• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Changes in arts policy and focus are nothing new. Like all public policy co-ordinators, those who pull what Culture Minister David Lammy refers to as the cultural levers must respond to and anticipate changes in the wider world. However, reading Arts Council Englands (ACE) new corporate plan (p1), one could be forgiven for thinking that change was becoming routine. The previous plan, Ambitions for the Arts, which ran from 2002 until earlier this year, read very differently to this one. Published to great fanfare, it put artists firmly to the fore: arts organisations would thrive not just survive and artists were declared the life source of [ACEs] work. That emphasis (and indeed that fanfare) has now been subsumed by a preoccupation with public participation. The new corporate plan, quietly published two months into its two-year time-scale, stresses ACEs need to connect better with the public those who attend and participate and those who dont. And there are many who wouldnt disagree that more attention should be paid to the needs of audiences and taxpayers. The arts are only as strong as their audiences and public support is vital if the arts are to survive and indeed thrive.
The question is why this change has been made. Back in January, David Lammy suggested that, according to last years Peer Review, he and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had not done enough to send Arts Council England clear signals on our priorities. Well, hes certainly done his best to remedy this since then, having delivered speech after speech discussing the need for ACE to reform and build relationships with new audiences, and for it to focus on getting closer to the public and fulfilling a democratic vision for culture. And ACE has now obliged.

It has consistently maintained that, unlike in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the arms-length principle is not under threat in England, and arts funding decisions are made without the taint of political interference. But its latest business plan suggests that, yet again, the arm is being held firmly behind ACEs back and tweaked a little every now and then, just so we remember whos ultimately calling the shots.

Liz Hill and Brian Whitehead
Co-editors