IN PRAISE OF GOLD MEDALS

I want you to imagine it’s the Olympics (again) in which there are two streams of competitor, A and B.
A are the real high flyers and B are what we’ll call average. It’s been noted that stream A are getting disproportionately more medals, faster times, greater attention from coaches and greater funding attention.
It has been decided this imbalance must be adjusted. So less attention is going to be spent on nourishing the potentially best talent and the less promising are going to be helped more. We’ll put our money on the guy in orange.

The result?  Whilst the number of medals won has gone down dramatically we have a great deal more 5th and 6th placed athletes. Which just goes to show that being fairer improves things for more people.
Rarely has a piece of work irritated me more than the recent report “Rebalancing our Cultural Capital”…. on three counts:

1. Until I’d read it I would have broadly agreed with the proposition that the rest of the UK got a poor deal when it came to sharing out funds. London it could be argued was getting not just the cake but all the cherries too. But on reading it my mind was changed mainly because the argument was based on a basis of equity not quality, on spreading the butter over bread both fresh and stale and that won’t do.
2. The argument that London is a population of 8.2 million is a little misleading. Add in tourists and it’s some 24 million. And they need adding in because tourism counts and that’s where the return on investment in the arts is irrefutable. It’s the quality of London that generates the tourist revenue (interestingly the most cited reason for tourists coming to London is going to the theatre).
3. The rather careless use of data should concern us. Anyone indicating a calamitous trend in share of funds for the rest of England from ACE – from 19.6% in 1980 to 17.8% in 2012/13 – using a vertical axis going from 16.5% to 20% deserves to be rebuked. 

Simon Jenkins in the Standard praises London theatre saying “it rules the world” but adds a caveat a bit limply “The reality is that London is where ministers live and minsters look after their own”. Others have said “there may be a point of sorts here but it’s the same old hammer and the same old nail isn’t it”.

Quite.

The more gold medals in artistic terms that London wins the better and the more inspiring a role model it is, or should become, and the more rewards are reaped by everyone.

But there’s a fourth reason I fell out with the report which is this. The story is not about how you cut the cake but how big the cake is in the first place. For successive governments to be embarrassed about the elitist nature of culture and the arts and accordingly give it small crumbs to spend – less than Financial Services used to get and about a quarter of what we spend on intelligence and spooks.

No you won’t find it below. Not important enough.  Under other.
 .

To be fair it gets a bit more than the Statistics Authority which may seem unjust given how inspiring government statistics can be.

Ultimately, I think for little Britain to have the greatest city in the world thanks to a large extent to its brilliance in the arts and culture, vindicates the imbalance that exist and because of the celebration that creates it should make the less favoured rest of Britain lift their game too.

Written by Richard Hall and first published on the Business of Culture website

Me, I'm sated mate

I think we’re all just a bit worn out by an excess of excitement and sheer brilliance. We’ve just had a brilliant British Lions Rugby series in Australia, an emotionally powered Wimbledon culminating in an almost tearful Prime Minister saying that no one deserves a knighthood more than Andy Murray…What! He’s only 26 and, yes, he’s very good….. but a knighthood – for heaven’s sake. And now it’s cricket and the Ashes. So far it’s felt like we’re witnessing a story written by a drug crazed soap opera script writer who wants to get things over very quickly….”and then everyone died…hideously. Done. Dusted. The end.”

But it’s not just sport that feels like a calorie crammed feast which leads to indigestion.
I live in Brighton and in May we are battered by the Festival – not one but four festivals – the Festival proper, the Fringe, the Charleston Festival (a major literary event – sort of Hay on Wye on sea) and the Great Escape (300 rock bands hosted in 30 venues over 3 days).

No wonder everyone here looks so knackered in early June.  One red eyed Festival aficionado, more incurable addict than aficionado, glumly told me “I’ve been to over 40 events in less than three weeks ….I can’t even think anymore.”

It’s not about grabbing it so much as avoiding being mugged by it.

There are over 200 proper arts festivals in the UK now from Glastonbury (now a national TV treasure) to Manchester to Lichfield (both on now) to Edinburgh to….it makes the brain hurt just thinking about them.
And it’s spread to all media. This summer Hollywood has produced more blockbuster films – something like 15 - than ever before. The need to outdo the competition is making $100 million films a norm and will surely be unsustainable. The benchmark lies in special effects and scale drama and owes rather less to storytelling. “The King’s Speech” and “the Artist” already feel distinctly aberrational. Decimation and World War Z seem the norm.

I doubt if any man or woman is capable of enduring for long this much spectating and exposure to the deadly rays of extreme entertainment.

And I wonder if, in the long run, “going out” will be seen as wonderful as it once seemed. Michael Douglas, whose film“Behind the Candelabra” has created such a storm (by the way it’s not a real film…no, no…they’ve decided it’s only a TV film….because HBO and not a real, Hollywood studio made it) predicted somewhat gleefully the demise of Hollywood blockbusters. He observed that as TV’s get bigger, better and cheaper the ability to get that “film-fix or, indeed, whatever fix you want – opera, theatre, classical or rock music will be brilliantly provided where people want to be most…at home.”

My analysis suggests that, firstly, whilst in the current climate big events still attract big audiences there’s an underlying problem.  With so much choice there’s a creeping reticence to commit. Many make last minute choices and if they miss out well that’s OK. People are starting to ration pleasure in a new way. The world has been so sated by quality and thrills and there’s only so much adrenalin we can take. And secondly in the comfort of your own home is a new reality.

If I’m right this represents a new threat to the arts sector which maybe brilliant marketing can help, in part, solve but reliance on product excellence alone will not.

As someone said to me recently watching a primary school sports day “have you noticed how good, how keen they are, how much they do and how competitive they’ve all become nowadays?”
When everyone’s so brilliant and the audience have seen it all before something may have to give.
Like the very will to watch.

Written by Richard Hall and first published on

July 10th 2013

We'll never win the argument like this

 I once saw a cartoon of a guy standing in front of a white board writing out a long very complex equation…he’s pauses around the middle puts in some dots and says “ah! At this point there’s a kind of leap of faith.” And here’s another….

I see that a leap of faith, or worse an assumption that everyone else should know what comes next, in the continuingly abortive argument in defence of the arts.

I heard a leading member of the arts – I knew he was from the arts by the way because he was lean and spare like a triathlete (I’ll explain that shortly) -  who said he’d fight tooth and nail to avoid having to prove the arts was an economic generator. That’s a bit like a Bishop saying he’d fight tooth and nail to avoid having to prove Christ rose from the dead it being so obvious to him that it was beneath him to revert to anything as tawdry as proving it – proof?  Pah! Beneath him.

So the economic case for the arts has not been heard (albeit it may have been made.) In Birmingham recently a Councillor said “Yes. I know you’re right but I need more evidence to sell it to others.”  Whilst in the Nesta paper of April 2013 “A manifesto for the creative economy”, it was said:- ”the economic argument for public funding of the arts and culture have had little traction with the UK’s cultural leaders… and there’s been a corresponding unwillingness of economists to engage with the arts and culture.…..they do not necessarily provide justification for why public funding is needed to support it.”

Already, as I read this I’m fighting tooth and nail not to go to sleep.

William Tayleur at the Business of Culture 10th birthday celebration at the Africa Centre on May 16th 2013 quoted Churchill who defended spending on the arts as being dedicated to creating the sort of society in which we wish to live.

Music, art, sculpture, drama, opera, TV, advertising, novels, talks on culture are all the stuff of two things that make us human (or better humans)

The capacity to learn and surprise ourselves
The ability to suspend our disbelief and dream

And here’s one for Maria Miller and the Czar of Health, the one time Culture guru, Jeremy Hunt, the arts also make you fit – hence my comment about the uber-fit grumpy Arts Chief I referred to earlier.

To be an art critic you need to be very fit indeed. Look at their shoes and you’ll see if they’re serious – I bet Brian Sewell and Rachel Campbell-Johnson wear heavy duty walking shoes and drink gallons of water. Because walking a gallery tires your feet, your brain, your soul and uses up loads of calories.

More seriously the argument for civilisation shouldn’t be too hard to make or take should it?
I’ve decided to redesign my own life by cutting down on what I spend on food and diverse charities and increasing what I spend on the arts.

As with most things in life this isn’t much to do with government which is generally hopeless at determining priorities in the lives of ordinary, hard-working people (hard-working? George Osborne is using these words the whole time – have you noticed?).  Well me? I’m going to work less hard and enjoy, explore and discuss more art. And singlehandedly I’m starting a movement to change the way we look and think about the arts.

And I’m fighting tooth and nail for it.

Written for and first published on

HURRAY FOR THE VIGOUR OF YOUTH

At the Business of Culture’s 10th birthday party at the Africa Centre on May 16th it was  noted that very few start-up businesses survived let alone thrived for 10 years.

Also, banging a familiar drum, speakers reflected on the importance of the cultural sector:
“Quite simply culture – the arts, in all their forms to the creative industries to tourism - is very big business for the UK economy.  And in the UK we are rather good at creativity.  We have the best art galleries, opera houses, theatres, advertising agencies, specialist film companies, digital creative shops and street theatre in the world.

We must resist our very British reticence in selling these core skills.

Maria Miller our Culture Secretary recently asked our community to: “help reframe the argument: to hammer home the value of culture to our economy…”

Try this Maria.  Quite simply, we are the best at all this – arts – culture – creative industries. This tiny country represents just 1% of the world’s population and probably 15% of the world’s noise in the global conversation about culture. That alone is a reason to invest in (not subsidise) invest in this sector. We are a dynamic revenue earning force. We are a leading global force. We need to act and speak like one and be appreciated by Government.”

Fortunately the perception of the arts and culture as being businesses too is now not unfamiliar.

I was talking to someone about all this who said:-
 “Well maybe but aren’t we looking at this in rather a skewed way?

For sure London may even be the arts centre of the world but that’s small comfort if you are living in Newcastle or Bristol or the suburbs.”

I don’t buy that.

All round the UK some great stuff is happening.

In Brighton the Brighton Festival is just finishing. And I just want to talk about two events at it. Chansons Instrumentales who produced three concerts on Poulenc and Hahn - and the Glyndebourne’s Jerwood Young Artists lunchtime concert.

If one went to no other event this year at the Festival (or quite simply to no other event anywhere until the end of 2013) the talent, freshness, joy and energy we saw and heard in these shows would be enough to keep one’s  spirit nourished.

And it isn’t just a story of the West End of London where there’s a rich vein of emergent indigenous talent. In drama, for instance, it’s finding fulfilment on stages at theatres like the White Bear in Kennington and the Drayton Theatre in South Kensington and on the screen in rousing series like the Borgias and Game of Thrones (winner of the Radio Times Audience Award at this year's Bafta Television Awards) where the majority of actors are British and young.

They say that currently one of the most popular careers for young people is the restaurant business because it’s fast moving, creative and fun.

Watch the space.

I suspect the arts and cultural sector is next and because of rental prices in London expect to see surges in the arts outside the capital too.  Businesses, please pay attention to this – it may be the lowest-cost sponsorship opportunity you’ll ever come across.  So the silver lining in the austerity and unemployment cloud could be an intelligent deployment of funds which turns shiftless despair into music, dance and drama.

Isn’t it so much better being an optimist and admiring the spirit of youth?

Written by Richard Hall and first published on the
Business of Culture site