As you might expect, the Government has pulled a neat electoral trick with its recent financial decision-making. By assigning standstill funding to the arts (p1) while allowing others to bask in the sunshine of public spending increases, the DCMS might expect a noisy backlash from leading artists and institutions. But this inevitability has been neatly side-stepped by the small print. By permitting Arts Council England to raid its Creative Partnerships pot ? a fund that was carefully ring-fenced at its launch ? the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has made it possible for a lot of arts organisations to be given a sufficient cash uplift to keep them quiet (if not comfortable). Creative Partnerships itself, being part of the Arts Council, is hardly in a position to squeal, but one can only assume that a £13m cut will bite deeply into the very programme that set out to prove, once and for all, the value of creativity in the curriculum.
Meanwhile, some of our larger Lottery-built institutions are set to be awarded the levels of revenue funding that they undoubtedly need to remain solvent (though in many cases, this need will have been seriously understated in their pre-building business plans). Celebrating their own good fortune, the managers and governors of these organisations ? many of whom enjoy a degree of influence over cultural policy and a high profile among national journalists ? are unlikely to be shouting too loudly about the funding squeeze on those less fortunate than themselves. If this is the case, it will be a disappointment to Sir Christopher Frayling, who is hoping to mobilise the entire sector to lobby for a better funding deal from the Government next time around. Perhaps arts practitioners and funders should take a leaf out of Paul Harman?s book (p10). It does no harm to occasionally ?bite the hand that feeds? ? and it can certainly make people sit up and take notice.
Published: 28-03-2005