Not that states love theatre less, but love Caesar more
Defending the arts is a never-ending, always necessary battle. Despite mountains of historical evidence that public and private funding of the arts is a social good — supplemented by solid 21st century data showing that the creative economy is strong on entrepreneurship and job creation — year by year arts organisations have to fight for survival.
You can tell a lot about politicians from what they have to say about spending on the arts. There is a high correlation, in fact, between a state’s attitude to arts funding and its approach to equality and fairness.
It’s no coincidence that in the UK, the trajectory of successive Tory governments has been away from regulations protecting vulnerable citizens (resulting in tragedies such as the Grenfell blaze) and basic human rights (which is why Prime Minister Theresa May’s party seems happy to cosy up to the misogynists and homophobes of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, or to court xenophobic sentiment) while it has increasingly neglected the arts.
Nor is it any surprise that President Donald Trump’s plans to increase the wealth-poverty divide in the US include big reductions not only in healthcare and education but also in support for the arts. Among other cuts, the Trump administration wants to do away with the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, a crucial component of the US’s cultural production.
The private sector can hardly be counted on to fill this void, certainly not if the New York City Shakespearean debacle earlier in June is anything to go by.
The Public Theatre, a venerable institution, staged a production of Julius Caesar in which the Roman leader looked decidedly Trump-like. Two of the key sponsors, Bank of America and Delta Airlines, pulled out because they felt this analogy was too “provocative”.
Never mind that the theatre insisted the actors were communicating a nonviolent message (briefly: many of us might want to kill Trump, but that would be a bad idea). The corporations seemed to assume that association with a piece of theatre critical of the president would constitute “bad press”.
The latest (dis)approval ratings suggest that more than 60% of Americans would be very happy with a work of art that critiques Trump; in New York, the figure is much higher.
But even if Trump were not so unpopular, it’s hardly likely that public perceptions of their “brands” would be more damaged by a piece of theatre than by, say, videos of passengers being unfairly removed from planes or, you know, the fact that Bank of America basically defrauded millions of Americans prior to (and as a result of) the 2008 banking collapse. An alternative possibility is that both companies faced political pressure from pro-Trump businesses or investors who posed a more direct threat than existing or prospective customers.
But if this was going to be a concern, then they shouldn’t have signed up as sponsors of theatre — which can never (or should never) attempt to be “apolitical” and disconnected from current affairs. It must not be the “safe space” that the Great Orange Buffoon demanded in another ridiculous tweet in 2016 — by which he presumably meant safe for crooks, politicians, bigots, fools … and safe from criticism.
South African artists face variations on all these themes. Our corporates contribute large — and very welcome — amounts to arts projects and collections, but there are still many examples of sponsorships or awards being withdrawn or withheld because the artists produced work that was deemed too controversial or risque, or spoke truth a little too loudly and directly to power.
Then there are the public resources, access to which is often limited by inefficient administration rather than by political ill will.
But threats of state censorship via funding cuts are not unknown.
Arts and Culture Minister Nathi Mthethwa made a bad start when, at the National Arts Festival a few years ago, he warned artists against being critical of the government. Since then, he has toned down the rhetoric.
But I do hope that many politicians — and businesspeople — will find their way to Grahamstown some time over the next week. They’ll see that paying for the arts is money well spent.
THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE SIGNED UP AS SPONSORS OF THEATRE — WHICH CAN NEVER ATTEMPT TO BE ‘APOLITICAL’