In the grand scheme of humanity’s endeavor, there are places that stir the soul and those that, quite frankly, seem designed to crush it. Is more art really the solution to Stoke-on-Trent's problems?
Imagine being an artist in Stoke-on-Trent. You must churn out every variation of Lowry, with barely anything else to show for it. The same scene of smokestacks and grey skies, painted over and over. Or Rotherham, or Milton Keynes. Trying to find beauty in these places would require a miracle. And I suppose that's what art is, really: a way of finding beauty in the unbeautiful.
Of course, if you take one look at York, you immediately know you're somewhere that's 1) very, very old, and 2) stunningly beautiful. It makes you wonder where it all went wrong. When did we stop creating beauty and start making everything grey and concrete and lifeless?
Does this shift have more of an impact than we think? There have been various studies conducted to find an answer to this, channeling various demographics, disciplines, and polls. And the answer is always a resounding "yes". Our environment deeply affects us. So, what are we to do when the world around us becomes indifferent to the very sanctity that created it? The answer is simple: art. We need to invest in art like we do in coal-fired power stations, wind turbines, and Prince Charles' teeny little toesy-woesys - oh, excuse me, King Charles' toesy-woesys.
We need to wake up and accept that a world without art, one that doesn't reflect our creativity, is essentially pointless. It seems obvious, doesn't it? But for people like Suella Braverman, Bono, or Lord Sugar, this concept is likely alien. They probably never listen to music; they just talk, do terrible things, drink, and then say something else, which is probably racist. What they need is a quick trip to the jungles of the Amazon, all on the same stupid helicopter, and a hefty dose of ayahuasca for their trouble. Maybe then they’d understand the importance of art.
In the meantime, let the people who do art, do art. We're supposed to have a cushy, touchy-feely Labour government now, but where's the increased investment in art? There's barely a mention of it in the mainstream press - maybe never even at all. Because what people like Bono don't understand is that it's artists who make this world and everything good in it. Every object of aesthetic taste or sensation that makes our lives livable was dreamed up by some artist who you'd be quick to dismiss as a silly little hippy, all while enjoying the fruits of their labour. A bit hypocritical, if you ask me.
And to the people of Rotherham, especially: if you didn't have art and it was all just numbers and statistics, grey metal bike stands, sandwich shops, and gin that tasted like lighter fluid, you'd all be topping yourselves. It's in these places where art is crucial.
For a trip to the future to be bearable - perhaps even an improvement on today - we must keep finding new ways to allow art to flourish. We must let art shape the aesthetic and functional characteristics of the structures of our world, both real and metaphysical. Because if we don't, and we let Bono, the banks, and the town and city councils of this world dictate how everything should be, then the whole world will end up looking a lot less like York and a lot more like Stoke-on-Trent.
Need I say any more?
Comments