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

If the government?s spending review (p3) was an attempt to impose what the Chancellor describes as ?prudence with a purpose?, the question arises yet again about the place of the arts in his grand design. Sir Christopher Frayling (p16) suggests that the government?s headline figure of a year on year increase of 2.3 per cent for the DCMS shrouds a darker truth. He warns of a return to the bad old days of stop-go funding where the arts are perceived as a luxury and consequently thrust down the political agenda.
However, it is much worse than that; as arts organisations have been drawn into serving a variety of ?manifestos? (helping out the nation?s health and well being, teaching our children and revitalising urban spaces) it seems there is less space for art itself. Tessa Jowell (who if reshuffle rumours are to be believed may not be Culture Secretary for much longer) claims to champion art for arts sake, but this costs money and requires freedom; neither of which seem to be on offer at the moment.

Museums, on the other hand, seem to have won the arguments relating to their intrinsic value, and are now on course for new investment to help extend access and strengthen infrastructure. The national museum directors have been busy pointing out to the DCMS that their success at delivering the Government?s inclusion agenda comes at a cost; they are poorly placed to generate discretionary income (p1) whilst becoming more dependent than ever on government grant-in-aid to sustain free admissions. But have they really been any more successful at broadening access than the arts? It seems doubtful. According to MORI, although visitor numbers are up, it is traditional museum and gallery attenders and not the ?socially-excluded? who are benefiting from the subsidy. People with a degree were almost four times as likely as those with no formal qualifications to say that they knew charges had been scrapped and to have made more visits as a result. Free admission might make good headlines, but then again, headlines don?t always tell the full story.