by Guest

contribution by pagar

Unity wrote an article recently questioning whether, as we approach an era of fiscal restraint and pressure on public spending, it was appropriate to give public money to a rich organisation like the Catholic Church. And this got me thinking.

Are there other areas where we are currently spending public money that it would be appropriate to axe before we have to get to the nurses and teachers?

I came up with quite a few but perhaps the most obvious is funding for the Arts Council.

In September 2008, a £150,000 managed funds grant enabled 40 artists and scientists to set sail on Cape Farewell’s 12-day Disko Bay expedition. The trip aimed to put artistic responses to climate change in the spotlight, and the crew featured 10 musicians (including KT Tunstall, Martha Wainwright, Jarvis Cocker and Ryuichi Sakamoto), two architects, two oceanographers, a ceramicist and a comedian. This was the organisation’s seventh expedition.



To put this in perspective, spending by the Arts Council from 2008 to 2011 will be in excess of £1.6 billion. They will spend £570 million in the current year and this spending is a combination of one off grants to individuals and groups plus regular funding to selected supported organisations.

The administrative cost of the Council in the current year is £49 million and seven of its seventeen executive directors earned in excess of £100,000 with the CE being paid £175,000.

I am not a philistine.

At its best, literary, visual or dramatic art is uplifting to the human spirit and challenging to the intellect. But if it is of high quality it will stand on its own merits- people will want to read the book, own the painting or experience the performance and there will be no need for public subsidy. So, by definition, the Arts Council is funding art that is not good enough to pay for itself.

And of course responses to art are highly subjective. I might like ballet whilst you might like sculpture or even rock music. So presumably the critetia under which grants are provided will be clearly set out and the processes under which funding is granted will be rigorous and open to public scrutiny.

The Arts Council “investment strategy”, as described on their website, is as follows-

On receipt of our funding settlement from government, we undertake an exercise to determine the nature of our investments for the coming period.

That’s it. The whole “strategy” is expressed in a single line. There is no rationale other than- we will decide what is art, what is not, and where the money goes.

Over three years £1.3 billion will be given to regularly funded organisations like the Royal Opera House and the Birmingham Royal Ballet. Still, this is public money so at least other artistic ventures have the opportunity to apply for it.

Well, no.

We currently do not accept applications for new regularly funded organisations. We identify organisations to invite to join the regularly funded organisation portfolio.

That translates as “don’t call us, we’ll call you”.

So, in summary, in a financial climate where front line public sector jobs are under threat and hundreds of thousands are being taken off invalidity benefit, the Arts Council are expensively subsidising the cost of George Osbourne’s seat at the opera and squandering over a million pounds sending celebrities to Lapland. Is that really an appropriate use of resources.

I just hope the comedian got some good polar bear jokes.