Arts debate

This is of no use what so ever to artists who have either set up or are setting up their own studios and carrying out their work. Painters are a good example, as this is no longer the fasion these days.

So consider a fresh graduate with £X amounts of student debt & student loans venturing into the world of self employment with its associated costs starting to build their new careers, wouldn't it be nice if they could go to the arts council and receive artists startup grants, regardles of the work they are intending to produce. UCAS statistics show that approximately three years after graduating on average 98% of graduates are no longer involved with the arts. what does that tell us. simple really, they just can't survive without funding. there are also bigger issues here for artists even if you do manage to get funding or sell your work. We still have no Pension scheme, no Union, no professional body, and even under the government labour market index no official recognition for our position. Artists do not appear in the index therefore we have no tax code either.

A change in new public building commissions and annual operation where a 1-2% is spent on the arts would create work for artists, involved in the design of the new building giving them more prestige and make the building environment more pleasing, as well as continuing arts development with annual residencies in all public buildings. this itself would be another way to fund the arts as it would be done directly through the public purse for each building and not through the arts council. Take the chelsea and westminster hospital as an example of good practice. Its such a shame though that this is the exception rather than the rule.

But, it seems that individuals actually get grants by being very good at justifying a project in academic terms, by showing that they’re taking their art out into the community, into schools, opening their project up to allow members of the community to create their own piece of the artwork etc.

While this, in and of itself can be excellent and rewarding for sections of the community. It does not mean anyone’s created any “Art”…It just means the “artist” was skilled at presenting their idea and that idea has been broken down into nice manageable chunks that can all be used to justify the expenses involved.

Having a system whereby the Arts Council looked for artists producing interesting work to award them a grant to produce a body of work, in a specified timeframe, to be shown to the public on completion, would be of much greater benefit to the artist and perhaps produce more interesting artwork at the end of the process…?

It would also have the benefit of awarding a grant to an artist producing interesting work. Not an “artist” good at talking crap…

:) G

it would appear that it is when they have learnt how to justify their existence to the nth degree in arcane language to bureaucrats, administrators, accountants and policy making non artists who are all on salaries, pension schemes, sickness benefit and holidays with full pay and who also happen to get paid to be at meetings.

I think 'Own Art Loans ' are a good idea.

Vanessa

What is an artist? What contribution can the artist make to art? What is public funding? Is it money from the tax payer or from the National Lottery? Is it from a local authority or central government?

The answer could be: If the artist has the potential to challenge our thinking or produce work of a highly aesthetic nature or both. If the artist is highly skilled in their medium and requires funding to progress or could become highly skilled with access to funding for a course, a mentoring activity or apprenticeship.

Bad art gives art a bad name.

Art is a pill. Art is a supplement, vitamin ART. I need art. You need art. You might not know it or consciously want it but local authorities and governments must provide access to art. It is an obligation that many local authorities deny responsibility for. Art is good for people, art challenges common ideas, art encourages everyone to look at their values and beliefs. Art encourages exploration of thought. Art demonstrates alternative perspectives. Art opens minds.

It seems, that artists who accomodates certain agenda's are given more of a chance in grants and funding.

Who deserves to be funded? The only criterion for funding/grant eligibility should be:
-that an artist show a consistent body of works that reflects creativity, quality,loads of potential and dedication to refine their craft to a higher level.

'Art is for the Soul' not for the masses.

I fully expect this to be a oneway street, but they always lead to better places, simply because you can't go back down them.

Funding should be for great ideas that bring action and andrenalin to political passivism, smiles to our lips and hearts and meaning to the absurd.

In a strictly utilitarian sense you are right but as we all know subsidy to the Arts is infinitessimal compared with the big public services. In America there are tax breaks and private and commercial sponsorship. This alternative form of 'subsidy ' is a reflection of their political system which I doubt you approve of given your pseudoname. Also if private donors etc. call the artistic tune where is artistic integrity?

The answer is no it should not, I am sickened to know that I work my nuts off to help in this mad system.

Zero funding from the public purse.

For me this brings into question the power an arts council officer has, how that power is expressed through their judgement and what influencies their judgement.

I would very much like to post the reply I received from an officer when I enquired about funding but its against the rules of this forum. It was off putting un-objective as if they had looked me up on the internet and made a negative judgement on me. kinda brushing me a side.
I then tried a female name of a person with a better goggle seach profile and got a better reply !

Think about that !

As to whether or not the arts should receive public money at all, of course they should. We support every industry through our taxes (including subsidies and grants to the arms trade, nuclear energy, motor industries) as well as more acceptable public services like education and the emergency services. So of course, as part of the richness of national life, we should be supporting the arts and artists too.

I would agree with Tom Flemons above that the current system of application is pretty good, and it does at least weed out projects that are simply likely to fail from the start. But it has always struck me as ridiculous that (in the visual arts at least) there is no requirement to submit any visual images of your work with an application! For people who don't get on well with form filling I agree that some kind of 'presentation by portfolio' could work as well. The current GfA set up seems to be quite flexible in terms of eligibility but I would really like to see the introduction of something like fellowships where artists could receive money just to go off and think/work without it leading to any particular project.

The key to all of this is surely the list of priorities that ACE sets for itself, which are currently all about audiences and instrumentalism rather than artistic excellence or experimentation. Personally I'm all for high culture - bring back elitism!

There needs to be subsidised studio space working in tandem with local authorities. Ones work is dismissed according to a check list.Sadly theis obsession with public art is producing hybrid concoctions soley designed for public consumption.
Lets have a longer view that is not so paranoid or politically correct.

As businesspeople, artists should be able to apply for the same funding as anyone starting a new business. We are sole traders after all. There are many industries or careers that also have value to the community as a whole and applications for funding are based on a proposed project that shows promise. I don't see why an artist applying for public funds shouldn't have to produce a similar proposal. Yes, it's 'the game'. But that game exists in almost every profession. Of course, artists don't have to apply for public funds if they want to run a private business.

I believe companies should sponsor artists in the local community, and commission them as part of this sponsorship, as Mozart and Handel were patronised by royalty. Lets go back to that way of funding. Then they will have funds and means to develop. As all art is an interpretation and expression full reign should be given to this, but there are obviously certain subjects which must remain out of bounds. Sensitive issues such as pornography and gratuitious violence, art of an offensive nature. These should not and must not be encouraged.

im sick of reading these simplistic comments about no public funding of art without public consent. For the love of pete when will you people realise that we live in a representative democracy you cant consult everybody. I dont want to pay huge council tax bills any more than anyone but thats what the government has decided. Arts funding is very small cf public services. Informed decisions are made in the interest of the whole common good. Reliance on patronage (royal or otherwise) is like going back to an era when slavery was acceptable to use a topical issue to illustrate.

'If we citizens, do not support our artist, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.' Yann Martel (author)

Once we have identified a professional role for artists we can then consider:
 
What form of engagement with them will allow us to best achieve our aims?

This is no doubt an exercise in identifying and managing the 'risks' we perceive and how much 'control' we feel it necessary for us to have:

I believe:

Art fulfils 'public benefits' best when it is left to its own devices.

Art is most likely to be poignant & widely accepted & understood as 'functional' (and fundable through public money) when it is created in a conducive, aspirational & 'cross-cultural' (outside of art-world) environment:

Art should be recognised as a staple part of our everyday lives, like bread, & in that respect it should be ordinary, albeit an extraordinary ordinariness, but no less essential in sustaining life.

To this end we established Art Gene in 2002, a company committed to practice-based research into artists' contribution to and 'engagement' in socio-economic & socio-cultural progress: the regeneration of the social and built environment.

We argue for the eradication of what might be termed 'Tourist Art': that which transmutes simplified historical facts and clich餠particularities of place into 'Art', which are then mistaken for 'truth' or having meaning.

We favour an approach which suffuses the built and social environment with an artistic sensibility rather than placing commissioned works within it.

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.

So, when should an artist receive funding? When they're developing the arts landscape in this country, rather than maintaining the status quo.

"The pianist Glen Gould once said, "Art is the lifelong construction of a permanent state of wonder." If children don't have a sense of wonder, they are not curious. If they are not curious, they cannot become intelligent. If they are not intelligent, they will not become good, productive citizens. To invest in the arts is to invest in the inner
lives of people. Is there any investment more worthwhile than that? I ask you to think back about your own lives. What memories glitter there? I would suspect that most would not have to do with money or work, but precisely with moments of marvel to do with a person, a situation, with something that stirred you. That is what art is about, that is what life is about.

Artists should decide what is culturally relevant, after all that is part of what they do best. Leave bureaucracy out of it.

Commercial bodies are only interested in themselves so are a void issue.

Public bodies need to wake up to the fact that the Arts have an overwhelmingly positive impact on society, whether they understand the art or not.

Artists should be given priority over other applicants when receiving Arts Council money.

Enough of trying to create projects with 'public benefits'. Art IS a public benefit.

There are plenty more pots of money for community organisations to raid without sticking their fingers in to an arts budget.

Furthermore lottery funded money is only loosely based public money. It is not a tax. People play the lottery to get rich not to contribute to good causes so should not complain on where 'their' money gets spent.

I think it is particularly important to support artists at the beginning of their careers, during which time they have fewer opportunities to earn through their art. This initial contact would also be invaluable in terms of experience, and the advisory role of the Arts Council at this stage could also be tremendously beneficial.

However, by reframing such limiting contexts and actively participating in challenging the devaluation of the fine arts and a democratic process, perhaps we can force the false issue of public funding, to one that examines the deceit of the political elite. Until artists and their dependents are able to build platforms capable of sustained pressure upon the way that tax havens increasingly favor the rich and hurt the poor; until artists are able to watch over election reform and the way that politicians are funded/elected; until artists are able to take a hand in redefining a people's media, then artists will predominantly and obediently answer such dishonest and cynical inquiries while throwing up their hands at the next war crimes propagated in our name.

One solution is to educate ourselves and our neighbors, not by force, but by logic and humanity... Integrate the question 'why' into our work and media/governmental interfaces; to take action and not accept lies.

The urge to create art is probably rooted in sexual competition: Look at me, I can synthesize experience and am not at the mercy of the world; together we will make good babies. Centuries of discourse have complicated the genetic predispositions involved, but often less than we would like to think. It’s not surprising to find artists who are effective at self-publicity. You can be a good artist and self-publicist, but the two don’t always go together. The current funding structure has increasingly separated its delegated patrons from the fields in which they are asked to take decisions. Artists who aren’t good at self-promotion are less frequently sought out; are often discouraged and ignored because they do not fit or understand the picture. Their work often contributes longer term public value.

On the other hand, substantial resources are frequently pushed towards the relentlessly lightweight; to work that contains less information than its own publicity. It’ll end in tears.

Artists create precious objects - and, thus, wealth - out of common materials, so they are worthy to be considered a legitimate part of the economy. The problem is how to provide them with an income without perverting their valid functioning, such as asking them to turn into business people. The logical way is for the government to allow them to qualify for ‘the dole’ (a living allowance paid to the unemployed in Australia). Artists are prepared to live frugally in order to be able to practice, and true artists could rarely be labelled ‘dole bludgers’ because most actually work longer hours and with greater dedication than people in other employment do.
But there would be a difficulty in distinguishing the genuine professional from the free-loader. Qualifications are not a reliable guide. Whereas most artists have tertiary qualifications, many graduates actually achieve little in the field. On the other hand, some artists gain professional recognition with few or no formal qualifications.
But this problem could be overcome by using the peer-assessment operating principle that has been long established in the Australia Council. It would just be an extension of the government’s use of expert advice in many situations. But there should be a quid pro quo. Artists receiving the dole should be required to exhibit regularly and to allow Artbank (the largely self-funded organization which collects original works of art for the decoration of government facilities and for commercial lease) to select one work per year for inclusion in its collection. This choice could either be gratis or by purchase under strictly regulated conditions. If the latter, to guard against prices being artificially inflated by commercial galleries or dealers, the prices could be negotiated at between 50% and 75% of the gallery price. Artbank’s selection should be done by a peer-group consisting of one permanent Artbank officer and two local peers, the latter each retiring after three years to minimise personal or stylistic bias.
This would require a permanent Artbank office in each state and territory capital but, and this work could be done by one permanent officer assisted by volunteers or appropriately qualified officers seconded part-time from the state’s arts secretariat. In total, it would entail appointing only half a dozen additional staff to Artbank, and Artbank’s local office accommodation could by supplied by the state organizations.
In addition, Artbank should establish a gallery in each state capital in which the acquired works would be shown and offered for sale at gallery prices. This would cover some of Artbank’s expenses and also give valuable exposure to artists.
The cost of implementing such a scheme would not be as high as for some schemes the government already supports. (Apparently, primary producers, who receive many thousands of dollars in drought relief and other loans - amounting to $200,000,000 in 2002 - hardly ever pay the money back! And The Australian reported on 30 April, 2003, that the government has paid the textile industry the equivalent of $13,000 for each of its workers.) So, we should give it a go.

Finally has anyone noticed that this debate was launched just before the cuts were announced - pre-emptive spin to bury bad news comes to mind but maybe I just a tad cynical - our government bodies would never do something like that would they? Of course not.....

We need also to recognise and support the creative potential of teachers who are themselves a valuable creative resource.

It should be a condition of receiving Arts Council funding that any work produced is made available to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution or Share-Alike licence (not Non-Commercial or No-Derivatives licenses as these deny value to the public).

This ensures that the public are able to benefit from the work they have paid for by copying from it while the artist is still free to sell the original work.

Good work deserves support and encouragement. New artists find it very hard to emerge simply because they have not been involved in any recognisable project, the criteria on the application for individual artist is so bogus and intimidating for any emerging artist to fit into, this needs to be looked into.

It is important for artists to pass