|
As Professor Joad used to say, it all depends what you mean by entertain. If the word
means make one laugh, then there is obviously more to the Arts than that. Of course, we do
laugh at comic songs, as in the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, at wit and topical comment
in newspaper cartoons, at farce on the stage, and at the likes of P G Wodehouse and Mark Twain
in novels, and why not? The dictionary gives a wide definition of entertain -- to amuse, to
occupy pleasurably. People obtain pleasure from many things, and so yes is the logical answer
to the question.
The intelligentsia would answer no, in any country. Many seem to think that the theatre
exists to make political points, or to make us think about some social problem, or to express
the prejudices of the author. Of course serious writing, of whatever kind, should be free to deal
with serious subjects; music and painting are seen as vehicles of getting across some message
or other. Yet it is a strange co-incidence that without heavy subsidies from the state or some
business source, intellectual Art in general could not exist. Where there is an attempt to give
pleasure rather than to instruct, the public is far more likely to be prepared to pay to support
the Arts.
In its early days, the British Broadcasting Corporation defined the object of sound, and
later, television broadcasting as being to entertain, inform and educate, in that order, and there
has been no reason to change that order of priorities. Other countries may have different
objectives. Some regard the media as a tool of government. Others
relinquish all control and
place the media in the hands of advertising sponsors, allowing standards to find their own level
on the basis of public popularity. Britain may have the best answer. Although funded from the license fee, the Corporation remains independent of Government. At the same time it has to
compete with the Independent Television Authority for support. This saves the BBC from
becoming too stuffy, and the ITV from dropping its standards to suit the lowest tastes. Cable
television will bring wider choice, and the result of that remains to be seen.
While they keep their independence, the media are free to respond democratically to public
demand. In Britain, this demand is for entertainment which makes few if any intellectual
demands. So we suffer a spate of situation comedies, soap operas and panel games
monopolizing the prime viewing times. More intellectual programs are
relegated to the early
or late time slots; they comprise political and social comment, opera, ballet, serious music,
documentaries, and programs concerning the Arts in general, religion included. In all fairness,
it has to be said that Channel 2 is almost entirely given over to serious viewing.
Should preference be given to popularity ? Should people be given what they want, or what
somebody else thinks is good for them ? We return to the purpose of the Arts. Their purpose
is to occupy leisure time pleasurably.
The problem with many exponents of the Arts is that their work has a minority appeal.
Musical appreciation depends on personal taste, but most people like a recognizable and
memorable tune. Most people prefer representational painting. Most people enjoy drama which
has a beginning, a middle and an end. Most people buy a book because it is a good read.
The popularity test has been in question for a long time. Subject matter has
broadened, and themes now cover the whole spectrum of life. Traditional and
conventional themes have been abandoned. So much music has become tuneless, and
dissonant. The theatre preaches sociology and politics. Painting and sculpture
take some abstract form, personal to the artist. Literature, at least among
highbrows, must be literary. No doubt all this has made people think, perhaps
discuss, more than they once did. Yet, the fact that in Britain the Arts have to
be supported by government handouts via the Arts Council speaks for itself.
Whatever the intellectuals may think is good for us, the paying public will
always vote with its feet. Entertainment in the widest sense remains the primary
objective of the Arts, if the Arts are to survive. |
