Page 45 - Post Summit_2019_AV

extent illusory, especially in cultural institutions that have the capacity for a wide range of programming. “You want to get to a point where people engage with the art but you don’t want to do it for the sake of it, and curators and producers shouldn’t get caught up in that game, just for the sake of numbers,” he said. “I don’t think we have to be preoccupied with paternalistically telling people what benefit they are going to get from an experience. We just want to open the door, let people in and let them decide for themselves.” For Mr Nittve, populism in the arts is the equivalent of putting the metaphorical carriage before the horse. “It’s when there are other things that are driving the content, what you do and why you do \[it\],” he said. “That’s when populism becomes a dangerous thing.” But when it comes to policymakers and politicians, what other metrics do they have to gauge success and impact, Mr Marlow asked Ms Mirza, whose career has been dedicated to public art and making culture as accessible as possible. “There’s always a strong feeling in the cultural sector that reaching the public, engaging with large numbers, creating art that felt relevant and had meaning to people’s lives is a philosophy, really, that people hold with integrity,” she said. “But I think you can have two ideas in your head at the same time. You can believe in excellence, the authority of the expert, an elite understanding of culture and the arts whilst absolutely believing that people, the audience and the public can engage with it.” For Mr Marlow, public trust in arts institutions is ultimately key. “Institutions gain a certain amount of trust if they are popular, but they also gain trust through credibility, and a noble failure, rather than a cynical attempt to generate a mass audience that is obviously going for certain big names, will lose public trust in a bad way.” 41