Do they mean me?

Picture: Amazon

Observer editorial on the Manet show: "The advent of a blockbuster exhibition offers as much diversion for people who like being grumpy as it does for the art lover. So the delivery of a crateful of more than 50 of Édouard Manet's portraits at the Royal Academy of Arts in London this weekend has naturally been trailed with complaints about high ticket prices, populism and potential overcrowding".  It concludes, "When the circus comes to town, it is sometimes worth queuing up with your fellows, rather than simply grumbling about all the noise."

 

I find the stigmatisation of dissent as 'grumpiness' objectionable.  It's  symptomatic of the sycophantic strain in arts journalism that they depict debate as a clash between fun-lovers and miserablists.  It would be unthinkable to reduce a debate on any other social or political issue to that level - can you imagine ridiculing critics of education or health policy as merely 'grumpy'?  This editorial reveals low expectations of culture when it expects us to jump for joy at an exhibition simply because it juxtaposes some nice paintings in front of a big crowd. 

Manet Blockbuster

Picture: British Museum

On the opening day of the Royal Academy Manet show, the Guardian hosted a discussion on the merits of blockbusters, loaded with cliches and specious arguments.  The show at the RA is described as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity ... after all, it's almost two years since the last Manet blockbuster.  The craziest argument (against tough competition) is the claim that, "To create a blockbuster exhibition is quite a political statement, it says something broader than just 'Manet: a great artist'. It says – to a government that couldn't care less about the arts – that people love culture."*  I just don't know what to say to that.

 

Then there's the claim that, "If you go to a blockbuster you shouldn't necessarily think it's all about the art – it's about the crowd, too."  So you pay the RA £15 for the privilege of hanging out in a scrum?  You can do that on the London Underground, still for slightly less money than the RA charges. 

 

I like Manet and I live in London, but I don't think I'll go.  The RA puts on some of the crassest crowd-pleasers and draws the biggest crowds.  You never see very much.  I queued up for opening time to get a few quiet minutes at a recent exhibition, but the galleries were already mobbed with well-heeled invitees to private early-doors viewings.  I'm especially appalled that they're now offering a less crowded Sunday night viewing ('Enhance your visit') at £30 a head - double the normal rate - including a drink and an audio guide.  It would be worth paying to get a quiet view, but I don't believe that they will keep numbers sufficiently low, I want to see art not have a drink and I don't want an audio guide.  Above all I find it disgusting that they knowingly sell far more tickets than can be compatible with anyone seeing anything during the normal time slots.

 

* Thanks to Gareth Harris for flagging this quotation on Twitter, @garethhar