Here is another "good" idea from the EU

It really is worth remaining in that political structure as it comes up with such brilliant ideas. Yesterday I saw on EUObserver that the EU intends to put culture at the heart of its foreign policy. Well, naturally, as an EU foreign policy is impossible in the normal course of events because the various member states have different and conflicting interests, it has to be created through other methods and putting "culture at the heart of it", whatever that might mean is as good an idea as any other.

"In the era of social media and shrinking distances, our cultures are bound to meet," said EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. The plans will be implemented via 139 delegations and offices already operating around the world,

This is not the first time that "culture" has been invoked to create a single policy or a single "European" identity. The whole idea is barmy: the whole point of European culture is its diversity (it's a real word if you use it correctly), not some state sponsored structure though that, too, has been tried before.

Here is the press release on the subject and it enlightens us a little bit:

The strategy adopted today is in line with the Commission's priority to make the EU a stronger global actor. Culture can play a crucial role in strengthening international partnerships.

The 'Strategy for international cultural relations' presented by the European Commission and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy aims at encouraging cultural cooperation between the EU and its partner countries and promoting a global order based on peace, the rule of law, freedom of expression, mutual understanding and respect for fundamental values.

EU High Representative and Vice-President Federica Mogherini said: "Culture has to be part and parcel of our foreign policy. Culture is a powerful tool to build bridges between people, notably the young, and reinforce mutual understanding. It can also be an engine for economic and social development. As we face common challenges, culture can help all of us, in Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, stand together to fight radicalisation and build an alliance of civilisations against those trying to divide us. This is why cultural diplomacy must be at the core of our relationship with today's world."

European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Tibor Navracsics, said: "Culture is the hidden gem of our foreign policy. It helps to promote dialogue and mutual understanding. Culture is therefore crucial in building long-term relationships with countries across the whole world: it has a great role to play in making the EU a stronger global actor."

European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, and Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Johannes Hahn, welcomed the Strategy, in line with the recently adopted 2030 Agenda acknowledging global citizenship, cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue as overarching principles of sustainable development and for the EU's neighbourhood and enlargement policies.

Culture can play an important role in the EU's foreign policy. Cultural cooperation counters stereotypes and prejudice by nurturing dialogue, open-mindedness, dignity and mutual respect. Inter-cultural dialogue can help prevent conflicts and foster reconciliation within and between countries. Culture can help respond to global challenges such as the integration of refugees, countering violent radicalisation and the protection of the world's cultural heritage. Culture can also be a tool to deliver important social and economic benefits both within and outside the EU.

The lack of meaning in that gobbledy-gook will not prevent large amounts of money being spent on this propaganda campaign - you like Michelangelo's work? well, he would not have been able to do that without the EU. As to freedom of speech, I am not sure the EU and Signora Mogherini know what that means.

On The New Culture Forum

I discuss whether state sponsorship of the arts actually corrodes the mind. Have to admit that I did not think of that brilliant headline. Must have been Peter Whittle, the Director of NCF.

Who decides on excellence?

The New Culture Forum has just launched a report about the Arts Council England in which various recommendations are made that would, if followed through, abolish ACE as it is not so affectionately known. Of course, the Conservatives will do nothing of the kind. As Ed Vaizey the Shadow Culture Commissar explained at great length during the launch, they do not think this is a fight worth picking. Many of us disagree.

Marc Sidwell, the author of the report, has gone through various other reports and attempted reforms of an organization that has become bloated and bureaucratic (something that surely could have been predicted from the outset).

In Section 3, “An Arts Council in Crisis” he describes several rather unpleasant funding stories, including the scandalous tale of The Public in West Bromwich, now deceased after swallowing £30 million of public and another £30 million of private business money.

He then proceeds:

In January 2008, the DCMS [Department of Culture, Media and Sport, a somewhat redundant organization that creates unnecessary jobs for politicians and civil servants] produced the McMaster Review. It was asked to outline how British public arts policy could better promote artistic excellence. The very need for that brief (and the enthusiasm with which the report was received) is an indictment of established practice by that point. After 10 years of a supposedly golden age, arts funding had been drifting toward the politically correct (or at least politically expedient) rather than the aesthetically rewarding. And this had become a national commonplace.

That really sums up the problem but not quite in the way it is phrased. The question that should have been asked is not “how” but “whether”: can British public arts policy promote artistic excellence at all, never mind better promote? The truth is that those supposed ten golden years of the arts are very questionable, indeed, and have been questioned by all serious commentators from Norman Lebrecht to Brian Sewell (well, he can be serious).

Yes, we have wonderful exhibitions but do we have good or interesting artists. A walk round the RA Summer Exhibition yesterday confirmed my view that visual art is still living off the exciting developments of the early twentieth century.

Our theatres show mostly musicals and rarely manage to get filled (though according to Nick Starr, Executive Director of the National Theatre, it is in America that there is no good theatre at all) but can be said to be quite good. Who is the best and most popular playwright? Sir Tom Stoppard who has had little to do with the ten golden years.

Above all, there is the question of how one defines artistic excellence. If individuals and groups of individuals pay for works of art, they exercise their idea of excellence or simple attractiveness. If individuals or groups of individuals subsidize events or structures (the Travelex deal in the National Theatre that allows the public to buy tickets for £10 or £25 springs to mind) they exercise their own ideas of what is worth promoting and, if it is a business, the best way of advertising themselves.

A group of bureaucrats, spending the taxpayer’s money will not be doing any of those things as their aim is, by definition, promote certain policies, whether they have been defined by politicians or officials. Only if we assume that artistic excellence is part of an ideological system can the two be connected.