Amis, Self-Hate and the Brutal Society

Martin Amis is interviewed in today's Daily Telegraph about the themes of his new novel, The Pregnant Widow, and indeed on the wider state of the nation.

He has this to say on what he calls Britain's current 'brutal philistinism':

“Can we get any more trivial?” he wonders. “The X Factor and Katie Price and Big Brother ... It’s fierce, too, very fierce: the baying for those two boyfriends of Jordan’s to have a fight in the [Celebrity Big Brother] house. Sort of bear pit stuff. There is a lot of that in Britain.

“It’s self-hatred, I think,” he continues. “A sort of wildness to do with marginalisation. I think it must be tied up with Britain’s demotion in terms of a world power. The ideology that started in the Seventies – it’s got a million names, levellism, multiculturalism, relativism – that taught us that we didn’t like empire, we were ashamed we ever had one.

“But you don’t go from being the main power on earth to being a third-rate power without it awakening deep feelings of wounded pride. This triviality and this drunkenness, the yob culture, which is a real thing and not confined to the street. I mean, banking! ... In the City they’ve all got names like Vomit and Cheeseball, and it’s all very violent, and built around terrific bollockings and humiliations. And the politics: Alastair Campbell using the word 'f---’ a lot to show he means business.”

There's much in what Amis says. It struck a chord with me as the next NCF publication is a collection of essays by various contributors on the place of self-hatred in our culture.

The book will deal with various themes, including:

• An exploration of the effects of self-hatred on our national story and national identity.
• An examination of cultural self-laceration in the academic and educational fields.
• Anti-elitism as a disguise for self-hatred
• An examination of self-hatred as a part of the environmentalist movement
• A consideration of the ways in which self-hatred and self-blame shape our response to radical Islam.
• An exploration of the notion of anti-Americanism as an expression of self-hate.
• A look at the part played by self-blame and self-hatred in the giving of Overseas Aid.
• The Cult of Apology

Publication details will of course by posted here in due course. PW

Posted in Commentary add new comment

In the Blue Corner

Theodora Clarke explains the Tory position on arts funding.

The Shadow Chancellor recently delivered his first major speech on the arts at the Tate Family Conference. George Osborne outlined the Conservative Party’s vision for the arts and announced that the shadow Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) team has launched a major review of the industry. He reinforced his party’s commitment to culture before setting out the central tenets of Tory arts policy: freeing cultural institutions from micromanagement, returning the National Lottery to its original function of funding good causes and encouraging a culture of philanthropic giving. Osborne stated that David Cameron was “personally committed to arts and culture” and that the arts tied in to the party’s core theme of social responsibility.

The Conservatives are committed to continued state support and funding for the arts. However, in light of the huge financial deficit, they have acknowledged the need to find complementary sources of funding. The Tories propose to restore the National Lottery to its original four good causes which includes the arts. Since 1998, the Government has diverted almost £3.5 billion from the Lottery’s traditional recipients to plug holes in government expenditure. This has resulted in a £240 million reduction in arts funding each year. By restoring Lottery funding the arts could profit by an additional £50 million a year.

Osborne also recommended that arts bodies should look at how government funding could act as a catalyst for more private and philanthropic investment in the arts. A matched grants scheme has been suggested whereby a grant is contingent on cultural institutions producing their own revenue stream. This system is already in use elsewhere in the UK and the Arts Council in England (ACE) could follow suit.

He encouraged cultural organisations to actively build endowments. The Conservatives suggest that arts institutions follow the American example of building up large endowments which can provide long-term revenue and financial stability. The US museum sector currently has endowments worth around $14 billion. However, these have shrunk by as much as 25% since 2008. Employing an endowment model here could well benefit prominent cultural institutions but this would be at the expense of smaller organisations. Larger entities, such as the British Museum and Natural History Museum, now have dedicated departments focused on development. They are responsible for fundraising and bringing in additional revenue streams through individual and corporate donations. Development departments are aware that giving is part of most business’ marketing campaign and is seen as part of an ongoing business relationship. Sponsorship is often an extension of a firm’s commitment to corporate social responsibility and part of their branding.

Public funding can prove a catalyst for business investment and philanthropy. However, Arts and Business has released statistics that show private-sector investment in the arts has fallen by 7% to £654.9m. Another concern is whether a ‘culture of philanthropy’ using the US model would actually be successful. This proposal requires a long-term cultural shift that may not be achievable or even effective in this country. In addition, the UK do not share the same tax breaks as the US which are designed to promote philanthropic giving. A radical shift of policy would be required and a change in tax laws to encourage lifetime giving to the arts. The Art Fund and other cultural organisations have consistently been arguing for a change in legislation to further benefit donors.

Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary, has acknowledged the Government’s support of the arts and praised Lord Smith for making museum admission free. Osborne reiterated Tory support for “free entry to galleries and museums”. This may though prove a contentious point in the future. In America admission fees are relatively high, charging up to $20 per individual. This high entry price though does not seem to deter visitors. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has suggested that it is time to rethink how national museums raise funds from visitors and is looking at US examples. A large number of works have been recently donated to the state such as the Anthony d’Offray collection. However, what the arts really needs is an injection of cash. Last September, Arts and Business published a report revealing that almost 70% of arts organisations in the capital have seen their business sponsorship drop since 2008.

One change which the Tories propose is to reduce the annual funding spent on administration by cultural bodies. The Arts Council was attacked for its 11% expenditure on operational costs. Earlier this month, Jeremy Hunt has said that the Conservatives would introduce targets for the main distributors of art grants such as the ACE. These organisations would be required to reduce administrative costs to a maximum of 5% of all public funds received. Hunt has already conceded however that this is an “arbitrary” number.

In his speech Osborne discussed the important role the arts can play in the wider economy. The economic as well as social value of the arts should not be underestimated. Nearly 80% of tourists in the UK are attracted by the prospect of cultural attractions, such as the Tate, and large museums can and do generate huge economic benefits each year for the country. In addition, across the nation, over £2m people are employed in the creative industries and, over the past decade, this sector has grown at double the rate of the rest of the economy. The creative industries currently contribute 7% of the country’s GDP. As a spokesman for ACE stated this month “Public investment in the arts is an investment in the quality of people’s lives across the country.”

Theodora Clarke is a lecturer and expert on Russian art. This month she is running a course at the Royal West of England Academy entitled Revolutionary Russia: Avant-Garde Art and Visual Culture.

Posted in Commentary add new comment

Arts Funding Debate

Matthew Elliott, head of the Taxpayers Alliance and a member of the NCF Advisory panel, will be one of the speakers debating the motion 'This country can no longer afford to subsidise the arts' at an event held by the National Campaign for the Arts on March 1st.

The debate will take place at Kings Place, 90 York Way London N1 9AG from 7.00-9.00pm. The other speakers are Melvyn Bragg, Simon Jenkins and Matthew Taylor, with Joan Bakewell in the chair.

Tickets are available at www.kingsplace.co.uk

Says the NCA:

As the ‘golden age’ of public spending exits stage left, have the arts really done enough to articulate the value of the arts to the economy and society? Instead of shying away from the difficult questions this debate will explore the issues forcing us all to think about the way the arts will have do business in the future. Speakers for the motion will be asked to provide alternatives and those opposing make their case without a simple return to tired arguments of old.

Posted in Commentary add new comment

Loving the Alien

Boris Johnson in today's Daily Telgraph weighs in with his views on what the success of Avatar means culturally and socially. Far from just being a crass and simple-minded attack on Western materialist imperialism, it is, he writes, a veritable triumph of capitalism:

Avatar is rooted in just about every film Hollywood made about cowboys and Indians. And that is why all those who think this is an anti-American film are also laughably mistaken. Why is Avatar being cheered by audiences of rednecks in Kentucky? Because it is the all-American movie – and not just because the white, American hero is given a messiah role among the blue-noses.

It is a feature of powerful military empires that they like to romanticise their victims and luxuriate guiltily in the pathos of their suffering. Think of the Roman crowds pleading for the lives of captured barbarians in the amphitheatre. Think of the statue of The Dying Gaul. The eco-conscience of Avatar is an example of how a dominant consumerist society is able to exhibit its better nature, to parade its guilt, to feel good about feeling bad.

And I can't believe that many of these gloomy post-Avatar Westerners, when they really think about it, would want to up sticks to Pandora and take part in Na'vi society, with its obstinate illiteracy, undemocratic adherence to a monarchy based on male primogeniture and complete absence of restaurants. The final irony, of course, is that this entrancing vision of prelapsarian innocence is the product of the most ruthless and sophisticated money-machine the world has ever seen. With a budget of $237 million and with takings already at £1 billion, this exquisite capitalist guilt trip represents one of the great triumphs of capitalism.

Posted in Commentary 1 comment