To Save or Not to Save?
The image for this blog is a mural by mid-20th century artist George Meyer-Marton, which has been discovered under a layer of plaster in a disused Roman Catholic school in Salford, Manchester, UK.
The school is set to be demolished.
Salford City Council will lose £1.6m of funding received to demolish the school, clear the site, and build affordable housing if the demolition doesn't happen on schedule.
A previous bid to get the mural listed, so that it can be removed and preserved in a suitable location, has failed.
It is estimated that the costs of removing and conserving the mural would be at least £400,000 - twenty-five percent of the total funding for the full spectrum of intended site works which Salford City Council stand to lose if they can't proceed imminently with the planned demolition and site clearance.
As we've outlined in initial posts on this blog, "heritesy" is a somewhat heretical approach to heritage; the reality that we can't save everything leading to the position that we shouldn't bother about some things, that not everything old and beautiful, or old and with strong sentimental value for some people, deserves to be considered "heritage".
The view of heritesy is that for something to truly be considered "heritage" - ie, of value, and worth saving - it has to not only tell a cohesive story about who we were, but also who we are now, and whom we might be based on which potential and possible future we take action to place ourselves in.
So: Does this painting, "The Five Joyful Mysteries of the Virgin's Rosary" do that?
Positions For:
. The mural was painted in 1954, in the aftermath not just of the Second World War, but of a prolonged period of rapid and radical social change, a point where new additions to the range of potential futures were just beginning to emerge.
. It is located in the North of England, and centres on female experience; Northern working class communities in the UK often have an undercurrent of matriarchy within them, and, at the current time, the role and prominence of women is being elevated on a systemic level, which is leading to a re-reading of historic and religious texts, and a critical re-examining of the roles women mentioned in those texts may actually have played; this could very well inform how we balance the focus on, and roles of, men and women appropriately, fairly, and with full regard not just for women and men as groups of people, but also of marginalised and disadvantaged men and women within their wider gender category.
. Increasingly, the UK is becoming a secular country, not least because it is very selective indeed about which non-Christian religions it "defends" itself against, and how it enacts that "defence" (defence isn't exclusively a military concept, and it really shouldn't be treated as one...) On the surface, this would suggest there isn't a place for religious art. Going deeper, however, history shows us that these things come in cycles; societies are deeply religious, then more secular, then entirely atheist, then they come back round to including religion again, but in new ways. It is genuinely difficult to return to something, and to reimagine it, if you no longer have contemporaneous references of it.
Also; the 1950s marked a very significant shift in religious focus in Britain, perhaps the "beginning of the end" for that particular cycle of religious sense in society. Two major military conflicts in a generation, the mass unemployment as entire sectors fell away that marked the 1930s, the changing roles of men and women in society, had fundamentally shattered the "eternal verity" of enduring belief and faith. God had proved Himself entirely untrustworthy, and utterly unconcerned with peoples' prayers, consistent good behaviour, and spiritual wholeness. (There's a whole discussion, not for this blog, about the reason God "doesn't answer prayers to stop really wrong things" being that most of those 'wrong' things are the consequences of human beings' free will, and if a god were to prevent them happening, they would be denying human beings agency and free will, which would mean that humans wouldn't be able to genuinely worship that god, because they wouldn't be free to choose to commit to that deity or pantheon); it is perhaps therefore relevant to preserve religious artwork from that time as a commentary on the way people respond to catastrophic challenges and paradigm shifts.
. The time may have finally come when the UK needs to confront the fact that we have reached the end of growth; we have more empty properties than homeless people, the welfare state has lost support across the board, from politicians and, increasingly, from people, we are seeing comprehensive loss of entire industries and sectors, with no investment in re-skilling the workforce for emerging opportunities; we actually need to face the reality that, for 10-20 years at least, people need to stop having children. We need to stop adding to a population we already can't support.
That means we need to begin re-prioritising heritage over housing; the current Parliament are generally of the belief that if the welfare state didn't exist, then "people would have to work!" - well, if new housing wasn't endlessly being built, people would have to think about how and where they lived, and when and if they had children, and how many children they had. They would face the realities of "what about if I become disabled, or can't manage as well when I'm older?" They would be more thoughtful about the things they bought, and the things they kept.
The school is set to be demolished.
Salford City Council will lose £1.6m of funding received to demolish the school, clear the site, and build affordable housing if the demolition doesn't happen on schedule.
A previous bid to get the mural listed, so that it can be removed and preserved in a suitable location, has failed.
It is estimated that the costs of removing and conserving the mural would be at least £400,000 - twenty-five percent of the total funding for the full spectrum of intended site works which Salford City Council stand to lose if they can't proceed imminently with the planned demolition and site clearance.
As we've outlined in initial posts on this blog, "heritesy" is a somewhat heretical approach to heritage; the reality that we can't save everything leading to the position that we shouldn't bother about some things, that not everything old and beautiful, or old and with strong sentimental value for some people, deserves to be considered "heritage".
The view of heritesy is that for something to truly be considered "heritage" - ie, of value, and worth saving - it has to not only tell a cohesive story about who we were, but also who we are now, and whom we might be based on which potential and possible future we take action to place ourselves in.
So: Does this painting, "The Five Joyful Mysteries of the Virgin's Rosary" do that?
Positions For:
. The mural was painted in 1954, in the aftermath not just of the Second World War, but of a prolonged period of rapid and radical social change, a point where new additions to the range of potential futures were just beginning to emerge.
. It is located in the North of England, and centres on female experience; Northern working class communities in the UK often have an undercurrent of matriarchy within them, and, at the current time, the role and prominence of women is being elevated on a systemic level, which is leading to a re-reading of historic and religious texts, and a critical re-examining of the roles women mentioned in those texts may actually have played; this could very well inform how we balance the focus on, and roles of, men and women appropriately, fairly, and with full regard not just for women and men as groups of people, but also of marginalised and disadvantaged men and women within their wider gender category.
. Increasingly, the UK is becoming a secular country, not least because it is very selective indeed about which non-Christian religions it "defends" itself against, and how it enacts that "defence" (defence isn't exclusively a military concept, and it really shouldn't be treated as one...) On the surface, this would suggest there isn't a place for religious art. Going deeper, however, history shows us that these things come in cycles; societies are deeply religious, then more secular, then entirely atheist, then they come back round to including religion again, but in new ways. It is genuinely difficult to return to something, and to reimagine it, if you no longer have contemporaneous references of it.
Also; the 1950s marked a very significant shift in religious focus in Britain, perhaps the "beginning of the end" for that particular cycle of religious sense in society. Two major military conflicts in a generation, the mass unemployment as entire sectors fell away that marked the 1930s, the changing roles of men and women in society, had fundamentally shattered the "eternal verity" of enduring belief and faith. God had proved Himself entirely untrustworthy, and utterly unconcerned with peoples' prayers, consistent good behaviour, and spiritual wholeness. (There's a whole discussion, not for this blog, about the reason God "doesn't answer prayers to stop really wrong things" being that most of those 'wrong' things are the consequences of human beings' free will, and if a god were to prevent them happening, they would be denying human beings agency and free will, which would mean that humans wouldn't be able to genuinely worship that god, because they wouldn't be free to choose to commit to that deity or pantheon); it is perhaps therefore relevant to preserve religious artwork from that time as a commentary on the way people respond to catastrophic challenges and paradigm shifts.
. The time may have finally come when the UK needs to confront the fact that we have reached the end of growth; we have more empty properties than homeless people, the welfare state has lost support across the board, from politicians and, increasingly, from people, we are seeing comprehensive loss of entire industries and sectors, with no investment in re-skilling the workforce for emerging opportunities; we actually need to face the reality that, for 10-20 years at least, people need to stop having children. We need to stop adding to a population we already can't support.
That means we need to begin re-prioritising heritage over housing; the current Parliament are generally of the belief that if the welfare state didn't exist, then "people would have to work!" - well, if new housing wasn't endlessly being built, people would have to think about how and where they lived, and when and if they had children, and how many children they had. They would face the realities of "what about if I become disabled, or can't manage as well when I'm older?" They would be more thoughtful about the things they bought, and the things they kept.
Reasons Against:
. The artist's great-nephew is leading the demand for another bid for getting the artwork listed; but he clearly doesn't care enough to try and raise the £400,000 that it is estimated it will cost to remove the artwork; jaded as it sounds, "valuing something" means being willing to put skin in the game; if there is a cost involved, that "skin" is meeting that cost yourself, or connecting with people who can help you meet it, not just expecting someone else to pay for what you claim you want.
. The mural was plastered over in the 1990s; clearly, the community of its place didn't consider that it had anything to say to them, that it didn't offer any stories or paths. And the place was a Catholic primary school; I am not Christian, let alone Catholic; if an actual Catholic community wasn't that bothered, then perhaps they have more relevant insight into whether or not this painting or artist fits into their stories, their progression, and their futures.
. Yes, the painting centres the female narrative - but as presented by a man. Perhaps the reality is that what is true heritage now is women's stories told by women.
Do I like the painting? Yes, very much so, even though, as I've mentioned, I'm not Christian; there is something captivating about it, the muted tones suit my aesthetic preferences, and it has an almost Gothic quality to it which I very much appreciate.
Would I pay £400,000 for it? No. How much would I pay? If I had a lifestyle where I didn't have to consider money very carefully, perhaps £400.
Are there 1000 people who would similarly be happy to pay £400 for the painting? If there are, let those people meet the cost of recovering it, and then it can be preserved.
As it currently stands? It isn't clear that this is "heritage" in the sense of "something it is actually important and relevant that the State foots the bill for conserving."
Comments
Post a Comment