Last night I popped into the wonderful Art NOW panel discussion, hosted by the Friends of Dulwich Picture Gallery and held at the gallery itself. It’s such a lovely venue – you can see me gushing about how much I love it here.
All of the images are copyright of www.lorenzophotography.co.uk - pay the site a visit!
The Dulwich Friends
organise a whole lot of events – hundreds a year, I hear! – for Friends and
friends of Friends alike. At this particular one, Will Gompertz was lined up to
chair a discussion on the art sector today, with panellists including Turner Prize
winner Jeremy Deller, Jerwood Gallery curator Liz Gilmore, and the Arts Council
England’s Peter Bazelgette. However, as the fascinating story of Nazi art
hoarder Cornelius Gurlitt continues to unfold (take a look at my original post on it here), Will Gompertz had journalistic duties, so we were instead treated
to a night hosted by Andrew McDonald.
Liz was saying that the
role of the curator is not to define art, but to give a voice to artists who
are, in her own words, speaking the ‘language of feeling’.
Peter Bazelgette, who was
visiting from the Arts Council England has a personal relationship with the
gallery, as he grew up in Dulwich. It was nice to hear from someone who has a
connection with the space from a personal perspective, and he reminisced on the
Gallery’s role in his childhood. When asked how an artist makes it out of
obscurity, he called on the fine example of Grayson Perry, who has done just
that and managed to become a national treasure. Andrew McDonald was saying that
today’s outrage is tomorrow’s mainstream, and Grayson Perry’s success is
testament to this.
Jeremy Deller is a
controversial kinda guy. As the discussion kicked off with the elusive
definition of art, he said he wouldn’t put a definition on it. Whether a
child’s art or a prisoner’s art; it’s all still art and definitions invite
boundaries, he said. Duchamp’s Fountain, which I previously wrote about here, is
only an artwork because it is signed by an artist; so what does it even mean to
be an artist? Just as Jeremy said it's not something you can control, so all
you can do is stick to your guns with your fingers crossed and hopefully that
establishes a connection with an audience.
When discussing talent,
Jeremy mused that you don’t have to be technically proficient in something to
be good at it. You can be the most photographic painter in the world, but not
be an artist. Being an artist is a je ne sais quois situation. But as an art
appreciator, judge art subjectively. Let it make you happy, sad, and angry.
So far, so fairenoughIwasexpectingtohearthiskindaconversation;
but then the discussion took an interesting turn.
Opening the questions to
the floor, we got onto the perhaps inevitable subject of class in art. It’s no
secret that art in education struggles to get the same recognition as the STEM
subjects, so when Ofsted comes knocking on state schools’ doors, arts fall by
the wayside and stay there. This means that art is taught differently in
private schools in comparison to state schools or, more bluntly, art is taught
differently to the upper middle class than everyone else. Long-term, it is an
issue if we continue to focus on STEM as opposed to STEAM, to borrow Peter's phrase. If private school students who grow up to stay middle class are taught
the importance of art but working class kids aren’t, the former will be the
only ones who go onto work in the arts sector. As a result, it will continue to
be posh, inaccessible and limited in its potential. In fact, as someone who
went to private school and state sixth form and noticed a significant
difference in how art was viewed, the whole reason I started this blog in the
first place was to make art less high-culture, and more ah-that’s-nice.
We are recognised around
the world for our creativity and ability to teach the arts, so it would be a
shame to see this dwindle.
As a knock-on effect,
society will continue to divide over how important art is. Public funding will
become harder and harder to come by; and then how will we propel the
burgeoning creative industries? Economically, they are growing at twice the
average rate so it pays for itself and continues to improve us both
individually and collectively. Liz Gilmore was saying that Jerwood Gallery
relies on philanthropy for a third of their finances, which struck me as a
pretty hefty chunk.
We need this funding
because galleries deliver such a strong quality of life, providing access to
the corners of society that might not otherwise be creatively stimulated. Take
prisons, for example, where art is a way of encouraging productivity, a creative
mindset and even therapy. Do this right, and we’ll take another step in the
direction of a happier, safer world.
Good God, I sound optimistic.
Good God, I sound optimistic.
With or without
galleries, artists will always exist, but we need to remember that where
galleries go, tourism, education and success follows. So if it pays for itself in the long-run, both financially and culturally, funding the
arts shouldn’t even be a question.