For art’s sake?!

As part of a new season of programming focusing on culture, BBC Radio 4 has made the decision to broadcast the infamous poem ‘V.’ by Tony Harrison.

The poem, written in 1985 by Leeds-born poet Harrison, is set during the 1984-85 Miner’s Strike and details the poet’s reaction to visiting his parent’s grave only to find it has been vandalised with obscene graffiti by football hooligans. The poem notoriously features a flurry of swearing, including the f-word and the c-word, as well as racist slurs quoted from the graffiti.

The poem sparked particular public shock when first broadcast on Channel 4 in 1987, with backlash even coming from the government against the poem.

So, why have Radio 4 decided to broadcast such a controversial piece of work?

Radio 4 controller Gwyneth Williams has stated that the station is aware its audience does not like swearing but to remove the offensive language would tamper with the ‘integrity’ of the poem. She states simply that ‘we would never do it gratuitously’.

It’s true that the swearing forms an integral part of the poem and as an English Graduate I can’t help but want to analyze the use of the language and make some canny argument defending the inclusion of offensive words. But I will admit I was never really one for poetry so perhaps I’ll steer clear of that line.

What is evident though is that an angle of ‘this is acceptable because it’s art’ has been adopted. But I want to know just how far can we take this argument? Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that Radio 4 is trying to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn’t, and I certainly respect Williams for taking this plunge when there will be an almost-certain influx of complaints despite the broadcaster promising plenty of warning prior to the broadcast and the late-night airing time between 11pm and midnight.

OK so Radio 4 will be doing this late at night and with plenty of prior warning. And yes it is demonstrating to us a piece of art and it is good that the BBC is taking some chances and pushing its boundaries. I can easily accept that, but I still wonder: why this poem, exactly? Granted it is a poignant piece that intensely details the racial, social, and economical tensions of the times – and from some recent googling I can see it’s a very popular and loved poem – but then there are a whole host of poems from the mid-80s that perform a similar job.

Arts commissioning editor at Radio 4 Tony Phillips has drawn links to the poem’s setting of Beeston and the fact that this is where one of the 7/7 bombers grew up. A valid link, and the examination of the racial tensions as an influence on the young child are certainly noteworthy, but I wonder if this is really the strongest angle to take? If anything I would have thought a discussion on how public opinion has changed over the past 25 years would have been far more pertinent as well as adding a bit more justification for Radio 4 to use to defend the inclusion of the offending language.

I spent 2 years on my University’s student radio station running around after over 100 presenters making sure that not even the most inoffensive ‘bugger’ was uttered out of the fear that Ofcom would hear it and come crashing down on us with the full-force of a hefty fine. I can think of plenty of former presenters who might make the case that there are plenty of songs that feature swearing that are not allowed to be played or had to be edited that could count as important pieces of art and that, yes, the swearing did likewise form an important part of the work. And to be fair, if we can give broadcasting one potentially offensive piece the go-ahead on the grounds that it has artistic merit then there is a whole host of other pieces that should be given similar consideration.

Think of it this way – if Radio 4 is allowed to broadcast a poem with swearing in it late at night then I wonder if Radio 1 would be allowed to get away with broadcasting a song that featured offensive language in the name of art? Or even Radio 2? Or is that a question of listener preferences and judgments?

While I can see the artistic merit behind the decision I’m still left wondering whether we shouldn’t all be expected to play by the same rules. Or perhaps this is a landmark decision that will pave the way for a more open-minded approach to what counts as being offensive? If this does open the doors for other pieces of ‘offensive’ work to be considered for radio play it will certainly be a tricky line to negotiate and one that I’m sure can and would be crossed on a number of occasions. I guess we’ll have to wait until it’s broadcasted to see what the reaction from the great British listener is! Gulp.

‘V.’ will be read by Harrison himself on the Radio 4 programme at 11pm on Monday 18th February.

For further information on this story check out The Guardian Online or Radio Today. To see the Channel 4 programme on the poem click to Youtube.