News Comment

How can a ‘cultural strategy’ for London make the city’s dynamic, messy, internationalised and cutting-edge arts and cultural life seem so dull and worthy? Perhaps the answer lies in the document’s title: ‘Cultural Metropolis’. Metropolis means “important, big city”. The UK has several metropolitan areas, but it only has one London. It is London’s fundamental – and unique – international character and its leading role in the arts globally that this document from the Mayor’s office fails to capture. To me, it therefore fails to inspire us with what the strategy might mean for the cultural future of the city. The strategy shies away from placing the character of London at the heart of its reflections for a number of reasons, but perhaps primarily because of its aversion to the idea of ‘diversity’ – because an international city is by its nature extraordinarily diverse. Placing the international character of London centre stage would imply that London’s diverse, global population is a prime source of its strength and creativity. This would lead to a commitment to promote diversity in the arts, establishing a goal of ensuring those from different ethnic, national, faith and class backgrounds participate in the arts, both as practitioners and audiences. But one of the most striking aspects of this document is the absence of a commitment to diversity – let alone a mention of it – in any of its policy proposals. If the London arts world was not still overwhelmingly dominated by white and upper-middle class people, especially at its most senior levels, this might by justifiable on the basis that this goal has already been achieved. But those of us active in the world of the arts know that this is far from the case. The only conclusion can be that for the document’s authors, this simply doesn’t matter.
This is short-sighted and wrong. In other contexts, the Mayor’s Cultural Advisor has outlined her views that diversity policies in the arts have had the effect of increasing exclusion and cultural alienation. There is no doubt that some policy approaches have been misconceived – as they always are in any policy. But to fail to promote the increasing diversity of the arts and culture in London because of the perceived short-comings of a few – not all – existing models, is bad for the arts and bad for London. Historically, the great flourishing periods of London’s arts and culture were when it was connected to the most diverse international experiences of the time. Sixteenth-century London’s playwrights – not least Shakespeare – were influenced by the Renaissance in Europe. Nineteenth-century London took advantage of its connection to a vast array of cultural influences from its position in the British Empire. Today, London’s advantage is that it is the most international city in the world by most measures, including the international origins of its own population. Ensuring that all the varying cultural inflections are heard and can participate in and influence the arts and culture of the city is the route to innovation and excellence. It also projects London as a city open to the world – which in the era of globalisation is the key to its success in many other fields. Sadly, this draft cultural strategy fails to grasp the unique essentials of London’s cultural life.