GRiT - Caoimhe Mader McGuinness
When:
—
Venue:
Online
This paper will compare the 1951 Festival of Britain (FOB) with the 2022 Unboxed Festival to explore both continuities and shifts in the British state’s relationship to identities as expressed in celebrations of national culture. Both projects were conceived by governments seeking to make bold political statements in moments of national upheaval and renewal: in the case of the Festival of Britain, the Labour government’s post-war reconstruction; and in the case of Unboxed, the Conservative-driven exit from the European Union.
The ideological projects underpinning these governments, distanced by more than 70 years, might be seen as fundamentally opposed – the first popularly characterised by the expansion of social democratic welfare and state ownership, and the second by an ongoing encroachment of private interests in formerly nationalised domains such as healthcare and education. Mapping aspects of both festivals certainly confirms this broad view of governmental difference, not least in relationship to how both festivals negotiated centralised state intervention into their output. Yet many aspects of both festivals’ negotiation of British identities share some surprising similarities - most prominently in their uses of histories, depictions of national character, and representations of Britain’s place in the world as a means to buttress a consensual understanding regarding identity and empire.
I will specifically focus on the FOB’s travelling ship Campania’s reduced version of the main exhibition held on the Southbank’s Dome of Discovery, and the multimedia show About Us which similarly travelled the country for the duration of Unboxed. Both of these projects were shown across the four nations, and both were predicated on presenting a long-term view of human history and scientific achievement, albeit on different scales. Both projects share itinerant characteristics and the case of the Campania also serves to dispel persistent myths that the FOB mostly maintained a London focus. Yet it is also both projects’ both aphasic and triumphant presentation of history which links them and offers a productive example of how to understand both festivals’ relationships across time.
Contact name:
Martin Young