Our nations greatest lovies are bemoaning the coalition's cuts to the arts. Hardly surprising. But their cries miss the key question, a question that all too often gets pushed aside by a much more fundamental debate about whether the arts should receive public funds at all: if the arts are going to receive public funding (and they are) what aspects of the arts are deserving of such funding?
I only ask, because the central point put forward by the lovies is that the commercial success of The King's Speech proves that the UK Film Council should not have been abolished, and that the public funding of the arts in general actually contributes a massive £7bn to the UK economy. And here's my problem with that: if a piece of art produces a commercial return, why on earth isn't the production of that piece of art left to the private sector?
Art is not an essential public service, in the sense that say the NHS is. Accordingly, any justification for public funding for the arts must based on the belief that it delivers a significant public value that cannot be delivered by the private sector for reasons of profitability.
On that basis, the conclusion must surely be that any public funding of the arts should not go to projects which have the potential to turn a profit (The King's Speech), but instead to those projects (say a dance therapy charity) which have artistic merit and deliver public benefit, but which have no hope of being self-sustaining on a commercial basis?
Whatever your political persuasion, there's no denying that the arts will continue to receive public funding long into the future. With that in mind, perhaps it's time we thought again about the kind of debate we need around the subject of state funding for the arts.
Shane Greer used to work for the North West Disability Arts Forum
Comments
Quin / March 14 2011 12:11pm
Exactly! The only small question in my mind is that productions such as The King's Speech (which I personally think is an excellent film as well as a profitable one) would perhaps not be made because of the attitudes of the banks and financiers in the UK in particular (not people I like or approve of, you might guess) but there are other ways of approaching that worry...
John Moss / March 14 2011 1:19pm
Arts funding should go only to "endowment" funds so as the organisation raises £1, the government add £1 until the income from the fund means the organisation needs no further support.
Arts organisations live hand to mouth because they can. Challenging them to liberate themselves from th edead hand of the state might produce some interesting outcomes!
L Mackenzie / March 14 2011 2:01pm
I don't see why I as a taxpayer should fund other peoples hobbies and pastimes
Sally Roberts / March 14 2011 2:08pm
At a time when the Economy has been decimated due to Labour's wild excesses over the last 13 years, I am afraid that Arts Funding by Government has to come rather low on the list of priorities. I say this with a heavy heart, being a great supporter of the Arts - but we should be encouraging private philanthropy as it is practised very successfully in the United States.
Jane Gould / March 14 2011 2:13pm
1. Arts projects should be accessible & educational, sure; but also aspirational, reflecting excellence of concept and execution.
2. Visit the Metropolital Opera, MoMA or any other NYC arts hub.
You will immediately notice the extent of philanthropic and corporate patronage.
3. Explain to the media through thoughtful comunication and education that "installation" is not a dirty word nor an invitation to ridicule. Certainly no dirtier than the word "atonal" 100 years ago. We needd to cooperate intelligently to ensure the continuation of our proud arts traditions in this country.
4. build on our history. Purcell, Vaughan Williams, Britten, Birtwhistle...
Turner, Constable, Gainsborough, Hogarth, Bacon, Freud, Hirst, Emin...
Jane Gould / March 14 2011 2:18pm
1. Arts projects should be accessible & educational, sure; but also aspirational, reflecting excellence of concept and execution.
2. Visit the Metropolital Opera, MoMA or any other NYC arts hub.
You will immediately notice the extent of philanthropic and corporate patronage.
3. Explain to the media through thoughtful comunication and education that "installation" is not a dirty word nor an invitation to ridicule. Certainly no dirtier than the word "atonal" 100 years ago. We needd to cooperate intelligently to ensure the continuation of our proud arts traditions in this country.
4. build on our history. Purcell, Vaughan Williams, Britten, Birtwhistle...
Turner, Constable, Gainsborough, Hogarth, Bacon, Freud, Hirst, Emin...
Barry / March 14 2011 2:29pm
I think that in this moment in time we should be looking at projects that at least break even or have a good business case. If people are not willing to pay to see Art, then what value does it have?
Having seen what money is being spent on Art itself, I can not justify this in my head when NHS and Youth Services are being cut.
Marc Sidwell / March 14 2011 3:23pm
New Labour went down the rabbit hole of public benefit justifications for arts funding and arguably the Conservatives are still signed on to this concept, so it's not really a new idea. As the Institute of Ideas among others have pointed out, it rarely does anything for artistic quality, and the public benefit can prove pretty shaky too.
People forget that state arts funding in the UK was created by Keynes in order to stimulate demand and rapidly end the necessity for such funding long term. This manifestly failed, but now no one knows how to cut off the funding, as Shane admits. So for decades people have been suggesting ways to make a policy that doesn't work look a bit more justifiable. Those who care about the arts need to think more radically and work out how to separate state compulsion from arts funding, not provide a smokescreen for Keynes's mistake.
R / March 14 2011 3:44pm
This country is becoming a pro-banking and financial hub/centre/district. A little bit like Switzerland. The way I see it, if you aren't a banker or related to the financial world, you will be left out and funding's will be cut. We have sold all of the industries abroad and now our government welcomes the financial people because we are acting like the worlds management and accountants. So.....unless someone is in that field of work, one does not stand a chance in any other industry in the coaliton governments dream of the BIGGER SOCIETY in the UK.
Paul Talbot / March 14 2011 6:10pm
The Arts should be entirely self funding just like other forms of entertainment such as football, rugby, cinemas etc. If people are interested people will pay. Why should it fall to the tax payer to support something that hardly anyone cares about. That money would be better spent on the NHS or on elderly people.
Neil Reddin / March 15 2011 8:00am
Any given production is either good enough not to require state funding (people will pay to see it), or it doesn't justify state funding. Either way, there is little place for state subsidy of the arts.
Old Slaughter / March 15 2011 10:25am
So much nonsense continues to be spoken about this. Including by commentators (BBC QT as a prime example).
The Film Council funds NOTHING. It decides who gets funding. The lottery funds the films. The money allocated for film from the lottery is going UP. Yes, more money for film in the UK. What is happening is this little diversity and lunch account obsessed QUANGO is being abolished. And good.
The Tories are so damned rubbish at explaining their policies.
Money for Scorsese to make a documentary on the Rolling Stones should not come from the funds, yet it did.
It should not be there to make a profit yet that is its continued justification.
Good riddance to the Film Council and please invest more than ever in film.
Henry / March 15 2011 12:46pm
You would be right if the risk and investment model in the arts was sufficiently understood and developed. However, as the first commenter notices, there is a problem with risk and investment and the King's Speech may have struggled. [Of course now it should pay its money back to support other work.]
So public money is often used as a pump-primer for our creative and cultural economy - including the bits which may eventually turn a profit but are simply too risky at the design stage...
Darren Lilleker / March 15 2011 9:43pm
If the 'arts' was self-funding there could be much in this argument. The problem is where so profits go to from successful films/theatre productions etc. Do they go to backers, which would want some ROI or are some ploughed back into protecting 'arts' which have a positive role in attracting visitors to London/Stratford and regional theatres and ensuring it is not simply the case that only productions that can fill cinemas and theatres night after night can be put on. There is a danger that an purely economic model would undermine both a celebration of the history of the arts at the broadest level in the UK as well as not ensuring there is a future for either niche or unknown writers etc. Perhaps simply looking at simple indicators of ROI is not the best measure. What other revenues are brought in by the arts? Tourism perhaps? Is it simply about 'bums on seats' or are there broader benefits from having a thriving arts culture?
David T Breaker / March 16 2011 7:39pm
The disability arts therapy would come under health/welfare so is a worthy receipiant. Actual arts however - by which I mean everything except projects run for health/welfare purposes - needs scrapping.
Colin Nash / March 28 2011 8:20pm
I find Arts funding tricky. Hard to defend set against protecting the vulnerable or treating the sick but the arguments put forward by Artists about the depth of a society being measured by it's art are compelling. Tories would have us believe that ths is a false argument because the Arts need not rely on state support to develop. I don't think you can support the arts for their industry benefit i.e numbers of people employed . . by this logic we could support, with taxation, Mc Donalds or Tesco.
I like Stephen Merchants comment in today's paper that without arts funding one day we will wake up and find that our greatest artistic asset is a dancing dog on Britains Got Talent.
I guess the other argument in favour of funding is anything is better than another billion of bonuses for b"""""" bankers.