Arts & International Affairs Volume 5, Number 1, Summer 2020 | Page 26

I’LL DO IT WHEN DAME JUDI DENCH DOES IT.
course�from that of ACE: a similar prescriptivism, a similar imposition of utopian outcomes
upon the work of the artist, and a similar sense that the funder seeks to control
and direct the artist’s work. There is a similarly militant tone employed vis-à-vis marginalised
members of the community (communists were obsessed with workers); there
is the inclination to pre-empt, to generously indicate directions, to formulate expected
outcomes, and to preach to the artist about the role of art in society. ACE’s policies seem
to originate from above (from the makers of theories about art) rather than from below
(from the artists, from those who actually make art). For example, Lyn Gardner (writer
and critic for The Guardian) speaks at length about the role that theatres should embrace
in the new century. Tormented by this existential matter (akin to Kenneth Tynan, whom
Ionesco implored to stop trying to right society’s ills through art) and exhilarated by
the solutions she manages to find, Gardner enlists directives (ambitious and well-intentioned,
just like those of the Romanian Communist Party). In her view, theatres will have
“re-think and re-imagine their purpose in the twenty-first century” and consider “who
they serve, but also around who they do not yet serve and how they can address that”
(Gardner 2019:2-3). Why should art (theatre in this case) be put into the service of an
ideal, no matter how noble that ideal might be? Why should theatre be programmed to
serve a particular social purpose? Gardner warns that “the danger is that unless theatre
embraces a wider civic role, it will simply come to be seen as increasingly out of touch
and elitist” (Gardner 2019:3). But what if, on the contrary, theatre needs to become
even more distanced from the reach of the masses in order to preserve its uniqueness
with respect to other media and other arts in this unpredictable century? Why shouldn’t
theatre be out of touch (perhaps even as a form of conservation and self-reinvention)
and be allowed to control its own value of creation? Why should theatre move in tune
with fashion? Gardner is concerned with what she calls the “civic role” of theatre:
How can theatres and other arts organisations fulfil a civic role, engage
with their communities, and find different ways to be fully embedded
in their locale? How can they start behaving less like monasteries and
more like town squares, a place to which everyone has access, and everyone
is welcome? (Gardner 2019:3)
But where is it written that theatre should be a place for everyone? Are the studies in high
mathematics less relevant or less useful to wider society simply because they are accessible
only to an elite of monk-like mathematicians? Should philosophical discussions be
broadcast in the marketplace, as otherwise they might risk being seen as not fulfilling a
civic role? Should everything be for everybody? Should everything be measured for its
worth in terms of civic role? Where does the assumption that art belongs to or should be
accessed by everybody come from?
Furthermore, the Creative Case for Diversity stresses the idea that diversity is a key factor
in the “dynamic that drives art forward, that innovates it and brings it closer to and in a
more authentic dialogue with contemporary society” (Mahamdallie 2012). ACE’s prop-
23