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

At last someone has officially blown the gaff.
The process of gathering information in an attempt to draw a portrait of the subsidised cultural sector has clearly been so problematic for researchers at the Policy Studies Institute, that their main conclusions relate not to the value of that sector, but rather to the woeful inadequacies of government statistics (p1). We are told that the scope, depth and consistency of national figures are so limited, that no-one - let alone policymakers - should be using them to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of public investment in arts activity. Heady stuff (and somewhat ironic, given the multi-millions of pounds that have been spent on the pseudo-evaluation of Lottery-funded projects in the arts).This research clearly wasn?t commissioned or paid for by anyone whose livelihood depends on being on the right side of the DCMS spin doctors.

Why such a paucity of information? Why has no one, after countless years of pouring public subsidy into our treasured arts infrastructure, shouted louder before now to get our sector?s vital statistics into a fit state to enable us properly to ?evaluate.. the extent to which grant funding is delivering policy objectives?? Well, let?s face it, making claims in the absence if any evidence is a sure-fire way of being able to come up with arguments which no detractor can ever disprove. Just as religions place their faith in gods whose existence can never be confirmed by mortal investigation, so, it seems have arts policymakers placed their faith in the unquestionable value of subsidy to the development of a cultural sector which delivers their policy objectives.

Sara Selwood bravely raises a few heretical questions (presumably she isn?t keen to make her living in the subsidised sector).?Is it really the case... that subsidised theatre is more innovative than commercial theatre?? she asks, safe in the knowledge that no one can give her an informed answer. But of course, she has a very good point. Since when has public subsidy ever been a real catalyst for sustainable creativity? Certainly not in the commercial or industrial worlds, where entrepreneurs and inventors sink their life savings into turning their dreams into reality, or have to take their begging bowls to demanding investors if they want financial support beyond this. The dominant paradigm in the arts, though, is that art worth having must by definition need subsidy, and we turn our noses up at the whole concept of commercial arts, many believing, deep down, that anyone whose art is popular must have either sold out or missed the point in the first place. Would it be nice to have some reliable evidence to see if that really is true? Or is it more comfortable to continue living off our prejudices?