Rural Art?I recently discovered that there are still people from that there city of London who think of us poor rural folk as being a bit backward, a bit slow on the old uptake an' all...so I thought it be fitting to say something on this here tinternet about how I feels about their comments.
The other day, I unwittingly subjected myself to 2 hours of pomposity of the highest degree, in the form of Nightwaves, the Radio 3 "arts and ideas" programme. The live debate was around the question:
Is the countryside more English than the city? Where is the heart of English culture?
I suppose I should have known by the question what to expect. That, and the fact that the only actual 'rural' person on the panel also happened to be the only person from Cumbria, and the only woman. And the other 4 panelists had made long careers from the male-dominated arena of reviewing, editing and criticism (though some were now authors), whereas the one woman, rural Cumbrian was a practising artist. I also noticed that, throughout the discussion, every time Matthew Sweet (the presenter) turned a question to Sarah Hall, he jabbed his finger accusingly at her - a physical gesture that was absent when he addressed any other of the panel members. Now, why was this? Of course, being radio, listeners will not see this - but I found it fascinating and a little bit alarming.
However, in I went, bravely going where no wild woman should stray. And luckily, in the company of fellow wild woman, Gill Hands (who has also written on this in her blog, should you wish to read more!).
What followed was a very confusing debate about Art, art, Culture and culture...with little clarity given to exactly what was being spoken of. But I won't spoil the debate for you here - you can listen in on Thursday night, Radio 3, around 9.45 pm I think.
Now, I am a reasonably erudite woman, but I found myself thinking, in broad Cumbrian, "eh?"
listening to a lot of what was said, which amounted to not very much, in my opinion. What really got my goat, (or should I say sheep, being Cumbrian?) was the comment made by a certain Tim Lott, who obviously has a phobic distrust of anything not London. Namely, that there has been no real or significant art to come out of the countryside in the last 100 years, and his reasoning for this was that the artists are simply 'not good enough', that they lack the 'competition and conflict' of urban artists that is, in his opinion, necessary to create "Good Art", and that, at best, all rural artists are happy amateurs, knitting doilies for toilet rolls.
The panel, it appeared, collectively hinted towards a feeling that whilst rural art contained some talented 'folk art' and 'craft-makers', the "real art' of social significance came only from the city.
...because obviously we in the countryside are too narrow-minded and inward-looking to ever consider the wider social, political, cultural, sexual or economic implications of our existence, or our art, not to mention ever fall in love, break hearts, get ill, experience grief, feel isolated or be prey to any of the other many shared connecting experiences of being human. We can, at best, knit well and write about nature.
Only urban artists can make ART.
At which point, I really wanted to shout "WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS!" and leave.
But I manged not to do this. I did however, wonder what we were debating, since it seemed to be straying away from the original question.
Thing is, I know of a lot of rural based artists of all disciplines, who are challenging, intelligent, controversial, political, fresh....and I know of a lot of urban artists who are hackneyed, over-influenced, over-intellectualised and exhausted. And of course, I can happily acknowledge the opposite too, before anyone accuses me of being 'anti-urban'.
Surely, together, our collective experiences make up the 'art' and 'culture' of this country and English-ness is about diversity and connection, instead of division and prejudice?
There are some things though that maybe, just maybe, play a part in the reason rural artists are not so widely known (to Mr Lott). Perhaps it is because:
a) the urban (london) centric media thinks, rather like Mr Lott, and as Gill said at the time, that if it doesn't happen in London, it doesn't happen;
b) whilst people in rural areas are more likely to go to London and other urban areas to experience art, how many urban based artists come to rural Cumbria, or other rural areas, to do the same? A person in Cumbria is likely to travel up to 150 miles on average to take part in art, whereas when I lived in London (yes, I did, for a short while!), I often found that people would rather sit in and watch telly than go the extra tube stop to see and exhibition/listen to poetry etc - which in effect means that we experience a wider diversity of art and culture than the average city dweller;
c) rural based artists are getting on with getting on with the art, instead of talking about it...
d) many rural born and raised artists move to the city believing the claptrap that the only way they are going to 'make it' is by living in an urban sprawl - thus, they get labelled 'urban artists'...if there was more support from funding and media for rural based artists and art networks, they wouldn't feel this need...
Of course, with the increase of citizen journalism, none of this will matter in 10 eyars...viva la revolution! And for the record, this is my potted Cumbria history...
My father's family were many generation Cumberlanders but moved to London during the Depression to find work. At this time, with the mines shut down, their area of rural Cumbria starved, literally. I grew up in rural Oxfordshire, but also lived in my adult years in various cities, including London. I chose to move to Cumbria in 1997 because I felt that there would be greater freedom to create up here. I was right.
Anyway, we are now busy collating a list of rural artists to have come about in the last 100 years, just for Mr Lott...more soon on this.
Right, best get back to my crocheting now...
