted, on what look to me, at best, just vanity projects and at worst, propaganda.
However, if you’re on the side of abolishing it, one thing I’d ask you to consider is the community aspect. Many worthwhile community-arts programs are paid for via the same funding bodies.
I’ve genuinely seen peoples lives change immensely, for the better, through being able to access an arts program, which they may not have ever had a chance otherwise.
There’s more straightforward way to describe this, without all the PC gobbledygook: corruption. It’s found in literally every sphere dependent on “free” government money…
‘Twas ever thus: Follow the money!