With all the talk of a squeeze on arts funding, Paul Bogen proposes that more Government funding is the only sustainable way forward.
Everyone in the arts seems to only have two topics of conversation these days: the government settlement we can expect from the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Olympics. In his recent speech in praise of the arts, Mr Blair rightly pointed out that New Labour had dramatically increased government investment in the arts since it came to power. What was not mentioned is that the Tories had run down the arts to such an extent that, back in 1997, the UK had almost the lowest per capita spend on culture in all of North and Western Europe. And even now we are still at a relatively low investment level behind that of many of our older European friends. I learnt recently that in Finland (with a population of just 5 million) they have 18 national funded orchestras. In England we apparently have 11.
The Lottery has facilitated the biggest post-war capital building programme in the arts. However, while the creation of much-needed new cultural facilities is to be applauded, has anyone counted the revenue costs or the effect this has had on the rest of the sector? How much of the past 10 years funding increases has gone directly to new cultural institutions such as The Sage, Baltic, The Lowry and FACT? Polices of some Arts Council England (ACE) regions have seen all Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs) with grants under £50,000 cut loose in recent years. And now we hear that ACE will not inflict misery for all on the sector after this years spending review. Does this mean that more organisations will have funding cut and be left to fend for themselves or die?
Alternative funding
You only have to glance at the industry job ads to see how many organisations are recruiting for development posts (fundraisers to those of us aged over 40). Mission, Models, Money is a national research programme that aims to address the challenges faced by individual arts and cultural organisations and their funders in developing mission-led financially sustainable businesses. It has published a number of provocation papers (if you have the time, read The Art of Dying by John Knell), champions some exemplar projects and holds advocacy events. But having read all of their publications and documents, I dont see any proposals that offer a replacement for reduced levels of public funding. We are told by Arts & Business (A&B) that the fastest growing area of private investment in the cultural sector is individual giving. But its 2005/06 private investment benchmarking survey declares that 75% of all private investment goes to just 50 arts organisations (and we can all guess who they are). What of the other 4,000 cultural organisations in the UK? And with corporate donations actually decreasing, is A&B going to act as sponsorship broker for us all in the future, in return for their £6m annual ACE funding? Perhaps its not surprising that such a large percentage of private investment goes to so few organisations. As they say, money breeds money and 50% of ACEs funding goes to just 30 RFOs. Local authority funding is also not the answer to the funding gap (witness Bury, BAC and Northampton); with demands from central government for the provision of new and extended services and the capping of Council Tax, it is not surprising that the arts have to come near the bottom of local authorities priorities and spending.
International perspectives
Having been part of a European network (of independent cultural centres) for the past 13 years, I have learnt a little about the different systems that exist throughout Europe for the funding and support of culture. In most of Scandinavia, and countries such as France, Germany, and Belgium, even though investment has declined from 1990s levels, the arts are still funded at a higher relative level than in the UK. For example, in France total public spending on culture from all sources is still about £1 billion more a year than it is here. Some southern European countries have laws that require the corporate sector to donate part of their profits to culture. While things are still pretty bleak in the former communist countries, they are slowly improving; one enterprising cultural centre in Sofia has recently opened a small bed and breakfast within its building. Because state funding of the arts in Eastern European countries is still so low, arts organisations have had to try and find imaginative solutions to generating income. Perhaps we could learn from their experiences and ideas rather than always presuming we have something to teach them?
The European Union (EU) spends more on paying vets to check up on goats than it does in direct funding of culture (it also spends more each year on storing peanuts). Due to the EU policy of subsidiarity and because culture is seen as an integral part of each countrys national identity, it is unlikely that EU funding for culture will be increased from current levels.
In the States, only 13% of all arts support comes from government, and the sector has to be much more commercial than over here (earned income averages 56% across the sector). But 43% of all arts investment in the US does come from the private sector, of which 31% is from individual donors. And latest figures show that it now has 1,500 professional theatres, 1,200 symphony orchestras and 120 opera companies. The US propensity for private giving to worthy causes is rooted in a culture of philanthropy and individual responsibility that goes back well into the 19th century. Individual support for the arts is now an accepted part of how the sector is (and has to be) supported over there. Without that tradition, if UK government funding for the arts was drastically cut, would commercial arts investment as well as business and private giving dramatically increase?
In the UK, the past 10 years or so have been good to the arts in comparison with the previous decade, this could be about to come to a temporary or permanent end. Who is out there advocating for the arts and representing the sector at a political level? Who is really fighting to ensure that we dont only end up with a cut in government funding but that arts investment is actually increased? ACE may be officially at arms-length from Whitehall, but is it really able to effectively play an independent advocacy role? When ACE did not obtain an increase in government funding back in 2005, was it held to account? As ACE now often describes itself as a development agency, rather than just a funding organisation, perhaps it should be given income targets to meet each year, just like everyone else. Pay awards could then be related to their performance in attracting investment from both the public and private sector, together with how well costs are managed. Overall performance, broken down by region, could be published. We would then all see how much income ACE has attracted from all areas, how much it has given out in grants, how much it has spent on operating costs and what it has spent on its own, managed projects.
Courage and conviction
I hope not only that the leaders of our most important cultural organisations are now getting together and using all their contacts, skills and persuasive powers to convince Gordon and his mates that reducing investment in the arts would be a boom and bust short-sighted decision, but also that they have the courage and conviction to ask for more. It is about time we started shouting much louder about the miniscule proportion of public spending that goes to the arts in return for training, nurturing and developing a sector that accounts for more than 7% of our economy, employs almost two million people and contributes £13bn to the UKs balance of trade. If government investment was a mere 2% of total public spending, it would add around £400m a year to the current budget (even if Lottery income was excluded). Imagine a world where the arts did not have to rely on gambling (mainly by those that can least afford it) and did not have to worry how much a sports event would end up costing. Imagine a world where arts organisations and artists were properly supported simply because their work was exciting, creative, new, amazing and enjoyable.
Paul Bogen is President of Trans Europe Halles, the European network of independent cultural centres, and has worked in arts administration and management for the past 25 years.
e: paul.bogen@btinternet.com