— read write play

Stonewall UK’s study of lesbian and gay representations in youth TV confirms that gay people are rarely explicitly present on screen and that positive lesbian identities are spectacularly absent. There are, though, a few assumptions and unanswered questions raised by that research which I want to draw out – not least because they suggest the challenges for television producers who might want to respond to these findings.

Throughout, the study assumes that lesbian and gay characters are only those whose sexuality is declared explicitly, through their words or relationships. Echoing the report’s title, “Unseen on Screen,” we’re to assume that we can only see gay people when we’ve been told we’re looking at gay people. It’s a rhetorical position which enforces a kind of presumptive straightness, and seemingly erases the chance of any undeclared character being gay. It’s an understandable requirement for the study’s methodology, but not a wholly positive one.

Though report makes continued reference to “balanced” and “realistic” representations, it does so without directly exploring what balance or realism might look like. I’d argue that these terms are at best defined indirectly, in language which suggests that realistic and positive images are primarily defined by a claim on normality (although, again, the terms of that normalcy aren’t directly explored).

Accordingly, the first examples provided of television “Getting it right” suggest the value of a disinterested inclusiveness: gay people’s lives are shown, but on the same terms as straight lives. Gay subjects are explicitly identified (we “know” that they’re gay) but that knowledge has no special significance. In “I’m a Celebrity…” the inclusion of gay subjects is praised for

an upbeat, natural reflection involving scenes with [Colin's] partner among the positive experiences he had had while in the camp

Similarly, Hollyoak’s positive representations are described as informal and normalising:

In Hollyoaks, Charlotte and Lydia and a male friend were in the pub. Charlotte, a lesbian, commented on the attractiveness of one of the female bar staff. It wasn’t the central focus of the scene. It was just a casual expression of same-sex attraction in an upbeat scene of friends having fun.

That said, the report notes the worrying absence of representations – once more, “positive and realistic” – which actually focus on sexual orientation rather than treat it as a secondary concern.

Part of the challenge here, I think, is the desire to reject traditional negative stereotypes of gay people: a desire which reflects the anxieties of the young people quoted in the study confronted with homophobic imagery. However, a simple distinction between “good” and “bad” images is problematic. Though potentially stereotypical, gay people can be “figures of fun, predatory or promiscuous,” and happily so. Indeed, some gay people have consciously embraced those identities for a range of personal and/or political reasons – not least as a rejection of normative, straight culture.

It’s also not necessarily stereotypical to represent gay lives which are “unhappy,” involve bullying or “the rejection of families.” These realities are (unhappily) common, as Stonewall itself has often argued in the past. Indeed, the “realistic” portrayal of young gay lives might demand the telling of those kinds of stories. Realistic, but not positive.

So, finally, what would constitute positive and realistic portrayals that are also balanced? If OfCom were to take on board the report’s proposal to develop guidelines with producers to ensure “more positive portrayals of gay characters,” what would those guidelines suggest?  More significantly, what particular political and social agenda (liberal? normalising? radicalising?) will those images serve?

Three election manifestos have been published this week, with varying discussion of arts policy. Some summaries, in order of arrival:

1. The Labour manifesto touches on the arts in two places: framing access to the arts as a part of a balanced primary and secondary education; and in the section headed ‘communities and creative Britain,’ which argues that ‘culture and the arts are vital to a modern economy.’

Accordingly, we’re told that that ‘every child and young person should be entitled to five hours of art, music and culture per week,’ and that ‘every child will have lifetime library membership from birth.’ Labour propose to ‘work with theatres and sponsors to provide reduced-rate tickets for theatrical productions around Britain,’ and to fund ‘Creative Bursaries’ which will support early-career artists. There’s also a commitment to granting public institutions new rights to borrow works of art from the national collection ‘so that more people can benefit from access to our national artistic heritage.’

There are also a few hints of how funding might change in a future of public spending cuts, though no firm details:

We will review how incentives for philanthropic support can be strengthened. Our major museums and galleries should be operationally independent of government, so we will legislate to ensure their managerial and financial autonomy. (p. 7:4)

Similarly, the desire to “promote greater public involvement in the way that National Lottery proceeds are spent on good causes” is rather vague. Are the arts “good causes”? What does “promote” mean? There’s also the oblique admission that “a proportion of Lottery funding” for the arts is going to the Olympics, but will return to “culture, heritage and sport” after 2012.

Finally, Labour plan to merge the British Film Institute and UK Film Council to establish “a single body to promote film production and film heritage,” and propose tax relief for the UK video games industry. They also plan a new biennial Festival of Britain, beginning in 2013, which will showcase ‘our major cultural achievements and young British talent across all of our creative industries.’

The manifesto also defends the BBC’s independence, and the license fee – as well as the role of Channel 4 as ‘a public-service broadcaster providing distinctive competition to the BBC, alongside ITV and Channel 5′ – and promises to ‘fund three regional news programme pilots from the digital switchover under-spend in the current licence-fee period.’

2. The Conversative manifesto‘s engagement with the arts is far less detailed, and refers to the issue only in the context of reforming the National Lottery fund. It’s precisely one sentence long: ‘Sports, heritage and the arts will each see their original allocations of 20 per cent of good cause money restored’ (p. 39). There’s a glowing reference to Brighton’s arts festivals (including Pride) on page 60, but this isn’t linked to any policy: it seems to serve the purpose of reminding us that Brighton is the home of many creative industries, and many gay people. Uh, okay.

In fairness, there’s slightly more detail on the Conservative party website – with proposals to ‘amend local media ownership rules’ and ‘create a system of commercially viable local television stations,’ but there’s no specific mention of the BBC, theatre, music or galleries. Instead – and in keeping with the party’s new ‘people power’ theme, we are invited to ‘take control of the most enjoyable aspects of [our] lives.’ However, these policy details not do appear in the manifesto.

3. Finally, the Liberal Democrat’s manifesto offers a  number of specific policies – all apparently aimed at confirming that ‘the arts are a central part of civic and community life’ (p. 44). Echoing Labour plans, the Lib Dems promise to maintain free entry to national museums and galleries, and open up the Government Art Collection for greater public use. The proposed ‘creative enterprise fund’ might also mirror Labour’s Creative Bursaries, though is aimed at providing grants and loans to creative businesses.

Most specifically, the Liberal Democrats state they will reform entertainment licensing (p. 46):

We will reintroduce the rule allowing two performers of unamplifi ed music in any licensed premises without the need for an entertainment licence, allow licensed venues for up to 200 people to host live music without the need for an entertainment licence, and remove the requirement for schools and hospitals to apply for a licence.

The Lib Dem manifesto also makes direct mention of the BBC, asserting the need for the institution to remain ‘free from interference and securely funded, not least to provide impartial news, independent of political and commercial pressures,’ while committing to ensure that ‘the BBC does not undermine the viability of other media providers through unfair competition based on its public funding and dominant position.’

Finally, there’s also a proposal that seed funding for a green economy could be suported in part by selling off parts of the radio spectrum (p. 25). How might this sit alongside the desire to ‘support a diverse regional and local media’?

Any thoughts or comments? How does arts policy factor into your voting plans?

Update: see My Dog Ate Art for further discussion of arts policy in the three manifestos.

Note: I’ve focussed here on the published manifestos – let me know if I’ve missed anything significant, or made any errors.