Mersey Redivivus

This week's Economist surveys Liverpool's mix of culture and commerce.
Article here.

The jist, is that the City should permit commerce to fuel the cultural aspirations, rather than devoting resources to titles such as World Heritage Site or City of Culture.

Downtown Liverpool's aim is to encourage a more dynamic city centre, one that will help Liverpool to “regain commercial power and cultural richness.” In that order. If the city's history teaches anything, it is that art follows money, not the other way round. The neo-classical Walker Art Gallery, with its Corinthian columns and exceptional collection of high Victorian art; the Anglican cathedral, which celebrates its centenary this year, with its shimmering west window by Carl Edwards; and the magnificent town hall, designed by John Wood and James Wyatt, two of Britain's greatest 18th-century architects: all are testament to the generous industrial patronage responsible for most of the city's heritage.

The two go hand in hand. The Capital of Culture title has clearly played a role in current cultural resurgence, for example Henry IV once more deserves a mention. I think that the Council is looking ahead, and attempting to create a platform for culture to flourish. As long as they don't stifle the actual innovation, that seems fine.

Comments

[Matthew Whitfield]

And yet...haven't the terms of engagement changed rather from when the wealthy Victorians decided that cultural patronage was part of their civic duty? Capital, or at least the big capital that builds art galleries and town halls, is now global and very mobile, not rooted in the local economy. This is as true of the most economically vibrant places (London, New York et al) as those climbing out of the financial doldrums (Liverpool and its ilk). I would argue that, outside of the US, the developed world has moved beyond this tradition of private patronage to a general consensus that state provision of 'culture' is the most secure and fair system.

What's more, I question the automatic assumption that investing in better cultural facilities and marketing 'heritage' ultimately harms potential investment. For example, a city like London depends as much on its built and cultural heritage for its continuing success as somewhere like Liverpool, trying to rebuild its credentials. Why do companies still continue to trade in and move to London, creating more jobs and an ever increasing prosperity? There are cheaper places to trade, with cheaper staffing and rent, but the biggest and best companies will always choose it over Liverpool, Newcastle or Plymouth because it has been and continues to be a vibrant, culturally rich city where their staff will want to work or relocate to. In other words, London has a heritage that companies and people are attracted to, and only part of this heritage is being a business-friendly city.

New investment should be welcomed in Liverpool with open arms, but in a post-Thatcherite economic climate I think we could wait an absolute age for a new investor to spontaneously fund an art biennial or new theatre. The modern corporate board member is a simple soul - s/he is much more likely to move their company to a city which already has a thriving cultural scene than a city which expects private money to create one.