What should a 'cultural network' be doing?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well all the brouhaha about the deckchairs must make them all feel terribly important ....

pondering this morning about recent experiences and discussions in this spot please excuse a further thought or two on 'cultural network'

it should be telling the artists who were playing the Brahms sextets the other evening [for love not much money at all i'd have thought] that their decades of work and friendship meant something to us all over and above the joy of the immediate performance

it should be telling us about such circles of friends, what they are doing, why it matters and let us hear it

we attended a recital by ten talented young post graduates at a music college; they gave their all to stretch into and beyond their material - more than the performance the intensity of their effort to perform seriously and well moves me - there must be hundreds more across the country as i type eh?

a cultural network should let us know about all of them and their work, not just the odd prizewinners, it should tell them their efforts are both worthwhile, appreciated and deeply needed and it should broadcast them and their colleagues across the country without the arrogance and snobbery of the competition worlds = the country should know a lot better than it ddoes that there are hundreds of very hard working talented young artists striving to bring music drama speech to life

it should not, neither to the established artists nor their young colleagues, say that their work is futile since it lacks audience appeal; it should not trivialise their efforts by 'personality' 'commercialised' 'brand management' tactics [most of which fail as any hardened marketer will tell you] in an attempt to boost its own standing in the world of meedja execs and K's

it should have the courage and integrity to argue for culture in and of itself and it should let us know all about it and the people who work to make it..

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

A status order, in the classical Weberian sense, can
still be identified in contemporary British society.

Social class and social status are related, but they
are not the same thing. There is a clear status gradient
across classes, but the spread of status within certain
classes is quite large, and there is considerable overlap
of status between classes.

It is education and social status, rather than social
class, which predict lifestyle and cultural consumption.

Cultural consumption is socially stratified, but not
along an elite – mass line. Instead, the division is
between
cultural omnivores
and
cultural univores.

Omnivores are those who consume both ‘high’ culture
and ‘popular’ culture, while univores are those whose
cultural consumption is restricted to one form only.

Broadly comparable results are obtained in all
countries in the project.

study of 'cultural' consumption

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

and:

An argument that underlies much current discussion
of cultural policy is what we label as the ‘homology’
argument. What this argument claims is that social
hierarchies and cultural hierarchies map closely onto
each other. Individuals in higher social strata are those
who prefer, and predominantly consume ‘high’ or ‘elite’
culture; and individuals in lower strata are those who
By a status order, we refer to a structure of relations
of perceived, and in some degree accepted, social
superiority, equality and inferiority.
Social status is expressed primarily through patterns
of intimate association: with whom you eat, and with
whom you sleep. Based on data on close friendship from
the British Household Panel Survey, we establish that
a status order can still be identified in contemporary
British society. Our results echo historians’ accounts
of the status order in the nineteenth and the early
twentieth centuries, with non-manual occupations
ranking above manual occupations, and within non-
manual occupations, professionals ranking above
managers.
Social status is related to both education and income,
but the correlation is quite modest (see figure 1). Status
is also related to class, but they are not the same thing.
Figure 2 shows a clear status gradient across social
classes. However, the spread of status within class can
be quite large, especially for class II (lower level salariat),
class IV (self-employed and own-account workers) and
class V (technicians and supervisors of manual workers).
prefer, and predominantly consume, ‘popular’ or ‘mass’
culture. Some kind of homology argument often lies behind
criticism of public funding for the arts – insofar as the
arts are associated with high culture. Such funding is
seen to reinforce class and status divisions in society
rather than contributing to greater social integration.
New Labour policy in regard to the arts has been
influenced by such criticism – leading to a governmental
demand that public funding for the arts should be linked
to a requirement that the arts show a commitment to
overcoming ‘social exclusion’.
Our research shows the problems with this line of
reasoning. In England today, we are unable to identify
any numerically significant group of cultural consumers
whose consumption is essentially confined to high
cultural forms and who reject, or at least do not
participate in, more popular forms. Any such group
that may exist is, at all events, too small to be reliably
determined even within a relatively large national
sample (one in fact of over 6000 respondents). And,
we can further say, this negative finding is for the most
part replicated in the other countries in our comparative
project. So the debate about elitism versus dumbing
down in cultural consumption is a little misplaced.

[Serial_Apologist]

and:

What do you reckon this report is suggesting? That because its findings are that those lower down on the social scale are as much into "high culture" as the upper orders, it is implicitly wrong for nation states to subsidise any cultural forms, whether high or low, or promulgate them through its agencies in the name of inclusion, because no one, from any social stratum, is excluding themselves?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

simply that metaphors of class and elitism when it comes to cultural behaviours are unproductive; people who consume [sic] high culture also consume popular culture - in short people who like culture like culture pretty irrespective of social class and not too much to do with their social statuses or standings - they like culture, not everyone does .... the implications for me are that 1] trivialising/personality tactics and re-branding of R3 will not attract people who like culture [but might falsely attract but not retain people who don't] and 2] the counter arguments of elitism and hermetically sealed appeal are also wrong, preferences for culture and high culture are socially narrow across the social hierarchies [checked the Etonian philistines in the cabinet lately?]and 3] social categorisations and demographies are very poor empirical bases to understand what a 'cultural network' should do; rather attracting and sustaining an intrinsic enthusiasm for the arts &c must be the primary impetus along with the understanding that Haley had - it will be a minority audience

the Culture Show on BBC2 tonight covered ARTiculation - an excellent example but too short, visual arts so harder for radio except it was actually about TALKS! when did we last have a good 'un on R3

i find Jon3 becoming rather admirable these days in its reach into the diverse jazz worlds of modern times and willing to air the unknown [Nick Malcolm] ....


i note that the London Review of Books requires a subsidy from the family trust of its esteemed editor .... i suspect the economics of the blogosphere will make that financially less challenging ....
whether R3 can continue as an AUNT careerist set up is very doubtful - heavy and unproductive overheads and stultified imaginations being only the most obvious costs ... and public subsidies will always be challenged and challengeable ... one might hope that in the anarchic and flatter and lateral social forms of the internet a viable base for a cultural network might be created ... AUNT free though in R3's case whereas the editor of the LRB is an inspiration and example to us all

but NB the latest thinking in AUNT

[Andrew353w]

I'm currently re-reading "The Envy Of The World" and love it! I bought it years ago & gave it to my daughter, who at the time was studying for a Masters Degree in music composition at The Guildhall School Of Music & Drama. She read it from cover to cover & then lost it! No matter, it's worth a re-read anyway! I remember listening to the early morning Third Programme broadcasts on my late Father's mains operated huge VHF only Ecko radio (GREAT TONE!!) which were "Overture" from 7-8am & morning concert from 8-9am. Were these "Third Programme" or Radio 3?

Is there anywhere where old Radio 3/Third Programme schedules from the 1960's can be found?

[french frank]

I'm currently re-reading "The Envy Of The World" and love it! I bought it years ago & gave it to my daughter, who at the time was studying for a Masters Degree in music composition at The Guildhall School Of Music & Drama. She read it from cover to cover & then lost it! No matter, it's worth a re-read anyway! I remember listening to the early morning Third Programme broadcasts on my late Father's mains operated huge VHF only Ecko radio (GREAT TONE!!) which were "Overture" from 7-8am & morning concert from 8-9am. Were these "Third Programme" or Radio 3?

Is there anywhere where old Radio 3/Third Programme schedules from the 1960's can be found?

Overture and Morning Concert were still going strong in 1969 when the daytime programming had been 'rebranded' as Radio 3 but 'The Third Programme' still appeared (until 1970) for some of the evening programmes, according to this copy of the Radio Times (pdf file which takes a bit of time to load).

There are odds and ends online, but otherwise the British Library has the complete run of Radio Times.

[Gordon]

....which were "Overture" from 7-8am & morning concert from 8-9am. Were these "Third Programme" or Radio 3?

The name R3 wasn't used until 1967 when BBC radio was reorganised to introduce R1 after the pirates business. The elements of the "Third" and "Network 3 " were retained in their respective time slots but daytime music dominated leading to the "Music Programme" label. In 1970 another reorg dropped the 3rd/N3 terms. It should all be in Carpenter.

Is there anywhere where old Radio 3/Third Programme schedules from the 1960's can be found?

As well as the BL some are also available here.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Envy of The World at page 119; a listener survey in 1951 found an astonishing range of occupations responding positively to the Week of 1851 showing the audience to be heterogenous and not at all 'elite' musch as the research cited above argues ... The Third Programme was IMITATED and ENVIED around Europe and in the USA in the early 1950s and even though the station was hardly in its stride ... arguments were brewing re Schoenberg ... the presentation and scheduling were defiantly slack ... [i was six and not yet listening]

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

p150ish and premiers of Beckett & Thomas swelp us ... in '56 and eleven and still noyt yet listening and blithely unaware that the plays that would arouse my psyche at seventeen have now just been aired ....

about in the history of it to hit the phillistine and prejudiced cut backs, and ignorance and contempt for 'cerebral masturbation' of AUNT Brass .... constant sniping about irrelevance to the mass, elitist drivel and avant garde nonsense yet the envy of Europe .... who'd be controller eh? [RW is longest serving by far it looks to me]

one might ask the question if AUNT and the present motley lot of dumbos posing as trustees could host a cultural network since recognising one seems beyond their ken ... budgets will be cut and danger looms ... stack up your hard drives!

[aeolium]

I would characterise the essential differences between the philosophy behind the BBC's arts provision on radio and TV in its most productive period - roughly from the 1950s to the mid 1980s - and that of the BBC today as being twofold: firstly, that the BBC then was confident of the importance and value of serious historical and contemporary art, whereas it is not today; and secondly that the BBC then felt that the greatest broadcasting effect could be achieved with the minimum of editorial or presentational mediation - the listener/viewer having to do some of the work - whereas now it believes that only extensive packaging and explication can make art and ideas accessible to its audience.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I would characterise the essential differences between the philosophy behind the BBC's arts provision on radio and TV in its most productive period - roughly from the 1950s to the mid 1980s - and that of the BBC today as being twofold: firstly, that the BBC then was confident of the importance and value of serious historical and contemporary art, whereas it is not today; and secondly that the BBC then felt that the greatest broadcasting effect could be achieved with the minimum of editorial or presentational mediation - the listener/viewer having to do some of the work - whereas now it believes that only extensive packaging and explication can make art and ideas accessible to its audience.

well and succinctly put aeolium