DEMOCRACY AND CULTURE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 16, Issue 413, 23 May 1947, Page 20

DEMOCRACY AND CULTURE

| EDUCATOR PRIESTLEY believes that the majority of adult citizens in a democracy should decide what kind of government they should have, but not what kinds of literature, music or other forms of art should be made available to them from public or private sources. The people in a democracy could, of course, regulate these matters so that the views of the majority would pre-

vail. The fact that they do not do so is significant. They are content, for example, to leave the education of their children to experts. The advances made in the appreciation of music and of other forms of art in the schools, since

my day, are amazing. In another 40 years, the general standard of public taste should be better than it is to-day and better literature, films and broadcasts should follow. There afte, however, always the parents and other adults. They bear the burdens’ of the world, pay for. evérything, and, having attained 21, have, in New ‘Zealand, a further expectation of life of about 50 years. They do not seek to control programmes but they are entitled, as they tread the pavements of time, to have their wishes considered. as part of their welfare. The forcible imposition upon them of only that which is considered good for them by experts is at variance with our conception of the freedom and dignity of the individual. Nevertheless, having searched in vain at times for a programme to suit myself, and having found on the radio only vaudeville or the like, swing or the like, or certain kinds of talk, and on the films only unacceptable Hollywood, I have naturally thought that too much attention is paid to what is thought to be the preference of the majority. I would remedy this partly by encouraging the lifting of the standard within the limits imposed by protests or by the box-office but mainly by enabling public authorities to set a standard without being required to make a profit. They could do this, not only as they have been able to do in the past by public art galleries and are now doing by a National Symphony Orchestra, but by establishing a National Theatre (which would consummate the work of our admirable Repertory Societies), municipal picture houses, and @ musical programme on the radio to which one could turn at any time, ranging (say) from Gilbert and Sullivan to Bach. I think we need not attribute a shortage of good books, or of fresh editions of good books, to the public taste. When the paper shortage is overcome, these will be available, at a price.

D. S.

Smith

(Chancellor of the University),

GENERAL INCE reading J. B. Priestley’s article, I have been wondering if it would not be. helpful to the discussion to examine first of all the term we are talking about, The article is on art. What do people expect from art and from the (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) artist? Somebody maintained recently in a discussion that cooking is one of the arts — others maintain that art is only an embellishment for the rich and powerful, and others again think it is

just another torm of propaganda. Perhaps a great number of people would agree. that the essence of art is entertainment. But it is obvious that for many works of art none of these interpretations apply. This sounds all very

confusing. But it shows at least that very different kinds of work are classified under this ancient term. But even within one kind of art there seem to be essential differences: for instance, if we take the category of comedies and compare A Midsummer Night's Dream and Charley’s Aunt; or Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro with one of Gilbert and Sulliyan’s comedies. In. the matter of quality, discrimination is often a complex and thorny question and rarely unanimously agreed upon. To overcome this difficulty pedantic people of the past have tried to _ establish and define rules for judgment. Richard Wagner took such an attempt of the Middle Ages as the theme for his opera The Mastersingers of Nuremberg and his Mr. Beckmesser became the prototype for the pedants who try to judge art by a code of rules. The devastating results of the "Académie Francaise" are another outcome of this attitude towards art. Modern critics-con-fused by the complexity of their taskare inclined to fall back on this everrecurring method. In spite of these difficulties and of the complexity of assessing artistic quality, art is not nonsense, nor is it just an entertainment, an alternative diversion to, say, wrestling. That statement brings me to the root of the question, namely the part art plays in our life. Broadly speaking I think it is true to say that a society without real artistic, creative force is not fully developed. Artistic creation is part of our mental life. It interprets and transforms into human values what is otherwise an objective natural phenomenon. A mountain in itself is neither beautiful nor ugly and it depends entirely on the onlooker, whether he is able to transform it into an.emotional experience. A good artist is an especially sensitive person. He is able to convey his own experience through his work to other people. As fundamental human experiences are similar, he helps other people to see and to experience for themselves. This is the artist’s contribution to society. But his own genuine experience must be free and independent of. public opinion. The source of his creative force lies deeply, sometimes even subconsciously, within himself and any flirting with current opinion is more often than not an acute danger to this force. If he lets public opinion influence his work, he is already corrupt and no ilonger genuine. Therefore the most public-conscious artist is likely to be the most corrupt one. Some artists .live in accord with society-others are ahead of or apart from current tendencies of their time. This may complicate their status in society, but has nothing to do with their creative quality. Emotions and artistic reactions are formed by a _ complex mental and physical process. The resulting works of art are most subtle reproductions of human experience. They

give us an insight into some human reactions which cannot otherwise be obtained. This is the reason why, for instance, any comprehensive historical research cannot afford to omit from its subject matter the Arts of the period under investigation. A chronicler records political intrigues, murders, and coups d’état-Shakespsare turns such occurrences into drama. He transcends barren historical facts and translates them into a human experience, far surpassing the significance of the particular events. The same occurs with a "Mural Decoration" done by Michelangelo. Or a "naturalistic portrait" painted by Leonardo da Vinci. Furthermore, a structure made of bricks and stones may become the expression of the mental attitude of a whole society. Reading through what I have written [ find that I have not specifically answered the problem raised by J. B. Priestley, although I think my answer is already implied. An efficient democracy surely would not seriously consider trying to achieve anything except the highest possible level in scientific research. There seems to me no reason why it should be different with the arts; that is if we accept the fact that the arts are an essential part of the life of a people. As to the method of making this work understandable to a wider public, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Priestley when he says that "there has to be a good deal of enthusiastic propaganda on behalf of such work by persons of taste and special knowledge." As far as broadcasting programmes, art exhibitions, libraries, and so on are concerned, it seems to me a matter of wisdom, skill, and judgment, on the part of those who direct those things, to decide on the capacity of the public. I feel quite hopeful that this task, if entrusted to the right people can be accomplished as long as the community is aware of the basic function of art in our

ite.

E. A.

Plischke

QOH, dear, what a problem! First of all, I agree with nearly everything Mr. Priestley says. I think he under-states the case. But there are many difficulties. There are two sorts of art (using that word, for convenience, to cover all the "cultural" activities in question). There is the sort people make for themselves; and there is the sort they buy from others. I’m strongly in favour of people trying to provide for themselves, whether it be in the way of making their

own clothes or furniture, playing musical instruments of all kinds, or writing verse. I am willing to defend to the death the right of any man to play a cornet, and to play what he likes on it, provided he doesn’t do it too near to me.

Dut when it comes to the art people buy, I don’t think they have any right to demand rubbish, and to expect artists to provide it for them. Nor do I think it a good thing (for example) fof a musician to compose, or to play, music for which he has a contempt, just because "people like it." If people © want rubbish, let them provide it for themselves. It must be kept in mind that most of the bad "popular" art of to-day had its origin, not in any spontaneous impulse among the people, but in the desire of powerful commercial trusts, first (continued on next page)

DEMOCRACY AND CULTURE

| (continued {rom previous page) to create appetites (working cunningly on human frailty), and then to satisfy them-at a profit. Their origin is anything but democratic. This state of things is of course made possible by the venality of artists themselves, and their capacity for rationalising their treacheries. There are thousands of artists who are nothing more than collaborators in an occupied country. It is the artists who produce nearly all the bad commercialised art-doing it deliberately, in the full knowledge that they are debasing standards, and’ excusing themselves on the ground that they "must live." (Je ne vois pas la necessité). I think that when the State, or any other public authority, sets out to organise or to patronise the arts, it has a clear duty to tncourage only ‘that which is genuine. It should have no truck with anything that is meretricious, or moronic. The State certainly has no business helping to commercialise the standards of art, any more than it has to ‘enter the cocaine trade or to run State brothels. Otherwise, we might as well set up a Ministry of Bread and a Ministry of Circuses at once. Perhaps we have them already. Both the artist and the State have a higher responsibility than that of providing the public of the moment with what it thinks it wants. Their first duty is to the traditions of art, and of civilised society. There are objective standards in art just as there are in doctoring and plumbing. These can’t be codified in exact terms, any more than you can give a scientific definition of happiness. But there is an organic and living tradition; and there is such a thing as intellectual authority-and if a community doesn’t accept and cultivate these things as one cultivates a garden, it will end by throttling itself, or die by a sort of ptomaine poisoning. At the same time, may Heaven defend us against the establishment of any sort of "official" art. If the State is to encourage the arts, the politician’s job is not to impose his own tastes (which may be anything at all), but to create the conditions under which art can happen. This means, among other things, encouraging diversity, and preventing any particular artist to whom power is entrusted from imposing his ideas on all the other artists. This is very likely to happen. For artists as a rule are about as tolerant and broadminded as cats. What we need is a class of men whose minds are cultivated; who are not bound in academic chains; end who are intimate with the broad traditions of the arts. Their function should be to act as intermediaries between the State, the artists end the people; and as guardians of standards, anti-toxic agents. The au'hority for ‘administering public art should be delegated chiefly to groups drawn from this class. I think we have such men. But I see little inclination in eny quarter to let them do the important work for which ‘hey, and probably they alone, are fitted.

A. R. D.

Fairburn

her 3 _ 7 M R. PRIESTLEY must surely be the sentimentali t of the Left. He has been greatly publicised and when his article first eppeared I merely glanced at it. One tires of reading in order to refute rather than to gain instruction

or delight. Counting heads is proper for selecting those to engage in the art of government but not for fixing standards in what he differentiates as cultural arts. The farm-hand ignorant of culture is

sufficiently expert in essential principles of government and in policies such as broadcasting, or monetary controls, or gaming, which may become vital issues at an election. Government is probably a_ pre-re-

quisite of the emergence of culture. Under enlightened government, whether or not democratic in form, the common people are often better judges of cultural things then of policies. Folk music has inspired some of our greatest musicians; folk-lore and _ proverbial philosophy exhibit both beauty and wisdom, The shoemaker may be a good art critic if he does not look above the shoe. The commonsense of the people has often been a prime factor in the rejection of extravagance or decadent trends in art. The crux of the problem of government as of culture lies in authority. I have not found life easy. I am not so submissive as not to have kicked against the pricks or so passionless as to have felt no tension of choice between light and dark. I have held by training and instinct to the necessity of authority and I have passed to ‘successive stages of loyalty in service, of ethical conduct, of cultural appreciation, with the same certitude of higher values as when I deserted marbles for cricket. Two things worry one-a seeming dualism in life and the abuse of authority. Space restricts me to brief consideration of the second. As to the seat of authority-I reject unconditional legitimacy claims of persons or classes. Our history gives no support to the theory that vox populi is vox Dei. I reject determinist claims that social organisa‘ion, classless for instance, or planned economies will prevent abuse. Authority emerges, wins allegiance, endures as it accepts the principles of laws inherent in the nature of things. They have been called the Law of Neture and the Law of God. I prefer the latter. They are not entirely self-evident, are always unfolding. The almost Hegelian shuffle of society left or right calls for constant prophecy. Conformity is the vi'al principle. The great rebel is a great conformist. Acceptance of the law is a unifying principle. The United Nations have nothing comparable. It gave authority to the internalionalism of Gro’ius. In a State, authority will strive to maintain the tradition, those national traits, that sense of mission: and faith in it which conditioned its rise and loss of which will bring its fall. At our truly heroic periods the common people, my people, under great leaders have fought for right not privilege. With. such a faith they may be trusted to respond to things of the

cpirit:

T. D. H.

Hall

Ba as * MR: PRIESTLEY has, in the best journalistic tradition, written a proyocative and amusing article in which he implies the need for a cultural dictatorship. He wants good art. We all (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) do. In defining "good’’ however, we are faced with the same difficulty as Pontius Pilate in his attempt to define Truth. It is easier to define what is bad.

All standards including art derive primarily from the specialist. Because my specialty does not happen to be the arts, may I express what I beliéve to be the outlook of the man in the street.

We do not live by art alone. There- | fore -we are not justified in making it | the central theme of existence. Nor can | we ignore it, because, as Aldous Huxley (Texts and Pretexts) says, we tend to think and feel in terms of the art we like. Hence if our living is to be good, our art must be good. If art is going to exert any influence upon me, the layman, it must interest, excite and satisfy. There must surely be a wide range of good art which can do this, In film there can be good thrillers, good comedy, good musicals and good documentaries. In music, while accepting the great masters, there must be good and bad swing, good and bad boogie-woogie — whatever that may be. Shakespeare is acknowledged everywhere as the master dramatist, says Mr. Priestley. I‘won’t argue. I can and do endure his plays, but there are many occasions when I would prefer Coward or Priestley. Point one then, is that in art, "good" is a catholic term, and it implies interest and diversity. In film and radio particularly there must be stratification (of programmes to meet the different culture levels) and the minorities are en"titled to recognition. The second problem is to determine how the layman may attain good standards of appreciation. Film and radio may supplement education but they are primarily for entertainment. Let their entertainment be good art, but do not use them to ram culture as such down the throats of an» unwilling public. For this purpose there are increasing educational facilities. Good standards often require a prolonged mass conditioning which should begin with the young, and be carried out with the advice of specialists. A tribute to this principle is the increasing number of young people in New Zealand who are intérested in classical music because of the excellent work carried out in the schools. I believe that mankind, given the necessary opportunity and training, pre‘fers the best to the worst, and ignorance of standards should not be contused with lack of taste. Finally, Whatever may be desirable for the young, I feel that at our age in life, we ought to know what we like. Mr. Priestley’s cultural dictatorship would be as obnoxious as the political variety, for in art as well as in politics we need

tolerance.

-Dr.

A. R.

Ellis

(President, New Zealand Film Institute).