Cultural enrichment is vital to society. Engaging with the arts, heritage and creative industries teaches us, inspires us, help us to formulate our identities and can positively transform our health and wellbeing. But most importantly, it is a coping mechanism; a way of lifting our spirits when life feels a bit too much. It is not surprising, therefore, that in this new socially distanced world where cultural venues are closed, there has been a dramatic increase in cultural outputs being made available online.
The arts and heritage industries, however, are in a desperate state with many organisations struggling to survive economically, leaving workers in the sectors extremely concerned. There have been increased calls for the UK Government to provide emergency bailouts, particularly for theatres and music venues; a petition for which has been launched this month. As I have watched all this unfold, I have wondered at the potential for the cultural sectors in a post-lockdown world and how the crisis could lead to their renewal, but providing of course, they survive in the first place.
It is with great hesitation that we should compare Second World War experiences with the current pandemic, as clearly the circumstances are entirely different. But the war was the last time in Britain that society was transformed in such a sudden and all-encompassing manner, and it is worth examining how culture and leisure was used then compared to now. Particularly as an understanding of how culture evolved 80 years ago to fulfil the needs of a post-crisis society, could offer encouragement for the present.
Following Britain’s declaration of war on the 3 September 1939, the government announced to the public that all cinemas, theatres, dance halls and places of public entertainment would be immediately closed. The government, however, soon modified its approach upon realising the positive impact leisure pursuits would have on civilian morale and, despite the difficulties caused by the blackout and air raids, began to extend cultural opportunities across Britain. The Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (CEMA) was formed in January 1940 and was subsidised by the government. In words that sound like they could have been written in 2020, the council was instructed:
to bring together for their mutual satisfaction the needs of artists of all kinds whose livelihood was threatened and people who were starved of recreation which they could give.
The British government, through CEMA, began to economically support the touring of theatre, opera and ballet companies across the country. They arranged for Sadler’s Wells Opera Company to travel to industrial towns to present ‘utility’ Opera (Opera sung in English) and organised the Ballet Rambert’s tour of factories and hostels, as well as the Pilgrim Players’ tours of village halls. These tours were immensely popular, and in 1944 alone, CEMA put on 6,140 recitals and concerts.
Alongside CEMA, the government also supported the Entertainments National Service Association (ENSA) which was formed in 1939 and focused on providing entertainment for British forces and industry workers on the home front. They played everywhere from parish halls to underground stations and during the course of the war, staged over two million concerts, mostly taking the form of ‘Symphony Concerts for War Workers’. The ENSA programme cost £14 million and it is estimated that they employed four out of five British actors at some point during the hostilities.
The entertainment industries thrived during the war and this ‘cultural explosion’ served a twofold purpose. It offered the population the spiritual enrichment needed to cope with the demands of total war, but by celebrating culture, Britain emphasised that it was fighting for what was best in civilisation. The arts came to symbolise the antithesis of Nazism.
In the current crisis, nations are, of course, united in their fight against the coronavirus and there is no need to use culture as a piece of propaganda. However, there is still a need for culture to be deployed as a coping mechanism as we struggle to adjust to new ways of living. On the surface, it may appear inappropriate to say there has been a ‘culture explosion’ at present, given that we are unable to visit cultural sites and venues, and as stated earlier, the sectors are fighting to survive.
However, what has been remarkable is the dedication of individuals and organisations to ensure culture remains accessible for all to enjoy, albeit in new ways. There has been a plethora of content, including virtual tours; podcasts; innovative online exhibitions; streamed theatre productions and concerts; online creative courses; and specific initiatives for those unable to access the internet, such as home delivered art boxes. The UK Government compiled a list of lockdown cultural offerings at the beginning of lockdown, and the Culture Diary have continued to provide an updated list over the past few months. Upon reading them, one must conclude that Britain is again using culture as a coping mechanism.
The historian, Arthur Marwick, once stated that ‘the stirrings of the human spirit of the times can be traced in the condition of the arts’. Now, while the arts may be struggling economically at the moment, the innovation and talent with which individuals working in the cultural sectors have responded to the COVID-19 crisis has been inspiring. By finding new ways to share culture, their dedication has helped sustain many a human spirit during the past few months. Indeed, by evolving into new forms, cultural offerings are finding new audiences.
Interestingly, this also happened during the Second World War. The government’s drive to make cultural and leisure pursuits accessible nationwide, meant previously high-class leisure pursuits were no longer constrained to the intelligentsia of London but instead were dispersed across Britain and became increasingly mainstream forms of entertainment. People engaged with new leisure pursuits because, for many, it was the first time these forms of culture were made available to them. The pre-war rules that defined and categorised upper, middle and working class leisure became less defined and people embraced culture with a new enthusiasm. In the process a start was made towards the nation’s cultural sectors becoming more inclusive.
It is, of course, too early to draw definitive conclusions for the present. However, initiatives, such as the ‘National Theatre At Home‘, have undoubtedly removed geographical and economic barriers for many. The last few months has shown what is possible and how a rethinking of how we consume culture could lead to a reduction of the barriers that in the pre-COVID-19 world, stopped many people in society engaging with culture on a regular basis. Will online theatre shows become a regular occurrence? Will digital art festivals become more commonplace? Finances will dictate this, but I do wonder if future historians will identify the COVID-19 crisis as a step change in how we access and use culture.
Indeed, the wartime explosion of culture and leisure led to lasting change that has shaped how we access the arts today. During the war, CEMA devised early plans for a Civic Theatres Scheme and in 1942, after already having begun to subsidise numerous theatre companies, they took over the lease of the Theatre Royal (later the Bristol Old Vic) and it became the first state-run theatre in the country. The new post-war Labour government committed to expanding this work and in their 1945 manifesto stated:
by the provisions of concert halls, modern libraries, theatres and suitable civic centres, we desire to assure to our people full access to the great heritage of culture in this nation.
This was transformed into policy in Article 132 of the 1948 Local Government Act and councils across Britain began to finance the building of new theatres and concert halls. CEMA had always hoped their work would continue following the war, and in their report on the ‘Long Term Planning for the Arts’ published in 1942, they stated that they wanted the future to bring about a linking up of the professional arts with amateur work and educational programmes. The increased building of civic theatres in the post-war period meant regional companies evolved who developed strong links with local communities and nurtured local talent, and in many ways achieved this wartime vision of CEMA.
The Arts Council of Great Britain became the post-war successor of CEMA and continued, as was the tradition under CEMA, to channel state funding to the promotion and maintenance of British culture. In the post-war world, arts and culture had become a ‘beacon of hope’ for renewal in a society still living with the turmoil and austerity caused by years at war. Multiple arts festivals emerged including The Edinburgh International Festival and, most famously, the Festival of Britain; a national exhibition in 1951 which used the opportunity of the centenary of the 1851 great exhibition to promote British science along with the arts. The encouragement of cultural enrichment was a way of heeling the nation, and as a side effect, culture opened up to more people and became stronger than ever.
The post-war enthusiasm for making culture more accessible is maintained by many cultural institutions, but there are still significant disparities in how differing socio-economic groups engage with cultural activities. The 2018/19 Taking Part Survey by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport found that:
Of those living in the 10% most deprived geographic areas, 66.8% reported having engaged with the arts at least once in the past 12 months whilst this was 85.0% for
those living in the 10% least deprived areas.
The same survey also found that only 61% of those in the lower socio-economic group enagaged with heritage at least one in the last 12 months, compared to 81.6% in the upper socio-economic group. For those who said they did not engage with arts or heritage, three of the top reasons included 1) a health condition or disability 2) too difficult to get to 3) too expensive. Cultural organisations have been working hard to combat these disparities for a long time, but in our current new mindset of making the arts and heritage accessible beyond physical spaces, it is likely that the increased availability of digital content has, for many, alleviated some of the barriers outlined above.
As we find news way for people to engage with culture from their own homes, I hope it is not too optimistic of me to think that a precedent will be set leading to cultural pursuits becoming increasingly accessible and inclusive in the long term. This, however, all depends on whether funding for the cultural sectors are given due consideration by the UK Government in COVID-19 recovery plans.
For now, economic survival is a priority, but just maybe, the sector as a whole might, in the long term, arise from the ashes anew, freshly inspired to not leave anyone behind in the search for the nation’s cultural enrichment. If properly funded, culture can again be used to inspire the nation and so help with our recovery. It’s not just about lifting the lockdown, but lifting spirits, and the arts, heritage and creative industries are all uniquely placed to do this, albeit in new socially distanced ways.
The Past Alive Today 