Mike Newton: Ignore the self-righteous assumptions of the left – art is a Conservative issue

Mike Newton was Conservative parliamentary candidate for Wolverhampton West, and worked for the Bank of England during his career in the financial markets. 

They say by-elections have consequences, and you are reading this article because helping in the recent Willaston and Thornton contest (we won comfortably), in deepest Wirral, persuaded me to visit the nearby Lady Lever Gallery at Port Sunlight, and then cross the Mersey to visit the Turner exhibition at the Walker. These trips re-fired my interest in art, and made me think about its relationship with conservatism, which is often complex.

I am not a high culture person, generally preferring football, railway engineering or mountaineering, but I have always been interested in painting and the decorative arts. Perhaps some of it is due to the heritage of glaze and enamel manufacture for the pottery industry in Staffordshire on my mother’s side, and it may also have been my father taking me as a kid to a Royal Academy exhibition on the Post-Impressionists.

Meeting recently with the Shadow DCMS Secretary, Nigel Huddleston MP, it was very clear that the Party has made a commitment to the arts, from a perspective of it being not only in the national interest, but with potential political benefits.

The ‘Creative Industries’ (as defined by DCMS) contribute about 5 per cent of national output, according to research from the House of Commons Library.  These things are not just ‘nice to have’: they are critical economic drivers.  And within the arts, despite its public image of a bastion of the left, there are solid pockets of cultural and political conservatism.

As Conservatives, we believe in our national story without apology.  We cannot sort it into ‘good or bad’ bits.  It is a narrative not a buffet. The transition from a feudal agrarian society to a modern, high-tech democracy has not always been smooth, but it is our story, and we are proud of it, right or wrong.

Our history must be viewed cohesively, or not at all.

Our artists have chronicled that story.  Which patriot could not be moved by the spell of the pre-Raphaelite romanticism of John Brett’s The Stonebreaker or Albert Richards’s depiction of gliders at Pegasus Bridge on D-Day?

The faces of the British speak out to us from our galleries. John Russell’s Porter of the Royal Academy or Augustus John’s portrait of Lord Leverhulme (initially banned by him) remind us of where we are from and where we are going.  They may be dressed and coiffured differently from us now, but they are still us.  We have a commonality with them that is deep and lasting.

I always like to think high performers in any field are naturally Conservative, given that to get there you must have several of our trademark values: aspiration, hard work, resilience, competitiveness and excellence.  It is lazy thinking to view artists as any different in this regard, although we have not always been able to monetize this politically.

The historic rivalry between Turner and Constable was driven by these values, and many of our greatest painters were driven by profit to new standards of achievement.  Holbein did not paint Henry VIII for free, nor did Reynolds capture high society for the love of the job.  And Wedgwood was a ferocious capitalist, often sending teaser pieces of Jasperware to the great and good of the day in the hope that they would show them to their friends.

Furthermore, great art needs great sponsorship.

The pioneers of the Industrial Revolution lined up to be painted by Joseph Wright of Derby and others.  More recently the Law Family Foundation ensured that LS Lowry’s Going to the Match could remain on public display in Salford.  The relationship between successful capitalism and the common good is often at its starkest in the context of art.

There are many further aspects we could discuss as a pleasant conclusion to what has been an agreeable tour de table so far.  But it would be intellectual and political cowardice not to discuss the issue of wokeism in art, particularly regarding the issue of slavery and what is, or isn’t considered appropriate for public view.

It is quite common these days to find paintings labelling as depicting subjects that had associations with colonialism or the slave trade, and at the Lady Lever Gallery there is an ongoing discussion about continuing to show Jean-Baptiste Santerre’s portrait of the socialite Catherine-Marie Legendre, which essentially shows a wealthy white woman with a black slave, and opens itself to a variety of allegorical and other interpretations.

Personally, I am quite relaxed about labelling, as it is all part of the story of the art.  As a right-wing Conservative it is not something I especially welcome, but I understand that to many people who may have a different perspective and experience from me, it is an important point to make.

But I am queasier on the question of removal from display.

This is a very tricky area.  The portrait of Legendre has significant artistic and historical merit, but I would feel uneasy looking at it with a black friend for a variety of obvious reasons.  But is that grounds for removal? When removal starts, where does it stop?

We could all agree that the National Portrait Gallery should not display its images of Jimmy Savile, but where does that leave a gallery that wanted to display Warhol’s Mao or some Soviet propaganda featuring Stalin, who murdered tens of millions between them?  And to push the argument further, is it really right to enjoy listening to Michael Jackson?

There is not really an answer to this, but as Conservatives we need to approach the issue with thoughtfulness and principle, not the kneejerkery one might associate with our political competitors.

Governing choices are hard.  Extrapolating issues to their logical conclusion throws up many unintended consequences.  Context, commonsense and balance are key.  But as Conservatives, I do not believe we should ever be pro-censorship in art unless the situation is absolutely clear.

By implication, this means being on the side of the artist and thus the freedom to create, which I think is one of the most Conservative positions of all.

Many of the artworks described in this piece can be seen at National Museums Liverpool.