Arts & International Affairs Volume 5, Number 1, Summer 2020 | Page 31

ARTS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
an intermediary), the idea of diversity is just part of a wider political discourse. As Clive
Nwonka (2019) notes in his article The Arts were Supposed to Champion Diversity. What
Went Wrong?, the diversity strategy “employs language to conceal the pathological inequality
and exclusionary labour processes at the sector’s heart.” As such, Nwonka notes,
all political meaning is extracted from the concept of diversity: it is neutralised by being
turned into theoretical discourse. A purely social and political agenda for diversity would
have to identify an issue with certain artists being systematically marginalised because
of their race, ethnicity, social status, etc. This would render diversity a question of social
justice as opposed to an issue of simply including marginalised artists into a particular
creative sector, for specific projects. For instance, non-British actors (like Nu Nu’s actors)
are not invited to the National Theatre London to audition alongside their native
counterparts for all the roles available. Non-native actors are employed only for specific
theatre projects that seek to make a point about diversity.
The state (at least its neoliberal side) is not�it seems�primarily interested in making
access to the arts infrastructure and funding more equal for all artists. The big theatres,
the big opera houses, and the big venues would not in a million years accept small independent
troupes like Nu Nu in their performance spaces on an equal footing with their
own “mainstream” productions. How many independent artists/troupes have been allowed
to perform their shows at the National? How many free tickets has the Royal Opera
House offered to people on benefits or to people from outside London? It is indeed
the state (of which artistic institutions are a part) that needs to create free(r) access to
vocational education for people from marginalised communities and to give those people
free access to the highest quality art (free tickets to the National, to the Royal Opera,
to the RSC, etc.). Why can’t the RSC come and perform for the poorest neighbourhoods
in Bristol, free of charge? Why can’t everybody benefit from the best productions of this
world-renowned theatre company? One probably will not see Benedict Cumberbatch or
Placido Domingo performing for the residents of a retirement home in London.
Whilst talking about diversity, the state preserves the status quo: inequality of access and
participation to�most importantly�the arts infrastructure (not the artistic act). Why,
as an independent theatre company in Bristol, can’t Nu Nu perform one production per
year in the Bristol Old Vic? That would provide us with the exposure to Old Vic’s already
established audiences and the wider public would be able to see what we create. The
strategy for diversity (both in the case of Song of Romania and of the Creative Case for
Diversity/public engagement)�if it wasn’t just utopian�errs (?) by putting the cart before
the horses and by (deliberately?) confusing what artists are expected to do and what
governments and state institutions are expected to do. Society at large needs structural
reform so that it can correctly incorporate its diversity. I argue that arts infrastructure
and bureaucracy should become central to such reform. Unfortunately, that shift can
never start from the artistic/creative act. Fair access should be given to all minorities and
the marginalised (including artists) to mainstream venues, good schools, good theatre,
great music, good healthcare, and fairly paid jobs. Artists should not be asked to engage
28