Scatterbrain: a letter from Knee-Jerk Land
The problem of state-funded art; how photography killed painting (it didn’t); among other disaggregated reflections
The long, generous, and uninterested arm of the state
The Arts Council England (ACE) was last week in the news after issuing a warning about political statements. More precisely, the warning was that “‘political statements” made by individuals linked to an organisation can cause ‘reputational risks’”, which may result in the withdrawal of funding. Needless to say, the announcement was met with outrage by many a culture producer in the UK, 1who saw it as a reaction to comments made by numerous organisations and individuals regarding Israel’s criminal military campaign in Gaza. The announcement and ensuing outrage were interesting developments, in many ways.
Firstly, it strikes me as incredibly odd that anyone might express surprise at a governmental body reproducing the ideology of the state. We are living under one of the most authoritarian governments the UK has ever seen — it was to be expected that this authoritarianism would end up permeating every aspect of life, culture included. This should be obvious, and yet this type of delusion — anchored in British exceptionalism, I’d say — isn’t rare over here. For example, many otherwise intelligent people on this island live under the illusion that it is possible for the state broadcaster (the BBC) to be unbiased. I guess Althusser isn’t taught at schools as part of the British national curriculum, because for anyone who’s read Althusser it’s clear that “ideological state apparatuses” can never be unbiased.2 Kids, it’s always a good idea to treat these bodies with a bit of mistrust, no matter how benevolent they might come across.
A second way in which this development is interesting is that we have spent a large part of the past decade or so fighting a tug of war, trying to redefine what can and what can’t be said in public. And when I say “we” I mean everyone, in the widest political sense. Since I’m on the left, I care about what we do on the left, and I wonder how many of those who expressed justified outrage about the ACE’s authoritarian turn have themselves been involved in campaigns to get this or that nemesis shut down, for whatever the reason, exploiting the same pathetic excuse of “reputational damage”. Grassing people to employers and publishers, asking for corporations to become arbiters of public discourse, are now incredibly popular hobbies, worryingly so among people on the left. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not a “free speech” absolutist, for the simple reason that expecting discourse to be without consequences is rather silly. But we can’t have the cake and eat it. What the ACE has done isn’t new, even if the target of the censorship feels closer. Perhaps we need to change how we go about disagreements? Maybe grassing people isn’t always the best option?
But more importantly, what this authoritarian turn betrays are the problems of depending on the state to make art. Seeing some of my peers’ comments in the press it’d seem that the only way people can produce art in the UK is by tapping into some public cash. This is very inaccurate, since here (as everywhere) most culture producers labour without funding, in the pockets of time they find here and there, juggling a day job or many, sometimes barely scrapping a living with their art. A lot of the noise around these issues reeks of self-defeatism.
May those who need it have access to public money — I rather my taxes fund culture than bombs. But may we also find ways to keep culture and art alive without the need for state handouts that always come with T&Cs.3
Atavisms
There isn’t a single day in which AI doesn’t make the headlines. The latest furore was caused by one Sora — another OpenAi product, this one capable of producing very realistic video from text prompts. There now seems to be no area of culture that isn’t threatened by AI. But is it really so?