Democracy and Excellence

Underlying some of most vigorous debates about arts today are attitudes which are rooted in history or general assumptions which are rarely made explicit. We are all democrats now-provided you don't ask us to define democracy. In contemporary debates about arts elitism is most frequently used term of abuse. Significantly, it is regularly misused to denounce any belief in excellence, whereas it properly means belief excellence should be kept for few, elite. Lord (Kenneth) Clark was being elitist when he rejoiced in his autobiography a certain architectural gem in Rome was usually empty, showing huge gap between informed and popular taste. God forbid, he wrote, that it should ever be narrowed. This was a strange sentiment for a former chairman of Arts Council, but fortunately Clark was an inconsistent elitist who used television skillfully to narrow gap between informed and popular taste. Democracy, however, has not always been so favorably regarded, especially in discussion of arts. In nineteenth century Sir Edmund Gosse (author of novel Father and Son) warned against what he called the spread of democratic sentiment. He believed traditions of literary taste were being overturned: Until now, values in arts have been determined by educated classes. Now they are determined by popular vote. Of late there seem to be certain signs, especially in America, of a revolt of mob against our literary masters. The revolution against taste, once begun, will land us in irreparable chaos.