Free Philistine!
A ballerina with the Royal Ballet being interviewed on the radio the other day described the manner in which so many people outside her profession seem to assume her job is closer to a hobby. The common assumption was that her working day consisted solely of the performance given onstage in the evening and beyond that her time was her own. Not so. She explained that she effectively works a fourteen-hour-day, Monday-Saturday; when not performing, she is rehearsing. When a ballet is undergoing a long and successful run, the persistent fear of being usurped by the understudy precludes outside interests; birthdays, anniversaries, and all the other social occasions that clog the calendar of the many are sacrificed on the altar of one of the most physically demanding careers imaginable, one that takes years and years of exhausting practice and determined dedication to reach the top of. As with that of footballers, the career of a ballerina is relatively short, although those who play the beautiful game earn the kind of crust most ballerinas can only dream of. Yes, the ones that transcended the profession and entered pop culture, such as Fonteyn, Guillem and Bussell, were able to command handsome fees; but they are the exception to the rule.
The notion that anyone could think being a ballerina is somehow not ‘a proper job’ perhaps speaks volumes as to how any career in the Arts remains viewed with suspicion. Perhaps it’s jealousy? After all, how can the sight of a ballerina pushing her body to limits the human body ordinarily appears ill-equipped to get anywhere near not impress – unless the viewer is unwilling to admit to their own mediocrity and this subconscious awareness manifests itself as the bitter belittling and envious dismissing of anyone who can scale heights that are permanently barred to the mediocre? If that’s the case, there’s always a career as a critic.
Ironic, then, that according to a recent report from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, ‘Britain’s creative industries are booming’, worth upwards of £8 million to the economy and employing 1.8 million of the workforce, even if the sting in the tail suggests a strain of nepotism runs through the higher echelons that make it increasingly harder for those with no family connections or the advantages of an expensive education to break through. Another irony is that the global success of many of these industries was founded not by the middle or upper classes, but by snotty oiks from the streets.
Unlike the education reforms of the 1997 Labour Government (which seem to have reversed opportunities for the under-privileged), the education reforms of the wartime coalition administration opened doors for those emanating from working-class backgrounds to progress into higher education – particularly art school – where previously they would have had to beg for a scholarship. A trouble-maker with a chip on his shoulder like John Lennon would never have made it into academia before the war. The benefits for popular culture when this generation came of age in the 60s have been evident ever since.
The notion that art is a luxury reserved for those who can afford it has been reflected by the Education Secretary, who this week claimed students who make the choice of art subjects over practical and functional ones are limiting their career options. Apparently, in her oh-so wise opinion, doing so will hold them back for the rest of their lives. Imagination is, of course, not a prerequisite for politics. What someone such as Nicky Morgan fails to grasp is that her values are not necessarily ones that appeal to someone possessed by an incurable artistic bent.
On one hand, Nicky Morgan may be aware that the Arts are becoming dominated by the products of privilege, and she could be issuing this statement to the children of the Proles to prevent them from trying and failing to find a way-in. But that not only smacks of unlikely compassion; it also implies an even unlikelier appreciation of the artist, for whom the totems of success Nicky Morgan no doubt regards as a sign of achievement are utterly irrelevant. Sure, if he or she can make a reasonable living from their art, that’s a desirable bonus. But a mortgage or pension plan or car or kids don’t figure too highly in their list of priorities. As long as the art keeps coming, that can be enough. A draughty rented garret will suffice, and this is something Nicky Morgan, Michael Gove or any other Education Secretary of the last half-century will never understand. Their attitude reminds me of a manic salesman from Virgin who once tried to offer me a mobile contract over the phone; when I repeatedly stressed I didn’t want or need a mobile, he completely malfunctioned, incapable of computing what I was saying as the script he’d recited in his sleep poured forth at a rapid rate; the more I emphasised I wasn’t interested, the more desperately he tried to big up what I was being offered. How could I not want what he had been trained to believe everyone wants?
To momentarily return to Lennon, the famous opinion of his Aunt Mimi – ‘The guitar’s alright for a hobby, but you’ll never make a living out of it’ – is one that has shown remarkable resilience down the years. The gut reaction of any parent when their child drifts in the direction of the Arts is to react with panic and to discourage, knowing the Arts won’t guarantee the steady stability and material cocoon that they themselves believe to be the hallmarks of achievement. They cannot comprehend either the wilfull rejection of status symbols or the unstoppable urge to produce art which is akin to releasing bodily fluid; an incontinent imagination is no different from an incontinent bowel or bladder; the art simply has to be released.
Nicky Morgan claims ‘Pupils who study maths to A-Level will earn 10% more in their lifetime’. Does she honestly think such a vacuous statement will mean Jack Shit to a kid who is hunched over a canvas, guitar or keyboard in the wee small hours? ‘Oh, I’d better pack this in because I can earn 10% more if I switch to maths.’ They’re not doing it because they can envisage earnings; they’re doing it because they can’t stop themselves creating. And, should what they do attract the eye of someone in a position to open the door to earnings, the possibilities are far more abundant than those available to the white-collar fodder Ms Morgan presumably regards as being engaged in ‘proper work’ (as long as she doesn’t have to sully her hands with it, naturally). More than Morgan’s trumpeted Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths, the Arts stimulate both the intellect and the imagination – a bad combination when a working-class drone is something to be. Just because a prominent member of the Cabinet has a Bachelor of Arts degree doesn’t make one worthless; it depends what you do with it. Just ask the holder in question – Nicky Morgan.
Petunia Winegum
-
July 9, 2015 at 9:38 am -
* Does she honestly think such a vacuous statement will mean Jack Shit to a kid who is hunched over a canvas, guitar or keyboard in the wee small hours? ‘Oh, I’d better pack this in because I can earn 10% more if I switch to maths *
A bit like the sage advice to the 21 year-old in 1970 to take that job because it has a really good pension scheme…
The bigger worry maybe is that rather than being hunched over the extremely difficult task of fingering a guitar, the youngster is more likely to be hunched over, fingering a computer keyboard and that is even more bewildering for those who think they know what is best for the future and if necessary will reconstruct the past so that their views are demonstrably true, even if they are wholly factually untrue.
-
July 9, 2015 at 9:39 am -
Don’t you think it could be described as naive or disingenuous or a dereliction of duty for an Education Secretary not to point out to young people that they are more likely to find gainful employment if they study “Morgan’s trumpeted Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths” than if they take up painting or dancing or any other branch of the arts? Maybe you don’t consider gainful employment as desirable. However, society would soon come to a grinding halt if everybody just danced and painted or strummed a guitar wouldn’t it?
Every day millions of ordinary people do “boring”, “mundane” jobs that the rest of us take for granted, jobs that require “Morgan’s trumpeted Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths”. Where would the painter be without people producing the various bits and pieces that the painter needs in order to paint, not to mention that the painter needs food, drink, heating lighting and shelter all provided by people who have studied “Morgan’s trumpeted Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths”.
I get the feeling that the “artists” of this world often suffer from pure self-indulgence.
-
July 9, 2015 at 9:45 am -
* society would soon come to a grinding halt if everybody just danced and painted or strummed a guitar wouldn’t it? *
Not High Society…. -
July 9, 2015 at 12:55 pm -
Have you ever worked in one of those boring, mundane jobs, Alex? As you say, millions of people do & it is they, ultimately, who carry out the lion’s share of what makes our world/economy tick over. (Yes, without the managers the work would not get done, but statistically the majority are carrying hods.)
I’m not sure that it’s necessary that these people “have studied “Morgan’s trumpeted Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths”” in order to carry out this work. Of course, if they have done they’ll have a better chance of leaving the hod behind, but someone else will have to pick it up…Isn’t the problem that a whole generation have been sold the dream that further education will lead to the promised land, when in fact the available plots there are always going to be limited? Hence the call-centre ‘operative’ with a Masters, reading from a script…
In short, I’m not sure that the studying of maths is any more likely to lead to a related job that the studying of a guitar will lead to a headline slot at Glastonbury.
Here in Spain the educated/intelligent unemployed (or misemployed) have a linguistic tool not available to the English-speaker – ‘ser o estar’, ‘to be (permanantly)’ or ‘to be (temporarily)’.
It may seem silly, but it seems to make a difference to a fellow’s level of self-respect. When I first arrived I attended a fairly disorganised ‘college’ for some language lessons, and the ‘teacher’ of ‘expression-or-summat’ was a real character, loved by all, but, fairly scatter-brained; it turned out that he was (and forever will be) – and would proudly proclaim it to any doubting thomas – an ‘actor de doblaje’ or ‘voiceover artist’. My British Bullshit Detector’s antennae twitched upon hearing this: he obviously wasn’t a voiceover artist as the industry necessary to support such a position simply doesn’t exist here & never will. But after several years I’ve warmed to the idea that what we do is not always what we are.(Disclaimer: Yes, I have worked in those graveyards of dreams, watching people age before my eyes. And, er, disclaimer #2: I’m a financial failure, so my perspective is probably a short-cut to the poor-house!)
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 9:52 am -
John Lennon’s Aunt Mimi was wrong. But how many other “Aunt Mimis” were right? For every talented musician who makes a fortune there are 100 who barely make a living and many more who do it either for pin money or just for fun.
John Lennon beat the odds, even a million to one shot has to succeed once in a million.
-
July 9, 2015 at 9:59 am -
Most these days are determined that their Prince or Princess WILL be a star, and woe betide the child if it does not co-operate…
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 9:59 am -
“worth upwards of £8 million to the economy”
That should read £80 billion.
I don’t find this either-or approach to careers helpful. Science and engineering can be just as creative as games design or wedding photography. Both “creative” and “STEM” are equally valuable, and equally creative.
The remarks about class are misleading. If you work at any highly skilled job in the “creative industries” you will be classified by the government as “professional”, whatever class your parents were.
-
July 9, 2015 at 11:15 am -
Life without industry is guilt, and industry without art is brutality.
John Ruskin.-
July 9, 2015 at 12:43 pm -
Art for Art’s sake. Money for god’s sake.
10cc-
July 9, 2015 at 1:25 pm -
Ars Longa, Vita Brevis – The Nice
-
-
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 10:07 am -
The Ballerina analogy is not altogether relevant to the thrust of the argument.
No question that the time, effort, dedication, physical endurance and mental toughness of a professional ballet dancer deserves recognition and respect.
Apart from missing their breakfast are the same sacrifices made by kids hunched over a guitar or canvas in the wee small hours?
Why ‘wee small hours’ anyway? Is daylight harmful to the creative mind?
As for the virgin telephone salesman. I doubt he had been ‘trained to believe’. He probably did not believe what he was saying any more than you did and was merely reciting the script. Possibly he was a ‘resting’ actor – he certainly acted his part to you.
-
July 9, 2015 at 10:17 am -
Here’s one philistine who begrudges every penny of my taxes spent subsidising ‘arts’.
If others want or appreciate art, let them pay for it with their own money.
As a kid, I got told-off for not making my bed. Kudos tho’ to the creative genius who persuaded others that that concept could be considered ‘art’.
Jellied eels, in a gelatin stock, have a certain visual attraction. Again, kudos to the genius who up-scaled the visual concept by immersing a complete tiger shark in a formaldehyde solution, and persuaded a punter to exchange $8m for it. That is the real creativity.
-
July 9, 2015 at 10:39 am -
Artists were traditionally supposed to be disreputable outsiders who lived in a garret and died of Consumption because they couldn’t afford the coal in the winter. That all changed with Andy Warhol perhaps (ooh… silk screen print illustration coincidence). Not for nothing was Andy’s gaff called “The Factory”…
-
July 9, 2015 at 10:42 am -
Petunia could be considered a ‘traditional artist’ then…
-
July 9, 2015 at 10:59 am -
That’s why he’s never to be found when it’s her round then…
-
July 9, 2015 at 11:05 am -
In the best tradition of ‘Jason King’ but with a lifestyle more akin, perhaps, to ‘Withnail & I’
-
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 1:46 pm -
Much of the money given for the arts comes from the lottery rather than taxes. I think this is the best source for subsidy of luxuries such as opera or athletics or ballet.
I think it is right that schools should teach kids to draw and to play an instrument, and the cost of this basic education should be covered by the taxpayer. As is the cost of school sports.
Subsidising university and college courses in design, illustration, etc seems reasonable, as these professions bring in money from exports and are a large part of a modern economy. Look around a branch of Waterstone’s or Forbidden Planet, and think how much work by artists, photographers and designers went into the making of the stock on the shelves.
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 10:51 am -
The chances are, no one is interested in paying to listen to someone strumming a guitar or prance around on stage unless they’re exceptionally good at it – and those people are few and far between. If these professions don’t bring enough money in to pay the bills, they’re just going to have to remain hobbies.
-
July 9, 2015 at 11:03 am -
Yeah, but like if they’ve studied and got a degree in it, and owe £3ok already, it’s like so unfair dude!
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 12:23 pm -
I’m guessing that reality has hit and there are plenty of spaces in the Arts at our educational establishments. She is trying to drum up more business for these potential redundant people otherwise they may have to out and earn a crust now that they are businesses in their own rights.
Arts are a luxury and in my opinion most artists are penniless. Reliant on their parents until they are forced to get a job while they practise their hobby and continue to chase their great breakthrough.
While others tighten their belts these people are unlikely to get funded and I am another who resents having to fund Art through my taxes.
-
July 9, 2015 at 12:31 pm -
“I’d say obsession was the mother of invention and necessity was just the midwife,” according to a wise old friend.
I do think it’s jolly good to support the arts and all, but if people pack it in because someone says something discouraging, that’s probably for the best. I would think ballerinas pretty quickly get used to the idea that people think they just make pretty little twirls from time to time and otherwise just sit around just looking pretty. But doesn’t that apply to most things worthwhile?
If you want to become a government minister who makes vacuous statements, I suspect a BA is essential.
-
July 9, 2015 at 12:44 pm -
It is just as deceptive to encourage kids that they will have a lucrative future in ‘the arts’ as it has been to encourage half the kids to waste three years at university when there are not, and never will be, the volume of promised ‘premium’ jobs in the market-place. The key is ‘market-place’. Everyone should be responsible for selling their skills and services into the market-place of the time, if there’s no market for your skills, you either starve, compromise or get youself some different skills.
There is a market for ‘art’ skills, but it is such a tiny market-place that the chances of all the drama/art/media students making a reasonable career or even a living are negligible. True, they will get an enjoyable three years off work, poncing about with their arty stuff, drinking the student loan and humping others who have drunk it too – if you just see it as that, then that’s OK, but don’t try to kid the kids, or those of us who pay for it, that there is a valuable career in it for more than an extremely fortunate few.
Although personally a Philistine, I genuinely admire artistic skills of all sorts, they are all skills that I do not possess, but it stops at admiration, I have no wish to subsidise any of the wasters’ ego-trips, either directly or indirectly.-
July 9, 2015 at 2:02 pm -
There is far more work in the “creative” fields than you suppose. It may have been a tiny market-place 100 years ago, but not today.
Think of the amount of work needed for all the non-stop output from the TV channels, for instance.
Or look around your kitchen. People got paid to design all that packaging, and the kitchen units, the kettle, the cutlery, etc etc. Plates and mugs don’t just grow on trees — a ceramics designer designed them.
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 12:54 pm -
It all seems a bit like the old sisterhood demand that all women should have opportunities for rewarding & fulfilling careers.
Something most men would like too.
There will only ever be so many opportunities in the arts, no matter how accomplished the hopefuls are.
That being so, why would we provide for, fund, & support unrealistic aspirations? -
July 9, 2015 at 12:59 pm -
July 9, 2015 at 1:02 pm -
“Creative industries ‘booming’ in UK” followed by a picture of Coldplay?
I am experiencing cognitive dissonance.I grew up with a father who is a classical violinist and often encountered the “that isn’t a real job” attitude.
-
July 9, 2015 at 1:19 pm -
Buskers are fine artists, having the confidence in their own skills to generate income from satisfied customers.
-
July 9, 2015 at 1:34 pm -
@PW “More than Morgan’s trumpeted Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths, the Arts stimulate both the intellect and the imagination ”
I normall find much to agree with in what you say but that line is pure arty fart. Are you really suggesting that science and engineering do not stimulate the intellect and the imagination! Without both there would have been no Stephensons Rocket, no Eureca, no e=MC2, no giant leap for mankind and so ad infinitum.
-
July 9, 2015 at 1:35 pm -
NormallY
-
July 9, 2015 at 1:53 pm -
This is completely true.
There are of course plenty of hack scientists, and a great deal of shoddy research goes on, but the same applies to design.The real divide is not between artists and scientists, but between both groups and ignorant managers and politicians, who could not produce anything valuable to save their lives.
-
July 9, 2015 at 1:57 pm
-
-
July 9, 2015 at 1:44 pm -
Buskers are the antidote to Coldplay. The only exception being those feckin faux Peruvian rainforresty Pan Pipers miming to their CD. I have to resist the urge to snatch their pipes away from them and then cheer as the music continues.
-
July 9, 2015 at 2:06 pm -
I suspect that Morgan’s comments may be aimed at the education establishment as much as at pupils and students. During the last decade and a half, the vast increase in University places was in part facilitated by reducing the subsidy per student paid to Universities. Some responded (slightly cynically) by moving away from subjects that are expensive to teach (sciences and engineering, which need lots of expensive labs, workshops and skilled technicians to look after them) and offered far more cheap-to-teach subjects like Modern Dance (which just needs an open space). That was despite the continued need by industry and services for skilled craftsmen, technicians and engineers, of which we now have a significant shortage in the UK.
It’s not just pupils and students that need to wise up. It’s the ‘Education Establishment’ to a far greater extent. The students won’t study subjects that aren’t available to them.
Are all these ‘STEM’ type careers boring, mundane drudgery then? Not in my experience – there’s deep satisfaction in making a meaningful contribution to the common good. Almost everybody I know in engineering, at any level, is proud of what they contribute to society. The fact that you can earn good money at the same time is a large bonus, too.
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }