Harrison Birtwhistle "The Minotaur"

[Eric]

Not an ?sthetic comparison of two art forms, but that of the grants and subsidies involved.

Saturday night (7th June 2008), prime time on BBC2 (the fairly serious British TV channel). One and a half hours of an opera, Harrison Birtwhistle's "The Minotaur". Then 40 minutes of the jokey current affairs quiz show "Have I Got News For You" with racing car expert Jeremy Clarkson as presenter. Then a further hour of the opera. Whether the 40 minutes of light relief in between is in the right style I do not know.

I was wondering whether any of the rest of you watch opera on TV. Is opera good value for money, compared with the amount of subsidy money supporting literary translation? Because with one you have actors, stage sets, audiences; the other printing, distribution, marketing and readers.

Have any of you any knowledge of the proportionate amounts of money invested by public and private sponsors in opera versus in the translations of literary works, mainly novels, into English? Even the Birtwhistle (sung in English) needs subtitles, owing to the distortion of the words when sung, but that cost must be relatively small. However, costumes and actors must surely cost more than printing and paper.

[Stewart]

I was wondering whether any of the rest of you watch opera on TV. Is opera good value for money, compared with the amount of subsidy money supporting literary translation? Because with one you have actors, stage sets, audiences; the other printing, distribution, marketing and readers.
I don't watch opera on TV. Further to that, I don't watch opera at all. I was never brought up with an appreciation of it, and I don't see myself ever converting to it. That said, I don't mind a bit of standalone songs from opera, but I couldn't sit and watch people warble on stage - in a theatre, or from my couch - for hours.

I think the money poured into opera, in England at least, since there's separate arts councils, is obscene. Back in January, when the whole Dedalus Books brouhaha kicked off about the withdrawal of their ?25,000 funding, I did a quick look at figures and said this on my blog:

It seems like pocket change when you consider, according to this Observer article (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1939502,00.html) the Royal Opera House (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.royalopera.org%2F&ei=tFyBR9uDMqS-wQHk4-nLBw&usg=AFQjCNGWkAac_4CmmjI8ALWRJFRcBN69gQ&sig2=v_-r0Hhe4iuPNLZ515rxeQ), over 2005 to 2008, stands to make ?77m from Arts Council funding. In the Lords Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lords_hansard_by_date.htm) for May 2006, Lord Colwyn raised the point that ?in 2005?06, jazz funding was ?1 million; for 2006?07, opera received ?62 million.?
I think it annoys me slightly that such vast somes go to one institution that is geographically stuck, whereas literature, which is everywhere and for everyone (and doesn't just pretend to be), gets snubbed.

[Eric]

Yes, Stewart, I entertain the same prejudices as yourself about opera. I was looking for something to watch last night on telly and espied "Have I Got News For You" which is getting ever more mediocre and silly, but is relaxing.

Then I saw the Birtwhistle in the paper, and mimicked to myself that kind of modern opera I was expecting, where the singers shoot up and down the scale seemingly at random, with Shriekerina belting it out at full volume ten inches away from a middle-aged man with a beer gut, dressed in a silly costume and pretending to be a dashing hero of 25. And sure enough, it all came true, including the fatuous way that masses of detail from the story are sung in a kind of recitative, as the plot is so bloody complicated that you can't follow it otherwise. 'Arry Adney's so called skein was a bloody great hank of red rope. Subtle, eh?

I only watched all this for ten minutes, so that I could drool and wallow in my prejudices. That was more than enough.

I can assure you that I sent plenty of batches of e-mails off to all and sundry to highlight the plight of Dedalus before Routledge rescued them. I would love to see Alan Sugar take a trip to meet some of these shakers and shaggers amongst the oxymoronic philistine arts ?lite and do a bit of weeding out. Why does Birdpizzle get so much money when literary translation is regarded as a pastime for weirdos?

End of rant.

[Sybarite]

I watch opera sometimes. I wasn't brought up with it – I was brought up in a household that was prejudiced against it, if anything.

The central problem is how the arts in the UK are considered – and that includes class issues.

After WWII there were real efforts to open up the arts to everyone, in terms not just of viewing but also of participation – amateur and professional. The Tory government of the 1980s smashed that philosophy to smithereens. After all, who cares if the hoi polloi never hear or see or experience anything beyond popular entertainment?

Think I'm being cynical? They stopped school music lessons. They hacked back on school trips to assorted cultural institutions. They axed grants to drama and music and art schools. They cut arts funding so that regional theatres in particular were hit – and theatre writing with it, as companies couldn't afford to take risks on new work. They cut theatre in education (TiE). They put admission charges on museums and galleries. (They sold off school playing fields too, because money is god)*

Opera** is one of the few things that retained substantial funding – because senior civil servants and diplomats and posh Tory politicians liked to swank around at Covent Garden, entertaining and being seen. This is the arts as a method of social climbing – not as something to stimulate the mind and senses, or even to entertain.

The arts should be for all – including opera. My experiences of attending arts events on the Continent is that: that audiences are much more mixed and that prices are far lower than in London.

I have nothing against Covent Garden itself – I'd love to see something there (preferably Wagner's Das Rheingold). The problem is not Covent Garden. The problem is not opera.

The problem is an overall attitude in the UK toward the arts, to accessibility and to what is worth funding and for whom.

Specifically in terms of literature, as I've mentioned elsewhere – and it is entirely in keeping with this thread too – the ending of the net book agreement did no favours to variety, to independent booksellers and publishers etc. There might be more bookshops now and they might be smarter, but they're all selling the same things and only units shifted matter.



* I was involved with Campaign for the Arts during the 1980s – a non-party political group that was set up to defend the arts, not least by showing how important to the UK the arts are, including economically.

** Not all opera, though – there has long been a snobbery toward Gilbert & Sullivan, and the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company went under when its grant was cut.

[Eric]

Whatever Middle-Class Maggie did to the arts during her reign, it cannot be said that New Labour has redressed the balance. I think there is as much snobbery among those who vote Labour (after a spot of public school) as there is among the old money and new money brigade who vote Tory.

If Labour were so noble, and striving to foster the cultural education of the working classes, they would have cottoned on to the fact that, for instance, literature in translation is a damned sight more educative than being pinned to a red plush chair for four hours, pretending to like endless singing in some foreign lingo (with surtitles, nowadays, admittedly).

You've got to be prepared to slag off the cultural policy of both the Right and the Left, if you are to remain true to the spirit of the National Campaign for the Arts. What irritates me about the arts nowadays is that it has indeed become a kind of Pseuds Corner for the pushiest con tricksters such as Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, and so on. And the Arts Council of England has done nothing to stop the rot. I don't care whose art Saatchi funds, it's his money, but the Arts Council should listen more to what decent, reasonably educated taxpayers want. And it surely isn't more Birtwhistle, or the Tate Modern with its cracks in the floor of an empty hall. Nor do we need flayed corpses or too many sharks in tanks.

I sincerely believe that translations could also become popular, if only they were promoted and, initially, subsidised. I was translating an article only today where the author said that initially Henning Mankell, now of world cult status, didn't sell well in the Netherlands when first translated. But gradually, his books caught on. If more money were invested into promoting foreign novels in English translation, such books would become as, if not more, popular than opera.

I agree absolutely that the arts should not be reduced to a way of social climbing. The arts have intrinsic value that is hard to measure on a cost effectiveness basis. Opera should be subsidised proportionally, and attract private money, so the kitty of the Arts Council and other public arts funds still has a bit of money left in it for other pastimes and pursuits.

[Sybarite]

If Labour were so noble, and striving to foster the cultural education of the working classes, they would have cottoned on to the fact that, for instance, literature in translation is a damned sight more educative than being pinned to a red plush chair for four hours, pretending to like endless singing in some foreign lingo (with surtitles, nowadays, admittedly).

In your opinion.


You've got to be prepared to slag off the cultural policy of both the Right and the Left, if you are to remain true to the spirit of the National Campaign for the Arts...

Since I haven't mentioned Labour at all, you'd reading something into an absence of something – which is a bit like Russell's teapot. Tory policy in the 1980s changed things a very great deal. Nothing has changed them back since.


... What irritates me about the arts nowadays is that it has indeed become a kind of Pseuds Corner for the pushiest con tricksters such as Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, and so on. And the Arts Council of England has done nothing to stop the rot. I don't care whose art Saatchi funds, it's his money, but the Arts Council should listen more to what decent, reasonably educated taxpayers want. And it surely isn't more Birtwhistle, or the Tate Modern with its cracks in the floor of an empty hall. Nor do we need flayed corpses or too many sharks in tanks...

Fortunately, you don't have any strong views about what other people may appreciate – or should be allowed to appreciate – eh? I'm not a fan of the likes of Emin and Hirst. But I'd also disagree that installation art is all bad (or good, for that matter). I used to damn it all, but my mind was changed by seeing Anish Kapoor's Marsyas at the Tate Modern.

As for "flayed corpses" – I assume that you're referring to G?nter von Hagens's Bodyworlds, which exhibitions have received no public funding. It's a fascinating exhibition though – if you get the chance, I'd heartily recommend seeing it.

But it is good to see that you know exactly what "we need" and what we don't. I sure as hell don't know these things – beyond saying that I'll take Birtwhistle any day of the week over the general dumbing down of UK culture that sees 'celebrities' plastered over much of the media; the loss of a domestic film industry to a stream of Hollywood tat; the dumbing down of TV to the lowest common level, from 'reality' TV to soap operas; 'newspapers' that are full of nothing but who was in what club last night with whom and whether such-and-such a middle-aged female has cellulite etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum. And the dumbing-down of education doesn't help either.


... I sincerely believe that translations could also become popular, if only they were promoted and, initially, subsidised. I was translating an article only today where the author said that initially Henning Mankell, now of world cult status, didn't sell well in the Netherlands when first translated. But gradually, his books caught on. If more money were invested into promoting foreign novels in English translation, such books would become as, if not more, popular than opera...

In your opinion. I'm not so sure. Book sales in the UK are huge, and we should applaud the fact that so many people are reading – regardless of what they're reading – but the vast majority of sales are highly populist, far from anything that would be described on this forum as literature. Just take a look what gets most shelf space in your local Waterstones or Borders. Foreign literature would sell, I have no doubt. But since it's difficult for new literary writers to be published in the UK anyway, for reasons that I have touched on previously and elsewhere, literary foreign language books would face the same questions, and I see nothing to suggest that they would sell any more massively than other literary fiction.

And why should translations be 'promoted' and subsidised? Why not promote and subsidise literary authors here? Would the Arts Council advertise books? Even if you 'promote' these translations – or UK authors – where are you going to sell the books? Are you going to bypass all the book chains that only care about shifting units?

However, you seem to have decided that, since it's not your cup of tea, opera has no value, but you imply that all translated literature would have value – or at least more value than something that you don't personally like. I'd suggest respectfully that that is not a particularly sound debating position.

Some art is crap. Some music is crap. Some opera is crap. Some foreign literature is crap.

Then there's another little group. Some art is not to my particular taste, but that doesn't mean that it's not good. Some music is not to my particular taste, but that doesn't mean that it's not good. Some opera is not to my particular taste, but that doesn't mean that it's not good. Some foreign literature is not to my particular taste, but that doesn't mean that it's not good.


... I agree absolutely that the arts should not be reduced to a way of social climbing. The arts have intrinsic value that is hard to measure on a cost effectiveness basis. Opera should be subsidised proportionally, and attract private money, so the kitty of the Arts Council and other public arts funds still has a bit of money left in it for other pastimes and pursuits.

The Arts Council is not my favourite body, but I do think that it does need pointing out that it does not just fund opera – however much you might like to imply that it does. :)

[Eric]

Sybarite:

First quote: yep, in my opinion. It's the only opinion that is mine.

Second quote: Labour have been in office for a decade, but translations are ignored while opera is drooled over. Plus ?a change.

Third quote: fortunately, I do have strong views on The Emperor's New Clothes and people with huge influence or money browbeating the rest of us into liking what they do. Installation and performance art were a novelty about thirty years ago, with people such as Tinguely, Kantor, Kienholz and so on. Nowadays, all the epigones have jumped on the well-subsidised bandwagon. If the artists had to use their wiles to winkle money out of patrons, we wouldn't have so much self-serving rubbish.

Yes, I loathe the lack of dignity of a corpse (dead human body) being pickled, cut open and displayed to the prurient classes. Another con, to get the inquisitive to sniff formalin. Next time you meet your mum, ask her discreetly whether she'd like to be stuck up on a plinth when she dies. There are lots of biology books and models; you don't need the real thing. (If she's got cellulite, she'd make an interestingly orange-peely exhibit, though.)

The BBC is positively decadent with its pathetic quiz shows with rigged scores, phone-in quizzes with rigged answers, banal shows like that of Graham Norton (you are regarded as a raving homophobe if you dare suggest it's tat).

I'm convinced that if enough money were sunk into the promotion of literary translation, if it were to become a cult, like chick lit, gay lit, black lit, women's lit, or one of these minority lits (women? minority?) on separate shelves, and with lots of banter on TV (e.g. Punch & Richard), translations would sell and be read.

Translations would definitely have to be promoted and marketed. Initially. They must not be permanently promoted, as if they were pathetic or inferior (like having a book prize for poor little inadequate women). But given the fact that languages and foreign literature are beyond the awareness of most Brits, some plugging would have to happen at first.

The Arts Council hardly does anything at all to promote literary translations of novels and poetry. There are a few piecemeal workshops, and a few articles in the press, plus a few lists of recommended books, but there appears to be no Arts Council strategy to get translations of literature to British readers. The Arts Council should link up with the publishers and booksellers and try to improve the climate for translation by co-ordination. Too many arts bureacrats appear to use the arts as a way of travelling to exotic climes to stay in yet another 4-star hotel. Promotion, like charity, begins at home.

The Arts Council doesn't only fund opera, but it doesn't fund literary translations either. They shat upon the Dedalus publishing house. Luckily Routledge rescued them with non-state money. Which is why I can translate Estonian stories for them, under contract. In other words, they haven't gone bust, no thanks to the Arts Council of England.

[Sybarite]

... Third quote: fortunately, I do have strong views on The Emperor's New Clothes and people with huge influence or money browbeating the rest of us into liking what they do. Installation and performance art were a novelty about thirty years ago, with people such as Tinguely, Kantor, Kienholz and so on. Nowadays, all the epigones have jumped on the well-subsidised bandwagon. If the artists had to use their wiles to winkle money out of patrons, we wouldn't have so much self-serving rubbish...

Good for you, old chap. Lots of other people have strong opinions on all sorts of things too. Yours, unfortunately, read as though you've decided that nobody else's opinions have any weight and you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la la la' if anyone else begs to differ. And nobody, but nobody is 'browbeating' anyone. The arts generally don't have remotely enough clout in these islands to 'browbeat' anyone. But bad luck on you if you personally feel under so much pressure.


... Yes, I loathe the lack of dignity of a corpse (dead human body) being pickled, cut open and displayed to the prurient classes. Another con, to get the inquisitive to sniff formalin. Next time you meet your mum, ask her discreetly whether she'd like to be stuck up on a plinth when she dies. There are lots of biology books and models; you don't need the real thing. (If she's got cellulite, she'd make an interestingly orange-peely exhibit, though.)...

None of which has absolutely anything whatsoever to do with this discussion. As has been pointed out to you – but you've pointedly chosen to ignore it – the Bodyworlds exhibitions did not receive a penny of funding from any organisation. It appears that you're just enjoying a bit of a rant here about things that you don't personally like. :)

The UK is the only country in western Europe that does not have an open-to-all museum of anatomy. Personally, I found the exhibition fascinating and it made me (personally) much more informed and respectful (awed, even) of the astonishing machine that is the human body. Oh. And you don't smell anything – but let's not let your actual ignorance of a subject get in the way of your little rant, eh? :)

Why on earth my mother (but not my father?) is relevant here, I don't know. You're beginning to lose the plot, I suspect, on the grounds that someone has pointed out to you that raising the exhibition in question had nothing to do with the issue of arts funding.

PS: thanks for explaining in brackets what a corpse is. I'm such a barely literate thicko that I wouldn't have known otherwise. And as for "the prurient classes" ... how delightful. I haven't seen such rampant snobbery in an age.


... The BBC is positively decadent with its pathetic quiz shows with rigged scores, phone-in quizzes with rigged answers, banal shows like that of Graham Norton (you are regarded as a raving homophobe if you dare suggest it's tat)...

The BBC has been told that it has to win audiences. The inevitable consequence of that is dumbing down in order to play to the lowest common denominator.

By the way, having already raised the irrelevant subject (to this discussion) of Bodyworlds, it's good to see you branching out further by raising the irrelevant (to this discussion) issue of homophobia. ~~LOL~~


... I'm convinced that if enough money were sunk into the promotion of literary translation, if it were to become a cult, like chick lit, gay lit, black lit, women's lit, or one of these minority lits (women? minority?) on separate shelves, and with lots of banter on TV (e.g. Punch & Richard), translations would sell and be read...

You fantasist, you. ~~LOL~~


... Translations would definitely have to be promoted and marketed. Initially. They must not be permanently promoted, as if they were pathetic or inferior (like having a book prize for poor little inadequate women)...

Dear, oh dear. ~~LOL~~ You really do have issues, don't you?


... But given the fact that languages and foreign literature are beyond the awareness of most Brits, some plugging would have to happen at first...

Literary fiction is outside the realms of interest or experience of most British people. Face it.


... The Arts Council hardly does anything at all to promote literary translations of novels and poetry. There are a few piecemeal workshops, and a few articles in the press, plus a few lists of recommended books, but there appears to be no Arts Council strategy to get translations of literature to British readers. The Arts Council should link up with the publishers and booksellers and try to improve the climate for translation by co-ordination. Too many arts bureacrats appear to use the arts as a way of travelling to exotic climes to stay in yet another 4-star hotel. Promotion, like charity, begins at home...

I see that you still haven't explained where all these books are going to be sold. And I admit that it's quite amusing to read how you've turned a complaint about foreign language literature into a rant against "arts bureacrats".


... The Arts Council doesn't only fund opera, but it doesn't fund literary translations either. They shat upon the Dedalus publishing house. Luckily Routledge rescued them with non-state money. Which is why I can translate Estonian stories for them, under contract. In other words, they haven't gone bust, no thanks to the Arts Council of England.

Ah. So you now admit that what you previously posted was misleading?

And this is really about self-interest, eh? In places you've implied that funding itself is bad per se – but not if they fund your work and then promote it all over the place so that you can make lots of filthy lucre. ~~LOL~~

The Arts Council, as I pointed out earlier (but again, you seem to have missed it), has also shat on opera companies.