It is becoming ever more fascinating to see how the different nations of the UK are developing their relationships with the arts and the creative industries. For Arts Council England (ACE), the McMaster Report is still the word of the lord. The new ACE report on audiences in England, which contains much fascinating detail and analysis courtesy of some very brainy Oxford University sociologists, clings to McMaster’s dictum that ‘to be excellent, the arts must be relevant’. Sadly, the concept of ‘relevance’ has yet to be defined – in fact, like an overstuffed suitcase, it needs urgent ‘unpacking’ before it bursts all over us and showers us with dirty linen. The most interesting fact to come out of the report (‘From indifference to enthusiasm: patterns of arts attendance in England’ – p3) is that limited income has been rejected as a barrier to attendance. This immediately calls the Government’s espousal of McMaster’s ‘free week’ idea into question – and indeed compromises the idea itself. Marketers and audience developers who have already decried the notion in the face of overwhelming research evidence (see for example Alison Edbury’s masterly article in AP163) will be hoping that reason can now prevail. That’s unlikely, however – politicians love the idea of free stuff (it was known as ‘largesse’ before the French Revolution), quick wins and things that make them look good.
In Scotland, the lines between the arts and the business world continue to blur (p1). Creative Scotland looks like becoming a kind of business service for the ‘digital, media and creative industries’, with a close (though possibly not very comfortable) relationship with Scottish Enterprise on the cards. The arm’s length approach – ministers are unable to give directions ‘on artistic and cultural judgements’ – is stoutly defended, but the arguments are that if the arts sector is really an essential part of the economy, this could result in a lack of control by the Government over the country’s business development. Ken Livingstone’s report comparing the cultural life of London with four other world cities (‘London: a cultural audit’ – see Newsreel, AP166) may be pointing us in the same direction. If the cultural sector becomes, as all influential commentators believe it will, a major part of our economic success, governments and their industry ministers are going to want a piece of it – and soon.
Catherine Rose
Editor