arts + lit Who’s the Man?
T
Zach Mayford investigates the controversial funding of the Booker Prize
HE Booker Prize Foundation has lost a £1.6 million sponsorship deal with London-based hedge fund managers, The Man Group. Despite the Foundation’s grace under pressure, this is a huge deal in the literary world. In a statement, Thomas Keneally, winner of the prize in 1982, called the chaos a “climactic change in the book industry”, suggesting that literature without the Booker is like “navigating without a north pole”. It seems that in 2019, polar vortexes are wreaking havoc in literature as well as weather. Literary climactic change sweeps the globe.
THE MAN GROUP SOUNDS LIKE A DASTARDLY CONGLOMERATE FROM A SPY NOVEL The Man Group, a global, multi-billionpound corporation, has always been an odd bed-fellow with creative writing. The name Man Group alone sounds like a dastardly conglomerate from a spy novel, so bad it wouldn’t get a second glance from a Booker judge. Much has been made of writer Sebastian Faulks’ criticism of The Man Group’s involvement. In a statement, Faulks recently called them “the enemy”. Faulks suggested that literary prizes
ought to criticise “the kind of people” in the aldson speaks fairly clearly on the topic in his Man Group, and that he “wouldn’t feel hapessay Hedge Fund Ethics. Basically, Donaldpy accepting money from them”. Luckily for son says that they evade tax through a legal Faulks, he’s never had to endure that unhaploophole where their profits aren’t taxed as piness, as his work was never longlisted for income. The secretaries of hedge fund manthe Man Booker, but such sentiments keep agers often pay a higher tax rate than their surfacing. employers, according to DonaldIn 2011, two poets withson, while they make hundred drew from the prestigof millions of dollars. ious T.S. Eliot Prize, This, amongst othin due to “personal er claims of dodgy politics and ethdealings like exics”. John Kinploiting investors sella, quoted, and a general and Alice lack of transOswald were parency, often shortlisted leads poets for that year’s and creatives to prize. The pooppose them. ets took a morAurum, who al issue with funded the T.S. Eltaking money iot prize, has headfrom a main sponquarters in Bermuda, sor, Aurum. Aurum, or which was declared the Aurum Funds Manageworld’s worst tax haven by Image: congerdesing ment, is (you guessed it) a Oxfam in 2016. hedge fund manager. So what is As much as it was nice and generthe problem with hedge funds managers? ous for The Man Group to fund The Booker What about them makes poets drop out Foundation for £1.6 million per year, they of prizes, and what makes them Sebastian make well over £1 billion in revenue and Faulks’ enemy number one? get unfair tax benefits every year as well. One of their crimes is that they’re crimiThe deal that the T.S. Eliot prize negotiated, nally boring to research, but Thomas Donprompting poets to politically withdraw,
Digital takeover
came after the prize was defunded by the Arts Council. Perhaps public bodies like the Arts Council would have more money to invest in arts prizes, and get more people reading and writing, if hedge fund managers paid fair taxes.
THE SECRETARIES OF HEDGE FUND MANAGERS OFTEN PAY A HIGHER TAX RATE THAN THEIR EMPLOYERS Clearly, large hedge fund groups like Man and Aurum have mountains of cash to spare. These firms seem to hope that charity initiatives and literary prize funds will give them enough moral credit to be above suspicion. The donations and deals are generally well under what they would have to pay to the state, if taxed fairly. However, as nothing is being done to combat the issue, perhaps the hedge fund managers are right. 2019 will see ‘The Man’ leave The Man Booker Prize. No one seems worried about The Booker Foundation’s funding crisis. In January, the Foundation announced that its trustees are negotiating with a new sponsor already, and ‘are confident that new funding will be in place by 2020’. Here’s hoping that the top-secret new sponsor is actually the government, pending hedge fund tax reforms.
Hugo Beazley discusses how social media can hinder the experience of an art exhibition
I
F you didn’t take a photo, did it even happen, or more to the point, does anyone even care? In a world dominated by social media, and governed by ‘influencers’ of varying degrees, the impact of sharing something online today has a wider reach than ever before. One only needs to look at the ‘World Record Egg’ Instagram profile (@world_record_egg) to appreciate the way in which images can be so readily distributed across social media platforms. However, does seeing an image of an art museum or its contents online equate to seeing it in person? And by extension, what is the point of visiting these institutions, when visual traces of their masterpieces are so readily transmediated online? Granted, if you’ve ever seen Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa at the Louvre in Paris, you are probably familiar with the disappointing sensation that this iconic masterpiece is smaller, darker
and generally less exciting than it is made out to be. But, in spite of this, the sheer number of works of art housed in institutions such as the Louvre, the Getty Centre in LA or the V&A in London, cannot be fully appreciated by looking at an image on a screen. If you visit a gallery with a checklist of famous works just to say ‘I’ve done the Uffizi’, then perhaps you can save yourself the flights to Florence and stick to the ‘gram. But I would argue that the purpose of visiting an art museum is less about completing a checklist, and more about reflecting on your surroundings; this includes the works of art themselves, the buildings they are housed in, and the museum café for a restorative coffee (this is essential). It is the whole experience that contributes to the appreciation of artistic endeavours, and despite documenting a visit online to prove it happened; experience cannot be translated through social media.
Images, top to bottom: congerdesing ; Travailwiki