PEOM:
You've lead a very eventful life, a real rags to riches story. Taken into care, a violent upbringing, you left school with one o-level in metal work; what made you not only survive, but go on to be highly successful? Describe your background in brief.

IM:
I had no concept for success; I didn't know that it existed. I thought being a bank clerk would be a glamorous job! I didn't realise you could go on and run businesses.  It was all a bit of a mistake, there was no key.  I can imagine the driving force was not being understood at school, that comes a lot from being dyslexic and coming from a difficult childhood, feeling rather boxed in. Usually it's the most successful people who are the most fucked up! They have something to prove! And probably work harder in proving all the teachers wrong.

PEOM:
Did you find as being diagnosed as dyslexic at an early age, soul destroying?

IM:
Yes, it was soul destroying. But I assumed I was some sort of underclass, the teachers must be right in some way. I didn't question their judgement, I just felt inadequate. That sort of academic ability was a definition of intelligence.  But now I'm friends with the headmaster, and when I see him, he shakes his head and says "how did I let someone like you slip through the system?”  He's quite embarrassed about it

PEOM:
So you don't bear any grudges against your head master?

IM:
(Laughs) He was only carrying out orders.

PEOM:
You resigned as Chairman of the ICA following the writing of an article over their obsession with conceptual art, did you resign of you own accord or were you politely asked to leave?

IM:  
I wasn't politely asked to leave, I was very impolitely asked to leave! I was effectively sacked; I never got on with the ICA director Phillip Dodd, we had different ideas for the institution. So I knew that by writing the article I would probably be signing my own death warrant, which I was quite happy with as I had 4 terms as Chairman. I was one of the longest surviving Chairman anyway, in what is a notorious back stabbing and ruthless place. I was exhausted by it, exhausted by the 17 e-mails a day from the director asking for this or that, exhausted by the fact that I couldn't buy into this endless conceptualism. I like conceptual art, I like the good stuff; but I felt it had become too fashion conscious, not just the ICA, but art in general. The article was fun to write.

PEOM:
Was the article a final V's up to the ICA?

IM:
It wasn't to the ICA; I've done my job. The institution has massively improved; ICA had a new restaurant, new interior, lost their overdrive, making a surplus, the bookshop had been renovated. Every thing was running smoothly, every thing that was needed to be done; was done. But you were politely obliged not to talk about art, partly because the director was ferociously jealous of anyone receiving attention on the artist side, but mostly because I couldn't speak honestly about the things I thought; I thought it was time for me to have my say. It wasn't a punch up; it was a luxury to have my final say, I wasn't angry.  I wanted to see if I could have an impact, a lovely way to leave the ICA and change the direction of art.

PEOM:
It all seemed to stem from comments about Tracey Emin being unable to think her way out of a paper bag. Have you spoken to her since?

IM:
I bumped into her the other day (laughs).  Her art is OK, she is a sensationalist; she knows how to get publicity and work the system, good on her.  As conceptual art goes in the genre of Duchamp, (who challenged the New York society of Independent Artist in 1916 by submitting a urinal placed on it's back calling it "Fountain") Which was the first and should have been the last piece of conceptual art, brilliant piece of thinking.  But beyond that, all the unmade beds and every thing else, it's just recreating that; just doing it again and again. It's a great tribute to Duchamp, but it's not particularly new.  Duchamp's piece was revolutionary, it got people thinking, got him banned from all sorts. There are certain gripes I have with the new conceptual art. One, it's been done to death and two, the artist has become the art; Tracey Emin is a walking piece of art, it so happens that she leaves a bed behind like a shadow.  

PEOM:
You have been quoted as saying Serota and Saatchi ran art as a totalitarian state, do you still think that?

IM:
No, not exactly.  Saatchi and I do get on. Scerota and I don’t. Scerota and Saatchi aren’t close; it was all slightly exaggerated. I think they've got various parameters, which they regard as art. There is something in this country, you compare us to somewhere like Barcelona their culture is very street up , while here we are spoon feed what is good for us from above.  People are trying to recreate the genre, what will be bought by the big boys, be acknowledged as art.  Art movements like the expressionists were bottom up movements and criticised by the Establishment.  Art now is an Establishment, a new Labour type thing, which is criticised now by the masses, who want to see something else come through, but nothing can get funding.  I am not saying it's organised as totalitarian, I think it's fuelled quite heavily by the galleries who have a strangle hold and want to maintain the sales of these "great artists".  There is another aspect, which I think the government, especially the treasury, is on to.  I am pretty sure that the galleries are used as money laundering operations, probably for drugs and things

PEOM:
Seriously?

IM:
I mean if you can walk into a gallery, and you can buy a piece of art of £400,000 cash you are under no obligation to say where that money comes from or who you are.  Buying art anonymously is all the rage, I know this from my financial services; you can't buy a product with cash, and if you do attempt to buy a product with cash, you have go to a bank and convert the money and prove where that money came from.
With art, you don't.  So, if you own an art gallery, you can effectively walk into your own gallery, buy a pile of coat hangers, which has no retail value whatsoever, called something like "Death on the rails” for £400,000.  So it is perfectly feasible for the gallery owner to walk into his/her bank at the end of every day with a nice sack of cash and say, "I have sold another one of these".  I am not saying all galleries are exclusive, but you see these weird boutiques with extraordinarily priced items with no one in them.  I know this might sound like a conspiracy theory, but it is not.  In an art gallery, you can create value out of thin air, most other retail outlets have to purchase; so part of me is thinking whether it is being prompted by organised crime.

PEOM:
You had an open debate with Jake and Dinos Chapman in the Guardian about art, where you stated that pseudo philosophy is coming to an end and Shock Art (ie: boring) is coming to an end.  I presume the debate was a tongue in cheek affair?

IM:
It was deadly serious.  I loved it!  It was the time of the Turner prize, I didn't go, I am never invited.

PEOM:
You were black listed?

IM:
Yes, (laughs loudly!) I was black listed before this.  Serota has never liked me.  The Tate Modern and the ICA have relatively similar status When the Tate Modern opened, they had 4000 guests, and I didn't receive an invite and I didn't know that Serota didn't like me.  It's just this rivalry.   He didn't know my views or knowledge on contemporary art at the time, and we hadn't spoken about them.  The ICA 'phoned him and said "Ivan hasn't received an invitation!"  And they said, "Well, we can't invite every body", (Ivan slips into hysterical laughter at this point).  It came as a real shock to me and then I realised that Serota and the Tate had a problem with me. Making me phone up should be enough, but then to refuse me.

PEOM:
You successfully ran Massow Financial Services; you were brave to broker life insurance to the gay at the height of the AIDS scare, did you think this was a massive gamble?
 
IM:
I have always been interested in people who are not represented. It was more of a crusade then anything else. There were gay people at the time being denied life insurance and mortgages. But I have always been fascinated by, one: being the first on the scene and two: changing things and moving things on.  That was what was spurring me on.

PEOM:
Pioneer?

IM:
Yes.  When people start copying me or it becomes relatively mainstream, I get very bored.  There are hundreds of firms targeting the gay community.  I am glad to be a good quality firm to target them, but I am bored with the challenge.  So my new thing is now survivors of mental health, cancer and major transplant patients.  This new section of society is completely excluded from insurance.  We had a soft launch about 18 months ago, because we had to tread very quietly to make sure we experimented with every case.  So now we are moving to new offices, so that's very exciting and we are getting more enquiries for this than we got from the gay community ever.  So that's just beginning. It's nice to feel vital again and needed.

PEOM:
Is that an essential part of your personality?

IM:
Yes.  Suddenly I am doing something else that no one else is doing;  now I am buzzing again.  Getting up at 6 in the morning, working 'til late.  I've stopped drinking.  Work once again, has become the addiction because I have got something to go for.  It's wonderful, but it is hard work, really hard work.  Of course other people will copy us, but while we have this advantage we are going to go for it hell for leather.  I am not interested in profit; I am interested in innovation and solving things.

PEOM:
You have an interest in mental health; why is that and do you still do work for the Samaritans and MIND?  

IM:
I don't work with MIND the charity; I just chaired their enquiry into Mental Health and Social Seclusion, which was really interesting.  That block of work, which we reported to the Commons, has helped to transform the education system.  We are looking at the whole care in the community, but I don't work with them any more, now I am working with my financial services company to sell them policies. I trained as a Samaritan twice, they rejected me the first time so I had to retrain, finally I was accepted, but I think they were probably right in their first rejection.  But I needed to understand how it works, so I could go up to their level and then I basically just helped them with their ambassador projects. Dealing with them, I work with fund raising more and marketing teams, very much one to one with their advertising agencies. So re-styling them.  I work with the Princes Trust as well.  I talk to prisoners.

PEOM:
You joined the Tories when you were 14 and became chairman of your local branch.  What made you join the Tories at such a young age?

IM:
At that the time, no one was being nice to gay people.  Labour were brash Northerner's, and as w homophobic, as any one else.  Even though the Prime Minster Thatcher bought in Clause 28 much later, I thought the country needed Thatcher's medicine at the time, we had huge unemployment, and we had inflation at 37%.  It was only a few months before she jumped on it; the UK was just about to spiral out of control.  We could have become a bizarre little nothing country.

PEOM:
In 1999, you were Thatcher's official escort, was that a stressful job?

IM:
It was fun!  All the nasty things that people have said about her. All the cruel things the gays said about me.  I don't know of anyone who wouldn't like to meet her! I think they were just jealous maybe.
She's the most re-elected Prime Minster since Pitt, (Blair looks like he's going to match her), was re-elected 3 times.  11 years as Prime Minster Longest serving and only woman Prime Minister.  There are a lot of records with her.  She took the country out of the doldrums.  But I can understand why some parts of England feel abandoned by her era, her ruthless approach.  Without her, the country as a whole could of twisted into a hole. To meet her was a honour, I met her a few times before, and a few times since, and now she's completely, you know!

PEOM:
No?

IM:
Hmm, anyone who knows her.... well, she's had a couple of strokes, she's quite ill.

PEOM:
A nation weeps!
In 2000, you were looking to stand for a seat in the general election, but you were put on the deferred list, was this a massive disappointment to you?

IM:
At that point I was disappointed with the Tory party generally.  There were 2 sides to it; there was the progressive side trying to push people like me on and there was the blockers (Ivan shrugs his shoulders).

PEOM:
In August 2000, you shocked the UK by defecting to the Labour party, that's a massive leap, did Blair and co. welcome you with open arms?

IM:
I didn't speak to Blair.  I was invited to meet him 3 times and each time he didn't turn up for the meeting!  Just met Campbell and people like that, I didn't want to be welcomed for a job I didn't do.  I did it to make a point to the Tory party. I wanted the Tory party to come into line with the rest. I didn't want them to take Britain for granted, and accept that we are an inclusive intergrated great multicultural society and they needed to learn that lesson.  So I literally looked at what would achieve that, I wasn't after personal glory;  I certainly didn't get that. I just wanted to make the Tory party understand, to show them that people were leaving the party, the reason they were leaving and how behind the times their policies were.  I think it done the job, because their next conference was all about inclusion.  They have gone beyond what they called "Compassionate Conservativism" thankfully, and they're starting to realize that people are clever or not clever, honest or dishonest or whatever.  People are people.

PEOM:
Do you think that the Tories have changed under Michael Howard?

IM:
I think so, they had to.  The party could only reform from the right, you need some one like him with extreme right wing credentials to comfort a party that was struggling to see it's way.  It didn't respond under some one like William Hague, standing in the centre trying to drag them. They needed to be frog marched by one of their peers, and this is what has happened.  Whether Michael Howard believes it whole-heartedly or not, that is irrelevant to me.  He's said it, he's done it and he can't go back on that!

PEOM:
Would you go back to the Tories?

IM:
I'd consider it.

PEOM:
Why didn't Michael Portillo stand for leadership?  I thought he would have been the people's choice.

IM:
He had no support from the Commons, this time would have been worse.  First time around after John Major resigned he was very interested, second time he said he would never stand again and he actually meant it. There was a point where he flirted with the idea of going back, IDS looked unstable over Christmas some while ago.

PEOM:
His TV career has taken off well!

IM:
But that was his way of saying he hoped he wouldn't have to be leader. He did consider it, but he fundamentally knew he had no support amongst the parliamentary party.  

PEOM:
I understand that you fox hunt, don't you think fox hunting is cruel?

IM:
Fox hunting is no more or less distressing than nature itself.  It obeys the rules that we as a species have, arrogantly, come to believe we're exempt.  Fox hunting, like nature, gives a 'sporting chance', leaving room for possibilities; the fittest and most cunning usually escaping.  But unlike shooting - when the fox turns to stand it's ground, there is no limping off to a hole to die over a period of days or weeks.  It is final.

PEOM:
I view it as bullying a defenceless creature; if it is culling the fox population then surely there are more humane methods?

IM:
Fox hunting brings participants back down to earth and reminds them about the order of things. It is sad, and often humbling. No one I know enjoys the kill.

PEOM:
Lets agree to disagree. (No answer from Ivan).
I've read your articles, would you like a career of being a writer/journalist or do you enjoy the hustle and bustle of finance and commerce?

IM:
Yep, I enjoy work and solving problems - especially in the seemingly impossible and unforgiving world of finance. It's what we do.

PEOM:
Favourite artist and author?

IM:
On a general level I am very fond of Thomas Hardy as a writer.  I live in the West Country, Somerset. Reading Hardy was one of the reasons I wanted to move there.  Artist?  Probably Picasso.

PEOM:
Favourite music and/or band?

IM:
I'm a closet classical music buff. But there's always room for a bit of Blondie!

PEOM:
Ivan, how would you make not just London, but the world, a better place?  

IM:
(Long pause).  
I live in a bit of bubble, self created.  I tend to walk everywhere, try and buy property so I can always walk to work. So I don't often go on public transport but when I do, I notice how aggressive every one is to each other. Reverse slightly.  Instead of getting angry, just be a little nicer to each other.  (Followed on by a booming laugh!)  


Ivan Massow is very charming and highly charismatic, he tries hard to give the impression that luck has fallen in his lap, however I am left with the notion that is a highly calculated individual. To be successful in the world of politics and finance, you have to be exceptionally shrewd; I doubt that Ivan has a copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince" by his bedside table, a book that is hailed as the pinnacle of political movement and manipulation.  But I am sure that his mind is one step ahead, and works on a need to know basis with people like the press.  Part of him is extremely compassionate, yet underneath the kindness there is a hard-nosed businessman.  I enjoyed listening to his stance against the ICA and conceptual art; his insight into the Tory and Labour Party was a real eye opener.  But I won't meet him on his views on fox hunting.  No way!   

Ivan Massow is a master of self-publicity; unlike a lot of egos this man has talent and a great zest for life.  He sees an opportunity and embraces it, and makes it work. He has a deal of mishaps, yet he soldiers on and moves onwards. His finance company is growing and taking risks.  At 37, he is still very young in terms of a political career, and I have this hunch that we will see more of him in the political circus be it with the Tories or Labour.  We live in a day and age where very few trust the members of parliament, so flirting with both parties is just the sign of times. Is he a hypocrite?  I don't think so. I just think he likes to make an impact!  



Matteo Sedazzari

For further information www.massow.co.uk <http://www.massow.co.uk>