DEMOCRACY AND CULTURE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 16, Issue 413, 23 May 1947, Page 18

DEMOCRACY AND CULTURE

J _ B. PRIESTLEY, whose views on the development of cultural standards in a free society. have been the subject of discussion in the last two issues of "The Listener,’ believes that the democratic process tends to depress these standards, and that their maintenance should be in the hands of experts. Priestley’s views have been summarised in our last two issues, and below we print the third and final group of New Zealand opinions on them. The group we have classed as "General" were asked to speak, not as : specialists of any kind but as citizens.

MUSICIANS S it remotely possible that the central thought underlying Mr. Priestley’s words can be questioned? Whence comes the widely-held notion that. "majority rule’ and "democracy". are necessarily synonymous terms? If fifty-one per cent. of the people in a community decided to enslave the remaining forty-nine per cent., and carried it out, that community would be at one and the same time a perfect example of majority rule, and an almost complete negation of democracy. We do accept, of course, the de-

cisions of a trained and qualified minority in many questions relating to our material existence. The solution of the engineering problems involved in the construction of a new municipal drainage system is decided by a few

experts. No one will deny that it would be madness to decide such things by popular vote. Would any one seriously contend the failure to decide such questions by counting heads is, in any way, an infring*ment of democratic principle? But in the other plane of human existence, spiritual values, or culture if you will, different ideas predominate. Probably a large majority of listeners to broadcast music in New Zealand look upon their licence receipts as a token of their right to a voice in the choice of music to be broadcast--a voice equal to that of all the other token holders. For is not this a democratic country? They will maintain that the particular set-up of their genes has nothing to do with it. Have they not paid their licence fee? (They also paid their share of the cost of the above-mentioned new drainage system!) Does not their licence give them the right to hear broadcasts of the sort of thing they like, merely because they like it? (What they like may well be almost as great a social menace as a defect in that drainage system would be.) They believe in the equal rights of each individual and at the same time, by their insistence on what Mr. Priestley calls "cultural democracy," deny that real individuality is of any consequence as a social "asset. "Rugged individualists" almost. invariably become involved in the same contradiction,, : Let it be said, in passing, that our own Broadcasting Service has withstood this sort of onslaught with considerable succes". What then is this thing we call democracy if it is not "head counting?" It is a social structure which, as far as possible, gives full recognition to human _ inequality. (No, no! not human equality, but human inequality.) Those who have ro Aa capacities and traits will have full scope to develop them to socially useful purpose, unhindered by "shoddy commercialism" (or any other commercialism, for that matter), or the interferenee of those whose capacities, equally valuable though they may be, lie in

other directions. True democracy postulates one form of human equality only; and that is the equal right of each individual to cultivate, to the fullest extent possible, those individual gifts with which his biological. make-up has endowed him. Provided, of course. that they are- in-line with the necessities of social evolution. If this is true, it would indicate that education in its broadest and most comprehensive sense, has become man’s chief. instrument of. survival. But, in view of H. G. Wells’s recent pronouncement about the human mind, all the preachings of the Priestleys and the priestly may be too late.

Stanley

Oliver

=. be ad [ AM in agreement with Mr. Priestley over his two democracies; he has said

it so well that I do not think I can add anything to his pronouncement. You say you hope "to get opinions from artists, educators, writers and others specially interested." I am more curious to hear yours.

Frederick

Page

ARTISTS : PRIESTLEY gives a name to a situation I should have thought we were all well aware of. Whole masses of people are complacently rooted in their ignorance and cheaply acquired tastes. But has not this always been so, and have not the artists of integrity continued to work to their own standards? I am not so apprehensive as Priestley of the dan-

ger that it may all end with only the lower levels of taste and intelligence being allowed to survive. I ‘think the arts. are a. little tougher than Priestley would appear to belicve, a little more enduring. And I do not see how all in-

telligence can be effectively destroyed. Lack of appreciation and neglect admittedly does not help the artist to produce good work, and it will destroy many of the weaker spirits. I am not one b-lieving that the artist’s best work comes out of his struggle to survive under difficult conditions. That is romantic nons?nse. But, at most, neglect will hinder; it will mot bring to an end the output of those artists who believe in themselves and know what they: are doing. And Priestley agrees that the world anyway eventually discovers the. best. I believe this is so. Given plenty of time whole sections of people come to appreciate the enduring quality. of certain works. It is too bad, of course, that enlightenment normally dawns so late, and

that by this time the creator of) such work is seldom present to share in the celebration of his discovery. If standards. of taste, appreciation, and presentation were generally higher this process of arriving at the correct valuation of work being produced would not take so long. The zero level of taste and the poor aesthetic judgment evident in the mass of English-speaking: people is a great drag. We.in this country rest smugly on one of the lowest levels of all. We have few indeed capable or confidcnt enough to make any authoritative judgment when it comes to aesthetic questions. The radio and films, particularly the, Hollywood ones, have helped us little, if at all. They have done more, as Priestley says, towards confirming the greater proportion of the people in their mental laziness and. bad taste; and it is in their power to do so much good. This is also true of the press. But I think it debatable whether these institutions are actually lowering the level of public taste. Such a conclusion presupposes the existence of a higher level of taste to begin with. With the level of public taste prevailing in our time it is madness, of course, to count heads in deciding questions of aesthetics. Counting heads in this case is silly enough, but the worst evil is that most of it these days is actually done on coins. Among the great bulk of the people it is the money token that has become the unquestioned basis .of. all valuation in culture as weil as in commence.

Eric Lee

Johnson

JIRIESTLEY seems very pleased with political. democracy, but very sore about its natural offspring, cultural democracy. This, as he describes it, seems to differ somewhat from its parent, in that it works as a sort of all-in, non-stop referendum, whereas the parent body consults the people once in three years (or seven), and ignores ‘em the test of the time. Something in between might be better for both.

Coming down to cases, Lord Reith’s attitude is safisfactory to me; in fact it’s the only honest line to take. That, if followed through, should iron out most of Prieéstley’s worries, provided you start with the right

Reith and don’t gag, hog-tie and ‘hamstring him. When talking of farm-hands and the Arts, Priestley needs to be careful. They’re apt to be tricky, these rustics. I’m told there was a ploughman one time up Ayrshire way who knew quite a bit about playing the words an’ a’ that. One of our troubles is that in both spheres-political and cultural-the exponents of the second-rate are often more vocal than the rest. By easy stages (continued on next page)

(continued from previous Page) . we cone to’ the "expert" "who ¢an talk fluently on what some other guy merely does. Travelling light, he moves quickly, takes short cuts, often forgets the earlier stages of his journey, and altogether is likely to prove an unreliable guide.

Archibald

Nicoll

RT is a universal language. It is unfettered by nationality or period. To those who will take the trouble to learn to understand the ideals of the artist and the methods of his craft, its message is clear whether the work be of Ancient Egypt, Medieval England or Modern France. Most of the great masterpieces are nationally-owned and normally may be seen and enjoyed by people of all countries, Improved facilities for travel and transport will make them more and more _ international possessions. It matters little that Michelangelo was an Italian, Rembrandt a Dutchman, or Turner an Englishman,

and it matters still less wh owns their masterpieces _ since, in reality, they belong to each individual in proportion to his capacity to appreciate them. Great art fosters a real democracy that breaks down the barriers of language.

nationality, and time. In London, on the very eve of World War II, men of all races gathered at an International Congress of Art and mixed together in perfect goodwill. This is very different from the conception of democracy in art which would suggest that everyone, irespective of qualification, should be entitled to pass judgment on works of art. We are all entitled to our opinions and are perfectly free to express or publish them. It matters little what the ignorant think or say of works of art beyond their comprehension, but there is danger when uneducated mass opinion is given publicity by writers on art and pseudo-critics who write for applause. Whether they pander to the man in the street who likes his art comfortable and easy, or to the high-brow who must have it modern, these impostors are a menace to art and artists. The artist has no means of reply and it is essential that the critic be possessed of, not only absolute integrity, but very wide knowledge and understanding as well. Only then can his praise or condemnation have any real value. It would be a poor democracy where ignorance could prevail. Such a sorry state can be avoided by wise education and the realisation that art is not merely an extra, but an essential part of cultural equipment. It takes at least eight years of full-time study to train an artist and such an extensive course can, of course, be undertaken only by the intending practitioner. The general aim should be to foster a sound and healthy attitude that would incidentally direct the student to genuine authority for further guidance, just as an educated person with an adequate knowledge of the laws of health would be immune to quackery. | Attempts to popularise art can have unfortunate results. "Art for all" can be just as dangerous as "art for art’s sake."

Child art enthusiasts are apt to see in the charming artles:ness of children an indication that art ability is universal, and that complete expression can be acquired without undue effort. This is disproved by studying the life of any artist who has achieved lasting distinction. Even the "naive" artist produces his child-like drawings with sureness only after strenuous and serious training and it takes many years before the draughtsman can impart iife to an apparent scribble. No great art has ever resulted from giving the public’ what it wanted, It may be argued that the Dutch artists of the 17th Century painted for middleclass patrons without cultural background. It must be remembered, however, ‘that these artists were eagerly exploring the possibilities of everyday subjects and that it happened that these were just the sort of things that suited the patrons. It must be remembered, too, that, of the vast number of paintings produced by hosts of little masters, much was mediocre and that the greatest artist of them all, Rembrandt, offended public taste by becoming incomprehensible as he developed his full powers. Both Hals and he died in poyerty and oblivion. After Vermeer’s death, it was necssary, in order to sell his works, to forge De-Hooch’s signature. Many great artists have had to forfeit public favour in order to achieve real greatness: Frances Hodgkins would un-

doubtedly be more popular were she less great. Aciually the mass of the people have little opportunity for exercising discretion in art matters. Fashion dominates taste, and fashions are created as commercial propositions, the success of which depend upon their popularity with the mass. Cultural enlightenment is unlikely to prove a tempting financial investment. The Art of a country or of an age is judged on the best art produced there or then--the mediocre is forgotten. To taise the standard of taste it is necessary that the best artists be given full opportunity to produce their best work, for quality is obviously more important than quantity. An exhibition of American Art selected by popular vote and sent to New Zéaland would do little, I fear, to increase our respect for American painters or American standards. A real work of art is not equal to so many indifferent pieces, although this might seem so on a monetary calculation. A masterpiece that has stood the test of time and has won the recognition of eminent authorities through the ages surpasses all intrinsic value and its careful preservation is an international responsibility. The ordinary man_ often confesses frankly that he can see nothing im these great works to warrant the reputations they have acquiredif left to him they would have been scrapped long ago. He will just as ruthlessly condemn contemporary work that he cannot understand. If art is to be something more than entertainment, it is absolutely essential that its production and development be left to those most highly qualified. and that. their |- efforts be not obstructed’ by the voice

of ignorance.

S. B.

Maclennan