A reply to Nick Seddon in Guardian who I insisted on calling Heddon throughout..oh well…apologies for that but you cannot edit once posted…so keep your Heddon:-)

debate here..

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/03/quality_not_social_value_shoul.html

I see Mr. Seddon has revived that old hoary chestnut ‘quality’ again. It may come as a surprise to some (but not those involved in the business of filling in application forms at which many are now Olympic standard) that The Arts Council may do some things but evaluating submissions on basis of ‘quality’ of the actual art is not one of them. In fact it is written into its ‘democratic’ remit that submissions are assessed on everything BUT the actual artwork. This is to be as democratic as possible. Mr.Seddon sounds rather quaint in his assessment of the Arts Council as if he’d walked out of a Festival of Britain poster. In the good old days the ‘grandees’ of British Culture would have decided on ‘merit’ what good and bad but those days are hopefully long gone and its Oxbridge-centred ‘sifting’ of what good and bad too. I stand firmly on the fence when ‘quality’ is used as a marker..whose quality, click whose agendas? For all its mistakes (they are legion) the present Arts Council is trying to divide Lottery spoils equally.

Mr. Seddon is right there will be no revolution in regards to the ‘spoilt’ arts i.e. theatre, recipe opera and ballet. They were at core of original Arts Council and remain ‘spoilt’ as long as their ‘quality and prestige ‘ factor remains high and important to both sides of Parliament. What the debate has highlighted is the lack of some universal notion of quality down at the ‘lower levels’. Implementing a satisfactory ‘quality control’ there opens a can of worms we may never close…Until then we get the hit and miss system we have now. Better that than direct ‘Art Tsars’ or heaven forbid ‘Departments of Culture’. I note Mr.Seddon involved in ‘Civitas’ and that august body is well known for leaning to the right and damning ‘pc’ culture. I may not like the present system any more than Mr. Seddon but I am not going to be fooled into promoting a return to the class-based elitism and notions of quality that it would also mean. I have argued elsewhere that a fully democratic asessment of funding and ‘quality control’ which builds on the Arts Council’s laudable move toward ‘accountability’ (this debate for instance) is needed not a return to the days when the ‘arts’ in the hands of a small and wealthy elite.

‘Art for Art’s sake’ smacks of that elitism and I refute it for those reasons. I’m sure that Mr. Seddon’s notion of ‘quality’ different to mine and very different to a single parent on a Nottingham Estate. Who is to say any of ours is the right notion? Indeed those cats with their heads in the bowls of cream are never the most aware of the poor kittens with no cream and in some cases no bowls.Me-owism I would call it.

P.S. re: …”so perhaps the Arts Council could focus not on commissioning art works but instead on creating spaces – auditoria, drugstore theatres, galleries.”I not sure if London is in need of more and if you take a look around the country, Liverpool, Middlesborough, Nottingham we are awash with new ones and West Bromwich an extreme example. It is not buildings (beloved as they are of ‘regenerationists’) but what we put in them that the problem…the ‘creative industries’ (maybe the only industries left) are on an upward curve that will mean non-artists may be in the minority soon. Maybe then the newly formed ‘Non-Arts Council’ will ‘remove art’ on their behalf rather than promote it??