The second need--after education--is to make good art more accessible.
We have seen that, so long as the supply of art is a commercial
proposition, little, if any, improvement in its average quality can
be expected. Until, in some way, the good can be given the same
chance as the bad, the majority will continue to clamour for the bad,
since it will be the only thing they know. It seems, therefore, that
the only effective way to break the vicious circle is to try to put
art-provision as far as possible upon a non-commercial basis. We must
not be over-optimistic. Not a great deal can be done at present, and,
in any case, progress will be slow.
The only way in which this can be done is “co-operation”--firstly the
co-operation of individuals associated only for this purpose, and
secondly that co-operation which is implied in all State or community
action. Let us deal with the first and most fruitful, to begin with.
Let us not, may it be repeated, forge that the extent of co-operative
activity is limited by present desire and in exactly the same way as
the commercial activity. Even co-operative undertakings must pay their
way. The difference is three-fold, however. Firstly, the business
entertainment provider devotes his energies to those activities which
make the greatest _quantitive_ appeal. He does not ask: “Shall I
attract enough people to make this pay its way?”--but instead, as a
rule, he asks which production will attract _most_ people and produce
most profit. It is nevertheless obvious that because a play, for
example, is not likely to be a popular success, or an artiste a star,
or a programme superlatively attractive, it is not right to assume that
these would not merit and receive sufficient support to cover expenses.
From ten plays (or ten musical programmes), one of which should succeed
in a business sense of the word and nine of which would only pay their
way, the commercial man naturally chooses the former. The other nine
are _never chosen_, unless unintentionally. Yet some of them might be
works of greater artistic merit. It is the business of co-operative
activities to select and to produce works of worth which belong to the
latter category. The art-life of the community would gain from this
in two ways: (_a_) since the tastes of the majority are low, the nine
unproduced works will almost certainly include some of higher artistic
value; and (_b_) there will be greater variety.
Secondly, the selection of the works to be produced is made by the
business-man and not by the consumer. The business-man will object
to this statement, saying that his selection is dictated by public
demands; but it isn’t. In the first place, the public, whether popular
or other works are concerned, has no power to select at all; it can
only take or leave what is offered, which is a very different thing,
leading at the best to incomplete satisfaction and at the worst to
considerable waste. In the second place, the business-man selects not
according to popular demands but according to _his ideas_ of popular
demand--again a different matter. If it were not, he would not suffer
so many financial failures, for which the public has to pay in several
ways, such as higher prices, lower quality, conservatism, etc.
In the third place, the commercial provider is in competition with
all his fellows. Each seeks to attract the biggest crowd, and to do
so indulges in the “star system”, in spectacular but not necessarily
artistic production, in expensive advertising, and so on. All of these
increase the price of the production without in any way improving its
artistic or recreative value.
Co-operation in this matter involves the organization of Societies.
These may be quite small, e.g. Chamber-music groups, each of whose
members performs, dramatic reading-circles only large enough to provide
the casts--or on a large scale, e.g. the important Folk or Community
Theatres, the larger Music Clubs. The size of the Society would
determine the kind of work to be done, and would depend largely upon
local conditions. However big or small it may be, it would nevertheless
find suitable and desirable activities within its compass. Neither
need--nor in fact very often should--these Societies be “performing”
Societies, but, instead, “enjoying” Societies. By a performing Society
I mean one where the play or the music is performed by members of the
group, with the result that the practical or personal side is apt to
become more important than any other. The Music Clubs (of which there
are several, and should be more) on the other hand employ professional
players--the only real differences so far as the audience (of members)
is concerned between their own and ordinary commercial concerts are
that they receive better value for their money, can hear works which
would not otherwise be performed, and have some voice in the selection
of programmes. If the best results are to be attained, co-operative
art must make full use of the professional. Amateur art has its
limitations, and in any case demands the expenditure on practical
matters of energy which could be better spent in other directions.
Furthermore, the resources of any amateur group are limited. Thus, an
Orchestral Society which gave a monthly concert would be an exception,
and one orchestral concert per month is not sufficient to satisfy a
genuine music-loving community. The co-operative organizations would,
with probable advantage, eliminate much that was not absolutely
essential, e.g. their staging of plays would be as simple as possible:
otherwise there is no reason why their standard of production should
be below that of the commercial enterprise. In fact, it would probably
show more all-round excellence and better balance and ensemble.
Probably the genuine artist-professionals would sooner work for such
Societies than for ordinary managers. They would, with a sufficiency of
Societies, earn as good a living and be more secure. They would have
more scope for developing their finer talents, a wider range of art to
interpret, and more intelligent, more enthusiastic, audiences.
The possibilities of the other form of co-operation noticed before,
though great, will probably not be so fruitful. The State and Local
Government groups are very largely co-operative undertakings, their
function being to provide services which could not be given either at
all or so cheaply or efficiently without official organization. Some
of these services could, theoretically if not practically, be rendered
as well by private combinations. The extent of the activities of the
State is decided by the wishes of the majority, and, if the majority
desired that the State should engage in the dissemination of art, there
is no reason why it should not do so. In fact, it does by maintaining
art-galleries, museums, and libraries (in England) and by subsidizing
theatres, opera-houses, and conservatoires (in other countries). There
are some who would see the artistic activities of the State extended.
There is much to be said both for and against this idea. On the one
side, it is arguable that State activities would be largely educational
and that it is just as desirable that people should be helped to enjoy
life as to succeed in other directions. This is perfectly true, and,
so long as the educational ideal is kept in sight, State assistance
is thoroughly justified. On the other hand, though the majority of
taxpayers agree that education is desirable, they do not all agree
that the finest art should be promoted at their expense. In other
words, non-essentially educational activities would not be justifiable
unless they were provided for, and at the request of, the majority;
and, well, we have seen that the majority do _not_ seek the best.
Therefore I feel that those who urge the subsidizing of theatres and
the like would be better advised to turn their attention to the other
type of co-operative enterprise. They might otherwise antagonize the
average man and do harm to the educational possibilities of the State
organizations.
The museum is, of course, largely educational and not entirely or
even largely artistic in its aims. It and the art-gallery are also
in a very different position from such activities as the subsidized
theatre because they are devoted to the unique object--the specimen or
the picture--which _must_ be in the hands of the State if it is to be
available to all. There is no alternative to the public ownership of
museums and art-galleries. The public library, though it does not deal
with the unique, is in another way in a different category, since it,
alone of all State provisions, can give something to all men. Those
who do not desire good literature can obtain some other service--books
on business, science, sport, etc., recreative reading, and so on _ad
infinitum_--in return for their contribution towards its upkeep. The
public library, by appealing to all men, brings together a multitude of
interests and provides unlimited opportunities for the awakening of
new ideas. At the library alone is the good made as easily accessible
as the indifferent, and the very fact that they are to be found in the
same place is an educational factor of great significance. The man who
does not want good pictures or good plays has no need to come into
contact with them, and remains outside their influence. On the shelves
of a library books of all degrees of excellence and worthlessness
(within limits) are side by side so that even mere luck or too hasty
selection may lead to better tastes or fresh interests being acquired.
Therefore the library is an institution to be encouraged.
Frankly I believe the remedy to lie in the hands of those who want
good art. None of these now can get as much of it as they desire;
most enjoy only a small portion. If people set to work to provide for
themselves so that, instead, a large part of their artistic desires was
satisfied, they would so do a great deal to improve the average tastes
of the community, since the membership of a healthy organization always
increases. Of course they must avoid the insidious desire, which has
wrecked many repertory enterprises, to attract outsiders, and must
never forget that the function of the Societies is the quite selfish
one of supplying their own needs. They, too, must be prepared to cut
their cloth accordingly. It is the desire to do more than the means of
the actual membership permits that leads to attempts to curry popular
favour “to help to balance things”. By so doing they put themselves on
the same footing as the commercial man, must take the same risks, and
suffer the same failures--and these are liable to be more disastrous
since Societies lack what little knowledge of popular tastes the
commercial man possesses.
With sufficient organization and the co-operation of co-operative units
there is no reason why in time they should not be able to undertake any
feasible artistic enterprise. The music-lovers in at least six towns
in England could to-day with proper co-operation maintain a permanent
orchestra and the theatre-goers an intelligent adequate playhouse, and
all towns by grouping could do the same--so far as the orchestra is
concerned, at least.
These things have been tried and failed, I will be told. To this, if it
be true, there are only two answers--the world has progressed only by
successive trials and failures; if the first failure had effectually
damped the ardour of our ancestors we should still be savages--and,
if these enterprises fail really from lack of desire for them and not
because of indifference, which can in time be removed, the artistic
level of the day must be much lower than even a semi-pessimist like the
writer dares to imagine.