Arts & International Affairs Volume 5, Number 1, Summer 2020 | Page 36

I’LL DO IT WHEN DAME JUDI DENCH DOES IT.
I note that in similar fashion to Song of Romania, ACE’s petty (commercially motivated)
dealings with artists appear rather primitive and short-sighted. I have read a number of
official reports about the role of arts in British society. All those reports talked about the
arts and creative industries in terms of contribution to GDP. The Office for National Statistics’
report for 2018 shows that “the arts and culture industry has grown £390 million
in a year and now contributes £10.8 billion a year to the UK economy” (ACE 2019).
That suggests that arts are regarded as primarily a moneymaking activity. No reports
seem to be concerned with a new way of life or the new life and new people that artists
propose. By pulling artistic praxis into a socio-political and economic type of discourse,
art is forced to abandon its role of illuminating new possibilities. It might indeed bring
more money to the state coffers, but to a great degree, it stops being art and functions
just like any other industry.
Returning to Blandiana, who talks about poets not being allowed to become the makers
of our world, I add that if artists were funded to freely dream about their projects and
ideas, there would be a guaranteed increase in diversity and an abundance of relevance
of their artistic acts: “Had it been created by the poets, our world would have looked
radically different” (Blandiana 2016). ACE should give money to marginalised people to
go and see the best opera, theatre, and music shows produced and performed by the best
artists. That would materially change the lives of marginalised people and inspire them
to become true artists themselves (those ones who truly possess an inclination). ACE
should encourage the big arts institutions and educational/vocational establishments to
open their doors generously (not just in the name of the box ticking) to less well-known
artists (of great potential) from marginalised communities. ACE should pay both big
venues and less well-known artists to take risks and fail. That would trigger a true diversification
of the arts and automatically augment the relevance of arts for everybody.
To conclude, I note that it is possible that my paranoid eye masks the immigrant artist’s
insufficient understanding of the philosophy behind the funder’s strategy. It may
be possible that my feelings are the result of an improper, incomplete understanding
of the more intricate ethical and historical/cultural implications and explications for
the funder’s strategy. An example in that direction could be the UK’s class system and
the way it has historically operated in the arts: a chronic lack of opportunity to engage
with the arts that UK’s marginalised community members have experienced through
the ages. Perhaps the ACE strategy�although eminently theoretical, as I have argued�
is producing its desired effects. However, the BAFTA awards of 2020 did not illustrate
that, as there were no black/BME artists nominated in any category. The latest report
on diversity in the arts institutions in England shows the following: “a slight rise in the
BME workforce (from 12% to 14%) ... only 5% of staff at major museums are non-white
... disabled workers across the national portfolio has risen from 4% to 5% (despite 20%
of adults identified as having a work-limiting disability) ... the female workforce in the
national portfolio has fallen from 55% in 2015 to 50% in 2028” (Brown, 2019).
33