|
Skip nav
Arts debate
Back to online debate home
What principles should guide public funding of the arts today?
There are many reasons for public funding of the arts. It supports organisations and activities that are part of our cultural heritage and enables excellent arts practice that might not survive if left to the market alone. It supports new work and alternative voices. It makes the arts more accessible to more people in more places.
The Arts Council has to balance all these ambitions in a changing society. We need to prioritise our funding to reflect the needs and expectations of many people. Many types of arts activities and experiences are available without any public funding at all and, with limited resources, we need to understand where our support can have most impact.
So what’s your view? Do you think public and lottery money should be used to support the arts? If so, why do you think that? What sort of activities should we support? Are there areas of arts activity that should not receive public funding? How far should we try to improve people’s access to the activities we fund? What principles should guide our decisions?
As far as I am aware the principles that are in place for the funding of arts projects are sound. It would obviously be beneficial to all concerned if more funding was available for projects to be successful in their bids for funding. The involvement of local communities in the decision making process for the fundning of certain projects that could benefit or effect them would be a positive move and I think is a general approach already. Having said this it is also essential that funders have a vision and conviction to deliver innovative projects that the public may not warm to initially but eventually see the benefit of. I think that funding to support projects that enhance education and health care are extremely important, in the form of practical excercises that benefit individuals that have direct contact with both. Art installations in Hospitals and Schools are of great benefit as long as they are not excessive and over indulgent. Interactive art is also something that should be supported as I think that an individuals engagement with art can have some far reaching effects, in a society where we are used t being fed every consummeristic desire that we might have, art that asks us to work for the benefit of what it has to offer is an interesting prospect.
Any principles underlying the funding of the arts are political statements about what it is that society believes to be worthwhile of support. All of the current principles that the Arts Council has are worthy and should continue to be supported. The maintenance of the existing artistic heritage, and the development of new contributions towards that heritage should both be a part of what arts funding is for. Precise questions of what those new contributions should be is a matter of political choice (aesthetic judgements require justification as well). In practice, support should be as wide as possible, covering as many different art forms and art producers as possible. Everything after that is haggling.
The present structure is not productive. It relies upon administrators who are more concerned that forms are submitted correctly, at the right time, for reasons that often have too much concern with political ideology than with artistic endeavour. Why should the Arts Council of England be so concerned with issues such as ethnicity, gender or disadvantage? Will that help identify another Rembrandt or Michaelangelo? Arts for arts sake, and if we are to have public patronage, and not rely upon the philanthropic gestures of a plundering social class then we must accept democracy. It is clear that many of the officers at the Arts Council will not step outside the lines of acceptability - and yet art must excite, explore, provoke and disturb. Art stands outside of political norms, and even those forced to accept patronage in the past have often managed to poke fun at the Establishment. The Arts Councils are now the Establishment, and should occasionally be torn asunder before they become too complacent - and at present they are too cosy, too much concerned with correctness, and too full of themselves and their ability to decide what the rest of us want.
This question is, of course, predicated on the idea that the Arts need public funding and the wishful thinking that this could be achieved in a representative fashion when it is entrusted to an elite of cultural policy makers. Nevertheless, while public arts funding is a debatable point in itself, the exploration of a world of ideas that plays out outwith the confined fields of Science, the Economy, and the Law is worthwhile and deserving of support. The Arts can and do inform and transform the practices of their sister spheres of endeavour.
As things stand though, it is only a very narrow sample of the artistic production that is 'out there' which receives any public money or endorsement from the Arts Council. Many an artist who is making challenging and forward looking work does not attempt to get Arts Council support. It is far more pragmatic and much less soul destroying to just pay to see work realised by oneself, somehow, anyhow than to submit to the tedious, stultifying and demoralising ordeal of an Arts Council funding application. Other people who are making valid and valuable cultural contributions perceive that their particular way of working is 'irrelevant' or of no interest to arts funders.
This state of affairs is a function of the Arts Council's preference for a select group of artists and their artistic production that progresses the Art Council vision along lines that privilege a particular value set. Meanwhile, this objective and its attendant hierarchy is ensured as the Art Council promotes, reinforces and requires a langauge and discourse of self justification that is alien to most artists and which is exclusive and esoteric rather than open and accessible.
Whatever its apologists may argue, the Arts Council's inteference in the arts reflects, and has reflected over the years, a preference for what Bourdieu calls 'consecrated' areas of cultural practice and their commodification, consumption and academicisation.
If we are to accept and embrace the principle of public funding of the Arts then we should begin and end by seeing that all available monies go to artists and practitioners and that they are not spent on salaries, pensions schemes and junkets for administrators, policy makers and non artistic professionals, who through their panels and selection committees, presume to seek to shape and 'challenge' public consciousness.
At the very least, the decisions about arts funding should be made by arts practioners and the communites who are intended to benefit from publicly funded art.
Human creation is endlessly variable across time and culture. Our society in Britain today is multivarious and as such public funding of the arts should reflect this variety. Artistic endeavour encompasses the creation of both long lived and ephemeral outcomes: The Angel of the North contrasted with a contemporary dance performance. As both are expressions of human creativity both need the support of public funding.
Arts funding should be the reward of dedication and hard work and not based on skill at filling the form out......ok, I'm only jealous because I can't fill in forms. But, I believe it's true that arts funding should fascilitate but not solely generate the production of art. I'm so tired...............
Morning everyone!
I think that there needs to be a total re-think about the way the arts are funded. I hope I'm not alone in feeling that as far as the fine arts are concerned, to apply for a grant ahead of time for an exhibition, for example, creates a damaging sense of aesthetic projection. Simply the question about 'New audiences' has me running for the hills. Or to put it another way; to stay truthful to your art, one must either pre-fabricate or tap into that delicate head-and-body emotional space, using words, that is usually the preserve of art making. Yes it's early and things aren't appearing on the page as I imagined them when drinking tea earlier.
So, how about the Arts Council awarding grants after the event? This isn't going to work for all art forms but in my field, painting exhibitions, if I get the chance to exhibit somewhere, and I want to do it, and the gallery can't pay transport or APR because their stuck in the 1970's (say the Alfred East Gallery in Kettering for instance. March 3rd- April 13th 2007) then I'm going to drive it forward whatever, or or no matter how much it costs. I believe that the drive to do/ make something in the arts isn't about money (Maybe that's why Im Ł24, 543.00 in debt) it's devil-may-care risk-taking and passion; or it's nothing. {moving the soap box slightly to the left]
The practical implications for 'Post Granting' means that an artist hands in his/ her reviews and images and receipts from an art exhibition/ performance etc. and then the Arts Council can postumously pay for some/ all of the costs: based on the very same criteria as the current application form - except I'm sure it would be more interesting work......then the question of new audiences would really be addressed by artists..........Oh and the number of artists who emmediately go out and buy a fridge freezer as soon as their Individual Artists Award cheque arrives in the post (I know someone who did this) would be confined to those artists concerned with cryogenics!....must dash on-line-buddies....catch ya later x
There should be opportunities for all. This includes the young and old and dare I say it middle aged. There should be more opportunities for people from non arts backgrounds or people returning to a career in the arts to access funding. This doesn't appear to be the case at the moment.
I'm a rarity , an oddball. I'm white, middleclass, hetrosexual, able-bodied, over 60, no criminal record, and a poet /printmaker to boot. In short after 40 years in the arts I've never been 'flavour of the month' . Flavour of the month should never determine public funding. Funding should follow a broad base and remain consistant in it's support i.e. it does not stop after a couple of years of input. The Arts Council needs to plan ahead. There should be no such a thing in the arts as minority activities........but printmaking and poetry feel like they are just that.
I often wonder why there is no incentive for those who, against the finacial odds, manage to run an artistic platform; such as a poetry magazine, for many years without recourse to arts funding. I am given to understand that funding is conditional and can have editorial requirements to which an editor may be opposed.
There has been times during the last ten years of running a poetry magazine that a small unconditional grant would have been most helpful without the miriad rules and conditions and form filling that seems to apply.
Why not offer some uncomplicated funding to those who through tenacity, hard work and often at their own expense have established and kept running an arts platform that has benifited both artists and recipent.
The last time I came into contact with someone from the arts council they questioned the validity of my status as Artist In Residence, saying, Because I had set up the residency on my own and through my own innovation it was hardly what the Arts Council would call Artist In Residence. In the coming weeks I will be holding a Public Consultation in the area and with the Partners of the Residency... Local Primary Care Trust, Two Schools, A local group and I would like someone from the Arts Council to attend, view and measure what has been achieved in this self led program at what I would question a fraction of the cost, those who have benefited directly and will benefit because they have all taken part in every part of the process. Lets do away with extra tax we pay called the lottery and send these quangos back to the dole queue.
After spending a working lifetime in creating popular art and encountering the funding system all along the way, I am increasingly saddened that the Arts Council has become more and more distant from people actually doing it. ACE seems to be populated by career arts bureaucrats - indeed this current exercise of "consultation" is just another sop to their paymasters to try to to ensure they all have jobs after the standstill Government Department budgets are announced. The Olympics are about to swallow up all monies, so the Arts, yet again as in the dark ages of the Thatcher years will take the loss.
As to how arts are funded, working artists should go round the country and divvy it out accordingly. Let's lose the keyboard tappers and free lunchers.
Now I feel less alone in my thoughts and feelings. I'm at an age now where I couldn't be anything but an artist even if I wanted to. It's a blessing and a curse. The last time I looked the individual artist award from the Arts Council started at a figure of Ł200 Once you've filled in the form and collated your material that starting figure has already been spent. I want to see an energised arts council, a grounded arts council, a pro-active and caring arts council. I need more tea; excuse me...
See my nauseous comments in Debate section: "Should members of the public be involved in arts funding decisions ?"
Another day another hangover! I love what I do; I love painting. Nothing can take that away from me. I only need to maintain my artistic pride, or rather my artistic self esteem. Theam an artist because visual imagery is my language, and sudd only time this zest that I have has been under threat is when the begging-bowl arrives, and I have to crunch-down in words what it is that I do (or rather intend to do) But, by way of irony, I denly my pants are around my ankles and I'm trying to use my secondary language: to humiliate myself in words, to sell my soul, and then all the time aware that I may not get any money from the Arts Council anyway. Hmm and that's me trying to be positive.
I'll check it out Ken, but first I've just got to do something.....
a question: who are the people on the arts council, are they faceless ones who are nominated by the goverment mandarins, artists or ordinary people. who votes them on, dothey know more than the man in the street.
I'm glad nobody's really going to take any notice of all this piffle and I'm so glad that that there is someone like Christopher Frayling at the top of ACE who combines political nouse with a detailed and deep understanding of cultural production (ech! did I really say that?)(thanks for the cheque Chris!)
There can not be enough funding for arts education and the Arts Council and arts community [famous artists etc] should be banging down the doors of the Government to make it happen.
Unfortunately when money is available greed kicks in and vested interests immediately sniff out ways of lining their own pockets by fair or foul means. There are those who would oppose vociferously arts money being spent on educating the masses but they would be wrong.
I'm sure it would be possible to create a countrywide network of arts education that by law should be funded from the National Lottery, that would be proactive in engaging ALL communities to partake in, FREE of charge. Elimination of mediocrity through education must be top of the list and in doing so will improve appreciation and understanding of all forms of art.
It would be crucial also that the people involved would have to be of the highest calibre which means paying competitive salaries to attract the best teachers and organisers and fees for the established artists or performers etc to make guest appearances.
Its a tall order but a society based on understanding of itself through artistic endeavour will indeed be a truly enlightened one.
There are those who feel that the Arts Council isn't 'on the ground' enough, that its staff should devote more time, both to assessing in person an artist's fundability, and to attending in person events of funded artists. I very much see their point, but would ask them to consider this: all ACE staff at regional level whom I've encountered work more than their contracted hours (as do most arts administrators - another discussion topic in itself!), and regional ACE offices don't have anywhere near the resources available to attend all the activities of those they fund, or intend to fund, nor indeed to maintain regular communication with all arts organisations.
So how can they be on the ground more? I feel that, in the same way that we have to trust the Arts Council to guide us in terms of priorities in arts funding (and no, I'm sorry, this cart dragging the horse theory won't do - you can't keep publicly funded art entirely in its own bubble), the Arts Council must, to a degree, trust artists to deliver what they say they're going to deliver. In my experience, engaging more closely with my local Arts Council office - taking the trouble to understand its priorities and aligning them with my own - is by far the best route to successful support; financial and practical.
I do agree that it would benefit the Arts Council to find better ways to integrate itself into local artistic networks, but ultimately, which would we prefer? Less funding available to artists, and more resources for ACE staff to attend events, or the maximum amount possible to go into the artform itself? A sensible balance is needed, I suspect.
Re the above .This tells a story:
Quote--" Engaging more closely with my local Arts Council office is by far the best route to successful support,financial and practical ." Good for you . Personally I would have thought the quality of work came before anything .
Pencilpoint 2:
The main principle which should guide public funding is to be seen, by the public at large, to give value for money.
Forget funding. MAKE ART... Find another way.. It's easy to get caught up in worrying if your work will ever be made unless you get the money you applied for. I wont get funding anyway because i'm white, hetrosexual and able-bodied!! Especially in Birmingham!! What's with the minority obsession arts council?! Its uneccessary and embarrassing!!!
The arts council is all about ticking the right boxes... it's nothing to do with a realistic, artistic process...
You are quite right Kurt .
It's not the minority that matter , it's the standard and value of the project .Who it comes from should be immaterial . Grants for , and advertisements seen by grant aided projects for Caribean is O.k. Ditto for the Under thirties, physically handicapped, lesbian , Asian, Religious etc. but try something like an application for a grant to aid a white, male, heterosexual, over sixties Group !!That would be prejudice of course . Why on application forms are we asked to tick off our race , physical condition etc. I know it's voluntary but why is it there at all ? The main criteria should be in the value of the impact on the community in general , which includes all the minority groups .
Are they to be regarded as separate or part of a whole ? The whole concept of favouring minority groups just means fragmentation of the community and does nothing to
bring harmony . Art crosses all borders and should be left to do it.
Arts Council funding principles are spot on - who could argue with more high quality work to more people, a confident diverse and innovative arts sector. The devil is in the application of these principles. I believe art needs to come out of its buildings, its comfort zones more. For lots of people the idea of setting foot in a theatre or a gallery is unthinkable, this has many and complex causes, but poverty of experience, knowledge, sense of entitlement, and resources are big factors. So lets take more of it to public spaces where it is unavoidable, spontaneous, and democratic. Where everyone whose lottery tickets and taxes have paid for the stuff can see it. Fantastic picture of the Sultans Elephant on this page. Wouldn't it be nice if a company from the UK had the resources to produce work of this scale and calibre? If the infrastructure and support for genuinely publicly accessible art was in place, events like Exodus and the Elephant could be happening at a variety of scales up and down the country.
Yes to most of above. Take art to people ,not wait for them to come to you . If they come to you then they are already converts . Take art to the first twenty people you might meet on the street .
I'm a non-artist,in fact have no talent whatsoever! However I work voluntarily at grassroots level within my local community with talented young musicians and young people aged 12 to 19 who want to experience the performance of music in an authentic but supportive environment. This means actually asking the young people and the musicians who work with them want they want, asking local business, schools and colleges what they want and attempting to put this in an application form in a meaningful manner that will allow access to funding. Why do I do it? Not because I want to find the next Rembrandt or Michelangelo but because I understand the impact the arts (in this case specifically music) can have on those who take part. Not because I get well paid for it because I earn more from my profession than I do from this and should be concentrating my efforts on that!
The principles that guide my involvement and work are firstly that the experience should be accessible to all, regardless of level of ability, aptitude, gender, ethnicity etc and secondly that those who take part are enhanced by the experience. Arts for Arts sake? No - Arts for All please.
As a non-artist working with artists I have sometimes found artists are insular, territorial and competitive to the extent that they ensure that art is inaccessible, elitist and rarefied. I’d like to see the Arts Council’s guiding principle to be a challenge to this; ensuring accessibility and listening from the ground up to the very people who fund and will hopefully continue to fund the arts from the vantage of greater understanding through active involvement in the arts.
Pencilpoint:
Value for money means promoting arts appreciation in the general public, not subsidising wannabee artists to air their exciting views, which most people don't understand or want to know.
"It supports organisations and activities that are part of our cultural heritage" - that I agree with. What I don't agree with is that it supports organisations and activities that are part of other people's cultural heritages. That is for those areas of culture to promote and finance themselves. After all it is Arts Council England
we are talking about and the culture encouraged should be an English one.
Support All practitioners and ESPECIALLY those with works that are not Sellable for any reason at all.
1. The principle that all should have access to good art should guide public funding.
2. Good art needs to be encouraged and fostered and can only be done so by those who are expert in the field and can recognise potential and talent in artists.
3. Promoting arts appreciation in the general public as mentioned by Stephen Andrews, by breaking down barriers in terms of fear of the arts, being seen as elitist, or difficult to understand, not dumbing down exhibitions or activities.
Access to many plays, exhibitions, shows, events, performances is often free and most definitely cheaper, more educational and inspiring than a visit to a theme park or a football match, which are other kinds of leisure activities valid in their own right.
4. Funding for art should not discriminate on grounds of sex, race, religion or disability.
Once again better definitions and a more considered question would assist respondents in answering.
I fully agree with Martin Holroyd's comment. People like him that do provide a platform at their own expense and with their own efforts should be encouraged without so many conditions put on them. I'm sure less honest people than Martin agree with conditions at the time of application for a grant and then forget them or modify them afterwards.
Remind me? why should ANY public money be used to fund the arts?
One single principle: Does the proposition advance the proponent? If no - no money; if yes - money,
Who decides? me!!
What principles should guide public funding of the arts today?
Today we live in a society that is increasingly diverse. Along with diversity comes the need to create an equal and just society in which access and inclusion are part of the process. This diverse society comprises a range of people paying their fair share of tax, some of which is used to fund the arts. It is considered that the arts are worthy of public funding and therefore the arts should be available to everyone.
See a Voice is a project formed by the cooperation of STAGETEXT (providers of captioning services) and VocalEyes (providers of audio-description services) to extend the availability of high quality assisted performances. Captioning enables deaf, deafened and hard of hearing people to access the arts and audio-description enables blind and visually-impaired people to do likewise.
Making the See a Voice project truly successful will involve much more than providing technology. There is a need for access awareness within the arts world. It is about overcoming the attitudinal barriers that are often the greatest obstacle to inclusion. It is truly shocking that people in prestigious arts organisations have made comments to us such as:
1.Captioning must be out of the frame.
2.Blind people would be better off staying at home and listening to the radio.
3. Leave it to theatre people; we know best.
4.If you are not happy with it (the caption unit position) then you should go home.
The dilemma for See a Voice is that if people in the arts, including artistic and production staff, succeed in keeping assisted performances at arm's length, then the quality will be so poor that the audiences will indeed go home and not return.
The quality of an evening at the theatre for a deaf or visually-impaired person is measured by a combination of factors such as the ticket booking process, the interaction of front of house staff, the pre-show information, the comfort of viewing the stage and captions or the comfort of headsets. Added to these is the quality of the captioning or audio-description itself. Both STAGETEXT and VocalEyes have set high store by the quality of the training of their captioners and audio-describers. They want this quality to be passed to the local operators through the See a Voice project. This must be reinforced by measurement of performance, feedback and continuous improvement. It is essential that deaf and visually-impaired people are fully included in the quality process so that an evening at the theatre can become accessible and usable for everyone.
Speaking as a deaf person who uses the captioning service, I can only say what a great pleasure it is that I can now go to a theatre performance and enjoy it just like everyone else, a pleasure that was denied to me only a few years ago.
An arts organisation that fully embraces the principles of diversity, access and inclusion will see its supporters grow and will be justified in offering a good account of the way it uses public funding in increasing appreciation of the arts.
Peter J. Pullan
Chair, STAGETEXT
There's a lot of useful comment above and an awful lot of rubbish from those who treat this serious question from an oblique angle. Save us the true artists who wish to share their willingness to perform, from these self righteous so called intellectuals. None of us have all the answers but our comments must be constructive, not dismissive or belittling to others.Arts and in particular need more funds so lets just campaign for a share of the 9Billion that the 2012 debacle is going to remove from otherwise worthy projects. East London in particular threatens to be a sport engulfed artless wilderness - if only we had a concert hall for 500 let alone a stadium for XXX000?? javelin throwers!
Public funding should cease to be dominated by the interests of the professional arts establishment and by the London metropolitan elite. It should recognise the value of 'traditional' English culture in the way that that of the Welsh and Scots is recognised and support remaining local actitivities - and I don't mean the 'professionalised' community arts workers. Why do local amateur choral socities and orchestras struggle to fund their activities or why are brass bands treated with contempt when they are an important part of many northern communities musical life?
The 'great' challenge of the 21st century for many 'high-culture' arts organisations is maintaining quality and integrity and yet concurrently and endlessly re-appraising how they present and interpret their work - therefore opening it up to the widest possible audience. Which is why I'm so often dismayed that the one company which has demonstrated a commitment and striking ability in this area - English National Opera - is so often derided (particularly by those who hold the purse strings). Bad management aside, when will the people who hold the cheque books realise that its companies with this sort of vision that will ensure the survival and acceptance of publicly funded arts organisations in the future? If I were to take any of my friends who have no interest in opera and 'high culture' to a performance that I know would inspire and provoke them, it would nearly always be an ENO production, not one from the other major opera house in London (where I know they'd also feel intimidated and out of place). I think the majority of punters and critics would agree with that, too. Of course public funding of all art forms is vital, but you need to look at the work companies produce, before you slap them on the wrists for not balancing the books (though the latter is clearly important as well).
Our comments policy prohits abusive, defamatory or unlawful comments and it also requires that comments are related to the discussion topic.
Arts council funding should simply be allocated on merit, the application form is a nightmare. The Arts council staff should take more time to visit projects and discuss them with the artists or groups.I am working a non-profit project in a regeneration area, with no funding, though its desperately needed, and I am doing good work with youth/youngoffenders/ middle aged and ethnic groups among others, but because our form Arts Council form is not filled with with the clerical and detailed dexterity required, we are left struggling.
Arts council funding should be directed at grass roots projects that are accessible to all and encouraging, motivating and inspiring Art in our communities.
The Arts Council has increasingly come to represent a substantial blockage that stands in the way of creative enterprise.
The application process is overwhelmingly bureaucratic, and the criteria seem dominated by a very narrow and highly politicised conception of "diversity", which seems designed to suppress the real diversity of the mind and the creative spirit in favour of a rigid pattern dictated by wholly irrelevant considerations. The result is that the Arts Council looks as though it is an ageist, racist, politically inspired bureaucracy, rather than a body with the capacity (though obviously, for financial reasons, a limited one) to help revitalise the arts in England and Wales.
The way in which largish sums are spent on recurrent, rather than one-off, grants, leads to unbalanced expenditure, and to a dependence culture for many recipient bodies. The Council should put far more effort into trying to ensure that projects are financially viable, with funding more directed towards start-ups than at present. Grants should normally be for a limited period and not normally renewable.
Above all, simplify the application process, and get rid of the non-artistic baggage.
Having waded my way through the exchange of views above, I'm not sure quite how to address the range of points, or the general sense of frustration. In the end I thought it best to return to the questions ACE poses.
1) Yes I do think it is essential that public and lottery money is used to support the arts.
2) I think so because imperfect as it is, state support for the arts offers our best chance of ensuring that art that is not appropriate for global commercial sale stands a chance of seeing the light of day. I think that this art is necessary because it addresses non-commercial concerns of identity, self-expression, and even (in the broadest sense) spirituality, and helps tell us who we are and what we care about. Art can also act as a valuable safety-valve and a place to explore the new, the unthinkable, and the taboo.
My principal concern is that while we know that participation in the arts delivers a host of beneficial effects in the areas of health, education, community cohesion, bridge-building, regeneration, tackling social excusion and much more, the danger is that by insisting that to be fundable art prove to us that is has done so, and by making its very viability measurable only in terms of hard targets met in these areas of "social working", we risk killing off the creative impulse. We may make striving for professional artistic excellence without being concerned about social issues a "dirty" aim. Interestingly, as a society we don't seem to have the same unease about participation for all and excellence in a few existing side by side in sport.
3) I cannot say that there are areas of art that shouldn't receive funding because I am only an expert in Theatre. I would not be qualified to judge in any other area.
4)How far should you strive to improve access to the art you fund? Well, in my experience access issues are best tackled through art that is already broadly attractive, accessible, recognisable and even slightly commercial. Innovative, cutting edge work is funded to break new ground, to help discover some of what will be the accessible and desirable in the future. To be able to do this sometimes it has to fail. To ask something to be both innovative AND accessible on the same project at the same time, is a heavy burden to place on any artist.
5) What principals should guide you? I imagine that your principals are not unsound, but I would make the following suggestions:
-offer a host of criteria, but let projects choose which ones they will meet. If they meet them well, don't insist that all criterial must be met simultaneously on the same project. Once the hygiene factors (decent financial management, acceptable contracts etc) are met, judge on quality and depth of the selected criteria met, not on quantity of "boxes ticked". Secondly, be brave, get off the bandwagon asking for endless policies, risk assessments etc etc. Make the requirements appropriate to the scale of organisation.
Last but not least, if we as artists and arts organisations are asking the ACE to support a percentage of innovative work, knowing that with innovation comes some risk of failure, the same latitude needs to be extended to the officers backing the innovative projects. A certain percentage of failed or flawed projects needs to be embraced in their "innovation portfolios".
As I touched upon in the first comment regarding the value of art,
I feel there has been a tendency to
support esoteric work in music, theatre, film and so on. This is absolutely right as many valuable artistic endeavours might find it
difficult to find a place in the commercial market. However I do feel that popular art is extremely
important too and it is not always
required that the work be distanced
from the audience by demanding considerable indulgence. Surely there must be room made for work that has perhaps as much to say but
can also reach a wider number of people? I say this because in the greatest era of television writers
were able to develop complex and important themes regarding politics and phillosophy whilst still having
a strong narrative moving purposfully to a conclusion "Edge of Darkness"; "Traffic" and "Threads" for example. It does sometimes appear to me that there is an over emphasis on assisting financially work of a very marginal nature and I think it would be worth splitting up the funding so that a more commercially based arm be created for concepts that might find it difficult to gain
funding today, because so little effort is being made in Television, Popular Music etc to develop idea led product.
We could fund the Arts Equally, but we would only argue about what the boundaries are! then government policy would shift to other leisure persuits.
What do we really want here? is it more funding or is more freedom to explore and express.
What principles should we employ to cater for all tastes. How do we ensure 'quality' in cultural persuits? A guideline for principle is that it should be based on morality and wisdom and to achieve that in a practical manner we need a shared vision. Quite a task for such a diverse field.
I am in favour of a principle being the start, to initiate or enable a beginning.
Equality in practice. Every one respects all forms of art and artitst. Regardless of well-known orgs or people and street orgs or people. All colors respected by ACE is equally important.
There should be no principles used in relation to public funding for art. The artist should be allowed to express themselves in their work. We should try to encourage the artist by buying a vartiety contemporary works. These will in due course be displayed, and with the passing of time one will establish the good from the bad. The goood artist works can be maintained, and the not so good sold off.All to often hear how the works of an artists is not properly appreciated by their contempories, and then only latere do they get the due apprecation.
From a consumer perspective I would like arts funding policy to ensure I can consume high quality arts of all shapes and sizes near me!
As someone who has tried to get funding for arts near me I would say the following would be helpful:
Don't dismiss the last 'big thing' for the 'next big thing.' Work out what's good from before and keep it. For example, The Arts Council seems to have moved away from the support of buildings (new ones anyway). The majority of people who watch and create arts for public consumption like it to be in a beautiful and fit-for-purpose building. They're expensive but have a lasting legacy for the whole community. Of course it's important to support non-buildings based initiatives but not at the expense of the buildings they probably want to show the end result in.
Support solid ideas that help an organisation's growth, not just projects that die in the water once the project funding runs out. Or help these projects become sustaining in other ways.
Send helpful reject letters that actually give useful feedback!
Support new writing and new work that appeals to the masses, possibly on a loan basis if it's an idea that could eventually be profitable, and especially touring shows. (I'm speaking as one who's bored of yet another interpretation of Shakepeare, and not enough 'throw away' theatre that isn't 'music from the movies' or a tribute band, especially at small/medium scale).
Persuade the Government (or other sources) to give more money to the Arts Council!!!
Good luck.
Having been involved with quite a few funding bids over the last few years I have come to think that overall the current system is sound.
That is not to say it could not be improved. "Make the requirements appropriate to the scale of organisation." someone said. I think this is true and an even simpler form for projects of under ?1000 would be helpful for individuals, writers and readers' groups and the like. I also think small scale funding by presentation would help those who struggle with form filling. The forms must exclude quite a few cultural and social minorities. I am helping a poet with a small bid for his poetry group and the problem is that though he has energy, enthusiasm and a passion to bring poetry to the community he does not speak the jargon. Nor should we expect him to, he is a poet. I very simple fast track sytem for small ammounts of money followed by support for success would be very helpful to people like this.
Certainly more money. Take the buildings out of the picture and have separate funding for Cultural Heritage like Stratford, Covent Garden, The National Gallery etc as well regional theatres and museums, galleries. Not a huge increase and one I'd be happy to pay.
I don't understand why art should be subsidised by taxpayers' money. If it has a value it will be bought. If it has no value it should not be foisted on the public at the public's expense.
I echo Jonathan Wilton's succinct analysis above.
When Ernst Gombrich was asked on Desret Island Discs what he would say to those who claim Rothko is great art, he replied "self-deception". If Gombrich is right - and he is so much the foremost art theoretician to be almost the only theoretician - then our principles or methods of funding Art have been in error for 60 years.
Apart from ending funding of antic Art, my only suggestion is to exclude purchase or promotion of any artefact fit for the treasure market.
Jonathan Wilton 's extreme view of the way to decide how to subsidise art has the merit of simplicity. 'Don't do it'.
Strict logic says he is right in that art is funded without direct accountability to the public as a whole. To me if one is going to subsdise at all it should be without strings or interference. Art would exist without subsidy yes whether it was of monetary value or not to its beholders but the subsidising of art is part of an evolution of what we call "society". Many would argue a pillar of what has become known as civilised society. Before "society" evolved at all humans lived a largely utilitarian existence, as Mr Wilton would obviously prefer, but still felt the urge express themselves in a way we now recognise as creative and 'artistic'. Giving monetary value or artistic (aesthetic) value to these expressions is a reflection of the organisation and hierarchy of evolved society.
If society (the public) did not value art in some way then this would not have occured.
Once again, why does one need taxpayer money to express oneself?
My viewpoint is not extreme. It is simple. Nor do I advocate a utilitarian existence, nor do I lack an appreciation of art. What I do lack is an understanding of why art should be considered deserving of, or in need of, subsidy from public taxes. If society values art, society buys art. Robert and Jordan get it. Geoff clearly doesn't.
I think we should make an effort to protect our folk arts and make their teaching and promotion a priority in all schools as a matter of principle. The UK appears to be the only country in the EU where schoolchildren are more likely to learn about the traditions of other countries than of their own. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that at major arts events we are the laughing stock of Europe. It costs very little to ensure that all primary school teachers learn at college to teach our own dances and songs, as they always used to. Making this a priority would help to protect our heritage as well as promote a sense of national identity.
We also need to value participatory arts more and provide better facilities for people to meet to make music, to put on plays or to hold dances. Assembly Rooms, which were built in many towns during the 18th century, are often abused with the full knowledge of the local authorities that own them. They were meant to bring the community together at events, mostly dances or concerts, that welcomed people from all social classes. Nowadays these dances are few and far-between and the people in charge of the buildings have one thing on their minds - profit. If they cannot run the venues as intended they should resign in favour of volunteers who know what they're doing.
I am very wary of the idea posted elsewhere on this site that the Arts Council should divide its funding programmes into three pots: community, national and individual. I am wary of this because it implies that these are the sole priorities for public funding, and this is surely nonsense. Yes, there is a clear need for national institutions which in some way reflect the nation to itself; yes, there is a need for community organisations which allow participation and self-expression. But the largest need by far is found in the middle ground between these two spaces; where the bulk of artists practice their work, making art which sometimes involves communities (but should not be compelled to, because sometimes a community benefits more from being described than from describing itself), and which sometimes deals with national concerns, but which can also focus on the local, the international, or the personal and internal.
The problem with these categories is that they are political and social categories, not artistic ones. I am acutely aware of the arts operating within political and social structures, and in dialogue with those structures: but to confine them within those structures is to deny their role as a critique and a source of alternative paradigms. The structures of funding should facilitate the creativity of artists, not confine them within rigid categories. In this sense, the current Grants for the Arts structure is better than the proposed alternative.
Jonathan--you could say the same about Education ,Health. etc. you only get it if you can afford it?
If you have an appreciation for the Arts as you claim is there not merit in funding it to allow for experimentation , creativity which is not market bound and art which would not otherwise exist? In the Hierarchy of needs it may come below education and health but that is reflected in the huge difference in funding levels.
What principles should guide the funding of the arts today
1. Proportion. Whether the Arts Council budget grows or shrinks should be irrelevant to the fact that it should be shared proportionally among the various contending clients and in harmony with the stated Arts Council aims of access and participation.
Example:
It should not be possible to point out extreme anomalies between or within genres. For instance in the field of performance there should be a balance in funding support between free open air performance and ticketed indoor performance; between minority and main-stream and between imported and UK art: The whole UK street art sector received 2 million and in the same year one French street theatre company used up Ł750000 in five days which was enough money to provide core support for ten UK companies. The Arts Council spend on Royal De Lux’s show would have been fine if it had been proportional. The second error of proportionality that the RDL event represents is that after 20 or 30 years of painstaking work and research by regional festivals developing the new and exciting genre of street theatre in Stockton Brighton Manchester and Cardiff all on shoe string budgets after cutting the showcase festival in Manchester suddenly out of the blue this scale of money is available for one show in London.
Despite the merits of RDL it is worrying to see the Arts Councils website completely plastered with this French company’s imagery when there has been plenty of fine imagery from large scale UK performances of Street Theatre that has not graced the Arts Councils webpage. This is an example of the Arts Council blowing its own trumpet rather than serving the needs of the public or UK arts organizations.
I am glad however that RDL were brought to London because it was an event of strategic importance in improving the perception of street theatre at a national level and should have long term beneficial consequences. But it does demonstrate the capital centric nature of the Arts Council which is another failure of proportionality. You may say well you cant have it both ways was it good or wasn’t it? I would say that we could and should have it both ways it would take a quite small adjustment of priority within the Arts Council portfolio to remedy all these proportional errors and then we could enjoy RDL in our capital without reservation. Keeping it proportional means having it both ways.
2. Respect and trust for artists. The Arts Council should not approach arts organizations with too many preconceptions as to how they should run themselves. Too often we hear of arts organizations being asked by the Arts Council to provide business plans or marketing plans or requested by the Arts Council to hire administrators or marketing consultants. This sort of thing should be left to the Arts organization to decide. Too often those giving advice know less than those receiving it. Also an arts organization should not have to provide the Arts Council with choices and options for support as if the Arts Council was a gourmet diner in a restaurant. If the Arts Council decide to support an organization they should let that organization place the funding most appropriately for the organization. If later the AC feels that the organization has not delivered or has disappointed then they can reduce or remove the funding but the process should start from a position of trust and respect for the Artist. In other words the Arts Council should not play god.
3. The funding of the artist and paying for essentials . The Arts Council has acquired a reputation for tending to support the outlandish rather than the basic or the sensible. This is not all bad by any means as art itself tends towards in this direction and I would hate to see a lack of imagination in funding, but there have been too many hollowed out organizations created by Funding organization’s lack of interest in the mundane. The Arts Council needs to understand how many artists are still struggling to survive. When a well intentioned strategic objective like `thriving not surviving` is promoted it can put even more strain on the artist, you had to be surviving before the Arts Council would help you thrive. You could only get extra money not basic money. The Arts Council should also be proud of helping Artists survive. The most important recipient of funding should be the Artist but funding may need to cover tedious costs like insurance or rent or accounting as well as higher profile elements.
4. Transparency This is desirable in most of the AC processes and in particular the budget It should be possible on the Arts Council website to go straight to the national budget and see a clear summary properly indexed of exactly how it is divided. So such issues as the comparative funding of elitist art versus democratic art can be easily monitored and anyone can see at a glance how well the Arts Council is doing in meeting its targets
5 The accumulation of Responsibility and public decision making. The notion of consistency of support needs continuous reexamination in light of changing artistic practice. But it would be crazy to lose all the benefits of continuous investment.in artistic companies and institutions. Probably the single hardest job the Arts Council has to do is to balance responsibility with innovation. This is an area which should be opened up to more public influence. And this national consultation is a good step. If a decision is made by the public then the Arts Council will be removed from criticism for the consequences of that decision. Internet voting provides a new easy way in which major decisions can be democratized. The public do not necessarily want an organization telling them what is good for them.
The idea of a panel of experts leading public taste is very resilient but I think it will eventually be put to rest and people will be allowed to have what they want. Yes there have been unpopular decisions later vindicated. Perhaps the Angel of the North was one of these. But this does not vindicate non consensual future decision making After all there must have been many decisions made by experts which remained unpopular. We don’t want witch doctors prescribing unpleasant artistic medicine for us for our good. The public will respond well to more trust. They may be conservative in some areas but they will be cutting edge in others.
6. Consistency
example
We need more consistency in audience assessment. We are told that The Treasury does not acknowledge the audiences at free events because the Arts Council does not put enough funding into free events and street arts for the Treasury to take this area seriously. This is despite the fact that local authorities across the country spend millions on this every year. For quite a few years massive audience figures have been achieved by UK companies in the open air arts genres When the AC flagship sets sail with The Sultans Elephant we are suddenly regaled with the large audience figures. Up until then these large audience figures for open air arts were ignored. Hopefully they will never be ignored again and should impinge on the subject of proportionality in criterion 1. Ie if an art form is reaching large audiences and is in dire financial need it should be supported. That is the case for a massive increase in support for street arts, and for small scale local music endeavors
The criteria for touring support and the measurement of audiences needs to be brought up to date. Touring in the open air Local Authority event is usually confirmed 3 weeks before the event and it takes three months to get an Arts Council touring application considered. This biases unfairly in favor of venue based touring which has a longer gestation period and thus earlier confirmation. A simple solution would be retrospective verification
7. The position of the Artist The Arts council should attempt to do more about the general position of the Artist in the UK French style intermittent status Irish style tax exemption and suchlike
8. Assessment of artistic quality should be at arms length. We should try to avoid having officers deciding on artistic merits. Audience size and popularity with clients should be more important than an officer’s opinion on a piece of art. To some extent this problem of subjectivity is unavoidable so it also remains important that government employees have specific genre knowledge and enthusiasm
The late, great Marghanita Laski (imagine an Arts Council which once had people of such stature and rigorous intellectual honesty on it) wrote:
"In the matter of spending public money on the high arts, I would make strenuous efforts to define what must count as justifying benefits, and then make substantial efforts to find out who can enjoy such benefits and from what triggers; and then shape policy in the light of such findings." (in 'Everyday Ecstasy')
To me this is a rational and responsible approach based on defensible principle rather than being too much driven by the transitory detail of government hints, nudges and populist aspirations. If it seems slightly old-fashioned, it's none the worse for that. It clearly puts the 'art' up front where it should be in a public arts agency. It's also a lot more honest and focused than much of the ludicrously woolly current overclaiming within 'the sector' which only takes in the already self-deluded.
I think maybe Brian Jackson should be on the Arts Council.
I think that their is an inbalance between the big players who recieve millions of pounds of funding, and can afford to hire a professional to do the bidding, and the starting out artist who is trying to get a ÂŁ500 -ÂŁ2000 and being expected to jump through so many hoops.
It's unfair that established artists are always given so much money ,soley on the basis of the Kudos they might bring.
Funding should be ear marked for new artists, it should be the same amount to those elite organisations ,who could easily increase their ticket prices ,it is unfair not to offer smaller grants which would go along way to a new artist but give millions to who could easily raise the funds themselves.
Jonathan--...........
If you have an appreciation for the Arts as you claim is there not merit in funding it to allow for experimentation , creativity which is not market bound and art which would not otherwise exist"
No- Was Flann O'Brien subsidised? James Joyce? Of course not. Nor should my experimental writing be subsidised.
I don't think your parallel with Health stands up. Experimental work in health is carried on by massively wealthy drug companies, not out of subsidised NHS budgets.
"Augustus Casely-Hayford, Executive Director of Arts Strategy at Arts Council England (ACE), thinks we need a debate - "not just by the usual suspects, but by as many of us as possible" - on arts funding. He wants us to "think about the principles that underpin public funding". And so do I.
"Mr. Casely-Hayford would like to use our debate to "to seek out the fragile cultural narratives and where needed find ways of bringing them under the protective umbrella of subsidy". I want to use it to expose a guiding principle of the council as being ideologically and politically exclusive, in direct opposition to stated aims."
Read the rest at:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2007/03/exclusive_inclu.html
Jonathan
I Wasn't talking about experimental healthwork simply that Society decrees it beneficial to subsidise health care and education via public funding. I am arguing that the arts are a valuable public assest too and deserve subsidy ,not to the extent that the other major public services do but in some small measure ,which is what they get by comparison. James Joyce was dead by the time that public subsidy for the arts became the norm.(1941 Arts Council GB est.)Obrien wrote much before that time too I suspect.Individual writers maybe should get more of a look in, its not my area so Im a bit ignorant about how much they do or dont get. It seems to me anyway that we have equally valid but different views which is what the debate is about and further counter argument would be sterile.
Correction 1946 ACGB est.
1941 death of James Joyce.
1. Funding should be there to allow people to take part in valuable experiences via through the medium of the arts
2. "If the art is worthwhile it will sell" is a bad principle to hold because if this principle came into force many masterpieces could be forgotten and lost forever simply because of financial constraints. Society would be poorer because of this.
3. Public funding should be available for a wide range of art forms that challenge the status quo and innovate so to ensure that a society doesn't become culturally narrow minded.
Just a start...
Arts is an awesum tool to engage young people in positive and meaningful expression. More funding should go into arts projects in the community which promote inclusion and change. Giving young people a voice through the Arts can empower them, motivate and through a process of development disadvantaged young people can create some of the most natural yet powerful art of all. Its about investing in lives and sharing in the outcomes of that through art. bring it on...
1. A principle of additionality - use public funding for things that can't be funded any other way.
2. Quality.
3. Favour things that meet public policy objectives - but don't give extra weight to things that meet a bigger cumulative number of objectives (eg creative excellence plus social inclusion should not trump creative excellence alone).
Two questions:
1) Does any of the social workers, accountants and managers who run Arts Council England know anything about the visual arts?
2) Can you name one good artist whom Arts Council England has supported or promoted in its 60 years?
If the answer to both of these questions is "No", stop wasting our money and resign.
Research shows that children and young people develop better social skills and are more likely to contribute to their community if they have been involved in Arts Projects.
If children and young people are to grow up with an appreciation of 'The Arts' then it is the responsibility of those awarding grants to ensure that there is true equality of access to funding.
One of the most successful ways of promoting the arts is by having positive role models developing projects for children. Many young graduates and post graduates leave University and go into poorly paying non art related work.
Projects should be developed to meet the needs of communities and then the artists should be actively recruited.
One young post graduate pianist involved in taking a classical music access programme into mainstream schools said 'It was the most meaningful and enjoyable work that I have ever undertaken' it involved children, teachers and parents.
In some areas of the country there is no knowledge of the Junior Department network to access places into our National Conservatoires, in many mainstream schools children have no knowledge of these opportunities, therefore, they have limited aspirations and lack of access. The South West is a good example of this. The nearest Junior Departments for music are the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama and Birmingham Conservatoire, neither are geographically or financially accessible for mainstream children from low income families!! Access to 'The Arts' should be for all not just the rich upper classes!
Those involved in awarding grants should ensure that projects are prioritised which provide services to fill some of the yawning gaps that exist in some areas.
Chrissie
Agree with you totally in lack of aspiration and access to art, and agree with you totally that taking classical music into schools is very rewarding I've done sme of it myself. Problem is that the lack of aspiration comes from a Government sponsored ideological rationale which promotes mediocrity in the name of inclusion amd equality,instead of promoting access to excellence and quality by education for those who can be bothered to raise their aspirations.Of course the arts are not for the rich upper classes but state education based on the aforesaid rationale will never produce many aspirants to a conservertoire training whilst a real musical education is totally lacking in state schools. Most entrants to Conservetoires are thus from th independent sector or from abroad. A shame but a fact.The ratio of state to independent entrants in the major music colleges is even lower than in Oxbridge for this reason.
Some great comments here. The key is the word 'public'. the Arts Council and the organisations it regularly funds need to develop new approaches to genuinely engaging with those who would not naturally walk into a theatre or art gallery.
As someone who runs a gallery receiving public subsidy I think our contract with artists is excellent, the question is - how strong is our contract with the public? I believe the Arts Council should support organisations so they can extend their existing programmes in ways that truly involve local communities. In conjunction with an expanding role for the key flagship programme Creative Partnerships, much more emphasis should be placed on engaging with young people and communities - otherwise there will continue to be a perceived and largely real divide between those who benefit from arts funding and those who do not.
It is important, here, to remember that while the commercial sector does of course support artists and produce high quality art, a key motive is always profit. Private galleries in London, for example, are not for the most part welcoming places - unless you are a collector. The great thing about public galleries is the opportunity to appreciate other values other than money. The works 'belong' to everyone not just those who can afford to buy them.
At present the Arts Council is trying to do too much. It should franchise out its international programme, limit its interventions in the market (what is the real benefit of the 'Own Art' scheme?)and concentrate on strengthening the 'public' side of the equation. This could be at the heart of a new National Strategy for the Arts (a statement and platform which could embed the arts more powerfully within the social and political life of England).
Gormley's 'Angel of the North' and other high profile, high quality projects have begun to change the rules. The media is beginning to catch up. Change can happen - we have an opportunity to renew the role of the 'public' arts so everyone feels able to participate.
Access is the key words hear: Access through confidence to be an audience member, access of all ages, gender and of course that the artistic output is accessible to the public in understanding and interpretation.
I find Mr. Nairne's comments interesting. He was responsible for turning around the M.O.M.A. Oxford after some fairly lacklustre years and I remember the cries of outrage when he suggested a revolutionary 'coffee bar' to attract punters. Anybody who can shake the Oxford 'snooze' even briefly is obviously serious in his 'inclusive' policies. However there a key flaw in the Creative Partnerships approach which is that if can also become a self-referential project more interested in creating jobs for those involved and 'research' than being the outward looking 'ambassadors for the arts' he suggests. I work here in Nottingham in a variety of 'Community Arts' roles which thankfully pay me enough to continue with my 'practice' a word i abhor ..'art work' is much more down to earth.
Indeed the development of an exclusive 'art language' and the fracturing of the art-world into cliques has done as much damage in public perception terms as any funding gripes. Press coverage and flamboyant media art stars have helped to give impression that all artists in some way 'spoilt' and indeed in these brief lottery-funded years of 'plenty'(for a few) they have been. I think the coming clampdown on funding may be a good thing in that funders will be more careful where and for what purpose they fund and the beneficiaries may respond with more gratitude and less jargon and help close that artworld/public divide that in most cases is a simple lack of communication.
On the Arts Council remit question……yes international intervention a la British Council has been a well-oiled but cantankerous wagon that upset as many as it helped. The real ambassadors for arts in the international sense are artists themselves and the links they increasingly building for themselves above and below the ‘radar’. As for ‘Own Art’ it obviously looked good on paper but it absolutely meaningless to population at large. Something like ‘Pictures on Walls’ that took over shop on Oxford Street far more successful.
Finally ‘embed the arts more powerfully in the social and political life of England’.
Hmm jury out there….a great deal of artwork has already been channelled into fulfilling just that kind of criteria. Artists as social workers? Indeed a social worker here complained artists paid better. This brings me back to core of this whole approach. Does one change society for the better through art or does society improve because artists free and unrestricted in their opinions and development and as a part of improved education enable ‘the people’ to enjoy and partake of their wonderful ‘difference’? It’s not quite dumbing down or up but who is it that needs to dumb down and who needs to look up? That is the question….
For more interesting questions and satirical wit a la Hogarth( God Bless Him)
See…
http://belcheresque.wordpress.com
let the debate continue….
Yes there's too much 'social' in art, it leads to an indifferent art, and yes dumbing down is evident when it comes to funding the socially oriented projects.
The arts in themselves are not democratic. They are not, in the main, made to everybody's liking. They are not ostensibly for the 'public good'. They are often the brain child of an artist trying to be more human than simply being humane. Art is not made to 'fit in' - to be comfortable with.
For the 'Public Good' or 'Value for Money' is a nonsense. The arts require an intellectual understanding in balance with perceptual insight. Artists working in schools could be working towards this aim, but are they?
I don't think knowing what you like goes anywhere as is the case of so much community based stuff.
Art can often be ugly and difficult and requires working at. Access has to go hand in hand with education- it doesn't just happen because it's there.
The arts are not democratic in the sense that they are directed more to an audience than to themselves.
Ace is also undemocratic, funnily enough, in its funding policy because it excludes the undemocratic in art, Art that introduces new and unfamiliar ideas; new thinking and rethinking systems of perception and belief. Subversive and problematic in its language.
ACE through its criteria is pushing aside this notion of art in its quest for the public good. That is, what will benefit the public most: a social act.
Therefore ACE is undemocratic towards the idea of art. Its function is built on false assumptions of accessibility, of more to the most without real thought on real values in art. Its disturbing regenerative power of thought - thought as a philosophy of thinking towards a new perception of how things could be different. Not to an essentially money driven world.
However I'm not entirely in despair because art is a powerful language of survival and protest - as history teaches. In time people will begin to see what is happening within institutional establishments, what their thought relies on in order to keep them going in jobs, and where the process of creativity stagnates and suffocates critical alternatives - this debate must release new energy for change. We can only hope that some disturbance comes through somehow or other. We can only hope someone is really listening and the debate continues apace.
We're listening. We read every single comment. We're considering all the time how we can best bring together, understand and respond to all your ideas and concerns. We're excited by the potential for change - so please do keep your contributions coming.
That's easy you just give us all expenses to go to some jolly nice conference somewhere nice like Oxford..we all eat danish pastries, drink coffee get lunch paid for and argue it all out. You get paid to attend, we get paid expenses and it all helps to change the way we all think....a nice title like...Backwards Evolution: Democratising the arts in a stagnant era.....or Threshold! Means of attaining equality in anti-economic times through interventionist policies...will do the trick! I can see the powerpoints flashing the solutions and the phd's being written already:-)
Sorry ....my wicked side got better of me....
many a true word said in jest....
I want to draw attention to the way STAGETEXT enables the hard of hearing to apreciate theatre. With an increasing ageing population and noisy music which causes deafness, more and more people will find it useful.
The Arts council should help STAGETEXT to expand
1. The preservation of existing art
2. The encouragement of production of art, particularly by communities/people who do not have access to higher education and art schools/colleges.
Many of the UK's finest and most popular film and television names started out working in subsidised theatre companies. They are now household names both at home and abroad. Many still return to their theatre roots at the National Theatre, the RSC or on commercial tours. If Arts Funding was to evaporate forever, surely this would not only be a serious loss to the higher culture of performing arts that many of us appreciate (or even depend on to pay our wages)but also to popular film and television. If Britain is to continue to produce high quality Drama, Dance, Opera, Television and Film then the funding needs to be in place to enable new practitioners (be they performers, directors, designers or other associated technicians) to be able to hone their craft in a creative and vibrant society. If individuals then go on to become international names then so much the better.
The present Arts policies are politically devisive. They are not concerned with identifying art of merit and letting it flourish, rather they are concerned with creating artisitic products that will narrowly serve a particular target group in the community. Hence arts organisations must suddenly begin to cater for this group - at the moment it is young people. But what happens in a year or two when the target changes? Do the organisations then have to taylor their products so as to be able to tick another box on the form. No great work is ever produced this way. There can be no artistic growth or artistic continuity. This is like changing political policies to suit the latest media trend. It is dispicable and in the end has nothing to do with how art is produced.
To encourage creative exploration; to ensure a diverse world, including many different points of view and ideas
I dont believe public or lottery money should be used to finance the art. Because art is such a personal preference. The lottery must be used for other issues. There are such huge valuations placed on art items which really quite out of touch with their artistic value. I believe that companies should have a responsibility to fund some of our art projects. Lets also get the art out to the people in other ways. Have loans out to companies or public bodies so that they can be appreciated by a wider audience, who may not normally want, or be able to be exposed to art. Lets lend out Constables Haywain to a local bank who will pay a fee to have the painting on the wall, and obviously cover the cost of insurance. This will keep the art circulating, keep money rolling in, benefit public, art galleries and make more people interested in our art heritage. After all most companies make a huge profit its about time they put something back into the community. Think of all the original benefactors whose money financed the building of the Natural History Museum, the Lady Lever Art Gallery and many more institutions.
I've just posted a blog about this on the Guardian website: Click here to read it.
Nick Seddon at the Guardian thinks social policy should stay out of the arts. Read the article then tell us what you think!
Public funding should be there to help the artist/arts organisation to:-
grow and develop in their chosen artform
Help them to collaborate and forward the careers of other artists
increase access to the arts for others
bring about political, environmental and social change
Enhance our built environment
Develop our social interactions
Priniciples of excellence and innovation, inclusion and accessibility. Whilst the arts do fulfil elements of the social agenda and particpation is at the heart of the current agenda, alongside this I believe Arts Council has a role to provide arts for arts sake. Many other funders are only accessible to activities hitting different social issues within communities, and I think ACE has to maintain some element of product led funding to allow creativity to thrive across the Arts in England.
1. The Arts Council should not be a social service or ambitious to be socially inclusive. Its purpose is to promote art.
2.Its obsession with "cutting edge" and "innovation" means it neither promotes nor supports art which does not fit this criteria and often supports ridiculous projects.
3.when it identifies an artist who fits into its box, it gives them exhibition after exhibition even when they are millionaires and well promoted by a gallery or dealer.
I want to carry on from my last message of the 21 march.
The boundary between art and politics in the notion of more for the more has been dissolved. This is dangerous ground. In the sixties we fought the idea of the elite. Our victory was that we as artists were invited by the Arts Council to dole out the money for funding artists' It was a triumph for the working artist. Twenty or so of us sitting round a large table in 104 piccadilly allocating public money into viable radical groups and individuals pockets. Yes barriers came down, and Frank Kermode in a booklet entitled 'New Activities' meant that new art forms were being recognized.
So what is the disaster that has fallen around us now?
Quite simple really. What goes up must come down. The Establishment, taking us at our word wove us into a new artistic paradigm in the 'inspirational web of administrative art officers' as an army for the people but not by the people or the artists.
The big mistake was to systematize art activity into a homogenized set of principles and criteria. The artists were therefore left in the lurch to flounder in a quagmire of confusion littered with boxes pleading to be ticked. No questions asked or answered in a gigantic mistake of their own making. The original concept of artists moving from the elitist ground into the territory of the community had been misunderstood and taken hold like ivy on the real growth of art, strangling the original inspiration and vision.
It's a real disaster when you come to realize that what artists were really confronting in the 60's was an undemocratic Arts Council;. No change there then, only one of a changing criteria that needs to change again.
With regard to the social in art I would quote Grotowski, 'it is social because it is a challenge to the social being, the spectator'.
I would also like to quote Susan Sontag: ' .....we have, through translation and through recycling in the media, the possibility of a greater and greater diffusion of our work. On the other hand, the ideology behind the unprecedented opportunities opportunities-for diffusion, for translation - the ideology now dominant in what passes for culture in modern societies - is designed to render obsolete the novelist's prophetic and critical, even subversive, task, and needed, to oppose the common understanding of our fate'
I think this statement goes for art too.
There is the danger of standardization through a faulty criteria through the hegemony of institutional thought (And the media). A one size fits all wherever we are on the globe.
There is a need for a new kind of inwardness that resists the modern satieties, to oppose the commonality of our fate.
I find it odd that an arts debate considering value of the arts and all the respective questions about using public money should take place AFTER the treasury has made substantial budget cuts to ACE. Surely the question of cuts or increases to levels of funding should follow the outcomes of this debate?
I find it odd that an arts debate considering value of the arts and all the respective questions about using public money should take place AFTER the treasury has made substantial budget cuts to ACE. Surely the question of cuts or increases to levels of funding should follow the outcomes of this debate?
Left this on one of the other debates but probably more relevant here...Interesting and very well informed comments here though...
Just to briefly say that my view is informed by working with a number of emerging artists and companies but also from having worked at ACE for a number of years...
In my view ACE should be a real development organisation and as such should develop the practice, careers etc of new artists and arts organisations or those trying something different. Not necessarily innovative and wacky...just maybe a change in direction or new service or something. I believe that if, in the next spending round, the arts need to take a financial hit, this should be a small percentage of the most-funded organisations, rather than total withdrawal of funds from numerous small applicants. One could argue, as I do, that the five most funded ACE clients (who between them take a huge slice of the cake) are those who are best placed to source funds from other sources such as provate donation, business sponsorship or just by making their work more commercially viable.
Alligned to this however, is the need by ACE to advocate for arts funding from other sources, such as greater local authority investment, and greater incentives for business support of the arts.
Yes, public funding should be used to support the arts - however, not all arts! Public funding should be used to support art that has a minority audience, that can not be profitable in its own right. Public funding should support the unique and individual. I often get frustrated when I hear that large opera houses or building in city centres are public funded - if they were managed correctly they should be self sustaining. Funding should go where it's needed.
Fundamentally this is a question about what is the purpose of the Art’s Council but as usual they cannot ask a straight forward question, in the same way that many of there officer cannot give a straight answer.
I was lead to believe that the purpose of the Arts council was to promote art and the arts. However the actual processes of the organisation, I believe, actually dose little and in some cases even inhibits the Arts. To me there is a huge gulf between the arts council’s purpose and what it actually delivers.
My own experience of the arts council is that organisation & individuals who can afford t to spend several weeks putting the applications together and can actually survive without the funding are usually the one who end up with it, but other that have little time but real impact are dropped or don’t even make it past the bureaucratic and academic krypton factors of the application process. This, I’ve been told, is to ensure that only those serious about their art will complete the process, however, in my experience its only those that are serious about the money who actually complete the process as most artist care more about there art than the money to support it! This also excludes many of the very people and groups the arts council is supposed to be supporting.
The uncertainty of the process, which is a major problem for applicants, can cause its own problems it can mean a huge gap in the planning process between 8 and 16 weeks (in real terms) if the arts council is the only source of funding.
The hoop jumping for funders is a fact of any organisation or individual, however the processes by which the hoops can be jumped are many and varied. Why can’t the arts council have assessor that visit potential projects. The obvious argument to this is the volume of applications but since many of the applications are rejected it would save the arts council and the applicants vast amounts of time and effort in the long run if only applications that are likely to be funded are put forward. People might have to join a queue (before doing vast amounts of work on a project) to be considered for arts council funding, but this is very different from having to wait 6 to 12 weeks (after vast amounts of work) to find out that you were never in the running!
This principal: "You cannot apply for an activity that will be carried out over several years. The activity you apply for must be completed within 12 months or less from the date the activity starts." This is what ACE have decided is the most important criteria for Arts Funding: Refuse money to anyone who tries to plan long-term, to develop their company, their Art or their audience over more than a 12 month period. Genius! That's it! That will create a healthy vibrant sector! Presumably, all ACE bureaucrats are now on 12 month contracts?
The Arts has just lost an enormous amount of money to Sport, because the government got its sums wrong for the Oh-lympics, by a factor of 3 and rising. This should surprise nobody. Large public projects run by politicians usually over-run by these multiples, and they usually lie about them too. For arts directors like me this jibes dischordantly with the standards of business and forward planning, not to mention honesty, that we are rightly required to live up to. If only those who set these standards would live by them too.
Or even come near.
But the question is – what principles should guide public funding of the arts today?
Bear with me………. so how come the Oh-lympics can so easily rip off the Arts and the other Lottery distributors? Why is this heist OK in the public mind? Answer: Sport scores every time over the Arts, Heritage etc. because sport is part of most people’s lives. They follow it, watch it, or do it, every week: mass public involvement and ownership. Our kid is in the team, its our club, its our country. Despite Shakespeare, Austen, the Beatles, the vast audiences for TV drama, films, music and huge annual attendances at art galleries, (said to be more than the annual attendances at league football matches) – and the rest, Art isnt seen that way. We Brits avoid ownership of the arts ... and I bet Steve McClaren would love some of that right now, …. and I know who he is, but I can’t name the chair of the Arts Council. QED?
The community arts organisation that I chair tries to broaden out the arts by widening its public ownership. Art of, by, & for the people as part of their lives. On their own these are just high-minded buzz-words, the kind of aspirational guff that Blair has pioneered; but by them I mean concrete ways of working. As follows.
Because we run a community arts organisation in a very rural area we haven’t got anywhere to hide, we’ve got no bespoke arts building with “Abandon hope all ye who enter here - unless you’re middle class” written over the door, (whose staff and running costs swallow up the budget leaving nothing for the programme – but that’s another story) - but what we have got is a whole lot of spaces which are owned by the public – pubs, churches, fields, streets, - so that’s where we work, and where we get the ideas for the work. Site-specific.
WeÂ’ve got no resident company, no staff. So we get the performers and crew from the public, in large numbers, mass participation, and not just as tea-ladies and stewards, but as performers, and team members, and there is another source for creative ideas, so our themes are linked to our community. More public ownership.
We also recruit local professionals – they raise everybody’s game - we don’t accept lower standards of performance just because the project is “community arts”.
Creating projects from these “givens”, the strong characters of local people, places and themes, also leads to fresh and innovative work.
The difference that Lottery funding makes is to fund the marriage between the professionals' expertise and the co-operative spirit that still characterises rural communities.
We recruit our lead personnel from talented amateurs, local professionals & ex-professionals and students, and incorporate local choirs, brass bands, etc.. Only when we can’t find a local source do we recruit someone from “off”. We type-cast, using people for what they are naturally good at, school-boys to act school-boys, publicans as publicans, and choirs to be choirs. We build our themes and casts round our positive resources; we succeed at being ourselves rather than struggling to simulate celebrity.
We get big audiences - the productions work like the school play, amateur dramatics and choral societies, and the families and neighbours of the performers all come to the show.
This is the way the community gets to own the arts, and gets to see that they are as good or better, and more live and active than the passive experience of the arts provided by the media, TV, CDs etc.. It builds their confidence, it motivates the community. They also get to see much larger and more ambitious live productions than anything available within 60 miles, or the 4-man companies doing one-night stands who come past occassionally and give us their best shot at Shakespeare Â…Â… and then run away with our money.
Yes that’s important too – local ownership includes the Lottery money coming into our community and being seen to be spent here.
Ownership across the board, - the spaces, the themes, the participants, the professionals, the money. Broadening the arts out to new participants and audiences. By, for, of the people.
These principles have so far worked for us in drama, music, audio/photographic documentaries and festivals. Our last touring music drama sold out its 6 performances, and had 150 participants. Our annual 3-day world music festival sees 5,000 people a day. In 2005 our townÂ’s arts organisationsÂ’ accounts showed turn-over totalling ÂŁ385,000.
But our population is just 1,500.
My answers to the question “What principles should guide public funding of the arts today?” is : ACE should try to broaden out the arts through building public ownership, via professional-led mass participation, guided by high standards. Less to buildings, more to people. From the grass-roots up. Lottery money comes from the people; the Arts Council’s function is to return it to the people with minimum interference.
IÂ’m not particularly interested in the public sitting on Arts boards, or more alleged public input into funding decisions. The democratic ideal is well-meant but my experience of the mechanisms has been very bad - for instance local councillors, although elected, are often ill-informed, even hostile to the arts, have sectional interests and are anything but impartial. I prefer the professionals in the Arts Council; their jobs depend on making efficient, impartial and informed funding decisions. ItÂ’s a good control mechanism.
The Arts Council Lottery general scheme needs to remain re-active to whatever applications are submitted to it from the grass roots (a form of democracy), and should resist becoming pro-active and imposing, top-down, any ephemeral pet schemes, informed by high-minded theories, arbitrary boundaries or political gestures (e.g. the Oh-lympics), but ignorant of local need. The scheme ainÂ’t broke, so donÂ’t fix it.
ButÂ…Â…Â…..
Although the Arts Lottery is one of the better-run grant schemes, at least where I live in the West Midlands, many grass-roots groups still donÂ’t even apply for funding for valid projects because they lack expertise. Fund-raising is the crap job on the committee, the job that no-one wants. In order for more publicly owned grass-roots schemes to access the Lottery, ACE needs to make sure that itÂ’s application form and monitorring process is even simpler and more applicant-friendly than it already is.
And of course Â…Â…Â…. the Arts needs more money!. Â… first off is to lobby the next Chancellor of the Exchequer to replace the money lost to the Oh-lympics.
This is a really hard question; but then all important questions are hard! I do not share the highly critical and sometimes hostile tone of many of the comments on this point. Nor do I think the question is simple or straight forward in a democratic society.
As the vice chair of a regional theatre we have our fair share of disputes and debates with the Arts Council. Yes thay can be frustrating to deal with; but so too are we in the arts community. WE are adicted to public grants; but they are equally adicted to spending public money. We have a symbiotic existence whcih we need to recognise.
I start from the somewhat unusual position that we are privilaged to have access to significant amounts of taxpayers money to spend on something we enjoy and value; while knowing that many (probably most) of our fellow citizens do not enjoy our enthasisms and fail (after 60 years) to understand why public money are spent on the arts at all.
Many have made the point that the Arts Council's job is to promote the Arts but it has another serious role in a free(ish) society of protecting the Arts from overt and direct party political interference. This is valuable and important to artistic endeavour.
So there are at least four important policy questions of What is Art? How much money does the country want to spend on the Arts? How should the available money be spent? and What does promoting the arts mean? Each of these is worthy of an essay if not a whole book so a snap answer to this qustion is simply not possible.
There are some principles that ought tto apply. For me these inlcude
(1) Some attempt to lead and reflect public opinion on the balance to be struck between art forms but not slavishly follow public opinion.
(2) Transparency of objectives in allocating public money and assessing / evaluating returns on investments
(3) Transparency of process in taking and assessing proposals for funding.
(4) Consistency of approach over time allowing significant (and I know this begs a lot of questions) cultural assets some certainity and stability.
(5) Setting a clear balance between innovation and maintaining the cultural infrastructure.
(6) Reducing the producer (i.e. Aarts Organisation and professional)interest in decision making by involving "gifted amateurs" (ahatever that may mean and bearing in mind the Latin root of the word amateur)in decision making.
(7) On the innovation front reducing the bureaucratic burden for applications and performance measurement.
(8) Funding whole programmes of activity not specific activities.
(9) Moving from the assessment of activities to the evaluation of community impact (economic, social and educational)in different localities.
In all of these the key issue is one of recognising the inherent policy tensions and developing good ways of engaging disinterested people in striking appropriate balances.
I said it wasn't easy!!
what Oscar Wilde said? and artists? not the Institutional dogma and violence of the Art Council or DMCS?
I think all this debate and money being exercised in the support of Art probably just about says it all. I like the Campaign for Drawing. I think it reaches real people and is inclusive.
I want a Science Council so that my teenage children who have a poverty struck artist for a father can have more access to a realistic and financially viable future. The Arts Council thinks its pushing back boundaries but in fact it merely upsets people by insulting their intelligence by giving grants to self indulgent artists who are not living in the real world. Bring on Science and let us all plan for a brighter future!!
Don’t just give money away. I don't agree with paying ridiculous amounts of money for art that will only be appreciated by other artists. Think: layered communication in art. Think that people will want to gaze at artwork for hours and never get bored.
Think people want to see art that’s new, impressive, inspiring - a role model. Think audience - think everyone.
Its hard to elaborate on wanting good, well spent art that looks ...cool.
An alternative is to just compare with real artists work. Anyone artist that people can remember beyond 1950's with the inclusion of some modern artists.
So, in short, the principals; get a good artist/s to make some good arty stuff - which would impress everyone (or as much people as possible).
I'd be very interested to hear what people think about the recent (as of 1st April) 35% cut to the Arts Council's Grants for the Arts scheme. There's no information about it on the Arts Debate or Arts Council's main websites - I only found that the rumours had become reality through the good old Grauniad. Lyn Gardner's article and responses are at:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2007/03/this_arts_council_cut_will_dev.html
Whatever people think about public funding for the arts - this will have a massive impact on all artforms (not just theatre, which Lyn focuses on), from community projects to large scale touring. What will be left to debate in a few years time remains to be seen.
I feel very strongly that the Arts Council must strive to acheive some level of consistency for the work they are funding - what's the point in encouraging artists to grow, to develop companies and audiences, and to insist they produce 3 year business plans and then announce that it's unlikely that the support will continue beyond the next 6 months?
In response to Jane's comment, I think it worth noting that the Arts Council has not cut the Grants for the arts budget by 35%, it has been reduced as a result of a reduction in income from the Lottery, and we all know why that has happended - the Olympics! I find it very disheartening to know that this has happene