Euterpe; or, The future of art

by Lionel R. McColvin

The possibilities of the other form of co-operation noticed before, though great, will probably not be so fruitful. The State and Local Government groups are very largely co-operative undertakings, their function being to provide services which could not be given either at all or so cheaply or efficiently without official organization. Some of these services could, theoretically if not practically, be rendered as well by private combinations. The extent of the activities of the State is decided by the wishes of the majority, and, if the majority desired that the State should engage in the dissemination of art, there is no reason why it should not do so. In fact, it does by maintaining art-galleries, museums, and libraries (in England) and by subsidizing theatres, opera-houses, and conservatoires (in other countries). There are some who would see the artistic activities of the State extended.

There is much to be said both for and against this idea. On the one side, it is arguable that State activities would be largely educational and that it is just as desirable that people should be helped to enjoy life as to succeed in other directions. This is perfectly true, and, so long as the educational ideal is kept in sight, State assistance is thoroughly justified. On the other hand, though the majority of taxpayers agree that education is desirable, they do not all agree that the finest art should be promoted at their expense. In other words, non-essentially educational activities would not be justifiable unless they were provided for, and at the request of, the majority; and, well, we have seen that the majority do not seek the best. Therefore I feel that those who urge the subsidizing of theatres and the like would be better advised to turn their attention to the other type of co-operative enterprise. They might otherwise antagonize the average man and do harm to the educational possibilities of the State organizations.

The museum is, of course, largely educational and not entirely or even largely artistic in its aims. It and the art-gallery are also in a very different position from such activities as the subsidized theatre because they are devoted to the unique object—the specimen or the picture—which must be in the hands of the State if it is to be available to all. There is no alternative to the public ownership of museums and art-galleries. The public library, though it does not deal with the unique, is in another way in a different category, since it, alone of all State provisions, can give something to all men. Those who do not desire good literature can obtain some other service—books on business, science, sport, etc., recreative reading, and so on ad infinitum—in return for their contribution towards its upkeep. The public library, by appealing to all men, brings together a multitude of interests and provides unlimited opportunities for the awakening of new ideas. At the library alone is the good made as easily accessible as the indifferent, and the very fact that they are to be found in the same place is an educational factor of great significance. The man who does not want good pictures or good plays has no need to come into contact with them, and remains outside their influence. On the shelves of a library books of all degrees of excellence and worthlessness (within limits) are side by side so that even mere luck or too hasty selection may lead to better tastes or fresh interests being acquired. Therefore the library is an institution to be encouraged.

Frankly I believe the remedy to lie in the hands of those who want good art. None of these now can get as much of it as they desire; most enjoy only a small portion. If people set to work to provide for themselves so that, instead, a large part of their artistic desires was satisfied, they would so do a great deal to improve the average tastes of the community, since the membership of a healthy organization always increases. Of course they must avoid the insidious desire, which has wrecked many repertory enterprises, to attract outsiders, and must never forget that the function of the Societies is the quite selfish one of supplying their own needs. They, too, must be prepared to cut their cloth accordingly. It is the desire to do more than the means of the actual membership permits that leads to attempts to curry popular favour “to help to balance things”. By so doing they put themselves on the same footing as the commercial man, must take the same risks, and suffer the same failures—and these are liable to be more disastrous since Societies lack what little knowledge of popular tastes the commercial man possesses.

With sufficient organization and the co-operation of co-operative units there is no reason why in time they should not be able to undertake any feasible artistic enterprise. The music-lovers in at least six towns in England could to-day with proper co-operation maintain a permanent orchestra and the theatre-goers an intelligent adequate playhouse, and all towns by grouping could do the same—so far as the orchestra is concerned, at least.

These things have been tried and failed, I will be told. To this, if it be true, there are only two answers—the world has progressed only by successive trials and failures; if the first failure had effectually damped the ardour of our ancestors we should still be savages—and, if these enterprises fail really from lack of desire for them and not because of indifference, which can in time be removed, the artistic level of the day must be much lower than even a semi-pessimist like the writer dares to imagine.

IX

We cannot close even a brief essay without some reference to the effect of some other mechanical devices, such as the gramophone, the piano-player, and wireless, and a note on that all important subject, commercial art.

The appreciation of no art shows such great possibilities of expansion in the near future as music. During the last few years it has been released from its most irksome bonds and is now just beginning to stretch its limbs. For technique has been the curse of music, and now it is becoming possible to gain enjoyment without exercising one’s executive and interpretive powers.

Musicians are of two classes—executive and appreciative—those who perform and those who listen. True enjoyment of music belongs to the latter, just as true enjoyment of books, of pictures, of plays is the reward of the reader and the spectator—not of the writer, the painter, the actor, or the composer. Their joy is of another order—it is the joy of creation.