| “Tethering Artists to Providing a Promotional Image of Wales” |
On Criticism & Critics |
| The Welsh Way , Parthian Books , September 28, 2026 |
“The Welsh Way” was published, and reviewed, five years ago. At the time the hegemony of the Labour Party was unassailable. The twenty-four essays, unusual in the cultural landscape of Wales, were fuelled by more than a protest against the status quo. At times the language too was unusual for its ascent to harshness. That status quo which the essayists deplored is no more; the book has passed from a category of current affairs to that of history. Two of the twenty-four essays are concerned with culture. The first “Cultural Policy and Cultural Crisis” is written by Kieron Smith. Smith makes the point that culture is inherently elusive of a definition. “Culture- the very stuff of the individual and collective soul, the unconscious, whatever you want to call it- eludes straightforward categorisation.” The issue is then: “Given this elusiveness, where to begin with thinking about “cultural policy” or the state administration of culture?” Smith begins, as have many, with Raymond Williams. Williams was always the most sceptical- or realistic, depending on perspective- about the nature of the arms-length principle of the arts councils. In a lecture in 1984 he made a distinction between cultural policy “proper” and cultural policy as “display". ”In the latter”, he wrote, “the state makes symbols and images of itself.” Williams described this as the performative, aesthetic dimension of the state: “the public pomp of a particular social order; the signs, symbols and signifiers of state power.” Kieron Smith is sceptical of claims to Welsh political exceptionalism. “The very notion of “clear red water” is an example of “display”, a memorable motif that connotes a kind of paternalistic islandness.” He alights on one particular report from the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee from 2019. He terms “Count Me In! Tackling poverty and social exclusion through culture, heritage and the arts” as “in some respects, a well-meaning document.” However, he also identifies its roots in neoliberalism with its “ability to cloak its demands in the heart-warming language of liberal, even socialistic, humanism.” The Committee, whose concern is culture, publishes a view that those engaged in the production of culture should essentially be enrolled as agents of the Welsh government. “Dissent becomes not only disagreeable, but unconscionable.” “The Welsh Government, via the Arts Council for Wales [sic] should require all arts and cultural bodies in receipt of public funding to set out their objectives for tackling poverty.” So much for the arms-length relationship. He does not say it but addition organisations that are set to chase a secondary goal falter in the fulfilment of their primary purpose. Kieron Smith concludes: “Here arts organisations- already strenuously run by low-paid and precariously employed workers- are not only expected to produce high-quality art, but to shape their practice to pick up the slack of a state that has failed to look after its most vulnerable.” Smith has small time for Creative Wales. “Should vast sums of public money be entrusted to an internal government agency?” He cites the Minister who is not warm towards the notion of the arms-length relationship. “Creative Wales is structured as an internal agency with similar outlook, values and flexibility of other government agencies.” This is remote from an ecological view, that culture should embody variation. “A central pillar of the remit of Creative Wales is to invest in culture as state “display”. “Priorities for the Creative Sector in Wales contains several nauseating references to “the national brand”, “the Welsh brand.” This is not the normal language of politesse towards those in command. Smith recalls “the infamous deal with Pinewood Studios, which resulted in a catalogue of ineptitude.” “Welsh Government investment in film and TV continues to haemorrhage money on box office flops.” He prefers investment in venues, studios, rehearsal spaces, galleries, magazines. His conclusion: “we should be suspicious of cultural initiatives too closely wedded to the state.” Of Raymond Williams' two categories “blur the two, and you dilute the potential for culture to offer anything truly new, distinctive, and relevant.” * * * * The second essay on culture is by Rhian E Jones. Her title is “Popular Culture is Ordinary: Welsh Devolution, Pop Culture and Identity.” She starts with the civic culture- “shaped not only by the tension between pub and chapel”- of choirs, brass bands, amateur dramatics, galas and Eisteddfodau. Via a complex of nationalism, linguistic adherence, stereotypy of class she arrives at the Wales Millennium Centre, the Artes Mundi Prize, the Brecon Jazz Fesival and the Hay Literary Festival. “With culture increasingly pitched in terms of instrumental value rather than intrinsic worth, the development of arts and culture within Wales has had to contend with a top-down cultural policy that concentrates on “promoting” the country, prioritising the commodification of Wales for a global audience, rather than platforming more complex or disruptive grass-roots understandings of it.” “This approach risks tethering Welsh artists to a mission of providing a positive promotional image of Wales rather than exploring or critiquing it more deeply.” The descent to sloganising and a string of familiar abstractions follows. “Neoliberalism's tendency towards homogenising, atomisation and individualism, a radical Welsh popular culture should focus on collectivism, solidarity and structural power, and acknowledge the disparate, often overlooked or forgotten, identities which make up the nation.” * * * * “The Welsh Way” is long at 400 pages, diffuse, overly loving of abstraction, low on policy suggestion but bracingly different nonetheless. The reliance on abstractions leads to blurry categorisations. Huw Williams looks at Carwyn Jones- “a lack of politics”- and Mark Drakeford- “a conciliatory approach”- and from there guides his reader to Hegel's analysis of the state which “encourages us to reflect on the conditioning nature of individuals' roles in society.” Frances Williams' essay on the Future Generations Act is titled “First as Comedy, then as Tragedy.” She describes the muddle and murk that ensued in the years after the act's passing. Its roots lie in part with the Conservative Party, citing David Cameron. The arrival of “wellbeing” was integral, she says, to detoxifying the Tories as “the nasty party.” She concludes, not very convincingly, that “the Act reveals much about the neoliberal flavour of Welsh Labour and the successive administrations it has led.” Siwan Clark and Alex Heffron end an essay on farming with “we have offered little in the way of practical solutions or policy suggestions.” They do have time to remember that Bernstein built on Lenin's critique of Chayanev. Kautsky gets drawn into the mix. Eduard Bernstein died in 1932. Alexander Chayanov died in 1937 and Karl Kautsky in 1938. "The Welsh Way” is reviewed in the sequence “Politics Books” 15th September 2021. |
Reviewed by: Adam Somerset |
This review has been read 102 times There are 40 other reviews of productions with this title in our database:
|
