For the more conventional among us, Valentine’s day brings embarrassingly large bouquets, overpriced meals for two, and strangely shaped chocolates. For Oliver Dowden, it brought a new position in the cabinet – culture secretary for the country of Shakespeare and Byron, Harry Styles and Gilbert and George.
For some 40 days and 40 nights, it seemed Dowden’s greatest challenge was deciding which invitations to accept, and which to politely, yet firmly, reject. Then, on 23 March, the country went into lockdown, and the institutions Dowden had promised to defend closed their doors in the hope of being able to open them on the other side. Maintaining the country’s cultural sector in a crisis which has been called “unprecedented” more times than One Direction have been tenuously compared to The Beatles, was perhaps not in the job description.
As we conclude the twelfth week of a seemingly unending quarantine, looking to the future is almost as anxiety-inducing as looking directly at the present. Yet for many establishments, considering where the future will take us will ensure that there is a future at all. Discussing self-preservation for the arts has never been so important, even if at times, it feels as appealing as looking directly at the sun.
It is for this reason that the current lack of government action regarding the preservation of the arts during a global pandemic is so disappointing, even verging on negligent. With Dowden’s only move to introduce a so-called “cultural renewal taskforce” some 70 days into lockdown, it is unclear whether the government is unwilling or simply unable to respond to the needs of the industry.
According to Dowden, his taskforce is expected to be “instrumental in identifying creative ways to get these sectors up and running again”. The eight strong team, including the co-founder of lastminute.com and the man who runs Winter Wonderland, hardly instils hope that Dowden has it all under control.
Richard Morrison, chief culture critic for The Times, is one of those leading the charge against Dowden and his cohort, writing a piece that would make even the most thick-skinned among us wince (one can only hope for his sake that Dowden never finds his way to the comments section).
Indeed, one can almost hear Morrison scoff as he writes: “There isn’t an arts organisation in the land that hasn’t been desperately thinking through every possible “creative” means of escape from looming bankruptcy during the nine weeks while Dowden has been twiddling his paperclips.” Creativity, unlike funding, is hardly lacking in the cultural sphere after all.
Morrison is not alone in his despair at the present situation. At the tail end of April, a letter co-signed by over 500 members of the arts demanded that the government take action with immediate effect. From Nick Cave to Simon Callow, Meera Syal to PJ Harvey, the great and the good of the cultural sphere came together to issue a warning that felt, for once, anything but over-dramatic – if nothing is done, they wrote, the UK risks becoming “a cultural wasteland”. At that time, the CIF, the collaboration through which the letter was issued, wrote that only half of the country’s creative organisations were with sufficient funds to survive beyond the end of this month.
It seems odd, therefore, that the Dowden and his peers have decided to adopt the adage – never discuss money, politics, or religion in polite company – when it comes to the arts, especially given the almost overwhelming request for funding from the sector. From Neil Constable, the CEO of the Globe, who said that: “we need urgent financial support to survive in any recognisable form” to Jasmine Whitbread, chief executive of London First, who notes that: “It is vital that the government looks to provide targeted relief to such an important part of the UK economy, by making finance easier to access and establishing a distress fund for those who have fallen through the cracks” there is little ambiguity that the sector needs money, and fast.
The importance of cash to save culture is echoed by none other than Hans-Ulrich Obrist, director of the Serpentine Gallery who has suggested that the only way out is through a multi-million-pound public art project to support our cultural institutions. Obrist even makes the comparison to the Public Works of Art Project and the Works Progress Administration which took place under the Roosevelt administration following the Great Depression in the 1930s. According to Obrist: “With the WPA, they went out into the community: artists got salaries and were able to research and create work during the New Deal era. It gave many people their first real jobs and commissions.”
Indeed, looking to history is invaluable when we consider this future. The schemes performed under Roosevelt were able to employ almost 4,000 artists and led to the production of some 15,000 pieces. Without such funding it is not clear whether the Pollocks and Rothkos which adorn the walls of galleries today would even exist. For Obrist, considering this project has never been more timely, as he notes: “It’s such a fascinating project when you consider where we find ourselves now, both in terms of supporting the economy and the importance of helping and caring about artists,” concluding: “The UK government should do something like this.”
While those in Obrist’s company consider Covid-19 something of a call to arms, there are others, like Johnathan Jones, who seem completely and utterly fed up with the entire Covid-19 situation. In a recent piece for The Guardian, Jones bemoans the present state of affairs.
He begins by decrying the use of virtual tours, citing them as “spectral, sadly unsatisfying substitutes for the real thing” which he has neglected to examine prior “out of goodwill and support for artists”. He continues, suggesting various solutions to our present predicament from opening galleries first and special exhibitions later, to the opening “quieter, less crowd-pleasing museums” before their more impressive brothers and sisters.
One of the most concerning suggestions made by Jones is that we ought to “break a great British taboo and temporarily – I do mean temporarily – introduce admission charges”. The very fact that Jones makes such a proposal is only redeemed by the fact he immediately follows it up with the confession “All right, I’m going lockdown crazy.” The UK, is, after all, one of the only countries in the world to employ a free museum policy (in spite of experiments from both Sweden and France which were swiftly reversed). What a privilege it is exist in a country where one can see a Rembrandt and an Emin in one heartbeat, with no on-the-spot cost. Given Dowden’s apparent predilection to ignore all other suggestions made by the culture sphere, one can only hope that his ears do not prick up at this one.
It is not only opinion pieces that paint a picture of a sector in crisis. Indeed, the latest report by the Arts Index is also indicative of the desperate need for funding within the arts sector. According to the latest report, in the past decade, funding for the arts per head fell by 35 per cent. Published under the National Campaign for the Arts, the report is intended to directly reflect upon the health of England’s arts and culture, and it seems that at present it is in dire need of a trip to the doctor. As a direct result of declining arts funding, institutions have been forced to find alternative means of income, which has seen an almost 50 per cent increase in income due to ticket sales and similar endeavours, all well and good until a global pandemic hit.
According to Samuel West, the chair of the NCA: "Arts organisations rose to the challenge following the financial crash; we salute them for increasing earned income in response to a triple whammy of cuts to public funding, business sponsorship and philanthropic giving.
However, he notes that: "It's bitterly ironic that the arts sector's resourceful response to the 2008 financial crash is now the very thing that makes it vulnerable to the Covid-19 crisis, with theatres closed and income from tickets and bars dropping off a cliff." Being punished for doing exactly what was demanded of them is hardly like to instil good will in the nation’s culture sphere.
In light of this, it seems that Dowden’s latest attempt to reunite the world of art and culture was perhaps misguided. His first lockdown interview, in which he spoke with the Evening Standard, provided him with a playing field to make himself seem like he knew what was going on. Instead, he took the opportunity to remove himself from the nation’s favourite sport. “It’s rather ironic that I spend a lot of time talking about football …. given that I have never been a huge football fan” he mused.
For those in museums and theatres alike, who have been wondering where exactly Dowden has been for the past two months, this is hardly the kind of confession that will prove in any way helpful to them. Institutions who responded to the 2008 recession by making their own income feel hardest hit. Everyone in the arts world is asking the same questions, according to the Evening Standard: “why haven’t we heard from Dowden? Where’s the bailout to keep our world-beating culture sector alive? Does he realise how catastrophic things are?”
Dowden responds to the art world, vaguely stating that he has been involved in some “intricate discussions” with the treasury. The deal, he says, is almost done, though so, it seems is the sector he was tasked with defending. Dowden continues: “Of course I want to get the money flowing. I am not going to let anyone down.” In order to do so, it would seem that Dowden needs a miracle, not a taskforce.
The culture sectary believes in his government, as one would hope. “I’ve always found the Chancellor and his team very engaged and understanding about the value of this sector.” With Rishi Sunak’s enviable collection of modern art, one would certainly hope so.
It is hard to envy anyone who finds themselves in Dowden’s shoes as he continues: “Not everyone is going to be happy with whatever comes up. I’m going to have to ask institutions to take difficult decisions”. It seems that Dowden referring to Covid-19 as a “temporary thing” might explain how he justifies his apparent inaction.
Contradictorily he states that the arts are essential to “the strength, resilience and reputation of London” he adds: “We would be absolutely crazy to throw it away”, which only leads one to wonder why his efforts seem both too little, and too late to have any meaningful impact.
For those who find themselves punished by present circumstances, Dowden says: “I don’t want that to rebound on them” nor it seems, does he want only those who are “heavily reliant on public money” to be able to weather the storm. While he seems clear on what he does not want, it may prove helpful for him to demonstrate precisely what he does envisage for the future of the sector.
Yet Dowden does make a promise – his first in some 82 days in the job – “I am not going to stand by and see our world-leading position in arts and culture destroyed.” One can only hope that he, and the government he is part of, are able to put their money where their mouth is, before it is too late.
