Covid-19 and The Arts

The pandemic has, at least temporarily, devastated the arts sector in the UK. Theatres and cinemas have closed, possibly never to reopen; galleries, museums and libraries have shuttered their doors or limited access, and gigs, concerts and festivals have been cancelled. It is estimated that the economic contribution of Arts and Culture to the UK economy is as much as £48 billion, and the sector accounts for some 364,000 jobs. The economic impact of the sudden curtailment of the arts sector has clearly been immense, not least on the livelihood of those employed in the arts, who commonly work on short-term contracts and therefore have little recourse to government support schemes for the self-employed. What is the future for the arts in the post-covid UK? Is this merely a lacuna, and the arts will re-emerge in a different, perhaps reconfigured and reinvigorated form, when the virus has passed, or has lasting damage been inflicted and vital infrastructure and skills lost forever? Will the pandemic permanently shift the pattern of consumption of art and culture? How will the arts respond to the pandemic? What shifts in form and content are/will take place? Will this changes be permanent or temporary?

The pandemic perspectives group debated the impact of covid-19 on the arts on October 15th, focussing on film and the cinema, literature, theatre and the visual arts. They were guided by a Pan-European ITEM report on the post-pandemic future of the performing arts; Ellen Pierson-Hoggar’s New Statesman piece, ‘The Final Curtain Call: How Covid-19 left Britain’s theatres in Crisis‘; Kelsey Jacobson’s article in The Conversation, ‘Theatre companies are pushing storytelling boundaries with online audiences amid covid-19‘; Jackie Wullschlager’s FT report, ‘How contemporary art is changing in the covid-19 era’; Nancy Kenny’s piece in The Art Magazine, ‘Space Race: How the pandemic is pushing museums to rethink design‘; Ben Davis’ summary of a Clover and Linett’s survey, ‘What Does the Public Want from Art in a Post-Covid World‘ on ArtsNet; Emma Charlton’s piece for the WEC, ‘Coronavirus escapism: Book sales surge during lockdown’; Alice Vincent’s piece for Penguin Books, ‘Will we ever be ready for the Covid-19 novel?‘ and Mark Sweeny in The Guardian, ‘UK Cinema admissions on course to be lowest since records began’.

David Christie began the debate with an atypically pessimistic view, arguing that the impact on the performing arts would not be temporary. Many venues would be permanently bankrupted, and a long-lingering fear of contagion in large gatherings would inhibit people’s return to theatres and cinemas. He argued that in theatre’s case, social distancing requirements would render many venues uneconomic, and the confluence of streaming technology and large domestic TV screens would sound the death-knell for cinema. He suggested that, at the very least, the age of the ‘blockbuster’ movie was over and that cinema, if it survived at all, would become a niche market showing low to medium budget movies to a smaller, more dedicated audience. He even advanced the argument that in the face of so many other pressing issues, the public had assigned the arts a very low priority (quoting the findings of Clover and Linnet’s survey), and that perhaps what the pandemic had showed is that we don’t need the arts at all.

Unsurprisingly, no one agreed. Niall Gallen and Sadegh Attari (both literature researchers), argued that periodic crises in the arts due to global events such as war or civil conflict had tended to lead to the opposite effect, a re-energising of the arts, with the ‘golden-age’ of cinema post-WW2 cited as key evidence. They argued, that, as ever with artistic endeavour, new, exciting and experimental forms would emerge, which Sadegh described in evolutionary terms as ‘adaptive mutations’. He suggested a potential democratisation of film-making, noting Stephen Soderbergh’s i-phone-made movie “High Flying Bird’ as typical of trends already nascent that had been accelerated by the pandemic. Richard Kendall also agreed that the more likely outcome was an explosion of creativity, and noted the rise of more interactive forms of theatre such as that cited in Jacobson’s piece and noted his delight in online participatory readings of Homer, which seemed more akin to its original form. He also embarked on a trenchant defence of cinema, arguing that the uniqueness and intimacy of the experience would ensure its longevity. He also cited the (relative) success of the only blockbuster release under covid, that of Christopher Nolan’s ‘Tenet”, arguing that its cinematic excess, a ‘smorgasbord of exotic locations from Estonia to Mumbai’, would be even more in demand in an age of restricted travel. David countered by arguing that such wide ranging shoots on location would be much more problematic to achieve in a post-covid world, and suggested production companies would resort to closed studio sets, CGI and smaller casts. Sadegh countered by anticipating a spate of large-scale location shoots in covid-free states such as New Zealand. Niall argued that cinemas with their high ceilings and large auditoria were relatively safe spaces and would be perceived as such, provided choke-points at entrance and exit were resolved. Noting that this was the same issue that football faced, David expressed his declining interest in the game, arguing that it was the phenomena of being present in a crowd that defined the spectacle, and speculated that the long-term effect of covid would be a changed relationship to mass-participation, and even that future generations would have a fear, rather than a delight in being immersed in a crowd. No one agreed, pointing to the mass gatherings over Black Lives Matter on both sides of the Atlantic, and the continuing issue of illegal ‘raves’ among the young. Sadegh argued that conceptions of ‘the crowd’ were shifting, citing zoom monologues by stand up comedian Frankie Boyle had been viewed by audiences in groups, thus replicating the crowd experience. Richard noted the same phenomena in the silent film community. Some debate about the nature of crowds ensued, David Riesman was quoted, with Richard arguing that, if anything, covid had increased the ‘crowd mentality’.

Niall accepted that, in the traditional theatre, funding had been directed largely toward national players to ensure their survival, while much regional and small scale theatre would suffer. He argued however, that if ‘theatre’ was envisaged in broader sense, new, participatory forms that had pre-existed the pandemic, such as alternative reality games, and, (as Liam Knight pointed out), even the streaming of game-play on Twitch, had been accelerated by covid. Expanded the conception of theatre even more broadly, he argued that energy had been re-directed into the field of ‘political theatre’ as evidenced by the US presidential candidates debate. Sadegh concurred, arguing that theatricality, rather than being suppressed, had in fact dispersed, leading to a more performative culture in many respects, including that of teaching. Richard described the clapping of NHS staff as ‘the biggest piece of performance art in history.’

There then followed a discussion on the impact of the pandemic on literature. David, back in optimist vein, noted the upsurge in sales of novels, although Richard pointed out that he was living proof that book sales didn’t always equate with books read. On content, Niall suggested that covid may well become like Brexit, a subject so exhausted in public discourse that no one would want to read about. Liam acknowledged that there would be inevitably be some ‘very shitty covid lit’, but noted that Naomi Alderman (author of the women’s fiction prize-winning ‘The Power’) had been in the process of writing a pandemic story when covid hit, and had had to amend it in light of subsequent developments, and that Ian McEwen was working on one. David argued that novels depicting claustrophobia, loneliness and isolation would have some kind of appeal, if not for him, but Sadegh pointed out that the literature produced might be more experimental in form, possibly interactive, and more likely to be patchwork in construction, delivering stories from a multitude of standpoints within the same text. He also noted that, following the Black Death, little literature was produced about the plague itself, but all subsequent writing was viewed through the lens that the plague provided.

There was much more. Join Pandemic Perspectives or set up your own group to join the debate…