Where’s all the art about Bumblebees?
In a recent talk at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, the author Howard Jacobson worried that the modern novel was in serious danger. He said that the “language of sympathy and identity” together with the attitude of readers is making it difficult for authors to write difficult books about difficult material. An article in The Guardian about his talk summarised his concerns:
“[I] feel a sense of heartbreak when readers say: ‘I don’t like this book because I don’t sympathise with the main character.’ […] In that little sentence is a misunderstanding so profound about the nature of art, education and why we are reading that it makes you despair. Who ever told anyone that they need to read a book in order to find themselves?”
Jacobson raises an interesting point about art in general – particularly art in difficult times.
Jonathan Jones, in his artblog, has recently challenged art to ask questions and challenge assumptions about difference in the wake of the London Paralympics. He is championing the idea that art can be a prime factor in changing widely-held perceptions of disability and difference particularly, as he reminds us: “at a time when government policy has made life harder for people with disabilites“.
I talked with Inside Out artist Chrissie Smith recently about nature and wildlife art. She had expressed some concern about the most recent NEWA – National Exhibition of Wildlife Artists – show. Once again, she felt, the exhibition showcased a fairly narrow range of techniques and styles, heavily weighted towards traditional subjects and traditional media. “We need to try and get some fresh blood into wildlife art,” she told me. “People who are interested in doing new things with it.”
She’s right. There’s a lot about the natural world – particularly here in Britain – that is not being addressed in British wildlife art. Inside Out artist and designer Al Johnson and I have recently been exploring ways to use art to highlight the serious issues surrounding endangered species – not the Himalayan Tiger or the Mongolian Panda, but species in Britain – common, garden species like sparrows and hedgehogs that are not just in serious decline, but “more endangered than tigers“, as highlighted by a recent report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
We should all be rising to the challenge of using our art to say something. We could be using our art to address issues that are important to our little corner of Shropshire and North Wales. Where is the art looking at the economic decline of small towns, the fragmentation of communities, rural mental health issues, or landscape depredation? Global issues such as climate change, and geopolitical events such as wars or economic turmoil are having huge impact on our communities. Surely we should be using our art to further local discussion of these issues?
There is no doubt that these are difficult times for many of us; perhaps our response should be to champion a cause in our work – and make some art that asks some difficult questions.
So true John. I recall your brilliant idea several years back on those bird boxes……..it should be done……….All we need is Jim to get the prototype on the conveyor belt……….D
Yes – those bird boxes were the first iteration of this idea. Thank you for reminding me about them: I still might do something with that…
I find Jacobson’s comment patronizing and narcissistic. He can do whatever he wants with the novel form, and read whatever he wants. But I read novels because I enjoy stories; and if I don’t empathize with the main characters and enjoy the story, I’m not going to read it. I strongly object to being manipulated and done good to. Any writing or art that’s got this as its prime purpose has lost me immediately. On the other hand, the literary and art establishment, and many book and art buyers would agree with Jacobson rather than me: so good luck with your venture. As long as you’re following your passion, I’m with you; but not if you’re trying to improve me with your work.
I think the thrust of Jacobson’s grumble was the spin that the commercial side of the arts can impart on the creative side. This seems to be a valid concern for literature as for the visual arts. I think it’s less a case of art that seeks to manipulate or have some kind of moral imperative, and more about art that seeks to communicate. We know that the arts have the power to communicate in extraordinary ways – Guernica, To Kill A Mockingbird, Schindler’s List – and that creative people use the arts to start conversations about difficult subjects.
I felt that Jacobson was asking whether the arts will continue to be able to do this if the prime concerns of their creators becomes overly commercial, or if the audience for ‘difficult’ artworks narrows? I suppose this is an old question, but one that seems to be of increasing relevance as cuts to arts funding begin to bite deeper, and as more artists find themselves in a position of needing to produce art that sells.
Like you, I read because I like stories; I also like art that I simply like the look of. But I also want to read books and see artworks that communicate something new, unexpected – or disturbing – to me. In that sense, I understand Jacobson’s worries: fewer people interested in art of this kind means fewer artists willing – or able – to produce those kinds of work.