The People and the Arts

New Zealand Listener, Volume 21, Issue 532, 2 September 1949, Page 4

The People and the Arts

EOPLE have always argued about standards of taste in the arts; but in other ages, when only some of the people were educated, the argument was confined to minorities. This is still true of some areas, for illiteracy casts -a long shadow across the world. In western countries, however, where education has become. universal there is now a wider opinion which, if not fully educated, is certainly vocal. Public attention to values in culture has been sharpened by broadcasting. People who formerly heard little music, who read few books, and wha knew no theatre except "the pictures" have become patrons of the arts simply by listening to radio programmes. There can be little doubt that they are learning to listen more carefully. The development is gradual, so that many of us do not know that it is taking place, and we are inclined to be dogmatic in judgment. Some people believe that, because they enjoy light entertainment, radio programmes’ should be pegged ‘at the lower levels; and they do not always understand that enjoyment would disappear if they succeeded in checking a higher activity inthe arts. Light music depends more than is often realised on the work of serious composers. Similarly, popular drama is able to make use of methods which are devised and tested in the better theatres. The two movements in art, popular and intellectual, are interdependent. Yet critics are heard to say that the people should be given what they want, and the inference is always that they want something easy and simple. Taste in art, they say, should be decided by weight of numbers: the wishes of the majority should prevail. If democracy in the arts meant nothing more than this, we should be condemned to sterility. In some countries the arts are under political control, and original work can: be repressed, It has been laid down

that music which displeases the majority is of necessity .bad or "anti-social"; composers have been told to forget their symphonies and to think of light operas for the masses. We hope that few New Zealanders would agree that art can be made democratic by stopping artists from following their vision. People should be free to hear light programmes if they want them, but they should not be free to impose their preference on the nation as a whole. Experience has shown that opportunity brings improvement. If evidence is needed, we do not have to look for it outside the current issue of The Listener. When we were offered exclusive rights for an article by Bernard Shaw on the production of plays, we thought at first that even the great playwright could not be expected to make a technical subject interesting to a large public in New Zealand. Then we began to make inquiries, the results of which are embodied in a second article. And we found that in the past few years there has been a remarkable expansion in the amateur theatre. Thousands of men and women who are members of repertory societies and drama groups, or who support them in cities, towns and country districts throughout New Zealand, can now be expected to feel a direct interest in the stage wisdom of Bernard Shaw. There are, of course, many reasons for this development, but it seems certain that broadcasting has been a major influence. The theatre has become democratic, not merely because more people are acting in it or going faithfully | to performances, but also because they have beer free to discover new values. They have been able to hear The Trojan Women as well as Dad and Dave. Some of us can enjoy ourselves at both levels; but democracy in the arts can exist only where the way is open for us to move from one level to the other.