The chief aim of education and popularization must be, however, to increase the realization of the function of art—which is (though art may fulfil other purposes) to provide enjoyment, enjoyment in its highest, most spiritual form maybe, yet nevertheless enjoyment. For the pursuit of art is the pursuit of the beautiful, especially the beautiful which is of man’s creation. If this pursuit cannot give pleasure, the fault must be ours, since the “beautiful” which cannot give pleasure to any is not beautiful. The converse, that anything which gives pleasure is beautiful, is certainly not true, but, whatever our philosophical or moral criteria of beauty may be, they must include the pleasure giving property.
We need, nevertheless, to question ourselves whether this factor is not only ignored but sometimes even suppressed by some educationists. There are so many things in this world of imperfectly developed men and women that give pleasure and are most unbeautiful, that we hesitate to class our precious goods in the same category lest they be tarred with the same brush. Yet we must do so. There is much that goes by the name of Love which is but lust, greed, pride of possession, avarice, habit, perversion, and waste, but we are not tempted to pretend that genuine human affection is not love because it is something better than the rest. So we must not be tempted to deny that art is essentially a source of pleasure simply because it is the source of the finest, most lasting, pleasure. To do so is to alienate those who are most in need of its influence.
VIII
The second need—after education—is to make good art more accessible. We have seen that, so long as the supply of art is a commercial proposition, little, if any, improvement in its average quality can be expected. Until, in some way, the good can be given the same chance as the bad, the majority will continue to clamour for the bad, since it will be the only thing they know. It seems, therefore, that the only effective way to break the vicious circle is to try to put art-provision as far as possible upon a non-commercial basis. We must not be over-optimistic. Not a great deal can be done at present, and, in any case, progress will be slow.
The only way in which this can be done is “co-operation”—firstly the co-operation of individuals associated only for this purpose, and secondly that co-operation which is implied in all State or community action. Let us deal with the first and most fruitful, to begin with.
Let us not, may it be repeated, forge that the extent of co-operative activity is limited by present desire and in exactly the same way as the commercial activity. Even co-operative undertakings must pay their way. The difference is three-fold, however. Firstly, the business entertainment provider devotes his energies to those activities which make the greatest quantitive appeal. He does not ask: “Shall I attract enough people to make this pay its way?”—but instead, as a rule, he asks which production will attract most people and produce most profit. It is nevertheless obvious that because a play, for example, is not likely to be a popular success, or an artiste a star, or a programme superlatively attractive, it is not right to assume that these would not merit and receive sufficient support to cover expenses. From ten plays (or ten musical programmes), one of which should succeed in a business sense of the word and nine of which would only pay their way, the commercial man naturally chooses the former. The other nine are never chosen, unless unintentionally. Yet some of them might be works of greater artistic merit. It is the business of co-operative activities to select and to produce works of worth which belong to the latter category. The art-life of the community would gain from this in two ways: (a) since the tastes of the majority are low, the nine unproduced works will almost certainly include some of higher artistic value; and (b) there will be greater variety.
Secondly, the selection of the works to be produced is made by the business-man and not by the consumer. The business-man will object to this statement, saying that his selection is dictated by public demands; but it isn’t. In the first place, the public, whether popular or other works are concerned, has no power to select at all; it can only take or leave what is offered, which is a very different thing, leading at the best to incomplete satisfaction and at the worst to considerable waste. In the second place, the business-man selects not according to popular demands but according to his ideas of popular demand—again a different matter. If it were not, he would not suffer so many financial failures, for which the public has to pay in several ways, such as higher prices, lower quality, conservatism, etc.
In the third place, the commercial provider is in competition with all his fellows. Each seeks to attract the biggest crowd, and to do so indulges in the “star system”, in spectacular but not necessarily artistic production, in expensive advertising, and so on. All of these increase the price of the production without in any way improving its artistic or recreative value.
Co-operation in this matter involves the organization of Societies. These may be quite small, e.g. Chamber-music groups, each of whose members performs, dramatic reading-circles only large enough to provide the casts—or on a large scale, e.g. the important Folk or Community Theatres, the larger Music Clubs. The size of the Society would determine the kind of work to be done, and would depend largely upon local conditions. However big or small it may be, it would nevertheless find suitable and desirable activities within its compass. Neither need—nor in fact very often should—these Societies be “performing” Societies, but, instead, “enjoying” Societies. By a performing Society I mean one where the play or the music is performed by members of the group, with the result that the practical or personal side is apt to become more important than any other. The Music Clubs (of which there are several, and should be more) on the other hand employ professional players—the only real differences so far as the audience (of members) is concerned between their own and ordinary commercial concerts are that they receive better value for their money, can hear works which would not otherwise be performed, and have some voice in the selection of programmes. If the best results are to be attained, co-operative art must make full use of the professional. Amateur art has its limitations, and in any case demands the expenditure on practical matters of energy which could be better spent in other directions. Furthermore, the resources of any amateur group are limited. Thus, an Orchestral Society which gave a monthly concert would be an exception, and one orchestral concert per month is not sufficient to satisfy a genuine music-loving community. The co-operative organizations would, with probable advantage, eliminate much that was not absolutely essential, e.g. their staging of plays would be as simple as possible: otherwise there is no reason why their standard of production should be below that of the commercial enterprise. In fact, it would probably show more all-round excellence and better balance and ensemble.
Probably the genuine artist-professionals would sooner work for such Societies than for ordinary managers. They would, with a sufficiency of Societies, earn as good a living and be more secure. They would have more scope for developing their finer talents, a wider range of art to interpret, and more intelligent, more enthusiastic, audiences.