Royal Academy denies cancel policy
mainThe institution has issued a rebuttal to yesterday’s Telegraph report that it planned to decolonise ivory instruments and cancel slave-trade composers. Here’s the text.
In response to articles published by The Telegraph on Sunday 23 May, and the Times today, the Academy has issued the following statement:
There are no plans to dispose of instruments from the Academy’s collections. The reviews we will be undertaking are concerned solely with the storage of collections onsite and how we interpret items in our collections.
We will not be disposing of musical instruments based on their provenance or associations. Additionally, the Telegraph article stated that we hold a ‘vast collection of manuscripts by the composer Handel’ – we do not, in fact, own any original manuscripts by Handel.
The Academy has always trained its students for the evolving professional environments of being a musician. It is vital that they understand the cultural, political and socio-economic forces that have shaped musical traditions, as well as the issues that are shaping it in the present, such as the pandemic and questions around equality, diversity and inclusion. This training includes giving voice to figures who have previously been silenced or marginalised, as well as understanding the contexts in which iconic figures such as Handel and Mozart worked. We have not removed Handel, or any other composer, from the syllabus.
For us, inclusion means widening the net, not cancelling historical figures and artefacts.
So what is behind the Telegraph report?
A disgruntled insider briefing against the institution?
Or just a newspaper with an agenda?
Or could it be that the publicity has forced a volte-face?
Can you find out more, Norman?
Hmm…..interesting. Maybe the publicity has forced a volte-face.
I read the original article and thought it had sinister overtones.
The Academy has not said anything that was not said in the original article. The original article quoted the Academy saying they were “reviewing the collection” – which does not mean ‘selling’. The article said space was the issue – not they were selling to free up space. The original article offers absolutely no evidence for the assertions that the Academy was going to sell off anything, or that it was going to “cancel” anything.
So yeah, the article had “sinister overtones” all right; but it had nothing to sustain or support those overtones.
Absolutely right. Right at the end of the Sunday Telegraph article the RAM spokesman was quoted accurately. All the rest consisted of non-facts (“vast collection of Handel manuscripts”), unattributed quotes preceded by “The Sunday Telegraph understands that …”, and unsubstantiated speculation (“could dispose of …” “could potentially be problematic”) combined with tired old stuff about ivory, Handel’s investments, and Leopold Mozart’s London patrons. Terrible journalism.
It does have sinister overtones. I may be peculiarly stupid, but I fail to see how where Handel invested his money, or where it may have come from, makes the slightest difference to the quality of his music. This whole approach smacks of an attempt to change history.
Of course it makes no difference to the quality of his music. But what is wrong with students learning something about the historical context, the socio-political background, of the composers whose works they are studying? Why is that sinister? Is that not a part of education?
Don’t you think that Wagner’s anti semi Tim’s has implications for his music? Don’t you think Shostakovich composing under the USSR matters? That the economics of the Venetian opera scene mattered for Vivaldi’s music? Why should social, political, and economic contexts not matter for Handel? Why pick and choose what contexts matter?
[Why pick and choose what contexts matter?]
We’re all picking and choosing all the time, because not everyone has the same interests, and life is too short to interest yourself in everything.
Actually, Richard, you raise an interesting point. Should art ideally be experienced totally free of context? Obviously it cannot be: even if we know nothing of its original conditions of creation, we are bringing our own context — preconceptions, emotions, preferences — to it. Does a knowledge of its original context improve our performance, our appreciation, our enjoyment? And if so, what sort of context: perhaps I approach some of Bach’s works differently now that I know he was influenced by Vivaldi, but that is a matter of musical history. Is it merely idle curiosity to want to know more about the personalities, careers, living conditions, families and friends, of creators of art? If I could play a Beethoven sonata in total ignorance of Beethoven’s character, life and times, would it change the way I play it?
The Telegraph used to be a good source of news. Now it seems headed in the direction of the gutter press. This is just the sort of story which they would imagine would support their right wing stance on everything. Their music criticism which used to be good, has now become third rate.
Glad to read a rational response. I should have considered the origin of the alarmist report…
“For us, inclusion means widening the net, not cancelling historical figures and artefacts.” This has always been my argument. I wish some of the “wokeists” would adopt it. They might — though this is the danger to their ideology — learn a lot.
The Telegraph’s role in this is extremely suspicious-making.
Sounds good. But the problem is that people have only a certain amount of time. If there is a fixed amount of time, and some is given to something new, then something else gets less time than it had before. You can’t get round this.
And yet another fictional moral panic over literally nothing. So much of the handwringing over the ‘woke’ scare is simply not based in fact.
And in this case, the Telegraph article itself showed that plainly.
“So much of the handwringing of the ‘woke’ scare is simply not based in fact.”
What an incredibly shocking statement!
But there is a lot of “self-censorship” by people in many institutions to avoid hassle.
The Telegraph has not been a serious newspaper for several years now. Both the views it promotes and its standards of journalism are tabloid-level.
Well, well, well!!!
The Daily Telegraph is a very reputable newspaper . I see nothing to suggest that what was said was wrong . Note the very careful (re)wording of the Academy’s new statement
“The Academy has always trained its students for the evolving professional environments of being a musician. It is vital that they understand the cultural, political and socio-economic forces that have shaped musical traditions, as well as the issues that are shaping it in the present, such as the pandemic and questions around equality, diversity and inclusion.”
Weasel words and sneaky innuendoes are not the hallmarks of a reputable newspaper.
The part of the Academy’s statement that you quote merely clarifies their position in response to the inaccuracies and smear tactics of the Telegraph reporter, Craig Simpson.
Do you find anything objectionable in it?
Oh I did laugh at the description of the telegraph as a reputable newspaper. It is a geriatric home for mad Brexiters and right wingers who create content on the night of the full moon.
I guess it’s possible they’ve since sold it, but I thought the RAM did own at least one Handel ms. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/04/arts.highereducation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other