Arts funding: creative tensions
These are wrong cuts to one of the most successful, vibrant and cost-effective sectors in British life
Just before the 2010 election, the head of one of Britain's most admired arts organisations was asked how his sector should respond in the event of a Conservative government cutting spending on the arts. "More than anything," he replied, "I hope we won't be too childish about it." Yesterday that hope – that the arts would not overindulge in some of the too easily caricatured anti-Tory scorn of the past – was put to the ultimate stress test. And it passed.
That moment came as Arts Council England, which administers most of the public funding for the arts in Britain, parcelled out what was left after its funding was cut by 30% in the autumn spending review. Judging by its generally more sorrowful than angry tone yesterday, the art world's mood is healthily self-aware these days. Arts cuts are rightly seen in the wider context. Yet there is no disguising that these are large, destructive and wrong cuts to one of the most successful, vibrant and cost-effective sectors in British life. Coming on the day when the taxpayer-owned Lloyds banking group revealed it is paying its new boss a signing-on fee of £4.6m, on top of an annual salary of £1.06m, the arts cuts are a reminder that we are certainly not all in this together.
The autumn spending review handed the Arts Council – which is headed by Dame Liz Forgan, who also chairs the Scott Trust that owns the Guardian – an incredibly difficult hand to play. But the council has played the hand as well as could reasonably have been expected. Having been forced to cut 15% off its funding programme, the council was right not to salami-slice 15% off its existing funding to all of its 849 previous clients. Instead, it took the opportunity to reapportion the diminished funds from scratch, to conduct a proper review which seems to have been fair and open, and has ended up supporting 695 organisations over the forthcoming spending period, of which 110 are newly funded. This is a brutal outcome for the 206 arts organisations which will not now receive Arts Council funding at all, and it faces most of the council's remaining clients with grim choices in balancing their books in the light of their reduced grants. Overall, however, it is surely the least worst way.
The council's approach combines good administration with smart politics. As well as bravely making hard artistic judgments (as it is supposed to do) about the organisations to be supported and not, the review and rejuvenation of the client list means that the process contains some excitements rather than universal gloom. It is good that events like the Manchester Festival or the Kendal Arts International, along with organisations like Suffolk's HighTide theatre, have won funding for the first time. It is also right that the biggest previous recipients have taken their share of hits – though on purely artistic grounds it is hard to see why English National Opera has been relatively lightly treated. Some of the tougher decisions are harder to understand, however, and it looks as though the regional breakdown has penalised the south-west, where both the Northcott in Exeter and St George's concert hall in Bristol got nothing. Dance, too, has been badly treated, especially given its immense potential for expansion. And while London's theatre does relatively well, it is hard to understand how the Almeida, described by the council yesterday as "an exemplary organisation", thereby deserves a 39% cut for its efforts.
Yesterday was a black day for the arts. Yet paradoxically the arts are not entering a new dark age. The old argument about whether the arts should be publicly funded has been won, not lost. There is far wider recognition today, including among politicians of all parties, of the creative dynamism and economic vibrancy of the arts sector than a generation ago. The arts have taken a hit. But they are still standing. It is time to start preparing the case for better public arts funding when conditions allow.
That moment came as Arts Council England, which administers most of the public funding for the arts in Britain, parcelled out what was left after its funding was cut by 30% in the autumn spending review. Judging by its generally more sorrowful than angry tone yesterday, the art world's mood is healthily self-aware these days. Arts cuts are rightly seen in the wider context. Yet there is no disguising that these are large, destructive and wrong cuts to one of the most successful, vibrant and cost-effective sectors in British life. Coming on the day when the taxpayer-owned Lloyds banking group revealed it is paying its new boss a signing-on fee of £4.6m, on top of an annual salary of £1.06m, the arts cuts are a reminder that we are certainly not all in this together.
The autumn spending review handed the Arts Council – which is headed by Dame Liz Forgan, who also chairs the Scott Trust that owns the Guardian – an incredibly difficult hand to play. But the council has played the hand as well as could reasonably have been expected. Having been forced to cut 15% off its funding programme, the council was right not to salami-slice 15% off its existing funding to all of its 849 previous clients. Instead, it took the opportunity to reapportion the diminished funds from scratch, to conduct a proper review which seems to have been fair and open, and has ended up supporting 695 organisations over the forthcoming spending period, of which 110 are newly funded. This is a brutal outcome for the 206 arts organisations which will not now receive Arts Council funding at all, and it faces most of the council's remaining clients with grim choices in balancing their books in the light of their reduced grants. Overall, however, it is surely the least worst way.
The council's approach combines good administration with smart politics. As well as bravely making hard artistic judgments (as it is supposed to do) about the organisations to be supported and not, the review and rejuvenation of the client list means that the process contains some excitements rather than universal gloom. It is good that events like the Manchester Festival or the Kendal Arts International, along with organisations like Suffolk's HighTide theatre, have won funding for the first time. It is also right that the biggest previous recipients have taken their share of hits – though on purely artistic grounds it is hard to see why English National Opera has been relatively lightly treated. Some of the tougher decisions are harder to understand, however, and it looks as though the regional breakdown has penalised the south-west, where both the Northcott in Exeter and St George's concert hall in Bristol got nothing. Dance, too, has been badly treated, especially given its immense potential for expansion. And while London's theatre does relatively well, it is hard to understand how the Almeida, described by the council yesterday as "an exemplary organisation", thereby deserves a 39% cut for its efforts.
Yesterday was a black day for the arts. Yet paradoxically the arts are not entering a new dark age. The old argument about whether the arts should be publicly funded has been won, not lost. There is far wider recognition today, including among politicians of all parties, of the creative dynamism and economic vibrancy of the arts sector than a generation ago. The arts have taken a hit. But they are still standing. It is time to start preparing the case for better public arts funding when conditions allow.
Syria: A lost opportunity
The president's address consisted almost entirely of generalities, offered no new measures and made no specific promises.
Has President Bashar al-Assad missed his moment? He has certainly succeeded in disappointing the expectations raised by predictions, some of them apparently leaked by his own government, that he would make a historic speech this week charting a new path of reform for his country. Instead, after nearly two weeks of protests and violence in Syrian cities, he appeared yesterday before parliament to deliver an address which consisted almost entirely of generalities, offered no new measures and made no specific promises. Historic it was not.
His main purpose seemed to be to demonstrate that he would not allow himself to be pushed into panicky action by street protests, an impression reinforced by the orchestration of excessive displays of support by members of parliament and by the crowds waiting outside. The approach was to claim for his regime kinship with the popular movements that have brought political change across the Arab world, and to point to a long-standing reform programme in Syria as evidence that his government welcomed the new importance of the Arab street.
Reform in Syria had been under way for years, he said, but had been delayed by the urgent need to respond to threats from abroad, and to strengthen the Syrian economy. The troubles in Deraa and Latakia had been fomented by foreigners, even if meddling by outsiders was not their only cause. The security forces had been told to avoid bloodshed, the deaths were regrettable, and there would be investigations. This vague commitment aside, Syrians are left contemplating proposals they already knew about, some of which have indeed been in the legislative pipeline for years, and which were dusted off once again late last week.
These plans, which include the possible lifting of emergency rule, a political parties law, a media law, and measures against corruption, are hardly to be rejected in principle. But Syrians have long experience of political and constitutional rearrangements that leave the substance of power in the hands of one party and one family and its associates, of anti-corruption campaigns which inexplicably fail to target the main offenders, and of media relaxations which at best move the line of control a few millimetres.
Assad has some advantages. He is closer to the protesters in age, his foreign policies bring him some support, and the regime does offer some protection to minorities, Kurds excepted. But, if he wants to be seen as part of the solution and not as part of the problem, he will soon have to offer the detailed, convincing measures he signally failed to produce yesterday.
His main purpose seemed to be to demonstrate that he would not allow himself to be pushed into panicky action by street protests, an impression reinforced by the orchestration of excessive displays of support by members of parliament and by the crowds waiting outside. The approach was to claim for his regime kinship with the popular movements that have brought political change across the Arab world, and to point to a long-standing reform programme in Syria as evidence that his government welcomed the new importance of the Arab street.
Reform in Syria had been under way for years, he said, but had been delayed by the urgent need to respond to threats from abroad, and to strengthen the Syrian economy. The troubles in Deraa and Latakia had been fomented by foreigners, even if meddling by outsiders was not their only cause. The security forces had been told to avoid bloodshed, the deaths were regrettable, and there would be investigations. This vague commitment aside, Syrians are left contemplating proposals they already knew about, some of which have indeed been in the legislative pipeline for years, and which were dusted off once again late last week.
These plans, which include the possible lifting of emergency rule, a political parties law, a media law, and measures against corruption, are hardly to be rejected in principle. But Syrians have long experience of political and constitutional rearrangements that leave the substance of power in the hands of one party and one family and its associates, of anti-corruption campaigns which inexplicably fail to target the main offenders, and of media relaxations which at best move the line of control a few millimetres.
Assad has some advantages. He is closer to the protesters in age, his foreign policies bring him some support, and the regime does offer some protection to minorities, Kurds excepted. But, if he wants to be seen as part of the solution and not as part of the problem, he will soon have to offer the detailed, convincing measures he signally failed to produce yesterday.
0 comments:
Post a Comment