Hope & Dread Extra: Lord Ed Vaizey
Hope & Dread Extra: Lord Ed Vaizey brings you more from the former UK culture minister, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, who ran the Department for Culture, Media and Sport from 2010 to 2016 under a Conservative government.
Hope & Dread Extra is a series of short, sharp bonus episodes featuring your season favorites from Hope & Dread. Our guests were brimming with additional ideas and extra insights that we just didn’t have room for within the documentary series. But we didn’t want to leave them on the cutting room floor. Join hosts Charlotte Burns and Allan Schwartzman for new Hope & Dread Extra every Tuesday and Thursday.
For more, follow @artand_media on Instagram / Twitter / LinkedIn / Facebook
Transcript:
Charlotte Burns:
This is Hope & Dread Extra. I’m Charlotte Burns.
Allan Schwartzman:
And I’m Allan Schwartzman.
Charlotte Burns:
Hope & Dread was a program about the tectonic shifts in power in art. We’ve heard from people who are making change and from people who are resisting change.
Our guests were brimming with ideas and off-topic thoughts that we just didn’t have room for within the documentary series. But we didn’t want to leave them on the cutting room floor. So now we’re bringing you a set of short, sharp bonus episodes featuring some of your season favorites—which we’ll be dropping twice a week.
Charlotte Burns:
Today we’re bringing you more from Lord Vaizey of Didcot, who we heard from in episode three, “Controlling Culture”. Ed Vaizey served as the UK’s culture secretary from 2010 to 2016 in a Conservative government. Listeners enjoyed a wry smile upon hearing that Vaizey would now, out of political life, support the return of the controversial Elgin Marbles from the British Museum to Greece; it’s a highly symbolic cultural debate for politicians and museum directors.
We started our conversation by talking about the realities of political patronage.
Lord Vaizey:
You'll find during this interview that I'm very much a sit on the fence, middle-of-the-road politician. So I can see both sides of the argument.
There's no doubt at all that, under the Cameron administration and indeed under previous governments, including Labour governments, it's standard practice to appoint people to jobs who are your supporters. I mean, this is a great ecosystem of patronage, which any government would be foolish to ignore. And you can reward people who have backed your party by giving them plum jobs on museum boards or whatever. I hope people are not shocked by that, but it's fairly obvious that's how the world works.
Having said that, it's also true that I think this government has gone a little bit further. It refused to reappoint people that it regards as hostile to the government's agenda. It has set an agenda of people, sort of, having to say that they're more supportive of the government's aims, and they have this “anti-woke” agenda about pushing back against what they perceive as the agenda of some people in terms of decolonization and Black Lives Matters and so on to sort of attack British history.
I think they are mistaken on that. I think, for example, if you take an institution like the National Trust, which did a lot of work on decolonization, that work was going on long before Black Lives Matter. And as I said on the record, it is possible to keep two ideas in your head. One is to be proud of your country and proud of Britain and, broadly speaking, proud of its history, but at the same time recognizing that things happened in this country's past that modern sensibilities would not countance and somewhat pretty shocking through modern eyes. And there's nothing wrong with exposing that and making it part of the narrative of the institution involved.
Charlotte Burns:
Why do you think the government is sticking so closely to this agenda? Do you think it's kind of cynical, American-style political tactic to swell up the passions of voters, or do you think it's a deeply held belief?
Lord Vaizey:
There is this thing called cancel culture. There is this talk about what happens on university campuses, where literally every word you say is deconstructed and can lead to people being, I think, unfairly maligned.
But I also think the government does recognize that it's a bruise that can be punched in the post-Brexit world that we live in and also in a world where the conservatives have made many more gains with working class voters than we have in our recent history. And a lot of those voters, perhaps understandably, do think that there is a slightly sneering, patronizing tone to a lot of our institutions and want them to be more engaged in what matters to them.
But there's no doubt at all that I don't think the government will be pursuing that with such vigor unless they believe that they have the support of the kind of voters that they want to keep in the future
Charlotte Burns:
So to get back specifically to museums, one of the issues here is that the government is telling institutions really what the agenda should be. And historically, it's been the case that institutions have been left to make their own minds up and to have those discussions themselves. Take me into the nuances of that. Why is that changing and how is that changing? And where is that going to take us?
Lord Vaizey:
Well, I don't know the answer to that. I think that, at the moment, it's relatively benign. It is definitely an element of change. As I say, the debate is very nuanced. The arm's length principle exists for a reason. It exists so that institutions can make decisions independently.
But it also exists to a certain extent to protect the politicians. If you take an example like the Elgin Marbles, for example, most politicians would probably be grateful when the regular calls come from the Greek government to return the Elgin Marbles that they themselves don't have to take a position, because the Elgin Marbles—in theory at least, some people disagree with this—belong to the British Museum and are in the care of the trustees of the British Museum. And it's the decision for the British Museum whether they should be returned. And that's quite helpful for the politicians not to be involved.
It's also helpful if theaters or museums or galleries put on controversial shows that might cause a row for them to say, "Well, these are independent institutions. If you've got a problem with that, take it up with the institution."
But I think what has happened with the current position is that this whole decolonization agenda has kind of arrived at a particular moment when Britain has just left the European Union, we've got a Brexit government, we've got a government that's got more voters in the North of England than it has before, working class voters, and it's just resonated and the government's got involved. Whether it's going to carry on getting more deeply involved, I don't know.
So there will be individual examples where one might think the government has stuck its oar in too much. I don't think we are anywhere close to a culture of political commissars.
There has been a bit of a spat going on, but it doesn't feel to me like we're on an inexorable road to defenestrating our art institutions.
Charlotte Burns:
One of the things that a lot of institutional people are saying to me in the UK is actually that they are scared of speaking out about the actions of the government, which they do find worrying and do send a clear message.
So even if the government only meddles in a few instances, and it is true to say that they have said, "Don't move and contextualize statues" in certain instances such as the Geffrye Museum [Museum of the Home]. And that does have a chilling effect that can probably lead to a form of self-censorship, because people I speak to in the museum world are worried about money. It's post-Covid, the pandemic has brought institutions to their knees, and the government is in a powerful position because it is the benefactor. And so I think it is a little more troubling than a tiff.
Lord Vaizey:
Yeah. As I say, I've gone on the record to say I think the government should be careful. And I don't agree with the direction of travel. But I don't think you can extrapolate from that that there's going to be some kind of extreme direction of travel where every dot and comma of what a museum does is directed by the government.
Charlotte Burns:
No, no. Nor that I suggest that. I just said that these were things that people were worried about, and it does lead to a form of self-censorship. Do you agree with that; that there's a chilling effect?
Lord Vaizey:
Well, I think when public institutions take government money, there is always a complicated relationship. So I was an arts minister who unfortunately had to cut the budgets of museums and of many other important cultural institutions because when we came into power in 2010, the argument was that we had a massive deficit and we had to save money, even though I've always argued that the arts budget is extremely small in the great scheme of things and actually delivers an enormous punch for the small amount of money that you invest in the arts.
So it is complicated. And when I cut museum budgets, they did not stand up and say, "You are an evil Tory budget cutter," because they, I suppose, take a pragmatic view that, "We have to work with this guy. We have to work with this government.” There's an organization set up called What's Next?, which I thought was a thoughtful way of approaching it, which is to say, "We're in the nightmare of government cuts and it's so awful. But rather than just King Canute sit there and say, "We're going to oppose you every which way," let's take this situation and think thoughtfully about how the arts adapt and change in a world where money might be less scarce."
Charlotte Burns:
This issue of decolonization and restitution I wanted to talk to you a little bit about. You supported the return of a 12th century manuscript that was stolen from Italy during the allied bombing in 1943. You didn't—
Lord Vaizey:
Did I?
Charlotte Burns:
Yes, you did.
Lord Vaizey:
When was that?
Charlotte Burns:
That was a couple of years into your longest running tenure—
Lord Vaizey:
Good for me.
Charlotte Burns:
—as the culture minister. But you didn't support the return of the Elgin Marbles, because you said there was no clear legal title. Is that the line in your mind? The difference between the two is that one was stolen and the other was bought with clear legal title according to the rules of the time. Is that where you would draw that line on restitution?
Lord Vaizey:
No. I think the debate has really moved on. I think I would support the return of the Elgin Marbles now, and I think I was probably wrong. Having said that, it is extremely hard to know where to draw the line, there are two or three arguments that people play out. And let's take the Elgin Marbles as the classic example.
The first argument is, the Elgin Marbles sit in an institution that is a world museum that is visited by millions of people from all over the world who can benefit from seeing the marbles in a way they perhaps couldn't if they were based in Athens. So that's argument number one.
Argument number two is if you're going to give the Elgin Marbles back, at what point do you stop in terms of what you return? Do you return every Egyptian artifact that is in the British Museum?
And the third argument is obviously there is clearly a legal argument, in the sense that if you bought something legitimately, tough. We bought it. You can't have it. So one of the best exhibitions I ever went to when I was arts minister was when the painting of Robert Walpole were returned to Houghton Hall in Norfolk because Robert Walpole's grandson had sold them to Catherine the Great of Russia. And they are now at the heart of the Hermitage collection in Russia. Now, nobody would argue, I think, that those paintings should be returned to the UK. It's very unfortunate that they were sold, but they were sold completely legitimately by a willing seller to a willing buyer. So legal title does have a role to play.
The Elgin Marble argument is complex because clearly they were sold legally at the time by the authority that had legal title of them–which happened to be an occupying Turkish army. But they weren't stolen and spirited away.
But I do think it's a bit like if it looks like an elephant and has a trunk like an elephant, it is an elephant. It is so obvious to me that the Elgin Marbles are really woven into Greek identity that it would be a wonderful thing if they could be returned.
And there are different ways you can do that. You can return them on permanent loan, for example. And certainly, I think modern technology makes a difference because you can obviously make an incredible facsimile of the Elgin Marbles and keep them in the British Museum so that people can see them, almost like seeing the real thing.
But I think things like the Benin Bronzes and Elgin Marbles, they do have a certain resonance. They're part of the cultural heritage of the countries from where they came. They were acquired in dubious circumstances.
And again, it's an interesting angle to the whole decolonization debate, that people think this is just “woke” liberals criticizing a different perspective in the 19th century. Actually, there was vociferous criticism in the 19th century, obviously of slavery, but obviously of also some of the artifacts that people brought back and stuffed into museums in the UK. There are certainly artifacts that came to the UK in pretty dubious circumstances.
Charlotte Burns:
Well, it's interesting, because what you're saying, essentially isn't that, okay, looking back through modern eyes, we can see that this wrong, and you're saying it's a long-running debate that humans have taken different viewpoints on through the ages. I think that's really interesting that you've changed your perspective on that. I wonder what caused you to change your perspective.
Lord Vaizey:
It's partly freedom, not being the culture minister. It's one thing for Ed Vaizey, quasi-private citizen, to say now that I think we should think seriously about returning the Elgin Marbles. It's quite another thing for the culture minister in the government, which although the British Museum again is at arm's length, funds the British Museum to stick his oar in it.
And perhaps if we're going full circle back to the arm's length principle in the sense that I guess I could have said, and perhaps I should have said at the time, "This is a matter for the British Museum." And it goes back to the point that it's probably unhelpful for the government to get involved in this debate or a government minister to get involved in this debate, because if a government minister says, "Return the marbles," and the British Museum's independent and doesn't have to answer to that government minister, you've suddenly created quite a complicated impasse, which is difficult to maneuver out of.
So I can say this now. I'm not a government minister. And I'll tell you frankly now that if I was a government minister, I would probably be giving you a line. I'd say it's a matter for the British Museum. I might have private conversations with the British Museum, which probably wouldn't carry much weight. But I wouldn't speak out publicly about it as a government minister, given the relationship between the government and the British Museum.
Charlotte Burns:
Do you feel hope or dread, both, when you look at the future of culture?
Lord Vaizey:
Oh, I feel massive hope, massive hope. I think as I say, I did this job for six years. I love the job. It's always been my massive, massive frustration that my political colleagues do not take the arts seriously in political terms. There are plenty you'll find who love the opera, love theater, love the visual arts. But their complete failure to understand how important the arts are to our society, but also to our economy, and also to such a wide range of societal issues like criminal justice, education, and health is a point of massive frustration.
So my hope is not necessarily placed in the government of whatever color. It's not an attack on this current government. But my hope is certainly placed because I think the institutions are run by remarkable people.
So my hope, I'm optimistic, but it's based on the institutions themselves rather than necessarily my political colleagues.
[Laughs]
Charlotte Burns:
For more from Ed Vaizey, tune into episode one, “Introducing Hope & Dread,” episode three, “Controlling Culture,” and episode 12, “Are You Sitting Uncomfortably?”.
CREDITS and GOODBYES
Listen to Hope & Dread Extra every Tuesday and Thursday and subscribe wherever it is you find your podcasts.
Hope & Dread is brought to you by Art&, the new editorial platform created by Schwartzman&.
The executive producer is Allan Schwartzman, who co-hosts the show together with me, Charlotte Burns of Studio Burns, which produces the series.
Robert Bound is our associate editor.
Holly Fisher mixes and edits the sound.
Additional research has been provided by Julia Hernandez.
And our theme music by the inimitable Philip Glass.
