Rolf on art, Cliff on music?

The Weekender

Sign up to our free weekly newsletter for exclusive competitions, offers and theatre ticket deals

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

Have broadcasters developed an itchy conscience about how they cover the arts? Judging by some defensive publicity campaigns, both BBC and Channel 4 feel they have a case to answer. Many people, myself included, received a 28-page glossy booklet from the BBC listing prestigious arts programmes in 2002, and inviting us to judge for ourselves whether the BBC was "failing" - as some, apparently, alleged - "to make programmes of range and distinction". Of course, if the BBC were doing its job in these fields, it would not need such a pamphlet.

Similarly, at a lunch sponsored by Channel 4 at the recent Canada House Conference on The Arts on Television, each seat bore a smaller leaflet titled, Who Said There's No Arts on Television? Well, who did? The French have a phrase for it: "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse." Or, in the English vernacular, "If the cap fits, wear it."

Executives at the conference admitted that the volume of arts coverage had fallen. David Elstein, chairman of the Screen Advisory Council, laid into the BBC, ITV and channels 4 and 5 for offering arts programming of lower quality, at the least watchable times, and less of it. Some executives conceded that the arts had been marginalised. But when it came to doing better in the future, doubts set in.

Look at the budgets involved. BBC Four - the much-vaunted arts channel - gets £34 million per year. But with average audiences of 16,000 per programme, this hardly looks like the BBC fulfilling its charter obligations as a mass broadcaster. It looks just like any other impoverished niche digital provider - like, for instance, Jeremy Isaacs's everstruggling Artsworld. Is that what the universal licence fee is for?

BBC Three - the much criticised youth channel - gets almost three times as much money as BBC Four. Such lopsided budgetary priorities don't look like a commitment to the arts. If I were Roly Keating, BBC Four's outgoing controller, I would start making a lot of noise about the BBC's public service remit as the charter review approaches. Keating, though, is caught in a bind. Having been starved of resources at BBC Four, he is now in charge of arguing the case for a charter renewal.

BBC Four is not the solution. The heart of the matter remains with the terrestrials, where commissioning editors are fixated on "the Rolf Harris experience". "How can you argue with audiences of five and seven million for Rolf on Art?" they demand.

Well, I don't. BBC 1 and 2 have always needed - and often found - great popularisers of difficult subjects, from Jacob Bronowski to Simon Schama. The question is whether Rolf Harris is to be the main word on art - and don't tell me that Alan Yentob's Imagine will act as a counterbalance. Yentob started out as a documentary maker before he became a BBC suit.

He is now being parachuted into barren arts terrain to profile, among others, his good friends Charles Saatchi and John Mortimer. Arts coverage-that lurches inconsistently between paintbrush Rolf and socialite Alan leaves yawning chasms of artists, experiences and ideas.

What next? Will the Rolf Experience be followed by Cliff Richard on Beethoven? Will audiences of five to seven million become the benchmark - a favourite word of TV planners - by which other arts programmes are judged? Having won such audiences, can they settle for less?

Other BBC assumptions are equally dangerous. First, because only seven per cent of the population call themselves "arts lovers" but 66 per cent say they "consume" the arts, the argument goes that arts coverage must change dramatically to accommodate the "missing" 60 per cent. In fact, the existence of a massive two thirds of the nation who "consume" the arts should be a justification for boosting the full range of arts coverage.

Second, harping on the Rolf Experience falls into the trap of the "trickle down" or "trading up" theory. It does not work. Audiences were not converted to Mozart by the success of Amadeus nor to Puccini by Pavarotti's World Cup Nessun Dorma.

The more emphasis that is placed on "access" and "experience" in programming, the less it provides understanding. I wept as others did during Channel 4's brilliant Operatunity (audience two million). It gave us tear-jerking human stories. It revealed English National Opera staff not as pointy-headed custodians of an elitist art form, but as warm, expert and totally committed.

Once the glow faded, what was left was a show about people who longed to sing in opera. It told you very little about opera itself, except in the final full showing of Verdi's Rigoletto (audience 1.4 million).

Unless TV planners find room for ideas as well as experience, for discovery as well as access, for exploration as well as reassurance, they will never deliver the range and depth of arts programming that audiences need and the arts deserve.

Ten years ago, as a BBC executive, I was present at a board of governors conference at the luxury country house hotel, Lucknam Park. We were told that in future programmes would not be chosen by a concern for quality, discovery and imagination. Instead, programming had to fit into categories of subject matter defined by "genres" and "sub-genres". This was Stalinist centralisation of supply, with commissioning editors as commissars. The time and effort required to meet the over-prescribed criteria of these definitions squeezes out originality and innovation.

The BBC must do one thing above all to rediscover its soul and deliver its public service remit over the arts. It must fall in love again with the small audience. It needs programmes on the main two channels which are commissioned, made and defended by the BBC purely because they are excellent, and not because they deliver the maximum audience.

Any halfway competent channel controller can achieve mass audiences through the endless replication of formula programming. A great broadcaster reveals itself through its distinctive commitment to the small audience. Not how big is its audience share (the language of marketing) but how big is its idea (the language of values). Rolf 's millions are irrelevant; what the BBC needs to reclaim its legitimacy is the still, small voice of deep reason.

  • John Tusa is director of the Barbican Centre.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in