Arts Funding

[Marmora Man]

Letter

In a letter to the Times on Saturday 13th Feb a number of artists and others argued that public funding of the arts was essential stating that ?The arts should be at the heart of government social and economic policy. The arts are neither luxury nor sideshow. They are fundamental elements of an open, free and healthy Britain?

As my headmaster used to say ?discuss?

I take an opposite view to that set out in the letter. Great, and lesser, art can be created without public funding ? it can be argued that lack of easy subsidy acts as a necessary filter to ensure true passion and commitment on the part of the artist.

Throughout most of history art has either been the province of struggling, poverty stricken, artists in actual, or metaphorical, garrets, occasional wealthy dilettantes ? or has been heavily subsidised by wealthy sponsors. Only in the last 50 years has significant public funding become the norm.

With real pressure on all public spending it is impossible to argue sensibly for the arts not to take their share of any cuts. I would go further and argue for arts funding to take a higher share, proportionately, of any cuts ? not to zero but to a point where the many arts associated quangos have to be reviewed seriously and the quality of the art being subsidised becomes a major criterion.

[Magpie]

Depends how you define Arts.

There is a case for funding to support free access to Art galleries for example, and I believe, to ensure that great works of Art can be held in these great Art galleries. However, not sure there is a case to support the creation of Art per se, especially as much modern Art is intensly political. Further, the Art council decides who grants are awarded to (ie have you ticked the boxes of all the latest social fads if not you don't get the cash). I'm not sure there is a case for producing Art for Arts sake as there is, for example, for some areas of Science. Surely if the stuff is any good then people will pay for it. The art form that arguably we are most internationally successful at is music, the best of which appears organically without state funding.

[Bellenden Belle]

The actual number of venues and companies funded by the Arts Council and other statutory bodied is relatively small. And the outcomes expected in return are high. Yes innovation in the arts - arts for arts sake - is one small part of a much wider picture.

Increasing access to the arts and ensuring participation is open to all is another key criteria, and one heavily monitored. This might include keeping galleries free, but equally it applies to ensuring there are affordable tickets available in theatres. Look at the ticket prices in the West End and compare them to subsidised theatre and there is a remarkable difference.

People sometimes don't realise the additional educational and community work that subsidised arts organisations deliver - from working within disability to working with kids at risk of social exclusion through to working with older people or providing outreach in rural communities. And that work is subject to strict monitoring so that arts organisations can't play lip service to ideas of inclusion and participation - fail to deliver the promised service and your funds are cut. Quite right too

Arts funding is such a small fraction of public funding that I would agree with those that argue for current levels to be ringfenced. To make even small cuts would bring many smaller independent companies to their knees. And those are the very companies that are bringing social benefits to the communities they work with.

[plimsoul]

anybody who thinks that getting arts funding is easy is clearly not applying! a great part of london life is the talent that our creative industries produce, many of these people would not get anywhere without help at the start. if the funding goes it does impact but like a public service you cannot expect it to payback in straight economic turns.

however, clearly, if one does not feel that art plays an important part in our society then there's not much that can be argued to change said mind.

[Marmora Man]

plimsoul Wrote:

however, clearly, if one does not feel that art plays an important part in our society then there's not much that can be argued to change said mind.

Plimsoul: As the OP let me restate the question - given imminent cuts in public funding should arts funding be ring fenced and protected or should they take an equivalent or greater cut as the rest of public spending?

I consider art plays an important part in my life and any life - literature particularly, but also the theatre (subsidised and non subsidised), museums, art galleries, exhibitions and cinema. Nevertheless - health, education, the police force, defence, science are also important and they too will be taking cuts.

[KidKruger]

Art is a luxury.

Safety, Health and Welfare are not.

[KidKruger]

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs sort of gives it perspective.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well if THAT were true 'elf n safety wouldn't have such a bad name now would they?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I would also take issue with Art being a luxury

A safe, healthy life with nothing to engage the mind is a life not worth living. It MIGHT be the limit of aspiration for, say, a woodland creature

80 years on the planet with no art? Or 50 years on the planet with the wealth of music, painting, poetry, literature at our fingertips - is it really that hard to answer

[Marmora Man]

But Sean, is "ART" so special that it deserves unique status when considering the hierarchy of public spending cuts?

If all subsidies were cut from new and aspiring artists you would still have the wealth of millennia available to see, read. listen or consider.

If the new and aspiring artist is truly committed and passionate he / she would find a way to create his / her art regardless of public spending cuts.

[Bellenden Belle]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the new and aspiring artist is truly committed

> and passionate he / she would find a way to create

> his / her art regardless of public spending cuts.

That's a rather idealistic view. The impoverished artist achieving against all odds. And perhaps when talking of individual compositions - be it art, music, writing, whatever - it is possible.

But much of art is collaborative and built on partnerships - take away funding from the organisations that support new work and you lose the very foundations on which good art is created. You lose art that engages, that is thought provoking, that gives people the opportunity to see the world in new ways - instead you reduce art to the lowest common denominator - bums on seats. Mama Mia anyone?

And it's worth remembering that arts council funding acts as a lever - it usually supports no more than a third of a company's costs - meaning that the rest of the company's funds are raised through earned income, donations and sponsorship. Statutory funding gives other funders and supporters the confidence to invest - remove that funding and other funding ebbs away. A small investment is how one can describe current funding levels - one that leads to jobs, can contribute to community cohesion, support education, and has earned us an international reputation. I don't think any of those things can be easily dismissed.

[SeanMacGabhann]

sorry Marmora - I meant to address your point before I finished posting

TO answer your question - in sort, no Art isn't SO special it deserves ringfencing compared to other needs

In slightly longer answer, I would say "depends". But on too many factors. Things like film funding I'm pretty sure we can do without. Museum and library opening hours and funding - arguably could be invested in a "spend to save" fashion. More people inspired by art, less low level crime or whatever

[Magpie]

The problem with funding is that it builds dependency and gives influence to the fund giver. I'm sure it is difficult to obtain funding from the art council as presumably you have to tick all the "flavour of the month" boxes, and reflect the preferences and tastes of the body awarding the grant. Surely its better to have editorial control and produce what you want. Further, a question, how is the effectiveness of art funding judged? What kind of studies are undertaken to support the promotion on one activity over another?

[Huguenot]

I don't think the Arts should be given exceptional status in a cost cutting environment, but very much support Sean's point that there's not much benefit to being human of we don't have the Arts. Government spending should reflect this.

MM's assertion on the history of Arts funding is quite simply wrong. Our cultural heritage was generated for the most part by either spoilt rich kids or practitoners funded by patronage (usually from a wealthy indolent who liked their contribution to his social status).

Sean's point also highlights the challenges in allocating cuts. Film funding seems reasonable, until you remember that a vast proportion of our luxury export market is sustained on Britain's cultural reputation - as established and maintained by.... the film industry.

You cut film, you cut exports of everything from whisky to Laura Ashley.

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot,

I too support Sean's general thesis that art is important. I'm less convinced that publicly funding of art is important.

I did make the point that through history art had been created by impoverished artists or wealthy dilettantes, some supported by wealthy patrons. Off hand I would suggest that Van Gogh, Constable, Mozart, Gauguin, Pissarro and John Kennedy Toole fit the impoverished and unsupported mould - while Piccaso, Michelangelo, Henry Moore and others had the advantage of wealthy patrons - there will many others that fall into each camp - making my broad point broadly true.

However, I'm glad you agree that there's no special case to be made for ring fencing public funding of art.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Publicly funding the artist, I'm not so keen to support

Publicly funding the art itself - providing the space for, and making affordable the exhibition and promotion of, I would be much more vocal about.

[Huguenot]

True MM.

Then you've got Shelley who was a spoilt rich kid who pretended to be a skint because he thought it made him more real.

Maybe that's what we should lay at the Arts establishment? Sell them the benefits of a cut in funding for the sake of a gritty realism?

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> True MM.

>

> Then you've got Shelley who was a spoilt rich kid

> who pretended to be a skint because he thought it

> made him more real.

>

> Maybe that's what we should lay at the Arts

> establishment? Sell them the benefits of a cut in

> funding for the sake of a gritty realism?

Would be an interesting debate.

[KidKruger]

"Art is a luxury.

Safety, Health and Welfare are not."

What I am saying is that if you have to make bottom-line cuts they start with the thing you need least and in this country I think we need our health and welfare supported before 'our' art. We all rely on health and welfare at some time but we do not all rely on 'art'. That is why I say it is a luxury in that regard.

To say life is not worth living without art, whatever is subjective, your view. Many millions in this country feel to the contrary.

They have their X-factor and are sorted.

However, many would agree.

You can view a lot of art in this country for free and you can create a lot art in this country for free or virtually free.

Starving people generally don't care about not being able to mix the appropriate hue of green, the rhythm of a Pollack or the metaphysical suggestions of Salvador bleedin' Dali.

[Marmora Man]

I went to see Midsummer's Night DReam last night at the Rose THeatre Kingston.

The theatre opened about 2 years ago - it was built with minimal public funding (from Kingston Council), which could be seen as pump priming money, and much private funding. It now runs with no Arts Council subsidy and relies totally on the generosity of its sponsors, patrons and fee paying attendees. It has delivered some outstanding shows and the current production of Midsummer's Night Dream is sublime - proving that when led by a charismatic director and backed by enthusiastic, driven supporters "art" can flourish without full time public funding.

For those able to get tickets (it's almost a sell out) I cannot recommend it highly enough. Certainly the best MSND I've ever seen and one of the best Shakespearean productions of my lifetime - up there with Anthony Sher as Richard III, ADrian Lester as Henry V, Simon Russell Beale as Hamlet and as Benedinck - except that this was an ensemble production, admittedly with Judi Dench as Titania, but she is part of troupe of strolling players not the star of the show. The "rude mechanical's play within a play was the funniest I have ever seen, with the actor playing Bottom enjoying himself immensely and taking the whole audience with him. Rachel Stirling as Helena was great and all other players first class. I would expect to see the young, and relatively unknown, cast members in lights within ten years as leading actors of their generation.

[mockney piers]

Plus Rachel Stirling (emma peel's daughter no less) is something of a cutie. But yes, I've been reading very good reviews of this production.

[Huguenot]

It is a good example, but location is everything. It's only 20 mins from central London. Sir Peter Hall's links between the theatre and the university certainly don't hinder it, and yet they still say they need an additional 600k per year in private sponsorship.

It isn't a good model for national theatre provision - it wouldn't be reasonable for a football club like Chelsea to flourish in Worcester for example - the catchment isn't there. The same applies to theatres like this one.

You could argue that this project demonstrates once again that with free-market economics the (Kingston) rich would get richer and the (provincial) poor would go without.